State Bridge Profile Nebraska 2016

Home/State Bridge Profile Nebraska 2016
State Bridge Profile Nebraska 2016 2016-02-29T10:35:59+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”]

Nebraska 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 15,341 bridges in the state, 2,474, or 16%, 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
  • 984 bridges, or 6%, are classified as functionally obsolete. This means the bridge does not meet design standards in line with current practice.
  • Federal investment in Nebraska has supported $529.7 million for capital improvements on 664 bridge projects between 2005 and 2014.2
  • Since 2004, 1,080 new bridges have been constructed in the state; 258 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%20Nebraska%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=”6″ 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=”5″ 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
Douglas197042,568Urban freeway/expresswayUS75 over J St in Omaha
Douglas193837,540Urban other principal arterialN85 over BNSF RR 073-047-W at SCL Omaha
Douglas196224,205Urban other principal arterialUS275/N92 over 72nd Street/FAU 5037 at 72nd & L St Intrchg
Douglas195019,800Urban minor arterialQ St/FAU 5026 over 25th St/UPRR 817-396-R at Omaha Q @ 26th
Lancaster196614,200Urban minor arterialN 10th St/FAU 5215 over Salt Creek at N 10th St @ Military Rd
Sarpy194113,470Urban other principal arterialFtcrook Rd/FAU5145 over Betz Ditch at Jct N370/Ft Crook Rd .1S
Douglas197111,470Urban InterstateI680 over US75 at US75 Intrchg
Madison193310,325Urban other principal arterialNorflk Ave/FAU6020 over stream at Norfolk Ave @ Cottonwood
Dodge19949,570Urban minor arterialBell St over UPRR 191-707-E at Fremont Bell @ Cuming St
Dodge19548,580Rural arterialUS77 over Elm Creek at 2S Fremont
Dodge19708,215Rural arterialUS30 over Fremont Co Drain ditch at 2E Ames
Dakota19778,000Urban InterstateI129/US275 over Crystal Lake at I129/US77 Intrchg 1E
Douglas19607,600Urban minor arterialQ St/FAU 5026 over BNSF RR 074-717-P at Omaha Q @ 42nd
Cass19577,545Rural minor arterialN50 over BNSF RR 073-015-R at 0W Louisville
Cass19577,545Rural minor arterialN50 over Mill Creek at 1N Louisville
Douglas19427,395Rural arterialN92 over stream at 3E Yutan
Douglas19557,395Rural arterialN92 over stream at 5E Yutan
Douglas19427,395Rural arterialN92 over stream at 3E Yutan
Lincoln19657,245Urban other principal arterialUS83 over South Platte River in North Platte
Colfax19366,590Rural arterialUS30 over Shell Creek drainage at 4E Schuyler
Douglas19746,570Urban collectorF St/FAU 5028 over Big Papillion Creek at F @ 80th St
Platte19316,435Rural arterialWB-US30/US81 over Loup River at Sjct US30/US81 .3N
Cuming19356,195Rural arterialUS275 over Wortmans Creek at 2S West Point
Saunders19266,175Rural arterialUS77/N92 over Silver Creek at 5NE Wahoo
Dodge19665,725Rural arterialUS275 over stream at Njct US275/N91
[/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 Interstate212187,0252,563,895000
Rural arterial891471,8833,645,3524420,695188,475
Rural minor arterial1,281420,7902,326,4336834,428120,750
Rural major collector2,353619,2501,475,67718442,05681,685
Rural minor collector1,218192,039163,86715916,23713,492
Rural local road8,596994,840545,3951,985182,19473,449
Urban Interstate119306,0844,238,12923,36819,470
Urban freeway/expressway53127,3781,222,47111,13942,568
Urban other principal arterial229382,9123,956,16977,06997,038
Urban minor arterial148164,1511,693,285714,43166,105
Urban collector9063,187484,15563,19919,810
Urban local road15137,082175,701112,0632,190
Total15,3413,966,62122,490,5282,474326,879725,032
[/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 replacement3,432$99.71,137,992582,734
Widening & rehabilitation2,884$1.03,736,096826,742
Rehabilitation33$263.640,4718,239
Deck rehabilitation/replacement7$106.983,7456,570
Other structural work57$701.1704,56676,984
[/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