State Bridge Profile Alabama 2016

Home/State Bridge Profile Alabama 2016
State Bridge Profile Alabama 2016 2016-02-29T09:43:24+00:00
[et_pb_section admin_label=”Section” fullwidth=”off” specialty=”on” transparent_background=”off” allow_player_pause=”off” inner_shadow=”off” parallax=”off” parallax_method=”off” custom_padding=”0px||0px|” padding_mobile=”off” make_fullwidth=”off” use_custom_width=”off” width_unit=”on” make_equal=”off” use_custom_gutter=”off” parallax_1=”off” parallax_method_1=”off” parallax_2=”off” parallax_method_2=”off”][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ specialty_columns=”3″][et_pb_row_inner admin_label=”Row” custom_padding=”||0px|” padding_mobile=”off” use_custom_gutter=”off” column_padding_mobile=”on” make_equal=”off” parallax_1=”off” parallax_method_1=”off”][et_pb_column_inner type=”4_4″ saved_specialty_column_type=”3_4″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Main Header” background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”center” text_font=”|on|||” text_font_size=”28″ text_text_color=”#004064″ use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid” custom_margin=”15px||0px|” custom_padding=”||10px|” text_line_height=”1.8em”]

Alabama Highlights from FHWA’s
2015 National Bridge Inventory Data:

[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=”Bullet Points” background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid”]
  • Of the 16,095 bridges in the state, 1,353, or 8%, are classified as structurally deficient. This means one or more of the key bridge elements, such as the deck, superstructure or substructure, is considered to be in “poor” or worse condition.1
  • 2,115 bridges, or 13%, are classified as functionally obsolete. This means the bridge does not meet design standards in line with current practice.
  • Federal investment in Alabama has supported $1.7 billion for capital improvements on 1,643 bridge projects between 2005 and 2014.2
  • Since 2004, 834 new bridges have been constructed in the state; 89 have undergone major reconstruction.
[/et_pb_text][et_pb_code admin_label=”Shareaholic” saved_tabs=”all” global_module=”19055″]<center>[shareaholic app=”share_buttons” id=”5471712″]</center>[/et_pb_code][/et_pb_column_inner][/et_pb_row_inner][et_pb_row_inner admin_label=”Row” padding_mobile=”off” use_custom_gutter=”off” column_padding_mobile=”on” make_equal=”on” parallax_1=”off” parallax_method_1=”off” parallax_2=”off” parallax_method_2=”off” parallax_3=”off” parallax_method_3=”off” gutter_width=”4″][et_pb_column_inner type=”1_3″ saved_specialty_column_type=”3_4″][et_pb_cta admin_label=”Bridge Inventory Data Button” button_url=”#inventory” url_new_window=”off” button_text=”View Bridge Inventory Data” use_background_color=”off” background_color=”#004064″ background_layout=”dark” text_orientation=”center” use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid” custom_button=”on” button_text_size=”17″ button_text_color=”#ffffff” button_bg_color=”#002a3f” button_letter_spacing=”0″ button_use_icon=”default” button_icon_placement=”right” button_on_hover=”on” button_letter_spacing_hover=”0″] [/et_pb_cta][/et_pb_column_inner][et_pb_column_inner type=”1_3″ saved_specialty_column_type=”3_4″][et_pb_cta admin_label=”Proposed Bridge Work Button” button_url=”#proposed” url_new_window=”off” button_text=”View Proposed Bridge Work Data” use_background_color=”off” background_color=”#004064″ background_layout=”dark” text_orientation=”center” use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid” custom_button=”on” button_text_size=”17″ button_text_color=”#ffffff” button_bg_color=”#002a3f” button_letter_spacing=”0″ button_use_icon=”default” button_icon_placement=”right” button_on_hover=”on” button_letter_spacing_hover=”0″] [/et_pb_cta][/et_pb_column_inner][et_pb_column_inner type=”1_3″ saved_specialty_column_type=”3_4″][et_pb_cta admin_label=”Download PDF Button” button_url=”http://www.artba.org/statepdf/ARTBA%20Alabama%20Bridge%20Profile%202016.pdf” url_new_window=”on” button_text=”Download Report” use_background_color=”off” background_color=”#004064″ background_layout=”dark” text_orientation=”center” use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid” custom_button=”on” button_text_size=”17″ button_text_color=”#ffffff” button_bg_color=”#002a3f” button_letter_spacing=”0″ button_use_icon=”default” button_icon_placement=”right” button_on_hover=”on” button_letter_spacing_hover=”0″ custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||” custom_css_promo_button=”min-height:70px;||min-width:95%;”] [/et_pb_cta][/et_pb_column_inner][/et_pb_row_inner][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Ranking Header” background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”center” text_font=”|on|||” text_font_size=”28″ text_text_color=”#004064″ use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid” custom_css_main_element=”font-size: 30px;” custom_margin=”15px|||” saved_tabs=”all” global_module=”19053″]

