Worksaver Inc.

This snow blade features 3/8- by 6-inch cutting edge of 1044 steel and the ability to angle right or left. The clamp-on snow blade is available in 5- and 6-foot models.

Piece by piece and steel girder by girder, the five-level construction marvel known as the new Sam Rayburn Tollway/Dallas North Tollway (SRT/DNT) interchange is taking shape in Collin County.

In fact, during the next seven to eight months, construction crews will set all the steel beams that form the heart of the new interchange. The steel will help create eight direct-connecting bridges that will join the two major toll roads and effortlessly move traffic through what has been a highly congested area.

During this ongoing phase of construction, the steel beams are on center stage. Every weekend, crews use massive cranes to hoist two enormous steel beams at a time and then bolt and weld them into place.

Each beam section is about 300 feet long — meaning that if a beam section were placed on its end, it would be slightly taller than the new Cowboys Stadium or about as tall as a 20-story building. It would be barely shorter than the Statue of Liberty, from the base of the monument’s pedestal foundation to the tip of its torch.

When the SRT/DNT interchange is complete, crews will have set more than 18 million pounds of steel bridge beams — an amount equal to about 10,000 automobiles, more than the Eiffel Tower and more than the state of Texas bid out in 2010 for use in transportation projects.

Between now and when the last beam is placed, crews will continue to close SRT and DNT main lanes and frontage roads as necessary, primarily on Friday evenings through early Monday mornings. The closures are required to ensure the safety of motorists as well as NTTA contractors and staff as the steel beams are being set.

“We know these closures affect motorists and businesses, and we want to thank everyone for their patience while we complete the interchange,” said Elizabeth Mow, NTTA director of project delivery. “We promise that the pain will be worth the gain. We are building a significant, five-level interchange that will vastly improve regional mobility and further encourage the ongoing economic development in the area.”

The five-level SRT/DNT interchange by the numbers:

The interchange will be about 105 feet tall from the lowest roadway surface to its highest bridge.

o The SRT/DNT interchange will be about as tall as a seven-story building. By comparison, the High Five in Dallas is about as tall as a 12-story building.

o The SRT/DNT will feature more than 18 million pounds of steel beams.

This amount of steel:
o Is equal to the steel used to build about 10,000 automobiles.
o Weighs more than the steel in the Eiffel Tower.
o Is more than the state of Texas bid out in steel beams on transportation projects in 2010.

The steel beams are placed in sections that are about 300 feet long, which is as long as a football field. If stood on its end, the longest beam section would be:
o Slightly taller than the new Cowboys Stadium (which has a peak height of 292 feet)
o About as tall as a 20-story building.
o More than 50 feet taller than the tallest water tower in the City of Frisco.
o Barely shorter than the Statue of Liberty monument, from the pedestal foundation base to the tip of the torch (which is 305 feet, 6 inches tall).

A total of 30,000 linear feet of steel beams is being used in the interchange. This amount:
o If placed end to end, would reach the cruising altitude of many jetliners.
o Equals about 5.7 miles — a length that would wrap around the nearby IKEA building more than 15 times.

Crews are hoisting and setting two steel beams at a time, and the typical beam weighs between 500 pounds and 600 pounds per foot.
o The heaviest section weighs close to 200 tons, a weight comparable to lifting five typical backyard swimming pools full of water.
o On a typical weekend beam placement operation, crews have to line up and tighten into place nearly 2,500 bolts.
o Project-wide, nearly 150,000 bolts and miles of welds will be used to fabricate and secure all the steel beams in place.

This article was contributed by the North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA)

Integral Abutment Bridges

A survey on the status of use, problems and costs associated with integral abutment bridges

by Andreas Paraschos, P.E. and Amde M. Amde, P.E.

(For an unedited, downloadable PDF of the Integral Abutment Bridges article, click here. )

Integral abutment bridges provide an excellent alternative to conventional bridges built with bearings and expansion joints. Integral abutment bridges incur lower construction and maintenance costs compared to conventional bridges. In addition, they have a longer service life and a superior seismic performance compared to conventional bridges. Forty-one states are now using integral abutment bridges. Despite their wide acceptance by state transportation agencies and the engineering community in general, however, use of integral abutment bridges for long bridges and in situations that involve complex structural and soil conditions is still limited.

