America’s structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridge count slowly, steadily falling

By Tina Grady Barbaccia

They aren’t numbers to throw a party for yet, but once again, the number of structurally deficient (SD) or functionally obsolete (FO) bridges in America has fallen.

Our propreitary 2012 Bridge Inventory survey of 602,154 bridges shows 22.5 percent in the SD/FO categories, down from 22.7 percent in last year’s survey, 23.3 percent in our 2010 survey, 23.7 pecent in 2009 and 24.3 percent in 2008.

Reponses show 20.1 percent SD/FO bridges among highway and Interstate bridges (down from 20.3 percent last year). Among city and county bridges 24.8 percent fall into the SD/FO category compared to 25 percent in 2011, although the total number of city/country SD/FO bridges has actually fallen (but so has the overall total surveyed).

Pennsylvania has the highest total number of combined (Interstate/highway and city/county) SD/FO bridges (9,095) ahead of Texas (8,752) and Oklahoma (6,547).

Washington, D.C., has the highest percentage of total combined SD/FO bridges at 55 percent, followed by Rhode Island with 49 percent and Pennsylvania with 40 percent.

Arizona leads the good news categories with the lowest percentage of combined SD/FO bridges at 10 percent followed by Nevada at 11 percent and Utah at 13 percent.

But amid cautious optimism arising from this improvement comes word from states that the new two-year, $105 billion, surface transportation legislation, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), which has been faintly praised as a mini-savior for America’s transportation infrastructure, still leaves us with a lack of adequate funds, now and in the foreseeable future, and that shortfall is still a major roadblock to a significant decrease in SD/FO numbers.

State Reports

John Orbistondo, engineering assistant for the Alaska Department of Transportation, says funding availability remains the state’s greatest challenge to lowering its rate of deficient bridges and the new transportation bill isn’t going to make much difference. “Having MAP-21 does no favor for bridges except the NHS [National Highway System] focus,” Orbistondo notes in his survey answers. “[It] leaves other bridges underfunded.”

But, he says, “Over 80 bridges are scheduled for work in the 2012-2015 STIP (Statewide Transportation Improvement Program)”

Gary Doerr, bridge management with the North Dakota State Highway Department, also says funding availability is one of the great challenges to lowering the state’s rate of deficient bridges as is “on-local systems.” Although Doerr says the state does expect to lower its rate of deficient bridges this year through “replacements and rehabs,” 10 bridges, all local, have been closed this year because of structural failure or collapse. In the last five years, that number is 120 local bridges. Doerr also points out that MAP-21 won’t make a difference with his agency’s ability to repair bridges. “A two-year bill does not provide the long-term planning avenue,” he says.

But state agencies are not allowing the lukewarmth of MAP-21 derail them.

For example, Mills Gotcher, Oklahoma Department of Transportation media and public relations representative, tells Better Roads that although funding availability remains the state’s greatest challenge in lowering bridge deficiency rates, MAP-21 “offers more funding flexibility and stability to deliver our bridge program. The emphasis on bridge preservation has resulted in a dramatic improvement in the condition of the on-system bridges.”

In fact, Oklahoma has embarked on an ambitious journey that started in 2002 with a $5.5 billion highway and bridge improvement program that will address all of Oklahoma’s deficient bridges by the end of 2020, following the Sept.10 approval by the Oklahoma Transportation Commission of the Federal Fiscal Year 2013 eight-year construction work plan. The program includes “all on-system known SD bridges be addressed by 2020,” Gotcher says. “A significant portion of these bridges are included for the coming year.”

In the past year, one bridge has been closed in Oklahoma because of structural failure or collapse and four have been closed in the last five years. All increased funding proposed by Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin’s “Bridge Improvement and Turnpike Modernization Plan,” which was approved by the state legislature in May and signed by Fallin, means the eight-year plan includes the replacement or rehabilitation of the remaining 634 SD highway bridges. The plan includes 2,030 total projects and 951 bridge replacement or major rehabilitation projects.

“This will ensure that the number of structurally deficient bridges on state-owned highways, which peaked at 1,168 in 2004, will be essentially eliminated by the end of the decade,” says Oklahoma DOT Secretary Gary Ridley. “After decades of major bridge problems, Oklahomans will finally have a safe and reliable bridge network that meets the needs of our growing state, and one for which we can all be proud.”

Gotcher adds, however, that if one aspect of Oklahoma DOT could be changed to improve bridges, it would be to add more bridge inspectors and program managers. Additional qualified personnel would help keep our inspectors current and further improve the quality.  The supply of qualified personnel falls short of the inspection demands.”

In Maine, funding is still the biggest challenge for lowering the rate of the state’s deficient bridges. MAP-21 will not make a difference with the three bridges closed this past year in the state because of structural failure or collapse and the eight closed in the last five years for that reason, Benjamin Foster, assistant bridge maintenance engineer with the Maine Department of Transportation, tells Better Roads. But Foster expects his agency to be able to lower the rate of deficient bridges in this coming year through “bonds for bridge work.”

The West Virginia Department of Transportation does not foresee lowering its rate of deficient bridges in the coming year. Insufficient funding will defer important work, according to W. Kyle Stollings, director of the maintenance division for West Virginia DOT. However, he does say that MAP-21 “stabilizes the planning process.”

The California Department of Transporation, commonly known as Caltrans, often leads the way in trends and thought within the industry. The agency believes that MAP-21’s two-year commitment of funds gives Caltrans and local agencies “a measure of certainty needed to plan and deliver bridge improvement projects,” says Matt Rocco, Caltrans media relations manager. He says that in the short term, through fiscal year 2012-2013, no major changes to project funding is anticipated. “However, MAP-21 includes performance and accountability requirements, which in the long term, could affect schedule and funding decisions for bridge and highway improvement projects,” Rocco says. Caltrans does not “anticipate that funding constraints will affect priority safety projects.” Caltrans invests about $450 million each year to protect and preserve state-owned bridges, Rocco says.

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) spends about $230 million to replace or rehabilitate structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges through the Highway Bridge Program, according to Alan Kowalik, P.E., bridge engineer with TxDOT. An additional $125 million through other categories of funding is also used to replace or rehabilitate SD and FO bridges, he says, adding that “MAP-21 is a step in the right direction.”

For the short-term outlook, says Cody Axlund, bridge inventory/inspection engineer for the South Dakota Department of Highways, “MAP-21 has helped our discussion for bridges on the National Highway System. For all other bridges within our state, MAP-21 has added to uncertainty of available funding since it eliminated a dedicated funding pool for bridges.”

Bridges now need to compete against all other federal aid eligible expenses for the funding, Axlund notes. “Fortunately for our local governments, in South Dakota, our Transportation Commission has elected to continue with the same allocation for available bridge funds for Fiscal Year 2013 and Fiscal Year 2014 as was used in Fiscal Year 2012 with a minor percent adjustment as was received in all STP funds for South Dakota,” he says. “The uncertainty continues since MAP-21 is only a two-year bill, and we are now underway with try to program and begin design for Fiscal Year ‘15 structures.”

Minnesota reports that only 14 percent of its combined total bridges are SD/FO (tied for fourth-best in the nation with Wyoming and Wisconsin). That’s 1,856 of the state’s total 13,735 bridges. The state’s total Interstate and state bridges is also tied with Iowa and South Dakota at 9 percent for having the fourth-lowest percentage of SD/FO bridges. North Dakota has lowest percentage of total interstate and state bridges that are SD/FO with only 5 percent meeting this definition. Wyoming comes in second-lowest with 6 percent (14 percent of all bridges in the state are SD/FO) rated as SD/FO. Nebraska has the third-lowest with only 8 percent (23 percent of all bridges in the state are SD/FO) meeting the SD/FO classification.

The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is “committed to managing a safe system of bridges in Minnesota,” Thomas Martin, bridge data management, Minnesota DOT Bridge Office, tells Better Roads. The state expects to be able to lower its rate of deficient bridges in the coming year, he says, with “dedicated state funds and bonds for F/C [fracture critical] and deficient bridge replacement and rehabilitation projects.

“Keeping bridges in a state of good repair is a funding priority, and in 2008 the Minnesota State Legislature established a 10-year program to address structurally deficient and fracture critical bridges,” Martin says. “State bond dollars, along with federal dollars, fund this state highway bridge repair and replacement program. Having a new reauthorization bill will assist MnDOT in our assumptions of the level of federal funding that will be available to us in the next two federal fiscal years.”

Wayne J. Seger, P.E., Division of Structures, Director, with the Tennessee Department of Transportation Bridge Inspection/Repair Office, says the agency is “focused on structurally deficient bridges in the inventory for replacement and/or repair to retire the deficiency.” Of the 15 bridges closed in Tennessee in the past five years and one this past year because of structural failure or collapse, “all have been or are being replaced or repaired,” Seger says. “We had a major flood in middle and west Tennessee in May 2010. It forced us to close 54 bridges. However, in most of these cases, it was the approach roadways that had washed out.” Only 10 bridges needed to be closed due to structural damage or complete washout, which are the 10 included in the 15 the state listed as those there were in imminent danger of collapse or had already collapsed or had been taken out by a flood, he says. “We have had many more that had been closed following an inspection due to deterioration in an element or elements that thorough evaluation would not support at least three tons,” Seger says. “These were closed, and in most cases, the owner would repair the deteriorated member so that the structure could be put back into service.”

