State Bridge Profile Vermont 2016

Home/State Bridge Profile Vermont 2016
State Bridge Profile Vermont 2016 2016-02-29T10:54:41+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”]

Vermont 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 2,749 bridges in the state, 190, or 7%, 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
  • 658 bridges, or 24%, are classified as functionally obsolete. This means the bridge does not meet design standards in line with current practice.
  • Federal investment in Vermont has supported $680.7 million for capital improvements on 495 bridge projects between 2005 and 2014.2
  • Since 2004, 195 new bridges have been constructed in the state; 139 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%20Vermont%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=”34″ 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=”44″ 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
Washington192815,500Urban other principal arterialUS 302 ML over Stevens Branch at 1.8 mi E Jct. U.S.2 E
Chittenden196413,800Urban other principal arterialUS 2 ML over I 89 under US 2 at 0.3 mi W Jct US 7 I89 E17
Chittenden196413,350Urban InterstateI 089 ML over Mallett S Creek at 1.3 mi S Exit 17
Windham196012,850Urban InterstateI 091 ML over I 91 over VT 30 Westr at 0.9 mi S Exit 3
Addison192012,200Urban minor arterialVT 030 ML over VT 30 over VT RR at 0.1 mi S Jct. U.S.7
Bennington193811,600Urban minor arterialCity Hunt over Roaring Br Walloomsac Bk at Hunt Street
Rutland190011,200Rural arterialUS 7 ML over Neshobe River at 0.2 mi S Jct. Vt.73
Rutland188910,500Rural arterialUS 7 ML over Sugar Hollow Brook at 7.7 mi N Jct. U.S.4 E
Addison19207,300Urban collectorCity Merrw over Mer Row over VT RR at Merchants Row
Windham19266,500Rural minor arterialVT 1 ML over N. Br. Deerfield River at 7.1 mi N Jct. VT.9 W
Windham19636,450Rural InterstateI 091 ML over I 91 over TH 1 Saxton at 2.4 mi N Exit 5
Washington19166,000Urban minor arterialUS Br2 Bus. over North Branch at 0.1 MI W Jct VT 12
Rutland19565,900Rural arterialUS 4 ML over Ottauquechee River at 0.9 MI W Jct. Vt.1 S
Windham19655,500Rural InterstateI 091 ML over I 91 over Gm RR Wlmsr at 0.3 mi N Exit 6
Windham19655,500Rural InterstateI 091 ML over I 91 over Gm RR Wlmsr at 0.3 mi N Exit 6
Windsor19625,300Rural arterialVT 103 ML over Williams River at 1.7 mi N Jct. Vt.10
Washington19265,200Rural major collectorVT 012 ML over Dog River at 1.1 mi N Jct. Vt.12A S
Lamoille19264,900Rural minor arterialVT 015 ML over Smith Brook at 2.5 MI W Jct. Vt.1C
Washington19384,900Rural minor arterialVT 1 ML over Mad River at 0.8 MI S Jct. Vt.17
Washington19364,700Rural minor arterialVT 014 ML over Winooski River at 0.1 mi S Jct. U.S.2 W
Windham19464,500Urban collectorCity Elliot over Whetstone Brook at Elliot St
Rutland19284,300Urban collectorCity River over Otter Creek at River Street
Washington19284,100Rural minor arterialVT 014 ML over Pekin Brook at 5.2 mi N Jct. U.S.2 E
Washington19344,000Rural major collectorVT 012 ML over Brook at 4.0 mi N Jct. U.S.2
Washington19773,700Rural minor arterialVT 1 ML over Crossett Brook at 0.6 mi S Jct US 2
[/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 Interstate256199,4661,968,06137,31917,450
Rural arterial11996,488681,27051,24735,800
Rural minor arterial25994,903966,275185,47257,800
Rural major collector524144,9121,018,0593011,82558,680
Rural minor collector17429,08497,380142,59411,410
Rural local road1,195144,946287,41510611,62519,866
Urban Interstate5443,752833,54823,91726,200
Urban freeway/expressway257418,200000
Urban other principal arterial5550,131511,29031,62632,200
Urban minor arterial3723,453278,91041,93930,470
Urban collector4215,772157,26041,37819,000
Urban local road326,94228,6321113300
Total2,749850,4236,846,30019049,055309,176
[/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 replacement230$167.5260,91330,104
Widening & rehabilitation0$000
Rehabilitation1,080$858.42,992,269321,529
Deck rehabilitation/replacement0$000
Other structural work1$0.21074
[/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