This article presents the findings of a survey conducted in 2009 by the University of Maryland at College Park that focuses on state integral abutment bridge practices. It summarizes the responses received from the states with regard to the status of use, problems and costs associated with the use of integral abutment bridges.

The Problem with Deck Joints

Early bridge structures were designed as a series of simply supported structures. With the introduction of the Moment Distribution Method in 1930, structural engineers began to design bridges as continuous structures. As a result, it became possible to construct longer bridges. Deck joints were provided in bridges in order to accommodate deck expansion and contraction without compromising the structural integrity of the bridges.

The introduction of deck joints created many problems to bridge owners. Joints are expensive to buy, install, maintain and repair. Repair costs are high. The joints leak throughout time, allowing deicing chemicals to attack the girder ends, bearings and supporting reinforced concrete substructures. The result is corrosion and deterioration of girders, bearings and substructure. Bearings are also expensive to buy and install, and are more costly to replace. Throughout time, steel bearings malfunction due to loss of lubrication or buildup of corrosion. Elastomeric bearings can split and rupture due to unanticipated movements. Because of these problems, it is necessary to continually inspect, maintain and periodically replace the joints. The use of expansion joints and bearings to accommodate thermal movement does not alleviate maintenance problems.

Integral abutments eliminate the need to provide deck joints. In addition, they can save bridge owners a considerable amount of money, time and inconvenience compared to conventional abutments. Because of these reasons, states began building integral abutments. Colorado was the first state to build integral abutments in 1920. Massachusetts, Kansas, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania and South Dakota followed in the 1930s and 1940s. California, New Mexico and Wyoming built integral abutment bridges in the 1950s.

With the National Interstate Highway System construction boom in the late 1950s and mid-1960s, Minnesota, Tennessee, North Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin and Washington began moving toward continuous bridges with integral abutments as standard construction practice. A testament of their excellent performance throughout the years is the fact that the current policy of the vast majority of states is to build integral abutment bridges whenever possible. This is confirmed by the results of this survey, which indicates that forty-one states are now using integral abutment bridges.

Problems with integral abutment bridges do exist; the severity and cause of problems differ from state to state. The state responses to the 2009 survey on integral abutment bridges conducted by the University of Maryland are shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3. This paper focuses on responses to the following three issues: status of use of integral abutment bridges, problems associated with integral abutment bridges, and construction and maintenance costs of integral abutment bridges compared to conventional bridges. Forty-seven states responded to the survey; responses were not received from Montana, Rhode Island and South Carolina.

Fig. 1. Evolution of integral abutment bridges in the United States.

Use and Problems Associated with Integral Abutment Bridges

The 2009 survey on integral abutment bridges conducted by the University of Maryland indicates that forty-one states are now using integral abutment bridges. Colorado pioneered the use of integral abutment bridges in 1920 followed by Massachusetts in 1930, and Kansas and Ohio in 1935. Eight states — Missouri, Tennessee, California, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Washington and Wyoming — have more than 1,000 integral abutment bridges in their inventories. Missouri has more than 4,000 integral abutment bridges and Tennessee has more than 2,000. The state of Washington, having built more than 1,000 integral abutment bridges by the year 2000, has decided to switch to semi-integral abutments.

In addition to being the first state to build integral abutment bridges, Colorado has the longest steel-girder integral abutment bridge in the United States with a length of 1,044 feet and the longest cast-in-place concrete integral abutment bridge with a length of 952 feet. The longest precast concrete integral abutment bridge in the United States was built in Tennessee; it has a length 175 feet.

Table 1 shows responses regarding status of use of integral abutment bridges and problems associated with integral abutment bridges.

Costs Associated with Integral Abutment Bridges

The 2009 survey on integral abutment bridges also addresses the issue of costs associated with the use of integral abutment bridges. Tables 2 and 3 show the state responses on the issue of construction and maintenance costs of integral abutment bridges compared to conventional bridges.

Summary of Responses

The responses to the survey indicate that nine states do not use integral abutment bridges. Out of the nine states that do not use integral abutment bridges, three states (Alabama, Delaware and Louisiana) never used integral abutments, three states (Alaska, Arizona and Mississippi) discontinued their use due to serious problems, and three states (Florida, Texas and Washington) discontinued their use either because they realized no performance advantage over their conventional practice (Florida and Texas) or they concluded that semi-integral abutments offer more advantages compared to integral abutments (Washington). The status of use of integral abutment bridges is illustrated in Figure 2.