Seger points out that most of the state’s bridge repair projects are 100-percent state funded, and says that “MAP-21 will allow other types of transportation projects to compete for potential bridge funds.”

However, Adam Matteo, assistant bridge engineer with the Virginia Department of Transportation, says the new bill actually “hurts” his agency. “There are not ‘BR’(bridge replacement)funds, and therefore no requirement to fund bridges,” Matteo says.

Nick J. Altobelli, P.E., director of structures state bridge engineer with the Mississippi Department of Transportation, thinks MAP-21 is less restrictive on applying funds, but there are “too many needs pulling from the same source.” Gregory R. Perfetti, P.E., state structures management engineer with the North Carolina Department of Transportation, says with MAP-21, “it appears that there will be increased flexibility in [the] use of available funds.” David Fish, P.E., managing engineer with the Rhode Island Department of Transportation, says it may help “by drawing attention to SD bridges.”

Steve Anderson with the Nebraska Department of Roads Bridge Division, points out that while the legislation “improves the stability of funds,” the new requirements “will again syphon off money needed for construction. We always have more need than funds.”

David E. Powelson, P.E., chief, existing bridge section, New Hampshire Department of Transportation, says that MAP-21 “provides more consistent funding that continuing resolutions, allowing better long-term planning.” But, he says, it’s important to note that the nation still needs a major overhaul when it comes to “sufficient revenue and funding to support full infrastructure reconstruction and investment.” What makes this even more difficult, Powelson, says is that “the traveling public does not fully understanding nor choose to fund the work required to address bridge deficiencies.”

Harvey L. Coffman, P.E., bridge preservation engineer with the Washington Department of Transportation Bridge Preservation Office, simply says MAP-21 will make “no difference.” He also notes that “more resources, [a] priority to maintain [and] preserve infrastructure” are needed in the system of planning and maintaining bridge as in the United States at the federal, state and local level.”

Eric J. Christie, assistant state maintenance engineer – bridges, Alabama Department of Transportation, agrees with Coffman, noting that MAP-21 “will not make a difference” with his agency’s ability to repair bridges. John D. Clark, state bridge maintenance and repair engineer with the Florida Department of Transportation, says “No, No” when commenting on if MAP-21 will make any difference with his agency’s ability to repair bridges.

The New Mexico Department of Transportation is still up in the air as to whether the short-term highway bill will have any impact on the agency. “We are not sure at this time,” Jeff C. Vigil, P.E., state bridge management engineer for the New Mexico DOT Bridge Maintenance Unit, said when he answered the Better Roads 2012 Bridge Inventory survey in late September/early October. “It will depend on how funding is prioritized.” Vigil also acknowledges that insufficient funding will restrict important work in the coming year to “a major extent.” He also notes that “larger and more consistent funding levels” are needed” for the system of planning and maintain bridges in the United States at the federal, state and local levels.

State DOT Wish Lists

“If you could change any aspect of your department to improve your bridges, what would it be?”

Georgia: “Georgia’s on-system bridges basically are in good condition, but aging. Long-term sustainable funding that would allow a more robust and expansive rehabilitation and replacement program would be welcome.” — Ben Rabun, P.E., state bridge maintenance engineer, Georgia Department of Transportation

Kansas: “Bridge management for long-term maintenance – realizing the value of preservation actions.”

— Calvin Reed, P.E., Kansas Department of Transportation, bridge management engineer

Kentucky: “Allocate more resources dedicated to preventive maintenance on bridges. Design and construct maintenance-friendly bridges. It costs less to keep up with the needed maintenance than it does to wait untl the bridge becomes deficient and then spend funds.” — David Steele, branch manager, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Division of Maintenance

Minnesota: “A sustainable funding source for bridge preservation, rehabilitation and replacement programs.” — Thomas Martin, bridge data management, Minnesota Department of Transportation Bridge Office M S 610

Missouri: “More funding. The lack of funding is a problem for all aspects of our transportation system within our state.” — David Koenig, P.E., bridge structural service engineer, Missouri Department of Transportation

New Jersey: “Need to expand on [a] preventive maintenance program. Many bridge issues [are] due to deck joints drainage systems [and] salt intrusion.” — Eli D. Lambert, P.E., New Jersey Department of Transportation

North Dakota: “Is a deck rating of 4 really as critical as super = 4? Few bridges have catastrophic failure because of decks.” — Gary Doerr, North Dakota State Highway Department, bridge management

South Carolina: “Less bureaucracy.” — Lee Floyd, South Carolina Department of Highways, bridge maintenance engineer

Texas: “It would be to implement a dedicated bridge maintenance program. this would reduce the number of SD and FO bridges and help maintain that bridge currently in good or better condition. — Alan Kowalik, P.E., Texas Department of Transportation, bridge inspection engineer

West Virginia: More bridge maintenance and evaluation engineers to improve oversight planning and maintenance. — W. Kyle Stollings, West Virginia Department of Transportation, director of Maintenance Division

Wisconsin: “More emphasis on preventive maintenance…preservation of the infrastructure.” — Travis McDaniel, P.E., Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Our exclusive annual research into bridge conditions in the United States.

Over regulated, underfunded and disheartening.”

That’s how Brian Olson, bridge replacement engineer with the South Dakota Department of Transportation, describes the past 12 months for his department in terms of work and funding.

There is no avoiding the obvious – our economy and spending on transportation infrastructure are both weak and showing precious little signs of a sudden, strong and prolonged revival. But despite the doom and gloom that’s been cast on U.S. infrastructure, the state of the nation’s bridges could be said to be a little bit encouraging.

A Five-Year Look at America’s Bridge Inventory

Better Roads’ annual Bridge Inventory reveals that the total number of structurally deficient (SD) and functionally obsolete (FO) bridges (combined) has dropped from 23.3 percent last year to 22.7 percent this year. That means 136,816 of the total 602,091 bridges surveyed are SD/FO (combined) this year. Last year, 600,513 bridges were surveyed and 139,620 of them were SD/FO (combined).

Of the nation’s 292,085 total interstate and state bridges, 59,250, or 20.3 percent, are SD/FO (combined). In 2010, Better Roads reported 61,149, or 21 percent, of the 291,034 total interstate and state bridges were SD/FO (combined).

Highest Percentage of SD/FO State/Interstate bridges

There are 310,006 total city/county/township bridges in the United States, and 77,566 – or 25 percent – are SD/FO (combined). In 2010, of the 309,479 reported total city/county/township bridges, 78,471 (25 percent) were considered SD/FO (combined).

There has been steady decline in the number of overall SD/FO combined bridges in the United States, as well as the number of SD/FO combined bridges at the interstate and state level and at the city/county/township level since Better Roads first began archiving its Bridge Inventory in 1985. In fact, there has been a 19.8-percent decline in overall total SD/FO combined bridges. In 1985, 42.5 percent of the total 586,241 bridges surveyed in the nation were SD/FO combined. (The survey was started in 1979, but the data were not archived until 1985, the year the survey received responses from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.) Ten years later, 591,205 total bridges were surveyed and 187,504, or 31.7 percent, were reported as SD/FO (combined). In 2005, the Bridge Inventory’s total number of surveyed bridges grew to 595,625, but only 25 percent, or 149,126 were SD/FO (combined). From 2006 to 2011, there has been a 1.8-percent drop – from 24.5 percent to the current 22.7 percent – in the number of SD/FO combined bridges.

The top states with the most city/county/township SD/FO bridges

Looking at the numbers state-by-state, the majority of jurisdictions have slightly, decreased the number of SD/FO (combined) bridges. It may be baby steps, but it’s a move in the right direction.

But one exception with a significant rise in percentage was Washington, D.C., which has jumped from 41 percent in 2007 to a current rate of 61 percent.

Wyoming moved from 12 percent in 2007 to 14 percent in 2011; Illinois from 18 percent in 2007 to 16 percent in 2010 but back up to 17 percent this year; Georgia with a 1-percent decrease and increase – 20 percent in 2007, 19 percent from 2008 to 2009, 20 percent in 2010, and back down to 19 percent this year. Delaware has slowly increased, from 18 percent in 2007 to the current 20 percent. Connecticut was at 33 percent in 2007 and has been at 36 percent since 2008. Arizona had 6 percent of its total bridges SD/FO (combined) in 2007, but jumped to 10 percent in 2008 and then 11 percent in 2009, only to drop down a percentage point again in 2010 and remain there this year.

Alaska, California and Colorado also experienced increases of a percentage point between 2007 and 2010, but are now back down to the lowest percentage in five years. Alaska was at 22 percent in 2007, went up to 23 percent from 2008 to 2010, but went back down to 22 percent this year. California went from 18 percent in 2007 to 19 percent in 2008, but returned to 18 percent last year and has kept the status quo. Colorado had the same pattern. The Rocky Mountain State had 13 percent of its total bridges classified as SD/FO (combined) in 2007 and that increased to 14 percent in 2008, then dropped back down to 13 percent in 2010 and has stayed at this percentage.

