Status of North Carolina Bridges Report to the 21st Century Transportation Committee February, 2008 Lacy D. Love, PE Director of Asset Management NCDOT
Status of North Carolina Bridges
Report to the
21st Century Transportation Committee
February, 2008
Lacy D. Love, PEDirector of Asset ManagementNCDOT
Status of NC BridgesStatus of NC BridgesIntroductionIntroduction
DefinitionsDefinitions
BridgesBridges vsvs. Structures. Structures
Inspection Program OverviewInspection Program Overview
Bridge ConditionBridge Condition
Performance GoalsPerformance Goals
Management ApproachManagement Approach
ChallengesChallenges
BridgesBridges vsvs. Structures. Structures
Bridges
PipesCulverts
Floating barge w/Bridge
Structurally Deficient BridgeStructurally Deficient Bridge
Haywood County #79 built in 1891Haywood County #79 built in 1891
Structurally Deficient ~ 2200Structurally Deficient ~ 2200
Functionally Obsolete BridgeFunctionally Obsolete Bridge
Functionally Obsolete ~ 3000
Functionally Obsolete due to roadway clearance
Sufficiency RatingSufficiency Rating Established by FHWAEstablished by FHWA
Compares existing bridge to a new bridge designed to currentCompares existing bridge to a new bridge designed to currentengineering standardsengineering standards
Measure of BridgeMeasure of Bridge’’s overall condition (scale 0 to 100)s overall condition (scale 0 to 100)
Used to determine eligibility for Federal Aid Bridge fundsUsed to determine eligibility for Federal Aid Bridge funds
Must be < 50 for ReplacementMust be < 50 for Replacement
Must be < 80 for RehabilitationMust be < 80 for Rehabilitation
Does not imply the bridge is unsafeDoes not imply the bridge is unsafe
Formula based onFormula based on
Structural Condition of Bridge (55%)Structural Condition of Bridge (55%)
Serviceability and Obsolescence (30%)Serviceability and Obsolescence (30%)
Essentiality to public use (15%)Essentiality to public use (15%)
•Every Bridge inspected every 2 years
•Detail inspection by Inspection teams
•Above water teams - 18
•Underwater teams - 4
•Special evaluation teams - 4
•Supplemented by private inspectors
•Each element rated based on condition (1 to 9)
•Teams document maintenance needs for each element foreach bridge
•Maintenance needs entered into Bridge ManagementSystem
Inspection ProgramInspection Program
Bridge AnalysisBridge Analysis
Status of NCDOT BridgesStatus of NCDOT Bridges
17,300 Total Structures including concrete17,300 Total Structures including concreteculverts and metal structures (pipes) that have aculverts and metal structures (pipes) that have aspan length of 20span length of 20’’ or more; stateor more; state--owned andowned andmaintained.maintained.
~ 12,600 state~ 12,600 state--owned and maintained Bridgesowned and maintained Bridges
~ 2,000 bridges with SR < 50~ 2,000 bridges with SR < 50
~ 700 bridges are programmed in TIP~ 700 bridges are programmed in TIP
~ 4,000 with timber components~ 4,000 with timber components
~ 35% increase in deck area in the last 20 years~ 35% increase in deck area in the last 20 years
Percent of Deficient NC BridgePercent of Deficient NC Bridge(includes culverts and all bridge owners)(includes culverts and all bridge owners)
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
Per
cen
t
NC Bridges National Bridges
NCDOTNCDOT vsvs. Southeast States. Southeast States(state(state DOTsDOTs’’ including culverts)including culverts)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Per
cen
tD
efic
ien
t
AL FL GA KY LA MS NC SC TN TX VA
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
<1930 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
# Bridges # Deficient Bridges
Age of NCDOT BridgesAge of NCDOT Bridges(not including culverts)(not including culverts)
Performance & AccountabilityPerformance & Accountability
DOT is currently implementing a newDOT is currently implementing a newperformance measures program which has as aperformance measures program which has as agoal to achieve a targeted level of service .goal to achieve a targeted level of service .
A Bridge Technical Team has been established toA Bridge Technical Team has been established todraft the performance goals which will bedraft the performance goals which will beimplemented in the new program.implemented in the new program.