The responses also indicate that 25 states have no problems with the use of integral abutment bridges. In addition, 12 states (California, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia) report either minor or moderate problems with the use of integral abutment bridges. Four states (Indiana, Kansas, South Dakota and Virginia) had moderate problems with integral abutment bridges in the past; they found a solution to their problems and do not report any more problems. However, three states (Alaska, Arizona and Mississippi) had serious problems with integral abutment bridges; as a result, each state discontinued their use. The status of problems with integral abutment bridges is illustrated in Figure 3.

The responses to the issue of construction costs of integral abutment bridges compared to conventional bridges indicate a lower construction cost in twenty-seven states, higher construction cost in five states (Arkansas, Georgia, Maryland, Nebraska and Utah), and same construction cost in three states (Indiana, Kansas and New Hampshire). The status of construction costs of integral abutment bridges and conventional bridges is illustrated in Figure 4.

The responses with regard to the issue of maintenance costs of integral abutment bridges compared to conventional bridge indicate a lower maintenance cost in thirty-two states, and same maintenance cost in three states (Georgia, Hawaii and Nebraska). Not surprisingly, no state reports a higher maintenance cost with the use of integral abutment bridges. The status of maintenance costs of integral abutment bridges and conventional bridges is illustrated in Figure 5.

Forty-one states use integral abutment bridges. The number of integral abutment bridges, both statewide and nationwide, has increased considerably in the last few decades. Eight states have more than 1,000 integral abutment bridges; among them, Missouri with more than 4,000 and Tennessee with more than 2,000 integral abutment bridges. The responses received from the state departments of transportation confirm the fact that use of integral abutment bridges almost always results in lower bridge maintenance costs compared to conventional bridges. The responses also confirm that in the vast majority of states, the construction cost of building integral abutment bridges is lower compared to conventional bridges.

In addition, most states report no problems with integral

Figure 5 Status of comparative maintenance costs of integral abutment and conventional bridges

abutment bridges; a limited number of states report minor to moderate problems with the use of integral abutment bridges. A number of states that previously had problems with integral abutment bridges were able to come up with solutions to these problems. As a result, they do not report any more problems with the use of integral abutment bridges.

However, it is very important to recognize that many problems are avoided because integral abutment bridges are built within the limitations imposed by the design parameters outlined in each state’s Bridge Design Manual. These design limitations prohibit the use of integral abutments for very long bridges and in situations that involve complex structural and soil conditions. In addition, there are limitations on skew, curvature and type of piles to name a few.

Apparently, more research on integral abutments is needed in order to advance the use of integral abutment bridges. More research that predicts the behavior of integral bridges based on theory, in addition to empirical evidence will lead to the introduction of national guidelines for integral abutment bridges, which will provide legitimacy to this cost-effective method of bridge construction. The current absence of such a document acts as a deterrent to the use and further advancement of integral abutment bridge construction.

Acknowledgments from the Author

This article is based upon the responses received from the following state departments of transportation: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Their help is gratefully acknowledged.

Amde M. Amde (formerly Amde M. Wolde-Tinsae) is a professor of structural engineering in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at University of Maryland. He is also a registered professional engineer and president of AMA & Associates. Other faculty positions held include Iowa State University and McMaster University. He holds two U.S. patents and has published more that 200 technical papers.

Andreas Paraschos is a professional engineer in the state of New York and a structural bridge engineer with the New York City Department of Transportation/ Division of Bridges.

Andreas Parachos

References

1.    Amde, A.M., Chini, S.A. and Mafi, M., “Experimental Study of Piles in Integral Abutment Bridges,” International Journal of Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 1997, Vol. 15, 343-355.

2.    Amde, A.M. (Wolde-Tinsae, A.M.) and Klinger, J., The State-of-the-Art in Integral Abutment Bridge Design and Construction, AW087-313-046, FHWA/MD-87/07, January 1987, 70 pages.

3.    Amde, A.M. (Wolde-Tinsae, A.M.), Klinger, J. and White, E.J., “Performance of Jointless Bridges,” Journal of the Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, Vol. 2, No. 2, May 1988, pp. 111-125

4.    Amde, A.M. (Wolde-Tinsae, A.M.) and Greimann, L., “General Design Details for Integral Abutment Bridges,” Journal of Civil Engineering Practice, BSCE/ASCE,ISSN: 0886-9685, Vol. 3, No. 2, Fall 1988, pp. 7-20.