Texas has the most bridges in the nation, 51,808 including a combination of interstate and state and city/county/township bridges, and just 8,949, or 17 percent, are considered SD/FO combined. The Longhorn State has seen a 3-percent improvement in the number of overall SD/FO combined bridges during the past five years, down from 20 percent to the current 17 percent. Breaking down this year’s numbers, 7,480 (14 percent) are SD and 1,469 (3 percent) are FO.

The D.C. Conundrum

It is the nation’s capital that has the highest percentage of combined SD/FO bridges. But the numbers come with some explanations – and perhaps more importantly a disagreement about definitions – from the District of Columbia’s DOT (DDOT).

Of the 199 total interstate and state bridges in the District of Columbia, 122 (61 percent) are SD/FO. (The designation for city/county/township bridges is not applicable because the entire city of Washington, D.C., is treated as a state.) Last year, 123, or 62 percent, of the District’s bridges were considered SD or FO, 7 percent more than in 2009, but down 1 percent of total SD/FO interstate and state bridges from 2010 to 2011.

Availability of funding remains one of the biggest challenges in reducing the rate of SD bridges, notes DDOT’s Don Cooney. Cooney noted this in his survey response to Better Roads in 2010 and repeated this sentiment again in this year’s survey. However, in a follow-up interview with DDOT after the Better Roads Bridge Inventory surveys were tabulated, Ronaldo Nicholson, chief engineer of DDOT, says the percentages don’t always tell the full story. Technically, the bridges in D.C. classified as FO don’t meet current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards. “We are talking primarily the national highway system to meet the definition of FO,” Nicholson says. “That definition is in conflict with what the District is trying to do in terms of mobility. Our goal is to provide multimodal transportation.”

One problem is that D.C. is an urban area. Nicholson says DDOT doesn’t have the ability to widen some of the bridges and bring them up to the current AASHTO standards, and for that reason they are being classified as FO. The real estate isn’t available, he says. “I have to decrease lane width to have more access for bikes and pedestrians or for a shared pathway,” Nicholson points out. “So we are meeting our multimodal efforts, but we are still falling technically within the definition of functionally obsolete.”

But reducing the number of FO bridges will always be problematic. “Addressing FO bridges is a bigger problem because of our limited right-of-way,” Nicholson says. “Being functionally obsolete doesn’t mean that the bridges are less safe or functional. They just are not being used the way [for which] they were originally intended. Because we are in an urban environment, we do want people to slow down.”

This is just part of a much larger problem, Nicholson says. He suggests that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and/or AASHTO need to relook at the definition of FO. “As a standing member for the committee of Bridges and Structures for AASHTO,” Nicholson says, “it’s time the states and DOTs relook at the definitions because they give a false perception to the general public about the health of our bridges.”

Nicholson says that, of the 12 percent of SD bridges in D.C., the agency is replacing about half of those. “Seven of our bridges will be coming off the SD list,” he says. “This year, we have already addressed five of those bridges, and two more are planned by the end of the year. We are not Texas or California. We only have 199 bridges. If I take 10 bridges off of the list, it takes the number of SD bridges down significantly.”

The rest of the rankings

Rhode Island is next in the highest percentage of reported SD/FO combined bridges. Taking the No. 2 spot – as it did last year – 371, or 49 percent, of the East Coast state’s total 751 bridges are SD/FO combined. This is a slight drop from last year. In 2010, Rhode Island reported that 417, or 53 percent of 789 total bridges were SD or FO. This year, the state reported that 296, or 49 percent, of its 607 total interstate and state bridges are SD/FO (combined). On a local level, 75 of 144 total city/county/township bridges, that’s 52 percent, are SD/FO combined.

So, there is some improvement from last year when Rhode Island reported 54 percent – 341 – of its 634 total interstate and state bridges in FO or SD condition – and 49 percent – 76 of 155 – of total city/county/township bridges in SD or FO condition.

The Aloha State ranks third for combined overall FO/SD bridges. Last year, Hawaii shared this ranking with Pennsylvania. This year, the State of Hawaii reported that it has 1,176 total bridges, and 449, or 38 percent, are SD/FO (combined). The state now has 773 total interstate and state bridges, and 301 – 39 percent – of them are combined SD/FO. Both of these percentages remain unchanged from 2010. On the municipal level, 37 percent, or 148 of Hawaii’s 403 total city/county/township bridges meet the classification for SD/FO (combined). This is a 1-percent increase from 2010, when 147 of the state’s municipal bridges met this definition.

New York State holds down the fourth-place spot for the highest percentage of total combined SD/FO bridges. At 37 percent, 6,405 of the Empire State’s 17,421 total bridges are considered SD/FO combined. In 2010, 37 percent of the state’s then total 17,405 bridges were SD/FO combined.

Breaking down the numbers, 39 percent, or 3,227 of the states total 8,344 interstate and state bridges are SD/FO (combined). This percentage is also the same as last year when New York had 8,335 total interstate and state bridges, nine fewer than this year, and 3,215 of the bridges met the combined SD/FO classification. In terms of city/county/township bridges, 35 percent, or 3,178 of the total 9,077 city/county/township bridges are SD/FO. Last year, 36 percent – 3,230 – of New York’s total city/county/township bridges were SD/FO (combined).

The fifth-highest percentage of overall combined SD/FO combined bridges is a tie between Connecticut and Pennsylvania, with both states reporting 36 percent of their total bridges in SD/FO condition. Last year, Connecticut was tied with West Virginia for the sixth-highest percentage of overall SD/FO bridges, with 36 percent of both state’s total bridges in SD/FO condition. West Virginia does make one list, though. It has the highest total of city/count/township bridges – 68 percent — in combined SD/FO condition.

In Connecticut, 1,502 of the state’s total 4,184 bridges were considered SD/FO (combined). For Pennsylvania, of the state’s 23,587 total bridges, 8,524 are a SD/FO combined. Despite the same overall SD/FO percentage for total number of bridges, the similarities end there. Connecticut has 37 percent – 1,079 – of its total 2,941 state and interstate bridges considered as a combined SD/FO. When ranking the states by the highest percentage of total interstate/state bridges, Connecticut comes in fourth. Total city/county/township bridges considered SD/FO (combined) are 34 percent, specifically 423 of the 1,243 total city/county/township bridges. These numbers do not put Connecticut on the short list of highest percentage of total city/county/township bridges.

Pennsylvania has 32 percent – 5,335 – of its total 16,729 total interstate and state bridges considered SD/FO. However, nearly one-half – 47 percent – of the 6,858 total city/county/township bridges are SD/FO combined.

Fixes and Wish Lists

If I could change just one thing . . .

It’s a poignant question that we asked agencies: If you could change any one aspect about your department to improve your bridges, what would it be?

Douglas E. Finney, bridge management engineer for the Delaware Department of Transportation, says he’d like to see more of an emphasis placed on maintenance, “to correct more problems before the bridge becomes deficient.” Despite hopes for a greater stress on preventive maintenance, the state has still managed to reduce its number of overall SD/FO bridges (combined). Delaware has reduced its total SD/FO (combined) interstate and state bridges from 171 in 2010 to 167 this year, also bringing its combined total number of SD/FO combined city/county/township bridges from 175 in 2010 to 171 this year.

Georgia Department of Transportation State Bridge Maintenance Engineer Mike Clements would also like to see a stronger maintenance focus. “Add more bridge maintenance positions and increase bridge maintenance funding,” Clements proposes. “Both of these have been decreasing over the last 10 years.” But he also boldly suggests that “bridge maintenance funding should increase and new roadway funding [should be] decreased.”

Washington, D.C.’s Cooney advocates that “a greater emphasis on preventive maintenance” is one of the major overhauls that is needed to the system of planning, building and maintaining bridges in the United States at the federal, state and local levels.

Bridge engineers at the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) agree. Not only is “more funding needed at national, state and local levels to address bridge needs,” but greater emphasis needs to be placed on system preservation and preventive maintenance, “to maintain structures in good condition and to slow the downward trend of structures moving into the deficient category, while at the same time addressing the deficient bridge population,” say Claude Napier and Adam Matteo, VDOT engineers responsible for bridge safety inspection and bridge maintenance, respectively.

Matteo and Napier suggest that states use high-performance concrete, high-performance steel, corrosion-resistant reinforcing steel and other high-performance material to “extend the service life of new structures as well as those that are being rehabilitated.” They also say agencies should consider jointless construction for new construction of integral or semi-integral and continuous spans, as well as the elimination of deck joints on existing bridges. “Leaking joints are a major cause of deterioration to superstructure and substructure elements beneath leaking deck expansion joints,” Napier and Matteo explain. “The use of accelerated bridge construction techniques and prefabricated bridge elements should be considered and used to minimize the impact on the traveling public.”

Additionally, they say, a systematic approach should be used for addressing bridge needs through preventive maintenance, restorative maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement, which are funded through maintenance funding and dedicated bridge funding. “A new emphasis is [also] being placed on rural bridges and culverts using Stimulus funds,” say Napier and Matteo.

