State Bridge Profile North Carolina 2016

Home/State Bridge Profile North Carolina 2016
State Bridge Profile North Carolina 2016 2016-02-29T10:41:51+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”]

North Carolina 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 18,124 bridges in the state, 2,085, or 12%, 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
  • 3,089 bridges, or 17%, are classified as functionally obsolete. This means the bridge does not meet design standards in line with current practice.
  • Federal investment in North Carolina has supported $2.8 billion for capital improvements on 2,145 bridge projects between 2005 and 2014.2
  • Since 2004, 2,157 new bridges have been constructed in the state; 187 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%20North%20Carolina%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=”16″ 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=”9″ 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
Guilford1955123,000Urban InterstateGreensboro Bridge
Mecklenburg196783,000Urban InterstateI277 & NC1 over Brevard Street at 0.7 mi N.Jct.US74 WBL
Forsyth196381,000Urban freeway/expresswayUS52, US311 over US311 at 1.0 mi N. Jct. I40
Forsyth195572,000Urban freeway/expresswayI40 Bus over SR4315(Liberty St) at 0.7 mi W. Jct. US52
Forsyth196469,000Urban freeway/expresswayUS52 over 25th Street at 0.3 mi S. Jct. SR2456
Forsyth196469,000Urban freeway/expresswayUS52 over 28th Street at 0.2 mi S. Jct. SR2456
Forsyth197160,000Urban freeway/expresswayUS52, US311 over Sprague Street at 0.3 mi N. Jct. I40
Forsyth197160,000Urban freeway/expresswayUS52, US311&NC8 over Diggs Boulevard at 0.8 mi S. Jct. I40
Buncombe197055,000Urban freeway/expresswayUS19,23,70 over NC251 at .3 mi N.Jct.I-240
Forsyth196054,000Urban freeway/expresswayUS421 over Little Creek at 0.1 mi W.Jct.I40
Mecklenburg196753,000Rural InterstateI485 over I85 at 1.2 Mi. W. Jct. US29
Guilford196853,000Urban freeway/expresswaySr2254 over Southern Railroad at 0.21 Mi. W. Jct. US220
Haywood196148,000Rural InterstateI-40 over SR1513 at 1.8 Mi.E.Jct.Sr1660
Catawba197547,000Urban InterstateI40 over Geitner Branch at 0.3 Mi. W. Jct. Un19
Catawba197547,000Urban InterstateI40 over Longview Creek at 0.6 Mi. W. Jct. Un19
Forsyth195346,000Urban freeway/expresswayI40 Bus over Salem Creek at 0.3 Mi.W.Jct.Sr2657
Buncombe196845,000Urban other principal arterialUS19,23 over I-240,Off Ramps at .2 Mi.N.Jct.Sr1333
Wake195545,000Urban other principal arterialUS401 over Atlantic Ave. at 0.1 Mi.NE Jct Sr20
Guilford195444,250Urban InterstateI40, I85 Bus WBL over US29, US70,US220 NBL at 0.3 mi N. Jct. SR1401
Wake194842,000Urban freeway/expresswayUS70 over Peace St. at 0.2 mi N SR 1513
Cabarrus196840,000Urban InterstateI85 SBL over Irish Buffalo Creek at 1.2 Mi. N. Jct. Nc73
Cabarrus196840,000Urban InterstateI85 NBL over Irish Buffalo Creek at 1.2 Mi.N.Jct.Nc73
Mecklenburg197039,750Urban InterstateI77 Ramp over Irwin Creek at 0.15 Mi. N. Jct. NC160
Wake196939,000Urban minor arterialSr1652 Harrison over I40 at 0.47 Mi. NE of SR1795
Durham195639,000Urban freeway/expresswayUS15/US501NBL over SR1308 at 0.2Mi.N.Jct.Sr1303
[/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 Interstate404315,5068,271,7001525,712329,500
Rural arterial9161,045,7008,689,5784686,132481,150
Rural minor arterial650472,1803,982,53062136,329311,720
Rural major collector1,9251,003,1226,377,704198206,491646,010
Rural minor collector1,530487,5782,464,48823357,029344,902
Rural local road7,3331,370,4994,424,4811,120155,679575,625
Urban Interstate7971,142,75230,816,4482119,023780,000
Urban freeway/expressway569714,01312,806,1834142,1781,171,900
Urban other principal arterial740758,01713,123,9915251,844835,200
Urban minor arterial894837,64510,104,8156246,687570,860
Urban collector651390,2973,951,5155923,892287,550
Urban local road1,715645,1987,763,88617665,350661,953
Total18,1249,182,507112,777,3202,085916,3466,996,370
[/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 replacement22$3.74,5151,153
Widening & rehabilitation0$000
Rehabilitation15$1.04,05528,024
Deck rehabilitation/replacement0$000
Other structural work151$13.5145,23836,997
[/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