5.    Amde, A.M. (Wolde-Tinsae, A.M.), Greimann, L., and Johnson, B., “Performance of Bridge Abutments,” The Journal of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, IABSE PERIODICA 1/1983, pp. 17-34.

6.    Amde, A.M. (Wolde-Tinsae, A.M.), Greimann, L.F., and Yang, P.S., “End Bearing Piles in Jointless Bridges,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 8, August 1988, pp. 1870-1884.

7.    Burke, M.P.,”Integral Bridges.” Transportation Research Record, No. 1275, 1990, pp. 53-61.

8.    Greimann, L. and Amde, A.M. (Wolde-Tinsae, A.M.), “Design Model for Piles in Jointless Bridges,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 6, June 1988, pp. 1354-1371.

9.    Greimann, L.F., Amde, A.M. (Wolde-Tinsae, A.M.) and Yang, P.S., “Skewed Bridges with Integral Abutments,” Bridges and Culverts, Transportation Research Record 903, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1983, pp.64-72.

10. Kunin, J., and Alampalli, S, “Integral Abutment Bridges: Current Practice in the United States and Canada,” Special Report 132, Transportation Research and Development Bureau, New York State Department of Transportation, Albany, N.Y., 1999.

11. Maruri, R., and Petro, S, “Integral Abutments and Jointless Bridges 2004 Survey Summary.” Federal Highway Administration and Constructed Facilities Center at West Virginia University, Morgantown, W.V.

The Jesse H. Neal Awards, which have been called “the Pulitzer Prize of the business media,” are among the industry’s most prestigious and sought-after editorial honors. Named after ABM’s first managing director, who remained active in promoting the business media throughout his life, the Neal Awards were established in 1955 to recognize and reward editorial excellence in business meda publications.

Better Roads editors and members of the Construction Media Division of its parent company, Randall-Reilly Publishing Co., will attend a luncheon on March 10 in New York City to learn whether the series of articles takes the top prize.

To read the series of articles that has been nominated, click on the corresponding links below for a downloadable PDF or go to the Better Roads Digital Edition (www.BetterRoads.com, click on Digital Edition in the left-hand navigation bar and choose the various issues: February 2010, May 2010, August 2010 and November 2010.)

• February 2010 “Better Bridges” section: “Building Blocks for Bridges: Big chunks of polystyrene foam are helping rapid replacement bridge projects.”
• May 2010 “Better Bridges” section: “Arch Artistry: The Route 219 deck arch bridge over Cattaraugus Creek in New York used a complex tie system, a massive crane and a creative erection process.”
• August 2010 “Better Bridges” section: “All Together Now: A bridge project that started out under intense scrutiny in an environmentally- sensitive area is now being cheered and even has the locals putting their own touch on the bridge.”
• November 2010 “Better Bridges” section: “2010 Bridge Inventory: The State of Your Bridges. Our exclusive survey of bridge conditions in the United States.”

The AEM Webinars run 1 to 1-1/2 hours, with the series kicking off Sept. 30. Webinars can be viewed live or as a recorded Webcast after the event. Quantity discounts are available, and AEM members also receive Webinar discounts.

For details and to register, go online to the e-learning education section of the AEM Website at http://www.aem.org

The schedule is as follows:

• September 30, 2010 – New Crane & Derrick Rule Changes: Highlights of Changes to OSHA Crane Rules/New OSHA Crane Standard
• October 14, 2010 – Field Campaigns/Recalls (AEM Members Only)
• October 19, 2010 – Economics of the Industry
• November 10, 2010 – Design for Fire Prevention
• December 7, 2010 – Operator Manuals & Communication Overview
• December 9, 2010 – Healthcare Reform Implementation: A Business Owner’s Guide
• February 17, 2011 – Maximizing Your Trade Show Leads: Harvesting the Full Value of Exhibition Marketing

“These outstanding projects were singled out for extraordinary design, attention to detail, innovation, speed of construction, and industry advancement,” Vijay Chandra, Transportation jury member and senior vice president of Parsons Brinckerhoff, says in a written statement. “The wide range of entries highlights the versatility of precast concrete systems and the innovative ways in which engineers are using the advantages of precast concrete to meet today’s design challenges.”