Harvey L. Coffman, bridge preservation engineer for the Washington (State) Department of Transportation, proposes that the “use of preventive maintenance funds should be allowed for structurally deficient bridges.” W. Kyle Stollings, director of West Virginia Department of Transportation’s Maintenance Division, adds that complete designer control of quality assurance/quality control and serviceability is needed in contract documents. “Serviceability/lifecycle costs [are] compromised due to first cost issues.”

Alex Bardow, bridge engineer for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, says that “streamlining environmental process, public participation and ensuring dedicated bridge preservation funding” is also greatly needed.

When it comes to financing and repairing/replacing bridges in the United States, a one-size-fits-all approach shouldn’t be used, says South Dakota DOT’s Olson. “I live in a rural state, and sometimes we’re just following procedures because it’s regulatory everywhere.” This means, he says, that just because the federal government adheres to a certain procedure, it wants everywhere else to follow it, but it doesn’t always make sense financially or isn’t necessary. The funds used to follow the procedures could be better spent elsewhere, such as repairing or replacing bridges, Olson says.

John Clark, senior bridge maintenance and repair engineer for the Florida Department of Transportation, calls situations such as Olson’s “unfunded mandates.” Clark says the primary responsibility at the federal level is the interstate system. However, because funding starts at this level and because of organizations such as AASHTO, sometimes mandates trickle down to the states and even local bridges off the interstate system.

“They hold captive funding for the interstate by saying, ‘We’d like you to do something this way,’ but it’s essentially an unfunded mandate,” Clark explains. “We then have to do certain things we weren’t expecting to do and we’re not being funded for it. Their [federal] vision is from a national standpoint, which may or may not align with the state’s vision for the transportation system.” When the visions do differ, Clark says, “it can cause us to spend money that we think is not helpful or is unnecessary. As long as the DOT management accepts it, though, it’s what we go along with. But it is something I would look at.”

Keeping this in mind, it’s notable that Florida makes the short list of states with the lowest percentage (No. 7, 17 percent) of SD/FO combined bridges. “We have a statute in Florida that if a bridge becomes structurally deficient or ‘posted,’ it must be repaired or replaced within six years to remove the deficiency,” Clark points out. “We don’t have a lot of mandates, but that is one of them. That is one reason we have a low number of SD bridges. The government has decided that transportation is a key element of our economy, so it puts resources there.”

Jeff C. Vigil, P.E., state bridge management engineer for New Mexico’s Department of Transportation’s Bridge Maintenance Unit, says that states need “stable funding sources” to remove the uncertainty that is currently dealt with when planning for the future. At his department, design and construction funding levels for FY 2011 were up slightly to about $500 million. “This amount is expected to drop by about 30 percent for FY 2012,” he says.

Utah’s Department of Transportation (UDOT) says it hopes to be able to lower its rate of deficient bridges in the coming year, but it all depends on funding. To what extent will insufficient funding restrict important work for UDOT in the coming year? “This remains to be seen,” says Daniel Page, UDOT bridge design and operations manager.

Bruce Johnson, bridge engineer with the Oregon Department of Transportation, believes that insufficient funding will restrict important work next year to “a great extent.” Although the agency expects to lower its rate of SD/FO bridges in the coming year through a bonding program, the bridge program “is decreasing due to a reduction in funding.”

The Kansas Department of Transportation also expects to lower its rate of deficient bridges in the coming year, “through continued funding of the T-works program [a comprehensive transportation bill that was passed in the 2010 state legislative session] and a focus on preservation of our current system,” says Calvin Reed, bridge management engineer for KDOT Bureau of Transportation Planning. “State funding is fairly secure, [but] federal funding is up in the air. If federal funding drops, some work will have to be postponed.” Modifying the current system of receiving federal funding would help with this problem. “The sufficiency formula is outdated.”

The Mississippi Department of Transportation’s bridge replacement program has benefited from an infusion of 100-percent state funds, which the agency says will help it reduce SD/FO bridges. “This has allowed us to continue to lower the number of deficient bridges,” MissDOT’s Carr explains. That being said, Carr notes “once the temporary infusion of state funds has been expended, we will once again only have our normal level of federal bridge replacement funds.” Right now, Carr says, “the most urgent need is increasing the level of federal bridge replacement funding. Federal bridge replacement funding has remained generally the same for over 20 years. In that same time, construction costs have more than doubled. Increased federal funding is imperative.”

Q&A:

Describe the past 12 months for your department in terms of work and funding.

“Work needs have increased while funding has decreased.” –Eric J. Christie, assistant state maintenance engineer for bridges, Alabama Department of Transportation

“We have performed a significant amount of work on culverts that are too small to be included in the [Better Roads] National Bridge Inventory.”—Douglas E. Finney, bridge manager engineer, Delaware Department of Transportation

Q&A:

To what extent will insufficient funding restrict important work in the coming year?

“Federal funding uncertainties may result in withholding projects.” –Harvey L. Coffman, P.E., bridge preservation engineer, Washington (State) Department of Transportation

“Projects [may be] deferred due to flat revenues.” – W. Kyle Stollings, director of Maintenance Division, West Virginia Department of Transportation

What We Do

The Bridge Inventory is an annual survey begun in 1979. Bridge engineers from each state and Washington, D.C., are sent a survey with both qualitative and quantitative questions.

How deficient and obsolete bridges break out in 2011 -- States and the District of Columbia have provided separate counts for the latest numbers on the breakdown of their structurally deficient (SD) and functionally obsolete (FO) bridges. For the FHWA’s explanation of what makes a bridge structurally deficient and how a bridge becomes functionally obsolete, go to http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2008cpr/chap3.htm#7. Better Roads’ editorial staff would like to thank all the state highway engineers for their continuing cooperation and special effort to provide current data. The data was collected through November 2011.

Q&A:

Do environmental restrictions affect how well you can replace or repair deficient bridges?

Yes

Jeff C. Vigil, P.E., state bridge management engineer, New Mexico Department of Transportation: “Yes. Environmental restrictions and restrictions due to historical classification of bridges cause delays to our bridge projects.”

Benjamin W. Foster, assistant bridge maintenance engineer, Maine Department of Transportation: “Yes. [It] increases construction costs.”

Mike Clements, state bridge engineer, Georgia Department of Transportation: “Yes. Environmental documents increase the time from concept to letting.”

Thomas Martin, bridge maintenance engineer of Minnesota Bridges and Structures: “Yes. Project time span and costs are increased due to environmental restrictions and compliance.”

Bruce Johnson, bridge engineer, Oregon Department of Transportation: “Yes. [It] adds cost and delays.”

Steve Andersen, Nebraska Department of Roads, Bridge Division: “Yes. The environmental process has become so lengthy, it takes three years to get a project through to a letting.”

Michael B. Johnson, office chief, California Department of Transportation: “Yes. Some permits are difficult to get in a timely manner.”

NO

Claude Napier, bridge safety inspection, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and Adam Matteo, bridge maintenance, VDOT: “No. We are able to work through environmental challenges (in-stream restrictions, endangered species, wetlands and any hazard materials) through proper planning and early coordination. Environmental restrictions may affect project durations, but does not affect the quality of the project.”

Charles P. Brand, bridge engineer, Arkansas State Highway Transportation Department: “No.”

Eric J. Christie, assistant maintenance engineer – bridges, Alabama Department of Transportation: “No. Not generally, but [it’s] becoming more of an issue.”

Travis McDaniel, bridge engineer, Wisconsin Department of Transportation: “No.”

Ray Mumphrey, bridge engineer manager, Louisiana Department of Transportation; ‘No. [It restricts] progress.”

Our exclusive survey of bridge conditions in the United States

By Tina Grady Barbaccia

It’s a case of good news/bad news.

Better Roads’ 2010 Annual Bridge Inventory reveals that fewer of the country’s bridges are considered structurally deficient (SD) or functionally obsolete (FO) than any time in the last five years. That’s the good news. The bad news is that the number of bridges in those classifications is still worryingly high.

The nation has 600,513 total bridges, but 23.3 percent — or 139,620 of them — are considered structurally deficient (SD) or functionally obsolete (FO). Of America’s 291,034 total interstate and state bridges, 61,149 – or 21 percent – are SD/FO. There are 309,479 total city/county/township bridges in the United States, and 78,471 — or 25.4 percent — are SD/FO.

But there are 2,278 fewer bridges than last year rated as SD or FO. Last year, out of the 597,787 total bridges surveyed, 141,898 of them — or 23.7 percent — were SD/FO. Compared to last year, there are also fewer SD/FO interstate and state bridges. In 2009, 62,504 — or 21.6 percent of the total 288,920 interstate and state bridges — were SD/FO and 79,394 — 25.7 percent — of the 308,867 city/county/township bridges were found to be SD/FO last year. [Editor’s Note: The 2009 numbers use 2008 data from Massachusetts and 2007 data from Rhode Island because updated numbers were not supplied for the 2009 Bridge Inventory.]

These are some of the findings from the Better Bridges 2010 Annual Bridge Inventory, an original research project conducted annually by Better Roads.

