State Bridge Profile New Hampshire 2016

Home/State Bridge Profile New Hampshire 2016
State Bridge Profile New Hampshire 2016 2016-02-29T10:34:36+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”]

New Hampshire 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 2,470 bridges in the state, 312, or 13%, 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
  • 453 bridges, or 18%, are classified as functionally obsolete. This means the bridge does not meet design standards in line with current practice.
  • Federal investment in New Hampshire has supported $999.0 million for capital improvements on 1,339 bridges between 2005 and 2014.2
  • Since 2004, 200 new bridges have been constructed in the state; 127 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%20New%20Hampshire%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=”13″ 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=”39″ 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
Hillsborough195773,000Urban InterstateI-293,Fee Tpk over N Br Piscataquog River at .3 mi Second St
Hillsborough195773,000Urban InterstateI-293,Fee Tpk over Spur D at .6 mi Bedford Tl.
Hillsborough195673,000Urban InterstateI-293 Ramp over I-293,Fee Tpk at 1.5 E Jct Rt 28
Hillsborough195773,000Urban InterstateI-293,Fee Tpk over S Br Piscataquog River at .8 mi Bedford T.L.
Merrimack195841,300Urban InterstateI-393,US 4,US202 over I-93 at 0.4 mi. E. Jct US 3
Rockingham194037,000Urban freeway/expresswayUS 1 Bypass over Hodgson Brook at 0.3 mi Jct I-95
Hillsborough195736,500Urban InterstateI-293,Fee Tpk Spur over S Br Piscataquog River at 0.7 mi Bedford T.L.
Merrimack195832,900Urban minor arterialUS202 over NHRR,Constitution Av. at .1 mi West Jct I-93
Merrimack195928,500Urban InterstateI-93,US 4 NB over Merrimack River at 1.5 mi N. Jct. Rt.3
Hillsborough192323,000Urban other principal arterialUS 3,NH 3A over I-293,PAR,Merrimack Riv at 0.7 mi Bedford Tl
Hillsborough195622,500Urban InterstateI-293,Fee Tpk SB over Black Brook at 2.5MI S Hooksett T.L.
Hillsborough195622,500Urban InterstateI-293,Fee Tpk NB over Black Brook at 2.5 S Hooksett Tl
Grafton196619,025Urban InterstateI-89 NB over Connecticut River,Necrr at 0.04 MI from VT Sl.
Grafton196619,024Urban InterstateI-89 SB over Connecticut River,Necrr at 0.04 MI from Vt. Sl.
Cheshire196118,000Urban other principal arterialNh 12 over Beaver Brook at .97 mi NW Swanzey Tl
Grafton196617,500Urban InterstateI-89 NB over US 4 at 2.6 MI from VT Sl
Rockingham193516,434Urban other principal arterialUS 1 over Par at 1.1MI from Rye Tl
Hillsborough192116,000Urban minor arterialUS 3 over Souhegan River at 0.03 MI from Railroad Ave
Hillsborough195815,000Rural arterialUS202,Nh101 over Contoocook River at 2.5 Mi. W. Dublin Tl
Grafton196614,700Urban InterstateI-89 SB over Hardy Hill Road at 2.5 MI from Enfield T.L.
Grafton196614,700Urban InterstateI-89 NB over Hardy Hill Road at 2.5 MI from Enfield T.L.
Grafton194914,000Urban minor arterialNh 12A over Nhrr at 1 Ft from Jct Rte 10
Rockingham194014,000Urban freeway/expresswayUS 1 Bypass over Piscataqua River,St,Par at Maine Sl
Merrimack195714,000Urban minor arterialNh 3A over I-93,Fee Tpk at .3 mi N of Bow T.L.
Merrimack196013,663Urban InterstateI-93 NB over NHRR,Winnipesaukee River at Tilton Tl
[/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 Interstate208121,5691,773,382382231,100
Rural arterial12556,1651,071,184146,618114,029
Rural minor arterial16358,457752,72094,36844,000
Rural major collector19965,686532,1402510,47458,890
Rural minor collector17835,793224,880193,50024,240
Rural local road818102,308338,19615316,04372,450
Urban Interstate158214,8345,139,9171619,297555,575
Urban freeway/expressway90102,6552,562,57529,40251,000
Urban other principal arterial114156,5801,792,152810,005107,562
Urban minor arterial13298,3811,460,0681716,226199,076
Urban collector11755,460635,080136,26773,900
Urban local road16844,040271,935335,84758,210
Total2,4701,111,92816,554,229312108,8691,390,032
[/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 replacement2,422$7,561.816,541,1591,107,029
Widening & rehabilitation0$000
Rehabilitation3$0.0125432
Deck rehabilitation/replacement1$1.050179
Other structural work7$1.411,0852,358
[/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