Winning Bridge Designs

Of the 28 winning projects, six highway and nonhighway bridges were selected in the annual competition. Three additional bridge projects received honorable mentions. The winning bridges are:

• Santa Ursula Connector, Laredo, Tex., was selected as the winner in the Bridges (Main Span up to 75 Feet) category. The engineer of record for the project was Structural Engineering Associates Inc., San Antonio, Tex. Built on a floodplain, the 1,155-foot bridge includes severe horizontal and vertical curves and is designed to withstand flood forces. The bridge employs TxDOT slab beams; 15-inch-deep solid precast, prestressed beams on a tight horizontal curve to minimize superstructure depth; and a nonstandard strand pattern that allowed slotted holes to be formed in the beam ends for hold-downs.

• SR 519 Intermodal Access Project – Phase 2, Seattle, Wash., was selected as the winner in the Bridges (Main Span from 75 to 150 Feet) category. The engineer of record was AECOM, Bellevue, Wash. The precaster was Concrete Technology Corp., Tacoma, Wash. The project consists of two new bridges, including a two-lane elevated loop ramp over railroad tracks, in a highly developed neighborhood. The goal was to eliminate a dangerous at-grade railroad crossing and provide access to the second level of a stadium parking garage. Precast, precambered concrete girders and a 360-degree loop design were used to provide the needed railroad clearance. Precast components and an aggressive design-build schedule allowed the project to be completed 12 months earlier than anticipated.

• Fulton Road Bridge Replacement, Cleveland, Ohio, was selected as the winner in the Bridges (Main Span More than 150 Feet) category. The engineer of record was Michael Baker Jr. Inc., Cleveland, and precast components were provided by Carr Concrete, Waverly, W.Va., and Prestress Services LLC, Lexington, Ky. Spanning a zoo, park, and railroad lines, this bridge replacement consists of six 210-foot spans. To maintain zoo operations, precast, post-tensioned parabolic arch rib segments were fabricated in 59-foot pieces and erected using only three shoring towers per span. Span segments contain post-tensioning tendons to enhance long-term durability. Precast I-girders support a cast-in-place deck.

• Haven Avenue Grade Separation Project, Rancho Cucamonga, Calif., is a cowinner in the Nonhighway Bridges category. The engineer of record was PBS&J, Orange, Calif. Precast components were supplied by Pomeroy Corp., Perris, Calif. The project involved lowering a major roadway and constructing a railroad bridge. The design incorporated an arched profile on spans, as well as an architectural recess and perimeter reveal on exterior girder faces. Ornamental railings, bold color, massive columns, and arches set the bridge apart. Precast construction allowed for concurrent construction and overcame workspace constraints, with precast girders erected in just four days.

• South Watt Avenue LRT Grade Separation, Sacramento, Calif., is a cowinner in the Nonhighway Bridges category and was also selected as a cowinner for the Harry H. Edwards Award for industry advancement. The engineer of record was AECOM Transportation, Sacramento. This concrete railroad bridge consists of three girders spanning longitudinally and concrete slabs spanning transversely. The all-precast, through-girder superstructure was integrated transversely into a single deck section, and longitudinally into a single span unit, through post tensioning — creating a “super girder” fabricated in segments, transported, and field assembled into a single deck element. This system reduced road closures to only three weekends. Precast concrete components were provided by Con-Fab California Corp., Lathrop, Calif.

• US101: Spencer Creek Bridge, Newport, Ore., was selected for an award in the Special Solutions category. The engineer of record was H. W. Lochner Inc., Salem, Ore. Precast concrete components were provided by Knife River Corp. – Northwest, Harrisburg, Ore. This signature deck arch bridge employs precast high-performance concrete arch rib segments that eliminated the need for complicated forming. Superstructure voided slabs were fabricated with stainless steel reinforcement and precast fascia panels hide utilities.

The judging panels also selected three bridge projects to receive Honorable Mention awards, including the following:

• Replacement of County Bridge No. 330.5, Princeton Township, N.J., was selected in the Bridges (Main Span up to 75 Feet) category. The engineer of record was IH Engineers PC, Princeton, N.J., with precast concrete components provided by Precast Systems, Allentown, N.J.

• I-95/I-295 North Interchange Ramp SE Flyover Bridge, Jacksonville, Fla., was selected in the Bridges (Main Span More than 150 Feet) category. The engineer of record was PB Americas Inc., Tampa, Fla.