Where the most troubled bridges are

Although our nation’s capital has only 199 bridges, Washington, D.C., has the worst percentage of SD/FO bridges in the nation by overall percentage. Of the District’s 199 bridges, 123 — or 62 percent — are SD or FO, 7 percent more than in 2009.

The District of Columbia’s DOT (DDOT), however, says it expects to lower the rate of deficient bridges in the coming year through rehabilitation and reconstruction projects. But availability of funding remains the greatest challenge in reaching this goal, says Don Cooney, infrastructure project management administrator for the DDOT, in his survey response to Better Roads.

Rhode Island is the second worse, with 417 — 53 percent — of 789 total bridges being SD or FO. The state has 54 percent — 341 — of its 634 total interstate and state bridges in FO or SD condition — and 49 percent — 76 of 155 — of total city/county/township bridges in SD or FO condition. “We have instituted a plan that targets structurally deficient bridges,” David Fish with the Rhode Island DOT points out in his survey response.

The third ranking for combined overall FO/SD bridges is shared by Hawaii and Pennsylvania with a 38-percent rate of overall combined SD/FO bridges. Pennsylvania has a higher rate of problem city/county/township bridges — 46 percent, or 3,143 of its total 6,815 municipal bridges — than Hawaii which also has 36 percent, with 147 of its 403 bridges in SD/FO condition. However, Hawaii has more SD and FO interstate bridges, 39 percent, than Pennsylvania, which has 34 percent or 5,708 of its 16,718 total state and interstate bridges in either SD or FO condition.

But Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT) has an Accelerated Bridge Program (ABP) that is focused on reduction of structurally deficient bridges, explains James M. Long, P.E., assistant chief bridge engineer. What’s more, “PennDOT has already implemented a design approach for 100-year bridge life to ensure durability,” Long says.

It appears the ABP has made a difference. Last year, Pennsylvania had the most combined structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges by state. Of its 23,562 surveyed last year, it had a combined 9,130 — or 39 percent — that were SD/FO. That figure is down 1 percent this year. Although its percentage of SD/FO city/county/township bridges hasn’t changed (46 percent), the state’s percentage of SD/FO state and interstate bridges has decreased by 2 percent from last year’s 36 percent.

The Hawaii DOT also expects to be able to lower its rate of deficient bridges in the coming year, but it will come “very slowly,” says Paul Santo, bridge design engineer for the Hawaii Department of Transportation. “We have prioritized work on these bridges through our bridge management program,” he says.

New York State records the fifth-highest percentage of combined SD/FO bridges with 37 percent of its total 17,405 bridges bearing an SD or FO rating. Breaking it down, 39 percent — 3,215 — of New York’s 8,335 total interstate bridges are SD/FO, and 36 percent — 3,230 — of the state’s 9,070 city/county/township bridges are SD/FO.

Next is a tie between Connecticut and West Virginia with 36 percent of their total bridges in SD/FO condition. West Virginia has more total bridges — 2,509 — in SD/FO condition than Connecticut, which has 1,508 rated as SD/FO. But 71 percent, or 78, of West Virginia’s 110 total city/county/township bridge are SD/FO, while only 34 percent — 424 — of Connecticut’s 1,240 total city/county/township bridges are SD/FO.

The states are close in SD/FO state and interstate bridges. Connecticut has 2,934 total interstate bridges with 1,084 or 37 percent SD/FO. West Virginia is 2 percentage points lower at 35 percent, with 2,431 of its 6,896 total state and interstate bridges classified as SD/FO.

Environmental issues

Agencies report that environmental restrictions and regulations continue to pose problems for replacing and repairing structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges. This has been a chronic issue in Better Roads annual surveys.

The District of Columbia DOT says such restrictions do affect how well the agency is able to replace or repair bridges, but concedes that “environmental restrictions are [just] a part of working in an urban environment.”

The Nevada DOT says that environmental restrictions do have an impact on its ability to replace or repair bridges by resulting in a longer lead time for design, “but [they] are not insurmountable.”

For the North Carolina DOT, environmental restrictions mean that “funds are diverted from projects to pay for permits [that are] required.”

The Maine DOT also notes that environmental restrictions bring on “increased costs [that] reduce the number of bridges that can be fixed.”

Kentucky is feeling similar financial pains because of environmental regulations. “Sometimes we are required to stay out of the water due to endangered species,” David Steele, branch manager for the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, notes in his survey response. “This increases the cost of the job. We then have less money for other bridge jobs.”

In Pennsylvania, permit and regulatory agency requirements are a consideration for project delivery, but don’t necessarily hinder how well the state can replace or repair its deficient bridges, says Long, PennDOT’s assistant chief bridge engineer. “PennDOT funds certain positions within the regulatory agencies as provided under SAFETEA-LU in order to facilitate project delivery,” Long says. “PennDOT also participates in monthly agency coordination meetings, which can also facilitate project delivery.”

Although environmental restrictions do not affect how well Tennessee is able to replace or repair its deficient bridges, they do affect how “quickly and costly (sic) bridges get let to contract for replacement and/or repair,” says Wayne J. Seger, civil engineering manager 2 with the Tennessee DOT’s Bridge Inspection and Repair Office. Michael B. Johnson, the office chief for the California DOT (Caltrans), agrees. He says that “permits slow the replacements and increase development costs.”

Greg Roby, deputy director of structures for the Maryland State Highway Administration, notes in his survey response that the agency is “spending increasing amounts of precious bridge funding to meet environmental (and other) requirements that have little or nothing to do with bridge preservation.”

But not all agencies are being troubled by environmental factors. In fact, the Florida DOT says restrictions haven’t had any impact on how well it is able to replace or repair a bridge.

The biggest problem across the country is lack of funds

Nearly all the state DOTs surveyed cited funding availability the greatest challenge in lowering their rate of deficient bridges. Heavy traffic, routing traffic during work on the structure and scour also came in at the top end of the list.

With the lack of a SAFETEA-LU reauthorization leaving the transportation construction industry in limbo for funding, many state agencies are apprehensive when it comes to planning for major projects. American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA)’s “stimulus” funds have provided “a good momentum for addressing deficient bridge needs,” says Anwar Ahmad, assistant bridge engineer with the Virginia DOT (VDOT). “These funds were used to refund or rehabilitate 119 deficient structures,” he says, adding that about 20 percent of the bridge work was from ARRA funds.

What’s more, Ahmad notes, VDOT “fortunately has dedicated significant resources to [its] bridge program in the last few years” so insufficient funding shouldn’t restrict important work in the coming year. “The current funding level should be adequate for the delivery of the program this coming year.”

In Texas, which has the most bridges in the nation, 9,148 — or 18 percent — are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The Texas State DOT (TxDOT) says it should be able to lower this rate in the coming year. “Replacement priority is to replace ‘50’ [year-old] bridges first,” explains Alan Kowalik, TxDOT’s bridge inspection engineer. The state also has an “equivalent match” program to assist cities and counties with replacing bridges, he says. The Stimulus has also kicked in about 18 percent of funding throughout the past two years to help with the state’s bridge repair and replacement plans.

The Nebraska Department of Roads has also benefitted from ARRA, but the state has also established a dedicated fund to address high-priority bridges, which Steve Anderson, with the agency’s Bridge Division, says should help lower the state’s rate of deficient bridges. However, not surprisingly, Anderson says, “[we] always have more needs than funds.”

In 2009, ARRA funded about 32 percent of Pennsylvania’s bridge work. This year, the stimulus only funded about 4 percent, according to PennDOT. In Nevada, the Stimulus has supplemented zero percent of the state’s work this year, according to David Severns, assistant chief structures engineer with the Nevada Department Transportation (NDOT). But this hasn’t affected the state’s ability to fund important work. Severns says “continued use of federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP) funds” will allow the state to lower its rate of deficient bridges. In fact, the state has been working on one of the biggest bridge projects in the nation — the Hoover Dam Bypass project.

Tennessee, with 19,601 bridges — 3,414 of them, or 17 percent rated as SD/FO — was able to build or replace 81 bridges (48 local, 33 state bridges) with ARRA funds. The Tennessee Department of Transportation (TennDOT) says that insufficient funding is still the biggest challenge in lowering the state’s rate of deficient bridges.

Seger, with TennDOT’s Bridge Inspection and Repair Office, says his agency doesn’t anticipate insufficient funds restricting important work in the coming year. In fact, TennDOT is currently in year two of a three-year program to retire about 200 structurally deficient bridges. But he does point out that when states get federal money for bridges, they should “use it for bridges. Do not allow bridge funds to be diverted to other things.”

Terry Udland, a bridge engineer with the North Dakota Department of Transportation, says that the percentage of work that came from the stimulus this past year was “minimal.” North Dakota has a combined rate of 21 percent of bridges that are SD/FO (out of 4,274 total bridges, 891 are SD/FO), but Udland notes that the state expects to lower its rate of deficient bridges in the coming year by replacing or overlaying deficient decks and through overall bridge replacements.

