State Bridge Profile Utah 2016

Home/State Bridge Profile Utah 2016
State Bridge Profile Utah 2016 2016-02-29T10:55:42+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”]

Utah 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 3,019 bridges in the state, 95, or 3%, 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
  • 386 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 Utah has supported $314.9 million for capital improvements on 424 bridge projects between 2005 and 2014.2
  • Since 2004, 441 new bridges have been constructed in the state; 83 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%20Tennessee%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=”47″ 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=”47″ 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
Davis195969,360Urban InterstateI-15 (SR-15) NBL over SR-93, 26 South In NSL at 11 N. to 26 S. Intchg
Davis195966,853Urban InterstateI-15 (SR-15) NBL over SR-68, 5 South Street at 5 So.Intchg.,Bountiful
Davis195966,853Urban InterstateI-15 (SR-15) SBL over SR-68, 5 South Street at 5 So.Intchg.,Bountiful
Utah196459,546Urban InterstateI-15 (SR-15) SBL over Union Pacific Railroad at North Lehi
Salt Lake195022,982Urban local road64 South Street over Jordan & Salt Lake Canal at 1350 East 64 South
Salt Lake196718,995Urban other principal arterialSR-186 SBL. over I-215 (SR-215) EBL &Amp; at Parley'S Interchange
Salt Lake196618,995Urban other principal arterialSR-186,Foothill Dr over Parley S Way WB.Ramp at Mouth of Parleys Canyon
Salt Lake196118,430Urban minor arterialRp.US89NB to I15NB over Ramp,I-15NB to US-89NB at Becks Street Interchange
Utah197018,143Urban other principal arterialSR-265, WBL over Provo River at 0.4 mi W Univ. Ave. Ints.
Utah197018,143Urban other principal arterialSR-265, EBL over Provo Ri.& Walkway at W.of University Ave.Int.
Salt Lake198015,015Urban collector3 East Street over Mill Creek at 3045 So.3 E.,So.Slc.
Salt Lake197813,841Urban minor arterial72 West Street over Utah & Salt Lake Canal at 39 So.72 W., W.Valley
Washington199812,600Urban local roadForemaster Drive over Rim Rock Wash at 1450 E. Foremaster Dr.
Salt Lake196711,490Urban InterstateI-15Ramp to SR-270 over 2 W. &Amp; West Temple at 990 So 2 West Slc
Utah196810,582Urban minor arterialSR-75 over Union Pacific Railroad at North Springville
Salt Lake19647,004Urban InterstateRp.I80WB to I2155S over I-80 (SR-80) EBL & WBL at Upper Parleys Interchange
Weber19475,796Rural major collectorCounty Road over North Fork Ogden River at 5.8 Mi. No. Pineview Jct.
Salt Lake19805,166Urban collector35 South Street over Utah &Amp; Salt Lake Can at 89 West 35 So.,Sl.Co.
Salt Lake19845,166Urban collector92 West Street over Utah &Amp; Salt Lake Can at 33 So.9180 West, Sl.Co.
Salt Lake19645,000Urban collector17 East Street over I-80 (SR-80) EBL &Amp; W at 24 So &Amp; 17 East S
Summit19243,938Rural local roadCounty Road over Echo Creek at 1.5 miles Se. of Echo
Washington19572,634Rural minor arterialSR-18 over Santa Clara River at 0.4 miles south of Veyo
Morgan19342,275Rural major collectorCounty Road over Weber River & Lost Creek at Devils Slide
Summit19672,000Rural local roadCounty Road over I-80 (SR-80) EBL &Amp; W at 3.8 Mi.Northeast Wanship
Summit19672,000Rural minor collectorCounty Road over I-80 (SR-80) EBL & WBL at 6.6 Mi.Northeast Wanship
[/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 Interstate436228,3203,041,212000
Rural arterial176107,6971,215,811000
Rural minor arterial17356,708348,97721,4823,013
Rural major collector32194,539444,356142,71317,048
Rural minor collector14634,67573,837111,6703,981
Rural local road593113,303191,193444,1919,130
Urban Interstate411642,14919,754,66068,245281,106
Urban freeway/expressway4093,598783,692000
Urban other principal arterial164169,9973,120,35343,56074,276
Urban minor arterial187235,2402,798,35831,58842,853
Urban collector9559,210633,71641,57930,347
Urban local road27783,136914,36771,02339,873
Total3,0191,918,57233,320,5329526,051501,627
[/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 replacement30$85.0549,17414,943
Widening & rehabilitation1$1.03,000263
Rehabilitation22$1.024,5566,410
Deck rehabilitation/replacement1$1.01038
Other structural work17$0.061,8402,816
[/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