State Bridge Profile South Carolina 2016

Home/State Bridge Profile South Carolina 2016
State Bridge Profile South Carolina 2016 2016-02-29T11:01:17+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”]

South 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 9,344 bridges in the state, 1,004, or 11%, 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
  • 848 bridges, or 9%, are classified as functionally obsolete. This means the bridge does not meet design standards in line with current practice.
  • Federal investment in South Carolina has supported $1.0 billion for capital improvements on 906 bridge projects between 2005 and 2014.2
  • Since 2004, 599 new bridges have been constructed in the state; 40 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%20South%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=”18″ 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=”24″ 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
Greenville196094,000Urban InterstateI-85 over Trib Laurel Crk at 4.9 mi E of Greenville
Lexington195881,000Urban InterstateI-26 over Southern Rwy (No. 1) at 3 mi W of W Cola
Richland195879,800Urban InterstateI-26 over C.N. and L. Railroad at 3 mi NW of Cola
Lexington195977,400Urban InterstateI-26 over US 1 at 1.0 mi W W Cola
Lexington195977,100Urban InterstateI-26 over SC 302 at 2 mi SW of W Cola
Richland196147,000Urban InterstateI-126 over S.C.L. Railroad at City of Cola
Richland197743,600Urban freeway/expresswaySC 277 NB over I-77 at 7 mi N of Cola
Spartanburg195332,900Urban freeway/expresswaySC 85 over Southern RR & S-42-995 at 3.2 mi NW Spartanburg
Spartanburg195332,900Urban freeway/expresswaySC 85 over S-2 at 3.2 mi NW Spartanburg
Lexington194131,600Urban other principal arterialUS 378 over Twelve Mile Creek at 3 mi NE of Lex
Orangeburg194228,300Urban minor arterialUS 178 over Caw Caw Swamp at 0.5MI N of Orangeburg
Richland195326,800Urban other principal arterialUS 21 over Sou & S C L RR (Blossom) at City of Cola
Beaufort194826,800Urban minor arterialUS 21 over Albergotti Creek near Beaufort
Greenville193926,600Urban other principal arterialUS 29 over Mountain Creek at 4.5 mi SW of Greer
Greenville193926,600Urban other principal arterialUS 29 over Enoree River at 4.5 mi SW of Greer
Lexington196526,300Urban other principal arterialUS 1 over I-20 at 2.5 MI E of Lex
Beaufort195626,100Urban other principal arterialUS 278 EBL over Mackay Creek at @ Hilton Head Island
Jasper196824,900Rural InterstateI-95 SB over S.C. 46 at @ Hardeeville
Orangeburg195424,300Urban other principal arterialUS 301 over North Edisto Swamp at 0.1 mi S of Orangeburg
Orangeburg192224,300Urban other principal arterialUS 301 over North Edisto River at City of Orangeburg
Orangeburg196023,150Rural InterstateI-26 WB over S.C. 33 & S.C.L. RR at 1.5 mi NW of Orangeburg
Orangeburg196023,150Rural InterstateI-26 EB over S.C. 33 & S.C.L. RR at 1.5 mi NW of Orangeburg
Richland193023,000Urban other principal arterialUS 176 over Broad River at 2MI NW of Cola
Aiken195022,400Urban other principal arterialUS 1 over Big Horse Creek at Granitville
Jasper196822,300Rural InterstateI-95 SB over Bagshaw Swamp at 6.5MI N of Hardeeville
[/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 Interstate348447,9077,121,4792025,798334,550
Rural arterial496743,9563,064,8874768,453225,650
Rural minor arterial729687,1952,644,8779980,511302,375
Rural major collector2,116813,7912,354,83823479,941235,287
Rural minor collector452115,248143,823367,1877,858
Rural local road2,597558,451712,87834355,64268,205
Urban Interstate3811,124,46712,305,128816,502493,250
Urban freeway/expressway104341,1761,574,48267,681140,900
Urban other principal arterial368844,6826,813,3262957,017489,200
Urban minor arterial539643,2175,739,1645945,952580,000
Urban collector610279,2692,328,0795520,317201,166
Urban local road604157,519563,5716812,28440,677
Total9,3446,756,87845,366,5321,004477,2853,119,118
[/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 replacement804$594.61,660,823311,097
Widening & rehabilitation592$253.14,111,842471,998
Rehabilitation233$83.21,388,740169,336
Deck rehabilitation/replacement0$000
Other structural work5$0.114,2002,573
[/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