Maryland bridge authorities report that the state received a “modest amount” of ARRA funding for bridges, which it in turn applied to replacing, repairing or painting about 35 bridges.

The Stimulus also modestly helped the Oklahoma DOT (ODOT), which says that Stimulus money accounted for about 16 percent of its work. “It has had a very positive impact on bridge work in the state,” said Oklahoma’s survey respondent. The funds have allowed the re-decking of more than 40 bridges on I-244 in Tulsa, more commonly known as part of the Inner Dispersal Loop. “Due to many years of neglect, ODOT has fallen behind in the bridge programs,” according to the state agency. “In recent years, Oklahoma has made tremendous progress in continued and consistent funding, which is critical to improve bridge conditions.” An example of this progress is ODOT’s eight-year construction work plan that has allocated $361.3 million for bridge work in federal fiscal year 2011.

For the Georgia DOT, the stimulus didn’t supplement the agency at all because “[we] did not have plans on the shelf,” says Mike Clements, state bridge maintenance engineer with the Georgia DOT.

Eric J. Christie, assistant state maintenance engineer for bridges at the Alabama DOT, answered “no” when asked whether the state expects to be able to lower its rate of deficient bridges in the coming year.

Where now?

Better Roads asked that with all the funding uncertainty, what major overhauls can be made to the system of planning, building and maintaining bridges in the nation at the federal state and local level?

The answer is continued and consistent funding, with the flexibility to address the most critical needs, says the Oklahoma DOT. Paul Santo, bridge design engineer with the Hawaii DOT, says there needs to be “more funding at all levels.”

Jeff C. Vigil, state bridge management engineer for the New Mexico DOT, says that “funding needs to be given to local bridges and lower-priority highway bridges on the state and federal system.” In addition to funding, though, Vigil notes, “more preventative bridge maintenance funding would greatly keep bridge future funding needs down.”

Louisiana DOT’s Bridge Engineer Manager Ray Mumphrey also agrees that more money needs to be spent on maintenance. TxDOT’s Kowalik says a dedicated bridge maintenance fund should be developed.

Other major overhauls suggested are the expansion of eligible work under the Highway Bridge Program (HBP) and considering the bridge development timetable so it’s reflected in future legislation. In overhauling the nation’s bridge program at the federal, state and local level, “uniformity in rules and a more streamlined process for the bridge program” should also be considered, says Cody Axlund, bridge inventory/inspection engineer for the South Dakota DOT.

Where and how could the nation even begin to implement these ideas and overhaul the planning, building and maintenance system for bridges, asked the survey?

Ahmad, with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), recommends developing a strategic approach at the federal, state and local levels “to deliver the most reliable bridge inventory in the world.”

The strategic approach can be accomplished, Anwar says, by dedicating adequate and sustained funding and resources to three distinct programs. He suggests a preventive/preservation program, a rehabilitation program, and a replacement program.

“The three programs should be based on life cycle and assets management principles,” Anwar advises. “Develop policies and processes around these programs that ensure consistency in measuring the effectiveness of these programs.”

Q and A

If you could change any aspect of your department to improve your bridges, what would it be?

Anwar Ahmad, assistant bridge engineer with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT): “Direct more resources towards bridge preservation to perform cyclical preservation activities [on bridges] that are in fair to good conditions; improve design practices to construct maintenance-friendly bridges, i.e. eliminate expansion joints when possible; use corrosion-resistant steel reinforcement; place flexible wearing surface on newly constructed bridges with impenetrable membrane; and schedule the replacement of the overlay on a standard cycle, i.e. five, 10, or 15 years. Currently, VDOT is in the process of implementing most of these recommendations. ”

Wayne J. Seger, civil engineering manager 2 with Tennessee Department of Transportation’s bridge inspection and repair office: “Do more annual bridge cleaning, especially of expansion joints and steel trusses. Remove animal deposits, i.e. nests, etc.”

Lee Floyd, bridge maintenance engineer with the South Carolina Department of Highways: “[I’d change the] project selection process. [It’s] too simplified and not responsive to highest needs.”

Ray Mumphrey, bridge engineer manager with the Louisiana Department of Transportation: “Build more bridges with department personnel.”

David Severns, assistant chief structures engineer with the Nevada Department of Transportation: “Implement a bridge management system and more systematic bridge maintenance.”

Dan Holderman, bridge management engineer with the North Carolina Department of Transportation: “Commit more funding to bridge rehabilitation and replacement.”

Alan Kowalik, bridge inspection engineer with the Texas State Department of Transportation: “More bridge maintenance [to] maintain bridges to keep from becoming ‘50.’”

Charles P. Brand, bridge engineer for the Arkansas State Highway Transportation Department: “Implement bridge management for systematic maintenance of bridges to more effectively maintain our bridges with the money available.”

For the FHWA’s explanation of what makes a bridge structurally deficient and how a bridge becomes functionally obsolete, go to http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2008cpr/chap3.htm#7.

Better Roads’ editorial staff would like to thank all the state highway engineers for their continuing cooperation and special effort to provide current data. The data was collected through October 2010.  Click Here for pdf of 2010 Report.

How deficient and obsolete bridges break out in 2010

States and the District of Columbia have provided separate counts for the latest numbers on the breakdown of their structurally deficient (SD) and functionally obsolete (FO) bridges.

Q & A

If you could change any aspect of your department to improve your bridges, what would it be?

Jean A. Nehme, state bridge engineer for the Arizona Department of Transportation: “Additional funding. Additional funding will allow [our agency] to repair/replace more bridges.”

Mark Leonard, staff bridge engineer with the Colorado Department of Transportation: “It would be helpful to have more consistent and predictable long-term federal and state funding streams.”

Travis McDaniel, bridge engineer with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation: “More preventive maintenance [so there is] less long-term deterioration.”

Ruby Bradley, Geometric & Accident Unit with the Kansas Department of Transportation: “Reduce environmental constraints [because it causes] delays and extra work.”

Jeff C. Vigil, state bridge management engineer with the New Mexico Department of Transportation: “Increase funding on secondary routes. Improve construction training.”

Oklahoma Department of Transportation (from media department): “Add more bridges and bridge inspectors. Additional qualified personnel would help keep our inspections current and further improve the quality.”

Jim Pierce, bridge management engineer for Minnesota Bridges and Structures: “Keep higher funding levels in place to maintain a sustainable network conditions level.”

Don Cooney, infrastructure project administrator with the Washington, D.C., Department of Transportation Asset Management Division: “Increase funding for preventive maintenance.”

Benjamin W. Foster, assistant bridge maintenance engineer with the Maine Department of Transportation: “Increased costs reduces [the] number of bridges that can be fixed.”

Charles P. Brand, bridge engineer with the Arkansas State Highway Transportation Department: “Implement bridge management for systematic maintenance of bridges to more effectively maintain our bridges with the money available.”

David Steele, branch manager with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet: “Do more preventive maintenance and concentrate on making bridges more maintenance friendly. In the long run, it would cost less to maintain a bridge and they will last longer.”

The Better Roads Bridge Inventory is an exclusive, award-winning annual survey that has been conducted since 1979. Bridge engineers from every state and Washington, D.C., are set a survey with both qualitative and quantitative questions. The Federal Highway Administration, in consultation with the states, has assigned a sufficiency rating, or SR, to each bridge (20 feet or more) that is inventoried. Formula SR rating factors are as outlined in the current Recording and Coding Guide for Structures Inventory and Appraisal SI&A of the Nation’s Bridges. The qualitative data is gathered through a questionnaire about major issues concerning bridge conditions and maintenance.

Shockingly high number of bridges remain sub-standard.

There are 597,787 bridges in America, 288,920 interstate and state bridges and 308,867 city/county/township bridges.

But 21.6 percent – or 62,504 – of the interstate and state bridges are structurally deficient (SD) or functionally obsolete (FO). And 25.7 percent of the city/county/township bridges – or 79,394 – are SD/FO.

Maintenance, personnel, training, age, environmental restrictions, a need to minimize traffic disruption, capacity and corrosion issues remain major barriers to lowering the rate of bridges becoming deficient, despite some respite coming from stimulus fund money.

Texas leads the nation with the most combined structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges. The state has 9,564 — 19 percent — of its total 50,316 bridges as SD/FO. Of the total 32,862 interstate and state bridges, 4,182, or 31 percent, are SD/FO. Of the 17,454 total city/county/township bridges, 5,383 or 13 percent are SD/FO.

Pennsylvania is second with 9,130 of its total 23,562 bridges, or 39 percent, as SD/FO. The state has 16,668 total interstate and state bridges, with 5,971 — 36 percent — reported as SD/FO. Forty-six percent, or 3,159 of all the state’s 6,875 city/county/township bridges are considered SD/FO.State officials note that funding is the greatest challenge to lowering the state’s rate of bridge deterioration, but corrosion, heavy salt use and more traffic than bridges were designed to carry cause the greatest damage.

But, Lance Savant, P.E., with Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Design, says his state expects to be able to lower its rate of its structurally deficient and functionally obsolete in the coming year. “Pennsylvania has its accelerated bridge program which focuses on replacing/repairing SD bridges,” Savant says. Nonetheless, bridges could certainly be improved if the state could “devote more funds to bridge preservation…to keep the good bridges good,” he says. Many of the other states’ agencies echo the same sentiment.