• Route 31 Bridge over Canandaiga Outlet, Village of Lyons, Wayne County, N.Y., was selected for a Special Solution award. The engineer of record was the New York State Department of Transportation, Albany, N.Y. Precast components were provided by Northeast Prestressed Products LLC, Cressona, Pa.

Overall, the winning projects represented a broad range of bridge and building types, including structures in three span-length categories, plus nonhighway bridges and custom solutions. Building winners included offices, mixed-use projects, public and institutional buildings, schools, parking structures, stadiums, prisons, manufacturing facilities, single-family and multifamily housing, and custom solutions. For a complete list of winners, along with detailed project information and photos, visit www.pcidesignawards.org.

Independent Judges

Judges for the 2010 PCI Design Awards consisted of three panels focusing on Bridges; Buildings; and special awards for Sustainability, All-Precast Solutions, and the Harry H. Edwards Award for industry advancement.

The Bridges jury included Chandra, Ralph Anderson, Illinois DOT; and Myint Lwin, Office of Bridge Technology, Federal Highway Administration. The Buildings jury included Gregory Georgis, president of Georgis Design+Development; architect Jay Longo from Gensler; Katie Gerfen, senior editor with Architect magazine; Walter Hainsfurther, president of Kurtz Associates Architects and vice president of the American Institute of Architects; and Stuart Howard, president elect, Royal Institute of Architects. Special Award judges included Tom McCluskey, president of McCluskey Engineering Corporation; Jason Lien, vice president of engineering for Encon United; and George Tuhowski, chair, USGBC Chicago.

The project will replace the structurally deficient moveable bridge with a new fixed span over the Passaic River, connecting Clifton City in Passaic County with Rutherford Borough and Lyndhurst Township in Bergen County over the Passaic River.

An average of 142,000 vehicles use the bridge each day, connecting motorists to the Lincoln Tunnel, the Garden State Parkway, Route 17, Route 46 and Route 21.

“Replacing the deficient Passaic River Crossing Bridge demonstrates NJDOT’s commitment to maintaining public safety, reducing congestion and modernizing our bridge inventory,” said NJDOT Commissioner James Simpson in a written press statement. “The new bridge, along with the additional upgrades along Route 3, will benefit motorists by helping to reduce congestion-related delays.”

NJDOT enacted overnight lane closures Aug. 13 in anticipation of the construction phase of the project. As of Monday morning, August 16, traffic in each direction on Route 3 has been shifted to the right to establish a construction zone in the median of the highway over the bridge.

The existing Route 3 bridge was built in 1949 and has reached the end of its service life. Its substandard acceleration and deceleration lanes and shoulders result in numerous accidents and traffic congestion during peak hours. This section of Route 3 has been rated as the most congested freeway section in New Jersey.

To remedy these conditions, NJDOT is replacing the existing structurally deficient movable bridge with a new fixed-span structure. The new bridge is expected to serve motorists for another 100 years. To relieve congestion and improve safety, lanes with proper acceleration and deceleration lengths will be provided at the bridge approaches. A total of 15 new acceleration and deceleration lanes will be constructed, and the roadway shoulders will be upgraded within the project limits.

In addition, NJDOT is repairing and upgrading five other individual bridge structures within the project limits: Route 3 over Third River; Route 3 over River Road; Route 3 over NJ TRANSIT Main Line; Route 3 over the Route 21 ramps; and Ridge Road over Route 3. Noise barriers will be constructed along Route 3 in Rutherford, Lyndhurst, and Clifton.

NJDOT has staged the project in a manner that will enable motorists to cross the Passaic River throughout construction. Three lanes of Route 3 will remain open to traffic in both directions during daytime and peak period hours. No detours are scheduled for mainline Route 3. Nighttime single and double lane closures will be permitted, except during events held at the nearby Meadowlands complex.

The new bridge will provide a 30-foot vertical clearance over the Passaic River channel and will carry three 12-foot lanes of traffic in each direction with a median barrier. The new bridge will also feature two 12-foot auxiliary lanes in each direction. NJDOT designed the new bridge to match the appearance and surface texture of the existing structure.

The $149 million, federally-funded construction project was awarded on June 24 to J.F. Creamer & Sons in a joint venture with Joseph M. Sanzari, Inc.