Ranking

[/et_pb_text][et_pb_number_counter admin_label=”Based on the # Percentage of Structurally Deficient Bridges” title=”Based on % of Structurally Deficient Bridges” number=”28″ percent_sign=”off” counter_color=”#004064″ background_layout=”light” use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#d8d8d8″ border_style=”solid” custom_padding=”10px||10px|” custom_css_main_element=”border: 0px solid #ededed;||border-radius: 8px;” background_color=”#f7f7f7″] [/et_pb_number_counter][et_pb_number_counter admin_label=”Based on # of Structurally Deficient Bridges” title=”Based on # of Structurally Deficient Bridges” number=”15″ percent_sign=”off” counter_color=”#004064″ background_layout=”light” use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#d8d8d8″ border_style=”solid” custom_padding=”10px||10px|” custom_css_main_element=”border: 0px solid #ededed;||border-radius: 8px;” background_color=”#f7f7f7″] [/et_pb_number_counter][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section admin_label=”section” transparent_background=”off” allow_player_pause=”off” inner_shadow=”off” parallax=”off” parallax_method=”off” custom_padding=”0px|||” padding_mobile=”off” make_fullwidth=”off” use_custom_width=”off” width_unit=”on” make_equal=”off” use_custom_gutter=”off” gutter_width=”3″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text admin_label=” Top Traveled Header” background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” text_font=”|on|||” text_font_size=”28″ text_text_color=”#004064″ use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid” saved_tabs=”all” global_module=”19050″]

Top Most Traveled Structurally Deficient Bridges in the State

[/et_pb_text][et_pb_code admin_label=”Table 1 – Top Traveled”]
CountyYear BuiltDaily CrossingsType of Bridge3Location
Jefferson1970136,580Urban InterstateI65 over U.S.11,RR&City Streets at I65 2nd Ave. to 2nd Ave.No
Mobile196487,610Urban InterstateI-10 WB & EB over Halls Mill Creek at 2.2 mi E US 90
Jefferson197277,385Urban InterstateI-59/20 over US 31,RRs&City Streets at Bham Civic Center
Mobile196673,630Urban InterstateI-10 WB & EB over Southern Drain Canal at 3.3 mi E Jct SR 163
Baldwin196953,560Rural InterstateI-10 over Joe S Branch at 0.2 mi E US 90
Baldwin196953,560Rural InterstateI-10 over D Olive Stream at 1.5 mi E Jct US 90 & I-10
Jefferson196841,990Urban InterstateI 59/20 over Arron Aronov Drive at I 59 & Arron Aronov Dr.
Mobile196441,490Rural InterstateI-10 over Warren Creek at 3.2 mi E Miss St Line
Jefferson193639,620Urban other principal arterialUS 78 over Village Ck & Frisco RR at US 78 & Village Creek
Mobile196737,980Urban InterstateI-65 over Hells Swamp Creek at 1.1 mi N Celeste Road
Baldwin197435,480Rural arterialSR 59 over Keller Creek at 0.1 mi S Co Rd 12
Houston195832,970Urban other principal arterialSR 210 Mp 2.425 over stream at 0.9 Mi. S. US 84 W.
Lee199632,040Urban freeway/expresswayUS 280 over First Avenue at 0.3MI E Int US 29
Talladega193525,590Rural arterialUS 280 over Norfolk Southern R/R at Town of Childersburg
Lee195923,680Urban InterstateI-85 over Long St at Jct Long St & I-85
Lee195923,680Urban InterstateI-85 over Long St at Jct Long St & I-85
Escambia195920,940Rural InterstateI-65 over Pond Creek at 3.4 mi N Jct SR 21
Etowah192716,100Urban local roadBroad St over Coosa River at Broad St & Coosa River
Houston195315,100Urban minor arterialDenton Road over Rock Creek at 0.6 mi. N. Jct. SR 210
Lowndes196614,920Rural InterstateI65 SBL over Branch at 0.8 Mi.N.of Butler Co.
Jefferson191514,000Urban local road22nd Street over Morris Ave & RR at 22nd St- 1St S to 1St N
Mobile193113,870Urban other principal arterialUS 43 over Steele Creek at 1 mi S Jct I-65
Jefferson191013,000Urban local road22nd St over Abandoned RR at 22nd St & 1St Ave S
Jefferson191513,000Urban local road21st Street over Morris Ave & RR at 21St St- 1St S to 1St N
Chambers195112,980Rural minor arterialUS 29 over Moores Creek at Town of Langdale
[/et_pb_code][et_pb_text admin_label=”Bridge Inventory Header” background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” text_font=”|on|||” text_font_size=”28″ text_text_color=”#004064″ use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid” module_id=”inventory” saved_tabs=”all” global_module=”19051″]