Following Pennsylvania, in order,the other top five states with the highest number of combined total SD/FO bridges are Missouri, Ohio, and Oklahoma.

Missouri has 24,096 total bridges, a combined total of 7,103, or 29 percent, which are SD/FO. There are 10,249 total interstate and state bridges, 2,838, or 28 percent, of which are SD/FO. Of the 13,847 total city/county/township bridges, 4,265, or 31 percent are SD/FO.

Ohio has 6,993 — 23 percent — of the total 30,617 in the state being SD/FO. Of the total 11,639 interstate and state bridges, 2,475, or 21 percent, are SD/FO. Of the total 18,978 city/county/township bridges, 4,518, or 24 percent, are SD/FO.

Finally, 6,904, or 29 percent, of Oklahoma’s 23,646 total bridges are SD/FO. Of its 7,660 total interstate and state bridges, 1,639, or 21 percent, are SD/FO. Thirty-three percent, or 5,265, of the state’s 15,986 total city/county/township bridges are SD/FO.

Like Pennsylvania, Oklahoma also expects to be able to lower its number of SD/FO bridges within the coming year. Bob Rusch, bridge division engineer for the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, says this is the fourth consecutive year the number of bridge projects in the state’s eight-year Construction Work Plan has increased and represents the largest increase in bridge work ever incorporated into the plan.

“The department’s Federal Fiscal Years 2010 -2017 Construction Work Plan enumerates priorities for highway and bridge construction during the next eight years and includes more than $4 billion in improvements to the state’s bridges and highways,” Rusch says. “The plan continues the agency’s focus on bridges with an increase of more than 100 bridges over last year’s plan for a total of more than 560.” In addition, he adds, “The department is also continuing to make strides in our State Bridge rehabilitation Program which provides significant repairs to existing bridges.”

The actual number of bridges doesn’t always paint the most accurate picture of deficiency or obsolesence. A state with fewer bridges could have a higher percentage of bridges that are SD/FO, but the numbers of SD/FO bridges could actually be relatively low.

The highest percentage of SD/FO bridges in the nation – 55percent – is in the District of Columbia. By percentage, Rhode Island** comes in second with 53 percent SD/FO bridges, followed by Pennsylvania at 39 percent, Hawaii at 38 percent and New York at 37 percent.

Regardless of what the official statistics show about the number of bridges that are SD and FO, some bridge engineers say that we should look at the square footage of SD and FO bridges to get a true picture of the situation. Ray Mumphrey, highway bridge program manager with the Louisiana Department of Transportation, says that while the number of SD/FO bridges may have decreased, the square footage may actually be increasing. “It may look like we’re making progress [in the nation] with the number of deficient bridges, however larger bridges are becoming deficient which increases the square footage of deficient bridges,” Mumphrey says. “There are a lot of interstate [bridges] becoming deficient, although the numbers of deficient structures may have gone down.”

Adds John Jones, M.S., P.E., Bridge Manuals, Modeling and Policy Engineer with the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT): “In all cases, square footage is the best indicator of [their] status.”

Clearance and capacity concerns

Even after the August 2007 collapse of I-35W Mississippi River Bridge in Minnesota, bridge needs are still not being seen as “critical,” says Dan Holderman, P.E., a bridge management engineer with the North Carolina Department of Transportation. “Even after the I-35W collapse, [there is still] very little emphasis on bridges and other infrastructure.”

Investigators found that the Minneapolis bridge, which killed 13 people when it collapsed into the Mississippi River failed because of a flaw in its design, when it announced its findings on Jan. 14, 2008. The designers had specified a metal plate that was too thin to serve as a junction of several girders, investigators say, according to a New York Times report immediately following the findings.

The bridge, which was designed in the 1960s, lasted 40 years. However, like most other bridges, the Times reported, it gradually gained weight during that period, as workers installed concrete structures to separate eastbound and westbound lanes and made other changes, adding strain to the weak spot.

This is when the bridge problem becomes more than a structural issue. It also becomes a capacity and a clearance issue. Although bridges can be functionally obsolete (e.g. geometrically deficiencies such as waterway openings, width, clearance issues, etc.) they are still considered safe to the motoring public even if they aren’t up to the standards – such as the current-day recommended width – for modern-day standards and commerce.

“We have so many oversize and overweight vehicles that go through Indiana, [and] we have to route vehicles all over the place because of structurally deficient, low-capacity or low-clearance bridges,” said Bill Dittrich, state bridge inspection engineer for the Indiana Department of Transportation. “In the early to mid 1980s, we [the state of Indiana] didn’t allow permitted vehicles on our interstate highways. Now, we are letting trucks go over them.”

Mike Clements, Georgia Department of Transportation state bridge engineer, says that’s part of the problem in his state, too. “Increased weight limits” is Georgia’s major cause of bridge damage, he says.

Because structurally deficient bridges can also be a safety concern to the public, Indiana DOT’s Dittrich says, highway agencies, the media and political people have keyed in on that term, “structurally deficient.” But that is not where the money is being spent. “We’re spending a ton of money on adding capacity, but not addressing structurally deficient the way we should. Many of our existing bridges are reaching the point where they are now becoming structurally deficient.,” he says.

Bridges can be neglected for a while and their condition won’t change a great deal. But all of a sudden, Dittrich says, “there will be a whole lot of structurally deficient bridges and there just isn’t the money to address them all at once.”

The training and retention predicament

Training and retention is a major concern when it comes to bridge inspection and repair. It’s no secret that the construction industry faces a shortage of qualified workers, and it carries over into bridge repair and inspection. “Bridge inspectors aren’t given the respect they should be,” Dittrich says, adding that a mindset exists that “anyone can do the work.” But it’s to the contrary. “The qualifications keep increasing,” Dittrich says, “and you need training.” He likens it to an untrained paramedic showing up to an emergency scene. “You don’t want to have a guy to show up in an ambulance who hasn’t had CPR training in 10 years,” Dittrich notes. “Half of my inspectors aren’t engineers, but they are expected to know things an engineer would know…and we don’t have adequate funds for training and travel to training. If I can’t keep them up to date, how can they be expected to see the problems they need to see? Or, they may see them [problems] but not understand what is significant and what isn’t.”

The growth of virtual training tool such as Webinars has helped somewhat with the lack of funds for training. However, when there are a limited number of inspectors this training takes time away from fieldwork regardless whether it’s on a computer or in person traveling to a training site. Dittrich points out that one of his inspectors just completed a Webinar on gusset plates but that employee said he ended up working for what seemed like 24 hours if he counted in virtual training and completing paperwork on bridge inspection reports. “You can inspect all you want, but it doesn’t do any good if you don’t have enough personnel or enough funding to address the problems that are found,” Dittrich said. There is enough work to keep his inspectors busy all the time, he says, but it’s still a major problem if they aren’t properly trained or if there aren’t enough of them to get the job done and done well. “Not having enough personnel is our No. 1 problem. The work keeps increasing therefore everyone has to do more.”

Though Congress and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approved funds in the last highway bill — SAFETEA-LU — that were to be used for training and development and would cover travel, per diem, etc., the money ultimately comes off the top of the money a state gets for its bridge program, Dittrich says. “We’re caught in a situation. The federal government and Congress said, ‘We made money available,’ but the states need money for construction. That means we don’t have money to give to the guys for training. I think every state has this kind of issue. The regular money we get, we use the best we can. But we aren’t necessarily being effective with getting the structurally deficient bridges taken care of.”

Dittrich says to address the need for better training, his state inspectors have peer group meetings 4 to 6 times a year. Bridge inspectors from throughout the state get together to talk about ideas, inspection and repair methods that have and have not worked, creating a forum to share knowledge.

“Nothing frustrates a bridge inspector more than to see something that’s fixed and have it fail again in five years,” Dittrich says. “If you put a new deck down and it’s not cured properly, then it cracks, salt gets in, and it deteriorates. But decks and concrete can be made and cured right. It all starts with the mix and rebar…knowing where to stop the rebar.”

This is where the training comes in, Dittrich points out, because it can mean the difference between a bridge that lasts and a bridge that falls into disrepair before its time. “If you jackhammer off all the bad concrete, , you still have good with chlorides in it,” he points out. “You’ll have new concrete with no chlorides next to old concrete with chlorides. This difference in chloride concentration will set up a battery cell which will accelerate the corrosion of the rebars in the vicinity. Therefore testing should be conducted prior to making repairs to see if the choride levels are low enough to use zinc anodes, or if more advanced cathodic protection is required.

“That means you need to have a corrosion specialist go through it,” Dittrich points out. “But this is all new stuff — it’s not done on a widespread basis. We’d love to have our maintenance people be able to do this when they make a patch because they fix an area…when they come back a year later, it’s worse than ever. It all comes back to training, so when they start [on a project], they [know how to] do it right so it will last.”