The Park Avenue over Route 3 structure was replaced as a separate break-out contract in advance of this project. As part of that project, new dynamic message signs were constructed along Route 3 in both directions. These signs, as well as other Intelligent Transportation System devices, will be used for traffic control purposes to give motorists advance notice of future staging changes during construction on this project.

For more information, go to the NJDOT’s traffic information Website at www.511nj.org.

The Greenroads system was unveiled at the Transportation Research Board (TRB) meeting last month in Washington, D.C.,and  on Jan. 19, the Version 1.0 Rating System (80-page synopsis) was made publicly available.  (For the full manual, which includes examples, strategies and citations, click here. It’s 400+ paqes, so please allow several minutes for it to download.)

The system is applicable to new and reconstructed/rehabilitated roadways. It awards points for approved sustainable choices/practices and can be used to assess roadway project sustainability

Greenroads is a metric that helps quantify the sustainable attributes of a roadway project. This quantification can be used to do the following:

 Define what project attributes contribute to roadway sustainability.

 Provide a sustainability accounting tool for roadway projects.

 Communicate sustainable project attributes to stakeholders.

 Manage and improve roadway sustainability.

 Grant “certification” based on achieving a minimum number of points.

According to Greenroads, a project rating is an official review of your project to determine what Project Requirements and what Voluntary Credits your project has earned. Based on achieving all the Project Requirements (PR) and a predetermined number of Voluntary Credit (VC) points, your project is officially given a Greenroads certification and you are authorized to display the Greenroads logo in association with your project (including as a road sign) after approval of the Greenroads team.

Certification levels for Version 1.0 are the following:

•Certified: All Project Requirements + 32‐42 Voluntary Credit points (30‐40% of total)

•Silver: All Project Requirements + 43‐53 Voluntary Credit points (40‐50% of total)

•Gold: All Project Requirements + 54‐63 Voluntary Credit points (50‐60% of total)

•Evergreen: All Project Requirements + 64+ Voluntary Credit points (>60% of total).

For a one-page primer on Greenroads–wnat it is and why it exists, click here.

For an introduction to Version 1.0 (a 15-page document as opposed to the 80-page manual we’ve provided a link to earlier in this post), click here. Greenroads notes that this is a must-read and the one document to read to get up to speed on what this system is and how it works.

TUSCALOOSA, Ala., November 4, 2009—Although a shockingly high number of bridges in the United States remain sub-standard, highway and bridge engineers are optimistic about reducing the number of structurally deficient (SD) and functionally obsolete (FO) bridges. The information comes from an annual survey of highway professionals in 50 state Departments of Transportation and the District of Columbia conducted by Better Roads magazine. CONTECH Construction Products, Inc. sponsors a pullout map in Better Roads with a graphical look at current bridge conditions and the five-year trend in each state’s inventory of structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges.

Fourteen percent of all interstate and state bridges are considered functionally obsolete, and 6.8 percent are rated as structurally deficient, with a combined SD/FO total of 20.7 percent, the Better Roads study finds. Of all the nation’s city/county/township bridges, 10.7 percent are functionally obsolete, and 14.5 percent are structurally deficient, with a combined SD/FO total of 25.2 percent.

A total of 597,787 bridges were surveyed this year–383 more bridges than surveyed than in 2008. Of the 597,404 bridges surveyed in 2008, 144,942 were combined SD/FO. This year, there were 141,898 combined SD/FO bridges — 3,044 less than last year. However, although the number of deficient bridges may show that they have declined, many of the bridge engineers surveyed are quick to point out that this doesn’t take the actual square footage of SD/FO bridges into account.

The actual numbers may have declined, but the square footage may have increased, points out a highway program bridge manager with the Louisiana Department of Transportation in the Bridge Inventory.

The exclusive, proprietary study, which provides the most current data available on bridge conditions, finds that although bridge engineers still cite funding availability as one of the biggest challenges in lowering the number of states’ deficient bridges, the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) — better known as the stimulus — has provided some relief and has increased the level of funding for bridges.

Department of Transportation personnel surveyed say that this subsidy has enabled maintenance and reconstruction of some bridges that would otherwise not be possible, but the actual results range from having no effect or a minimal effect to a modest or significant impact. Officials from the Minnesota Department of Transportation Bridge Office — a state all too familiar with deficient bridges after experiencing the collapse of its I-35W Mississippi River Bridge in August 2007 — note that more than 50 bridges on Minnesota’s state and local highways have been advanced with ARRA funding.