Bridge Inventory

[/et_pb_text][et_pb_code admin_label=”Table 2 – Bridge Inventory Table”]
Type of Bridge3Number of BridgesArea of All Bridges (sq. meters)Daily Crossings on All BridgesNumber of Structurally Deficient BridgesArea of Structurally Deficient Bridges (sq. meters)Daily Crossings on Structurally Deficient Bridges
Rural Interstate6911,134,27314,472,177106,229240,455
Rural arterial1,1411,039,7548,551,9651915,817173,520
Rural minor arterial1,493903,1894,892,1523318,513115,411
Rural major collector3,0751,219,5764,721,96216751,352156,279
Rural minor collector2,448598,9541,304,84122930,77276,355
Rural local road4,367810,7571,703,96475892,420127,188
Urban Interstate5591,808,16221,322,168972,804509,975
Urban freeway/expressway86174,7991,580,477186832,040
Urban other principal arterial544671,52410,178,26696,406145,450
Urban minor arterial383277,4684,255,5581210,23067,158
Urban collector291169,4991,658,798123,82254,386
Urban local road1,017349,3982,885,2869429,496167,793
Total16,0959,157,35377,527,6161,353338,7291,866,010
[/et_pb_code][et_pb_text admin_label=”Proposed Bridge Work Header” background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” text_font=”|on|||” text_font_size=”28″ text_text_color=”#004064″ use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid” module_id=”proposed” saved_tabs=”all” global_module=”19052″]

Proposed Bridge Work

[/et_pb_text][et_pb_code admin_label=”Table 3 – Proposed Bridge Work”]
Type of WorkNumber of BridgesCost to Repair (in millions)Daily CrossingsArea of Bridges (sq. meters)
Bridge replacement4,803$7,602.714,449,9821,625,453
Widening & rehabilitation570$1,434.74,161,103287,733
Rehabilitation3,057$11,765.027,044,6653,106,975
Deck rehabilitation/replacement9$14.386,3264,022
Other structural work7,573$18,927.231,765,5694,115,496
[/et_pb_code][et_pb_text admin_label=”Footnotes” background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” text_font_size=”10″ use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid” saved_tabs=”all” global_module=”19048″]

1 According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), a bridge is classified as structurally deficient if the condition rating for the deck, superstructure, substructure or culvert and retaining walls is rated 4 or below or if the bridge receives an appraisal rating of 2 or less for structural condition or waterway adequacy. During inspections, the condition of a variety of bridge elements are rated on a scale of 0 (failed condition) to 9 (excellent condition). A rating of 4 is considered “poor” condition and the individual element displays signs of advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling or scour.
2 This data is provided by bridge owners as part of the FHWA data and is required for any bridge eligible for the Highway Bridge Replacement

[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=”Sources” background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” text_font_size=”10″ use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid” saved_tabs=”all” global_module=”19049″]

Sources: All data is from the 2014 National Bridge Inventory, released by the Federal Highway Administration in January 2015. Note that specific conditions on bridge may have changed as a result of recent work. Cost estimates of bridge work provided as part of the data and have been adjusted to 2014$ for inflation and estimated project costs. Contract awards data is for state and local government awards and comes from McGraw Hill. Note that additional bridge investment may be a part of other contract awards if a smaller bridge project is included with a highway project, and that would not be accounted for in the total in this profile.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]
X