Environmental challenges

Environmental restrictions continue to affect how well states and municipalities can replace and repair deficient bridges. These restrictions often slow down the process of repairing and replacing bridges, and sometimes, a less-appropriate structure type is used to replace the bridge, KDOT’s Jones notes. This just exacerbates the problem of structurally deficient bridges because more appropriate materials that would keep a bridge in better condition longer are not used.

“When a small span structure can efficiently be replaced with a standard box culvert, the environmental regulatory agencies providing oversight feel that culvert floor is considered ‘loss of stream length’ and has to be mitigated,” Jones points out. “Also, if there are threatened or endangered species present or perceived to be present, that also has to be mitigated.”

The process for reviewing this is complicated by the wide variations in what is considered “acceptable,” even to the point that it depends on who in the various agencies is conducting the review, he says.

“Additionally, we must develop a full set of plans, then send it in and wait,” Jones says. “The process is difficult, time consuming and expensive. The frustrating part is [that] some of the reviewers do not understand the bridge engineering principles involved. And some of solutions are not hydraulically feasible.”

Adds Steve Anderson from Nebraska’s Department of Roads, Bridge Division: “Environmental constraints hamper the swift programming and completion of projects.”

Time is ticking

Time constraints are also a major roadblock to repairing and rebuilding the bridges that need the most work, says Dittrich.

“When it came to using ARRA Funds, often the the bridges that needed the most work, weren’t the ones worked on,” Dittrich says. “I had a number of bridges that we proposed in the early part of the ARRA Program that we wanted to work on and do them right.” But as time progressed, he says, the deadlines were getting closer and closer so although the agency had money to spend, functionally obsolete or structurally deficient bridges weren’t the ones necessarily worked on. Basic maintenance was done to some of the bridges, but Dittrich says his agency will have to go back and do additional work on those where we couldn’t take care of all the problems. “To increase the vertical clearance under bridge to address the obsolescence can take a while unless a project is ready to go,” Dittrich notes.

And the time to finish a project once it does get underway is problematic. For example, he says, when it’s time to do a concrete pour, “instead of slowing down to do it right, as soon as concrete trucks get out there [on the jobsite], people just rush, rush, rush. Everyone is in a hurry.”

Richard Dunne, P.E., manager of structural engineering for the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), also feels the time crunch. He says if he could change any aspect of his department to improve the bridges under its jurisdiction, it would be “[a] willing[ness] to inconvenience motorists more.” Currently, Dunne says, “we do the majority of our work at night and/or in very small time windows.”

The Kansas Department of Transportation also identifies with this challenge. “It seems like no one wants to take the heat for detouring traffic, so we end up carrying traffic through construction, which requires the work to be phased,” says KDOT’s John Jones. “In some instances — like a rail repair — this is less of an issue. However, for deck repair or replacement, this becomes challenging.” v

Even with the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), better known as the stimulus, funding availability is still one of the biggest challenges in lowering the number of states’ deficient bridges, say respondents to the Better Roads survey. From The Midwest to the South to the Southeast to South Dakota and even as far-flung as Hawaii and Washington, D.C, agency officials still rank funding availability as one of the greatest challenges to repairing derelict bridges.

However, ARRA has provided some relief and has increased the level of funding for bridges. It has enabled maintenance and reconstruction of some bridges that would otherwise not be possible. The results of ARRA spending range from having no effect or a minimal effect to modest or significant impact. These responses are not unfamiliar to highway transportation official assessing the impact of the stimulus. Anwar Ahmad, assistant bridge engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation, tells Better Roads that the stimulus “was a much-needed booster for our bridge program.”

David Koenig, bridge structural service engineer with the Missouri Highway and Transportation Department, agrees, noting that the ARRA has had a very positive, “large impact” on Missouri’s bridge projects. “Many bridge projects have been moved up in the schedule and more have been addressed,” he says.

Minnesota has benefited from stimulus money. “Over 50 bridges on Minnesota’s state and local highways have been advanced with ARRA funding,” says Tom C. Styrbicki, P.E., bridge construction and maintenance engineer, Minnesota Department of Transportation Bridge Office. “The projects include everything from minor repairs to full bridge replacements. The ARRA program was a particular benefit to bridges in the local system.”

Steve Anderson, Nebraska Department of Roads, Bridge Divisions, says the stimulus “has accelerated a few projects [at the] state and local level.”

Don Cooney, infrastructure project management administration, Department of Transportation, Asset Management

Division, Washington, D.C., also notes that “the ARRA has increased the level of funding for bridges” in The District.

Chris Potter, Utah Department of Transportation, Bridge Design & Operations, says his state is using the money to replace several structurally deficient bridges and bridge decks. “In addition, we are using it to apply preservation treatment to several bridges,” he says.

A temporary funding frenzy

Kent Barnes, Montana Department of Highways, Chief Bridge Bureau, says that although the ARRA helped to fund a few additional short-span bridges, for the most part, it had a “low impact on the bridge program.”

Paul Santo, bridge design engineer, Hawaii Department of Transportation, says the stimulus also has “assisted in funding a couple of bridge projects, [but] it has not made a significant difference.” Benjamin W. Foster, assistant bridge maintenance engineer, Maine Department of Transportation, says in his state, “a modest amount” of money was used for bridges.

Kansas DOT’s John Jones says some bridges were “let” that otherwise would not have been, but “we’re still waiting on next year’s distribution.” Essentially, he says, some projects that were financially marginal became feasible. The same was true for Texas. Alan Kowalik, P.E., bridge inspection engineer for the Texas State Department of Transportation, says that bridges that were on the state’s “Five-Year List” were moved up to be replaced and repaired.

What major overhauls are needed to the systems of planning, building and maintaining bridges in the United States at the federal, state and local level? Why?

Wayne J. Seger, civil engineering manager 2, Tennessee Department of Transportation, Bridge Inspection/Repair Office: “Keep politics out of bridge replacement selection. Replacement selection should be need-based only. Do not divert bridge funds to other programs.”

Al Harris, resource management analyst, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Divisionof Maintenance: “Less money spent on architecturally pleasing details and more on maintenance friendly bridges.”

Anwar Ahmad, assistant bridge engineer with the Virginia Department of Transportation: “Adoption of a national ‘maintenance and preservation first’ policy supported by a reliable and sustained funding mechanism. Focusing on deficient bridges alone will lead bridge owners to focus on addressing or reacting to worst-condition first [bridges]. A successful bridge program should have three focus areas: 1.) Ordinary and preventive maintenance, 2.) Rehabilitation, and 3.) Replacement and new construction. In most cases, the most feasible treatment for a deficient bridge is replacement. The same or higher emphasis needs to be placed on preservation as placed on replacement and new construction activities and needs.”

Paul Santo, bridge design engineer, Hawaii Department of Transportation: “More funding at all levels.”

If you could change any aspect of your department to improve your bridges, what would it be?

Noel Clocksin, secondary road engineer for the South Dakota Department of Transportation: “A more streamlined federal aid process and state process for local structure so we can get deficient structures replaced more quickly.”

Paul Jensen, Montana Department of Highways’ Bridge Bureau: “Increased maintenance because repair is cheaper then replace[ment].”

Alan Kowalik, P.E., bridge inspection engineer for the Texas State Department of Transportation: “More bridge maintenance to keep them from becoming ’50.”

Dan Holderman, P.E., bridge management engineer with the North Carolina Department of Transportation: “Bridge funding [because] more bridges become deficient each year than are removed from the list, [and a] larger dedicated bridge maintenance fund.”

Don Cooney, infrastructure project management administration, Department of Transportation, Asset Management Division, Washington, D.C.: “Improvement in the promptness of funding and procurement.”

Lee Floyd, bridge maintenance engineer, South Carolina Department of Highways: “Prioritizing. [The] Commission took away a good system.”

Al Harris, resource management analyst, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Division of Maintenance: “Preventative maintenance costs less than waiting for a bridge element to go bad and then replacing it.”

Travis McDaniel, P.E., bridge engineer, Wisconsin Department of Transportation: “More focus on preventative maintenance.”

Charles P. Brand, bridge engineer with the Arkansas Department Highway Transportation Department: “Implement bridge management with a staff dedicated to only that function [to] stretch funding $$ more efficiently and cost effectively.”

Chris Potter, Utah Department of Transportation, Bridge Design & Operations: “Have dedicates structures staff to oversee bridge construction. Our construction inspectors don’t have the experience to oversee all aspects of a bridge construction.”

Mitchell K. Carrs, P.E., bridge engineer, Mississippi Department of Transportation: Reduce bottlenecks in project processes to expedite bridge replacements and rehabilitation, specifically environmental.

Tom C. Styrbicki, P.E., bridge construction and maintenance engineer, Minnesota Department of Transportation Bridge Office: “Increase funding for bridge replacement and repair to maintain a network condition level that is acceptable.”

Click here for a pdf version of the 2009 Bridge Inventory

View the complete 2008 Bridge Inventory

Our thanks to all the state highway engineers for their continuing cooperation and special effort to provide current data through September 2007.

View the entire 2007 Bridge Inventory

Our thanks to all the state highway engineers for their continuing cooperation and special effort to provide current data through October 2006.

View the complete 2006 Bridge Inventory