Performance MeasurePerformance Measure% Structurally Deficient% Structurally Deficient
SYSTEM TARGET CURRENT GAP
SW TIER 1 % 9.9 % 8.9 %
REG. TIER 5 % 15.6 % 10.6 %
SUB. TIER 15 % 20 % 5 %
ALL TIERS 10 % 17.4 % 7.4 %
Major Bridge ComponentsMajor Bridge Components
Condition Rating DistributionCondition Rating Distribution
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
#B
rid
ges
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Deck Superstructure Substructure
Goal:
6CRCR
Performance StandardsPerformance Standards -- ExampleExample
Element: Bridge Maintenance and Preservation
Asset: Deck
Activities: Deck Maintenance
Condition Indicator: Condition Rating of less than or equal to 6.
Performance Measure: Condition Rating by Square Feet of Deck
Statewide Regional Subregional Division County
Performance Target B B C NA NA
Assessment Method BIR BIR BIR BIR BIR
LOS Description
A
B
Functional Work Group Worksheet
LOS Category
F
15% or less of condition ratings below 6.
Between 15.1% and 20% of condition ratings below 6.
Between 20.1% and 25% of condition ratings below 6.
Between 25.1% and 30% of condition ratings below 6.
30% or more of condition ratings below 6.
C
D
Performance StandardsPerformance StandardsLOS FOR DECKS
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14
DIVISIONS
%S
F<
6
SF DECK STATEWIDE TIER < 6
SF DECK REGIONAL TIER <6
SF DECK SUBREGIONAL TIER <6
LOS F
LOS D
LOS C
LOS B
LOS A
Asset Management ApproachAsset Management Approach
Policy DrivenPolicy Driven -- Decisions basedDecisions basedon well defined policyon well defined policy
Performance BasedPerformance Based -- PolicyPolicydecisions drive the outcomesdecisions drive the outcomes
Analytical AnalysisAnalytical Analysis -- ResourceResourceallocation based on modernallocation based on moderninvestment analysis and best valueinvestment analysis and best valueconceptsconcepts
Allows better communication with stakeholders, legislature and pAllows better communication with stakeholders, legislature and publicublic
Better able to allocate resources to most needed workBetter able to allocate resources to most needed work
Decisions based on Quality InformationDecisions based on Quality Information -- Investment decision basedInvestment decision basedon accurate and timely dataon accurate and timely data
Monitoring for AccountabilityMonitoring for Accountability -- Performance results are monitored forPerformance results are monitored foraccountability and efficiency improvementaccountability and efficiency improvement
Mix of FixesMix of Fixes
Mix of FixesMix of Fixes -- Keep good bridges goodKeep good bridges good
MaintenanceMaintenance
Routine & CorrectiveRoutine & Corrective
PreservationPreservation
Extend Service LifeExtend Service Life
RehabilitationRehabilitation
Restore to new like conditionRestore to new like condition
ReplacementReplacement
Mix of FixesMix of Fixes
Current Funding of NC BridgesCurrent Funding of NC Bridges
Statewide bridge maintenance budget for FY 07Statewide bridge maintenance budget for FY 07--0808is $65 Mis $65 M
Beginning Preservation Program ( $15M)Beginning Preservation Program ( $15M)
Federal FundsFederal Funds
System Preservation Maintenance FundsSystem Preservation Maintenance Funds
Overweight truck feesOverweight truck fees
NCDOT replaces ~ 120 bridges per year at anNCDOT replaces ~ 120 bridges per year at anaverage expenditure of $200 M/yr.average expenditure of $200 M/yr.
Current maintenance needs as documented by theCurrent maintenance needs as documented by theinspectors are ~ $350 Minspectors are ~ $350 M
ChallengesChallenges
Aging BridgesAging Bridges
Predictive modeling tool estimates # DeficientPredictive modeling tool estimates # Deficientbridges to grow to ~ 7,000 by 2020bridges to grow to ~ 7,000 by 2020
Balance between bridge replacement projects andBalance between bridge replacement projects andenvironmental stewardshipenvironmental stewardship
Limited Replacement FundsLimited Replacement Funds
Competition for Maintenance Dollars with otherCompetition for Maintenance Dollars with otherInfrastructure NeedsInfrastructure Needs
Transition to 21st CenturyTransition to 21st CenturyOrganizationOrganization
Effort has evolved since early 2000Effort has evolved since early 2000’’ss
ItIt’’s a continuous processs a continuous process
Adopt what weAdopt what we’’ve started and accelerate theve started and accelerate thegood practicesgood practices