However, bridge design engineers with the Hawaii Department of Transportation, say the stimulus funding “has assisted in funding a couple of bridge projects, but it hasn’t made a significant difference.”

 John Latta, editor-in-chief of Better Roads, notes that this is deeply troubling. “Look no further for evidence that a disturbing number of America’s bridges now need care, repair or replacement,” Latta says. “This comprehensive survey makes it startlingly clear. Look at the responses of the state experts who are responsible for these bridges, and you become even more aware of just how much of a problem we face and must address urgently.” 

Moreover, bridge engineers surveyed say there still isn’t enough emphasis on bridges and other infrastructure. Now that the surface transportation legislation (officially known as Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act … Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, or SAFETEA-LU) has expired — the five-year, $286.5 billion bill — expired on Sept. 30 — the nation is currently left without an infrastructure-funding plan. The transportation industry is calling for a half-trillion dollar funding plan, money that would include funding for highways and bridges.

Although Congress has begun discussions about the reauthorization of the legislation and a temporary extension of the plan was passed, there hasn’t been any action yet to sign a new bill into law.

This exacerbates the nation’s crisis with structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges. Although the stimulus has provided a boost to some state, county and municipal DOTs, lack of sufficient funding to not only maintain but improve structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges remains the perennial problem, says Tina Grady Barbaccia, executive editor of Better Roads. “Compounding the funding problem is lack of adequate training and retention and sufficient time to complete projects,” Barbaccia says. “It’s no secret that the construction industry faces a shortage of qualified workers, and it carriers over into bridge repair and inspection.”

What’s more, Barbaccia points out, “Limitations on construction dates and bureaucratic red tape — including environmental restrictions — can delay or even stop projects.”

The Better Roads Bridge Inventory provides further insight into the decaying bridge inventory by breaking out structurally deficient bridges from those that are functionally obsolete. Structurally deficient bridges are considered more serious, since they have structural problems that require limiting weight or more frequent inspections. Some must be closed. Functionally obsolete bridges may be in good condition, but don’t meet the needs of current traffic such as with clearance and capacity. Responding agencies use a standard sufficiency rating system developed by the Federal Highway Administration, to rate each bridge. Federal law mandates that all bridges must be inspected every two years.

The Worst
Texas leads the nation with the most combined structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges (9,564 or 19 percent). Pennsylvania is second with 9,130 (39 percent), followed by Missouri (7,103 or 29 percent), Ohio (6,993, or 23 percent), and Oklahoma (6,904 or 29 percent). The District of Columbia leads the nation with the highest percentage of combined structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges at 55 percent.

The Best
States with the lowest percentage of structurally deficient/functionally obsolete bridges include: Arizona (11 percent); Nevada (11 percent); Minnesota (13 percent); Colorado (14 percent); Wisconsin (14 percent); and Wyoming (14 percent).

 A Five-Year Look at America’s Bridge Inventory

*SD/FO = structurally deficient, functionally obsolete     Source: Better Roads 2009 Bridge Inventory Survey

 About the study

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 sent a survey with both qualitative and quantitative questions. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 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 outlined in the current Recording and Coding Guide for Structure Inventory and Appraisal SI&A of the Nation’s Bridges. The qualitative data are gathered through a questionnaire about major issues concerning bridge conditions and maintenance.

 For more information

The complete bridge inventory appears in the November 2009 print issue of Better Roads and at www.BetterRoads.com.   

For a summary of bridge conditions in your state go to www.betterroads.com/better-bridges-bridge-inventory-2009-state-of-bridges/.

For a state-by-state breakdown of structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges, go  the Better Roads Digital Edition at http://www.digitalmagazinetechnology.com/a/?KEY=betterroads-09-11november#page=9.

Better Roads (www.betterroads.com) is the authoritative source for information on the construction and maintenance of highways and bridges, serving 38,000 highway and bridge professionals within government, contracting, and engineering firms. Better Roads is published by Randall-Reilly Publishing Co. Founded in 1934, Randall-Reilly Publishing Company(www.randallpub.com) is the premier U.S. media and information company focused on the trucking, construction and industrial markets.

CONTECH Construction Products, Inc. is the provider of modular, prefabricated bridges for a variety of applications and capacities. More than 65,000 CONTECH bridges have been installed worldwide.