Nearly 56,000 Bridges Called Structurally Deficient (usatoday.com)

schwit1 quotes a report from USA Today: Nearly 56,000 bridges nationwide, which vehicles cross 185 million times a day, are structurally deficient, a bridge construction group announced Wednesday. The list is based on Transportation Department data. The department scores bridges on a nine-point scale, and while the deficient ones might not be imminently unsafe, they are classified in need of attention. More than one in four bridges (173,919) are at least 50 years old and have never had major reconstruction work, according to the ARTBA analysis. State transportation officials have identified 13,000 bridges along interstates that need replacement, widening or major reconstruction, according to the group. "America's highway network is woefully underperforming," said Alison Premo Black, the group's chief economics who conducted the analysis. "It is outdated, overused, underfunded and in desperate need of modernization." The five states with the most deficient bridges are Iowa with 4,968, Pennsylvania with 4,506, Oklahoma with 3,460, Missouri with 3,195 and Nebraska with 2,361. The eight states where at least 15% of the bridges are deficient are: Rhode Island at 25%, Pennsylvania at 21%, Iowa and South Dakota at 20%, West Virginia at 17%, and Nebraska, North Dakota and Oklahoma at 15%.

Comments

Hoorah

[subk]

Finally a list of items ranked by state in which Alabama and Mississippi aren't the worst.

propaganda headline

[Anonymous Coward]

bridges that need to be widened to handle additional traffic are not "structurally deficient"

Just because a bridge is old doesn't mean it's unsafe. In Europe, a 50 year old bridge is likely to be called "the new bridge" and have people griping that it's not as good/pretty/whatever as the "old" bridge

how many of the other bridges are just fine as is, but could stand to be upgraded for various reasons other than that they are deteriorating?

once you start lying about things, how can we trust anything that you say?

David Lang

Re:propaganda headline

[ScienceofSpock]

bridges that need to be widened to handle additional traffic are not "structurally deficient"

I'd say technically, that is EXACTLY what they are. Their structure is lacking the width to handle current traffic levels, therefore it's structurally deficient. What you probably mean is that a bridge that is labeled as "structurally deficient" doesn't necessarily mean unsafe, but a bridge that needs to be widened to handle traffic is most certainly structurally deficient.

/pedantry

Re:propaganda headline

[ChoGGi]

That road has a sewer mains below.

Surprising

[amicusNYCL]

The most surprising thing about this story for me is that Iowa needs 5,000 bridges.

Re:Surprising

[Harlequin80]

Not really. You probably don't even notice the vast majority of the ones you drive over. Every small water course will be crossed by a small pre-stressed concrete bridge. Installation costs on those are tiny, they last for ages and the engineering component of them is minimal. Generally when people say bridge they imagine the large span ones, where as the huge majority are tiny tiny things.

Construction wise pushing 2 piles of dirt each side of railway line, waiting 12 months for it to settle and harden and then sticking a 6m concrete span across is a very cheap. very easy way of crossing the rail line. It is marginal on cost on a controlled crossing and heaps more efficient and safer.

Re:Surprising

[quonset]

The most surprising thing about this story for me is that Iowa needs 5,000 bridges.

You shouldn't be. I drove through part of it last year (a very small corner of it) and being a relatively flat state (compared to PA), they need bridges to cross the roads, otherwise you'd have intersections all over the place, not to mention any rivers (creeks compared to rivers in the east) and those oddball depressions one comes across.

For example, if you take Exit 10 off of 29 N, you are at a bridge. That bridge is 29 N but under it is Route 2. Imagine if you had an intersection of 29, which is a highway, meeting a smaller, slower road such as Route 2.

Nebraska and South Dakota were the same way. Relatively flat states but lots of bridges to go over the other roads.

Re:Surprising

[psycho12345]

"If Iowa wants to sell you food or if you want to eat?"

There is a reason agriculture is at the bottom of the economic food chain. I can choose to buy my food elsewhere, it will be just more expensive. Iowa being unable to sell its food, will have basically nothing.

This is a common argument against urban america "You urbanites need our food!". The reality is, no they don't, but the rural areas surely need the technology, transportation, trade and manufacturing. The real world examples of this in action is Hong Kong and Singapore, neither of which can produce food on any scale, yet have no issues with feeding their populaces.

There is a reason the US and most of the developed world has steadily urbanized. In more recent history, see the mass migrations from eastern China to the coasts.

Re:Surprising

[mmell]

I grew up in California. I've lived in Iowa, Wisconsin and Nebraska at various points in my life.

At all times, I needed roads and bridges which I could count on to keep me from becoming an organic smear on the inside of a steel Hot Pocket. Whether the product was avocados, oranges, corn or pigs it's nice for those of us who eat to know that the people making our food can get it to us.

I've made this point over and over - it's hard enough getting people to pay the bill to build infrastructure. The stuff is expensive, after all, and doesn't generally produce a profit by itself. ROI isn't obvious. It's vastly harder to get people to pay for maintenance/repairs/improvement when the average Joe can plainly see that it "looks fine to me". Never mind replacing it when the original item passes the lifespan originally set for it by the architects and engineers who originally designed and built the thing - it's always smarter to just replace or reinforce the critical parts, or to inspect it more often.

This was the one and only thing which POTUS said on the campaign trail which I found myself agreeing with - we need to put a lot of time, effort and resources into our infrastructure, starting yesterday. Incidentally, I don't mean building the Great Wall of America - I mean roads, bridges, dams, power plants, power grids, aqueducts, pipelines, flood control, . . .

A bridge construction group announced...

[rmdingler]

In other news, 90% of the time I take my automobile to a mechanic or my body to a physician, it turns out I need some work done.

Re:Dams, too

[Archangel Michael]

I partially blame the Environmental groups involved, because of previous hyperbole used in previous reports. That being said (and being a nearby resident), I can assure you that most of the issue was due to the FAILED Primary Spillway not being maintained. The topover caused by the failed spillway was fully preventable, had the DWR and ACE and the rest done their job the last 7 years.

But, instead, we have more infrastructure projects proceeding even though we can't maintain what we got. After all, we need a High Speed Rail Train between Fresno and Bakersfield ASAP!!!!

Structurally Deficient

[turkeydance]

was on one of my evaluation reports. i think.

Re:Structurally Deficient

[psmoot]

"Structurally Deficient" has legal and engineering meaning...and does not necessarily mean a bridge is unsafe.

Thank you for clarifying. I'm quite certain the average Joe reading the article thinks "structurally deficient" means "dear Lord, you wouldn't catch me driving over that death trap." I don't think the authors, a construction group, has much interest in clarifying that. They want to drum up fear and dollars.

Liquid fuels tax

[tomhath]

FTFA:

The five states with the most deficient bridges are Iowa with 4,968, Pennsylvania with 4,506, Oklahoma with 3,460, Missouri with 3,195 and Nebraska with 2,361....

Finding a new funding stream for road and bridge construction is a priority for state and federal officials because the gas tax that primarily funds the highway trust fund hasn’t kept pace with construction priorities as cars become more efficient.

Efficient cars aren't the problem. The problem is that legislatures can't keep their grubby hands off that money. Pennsylvania is second on the list, yet it has the highest fuel tax rate in the country, How can that be? Because about half the money is diverted away from road and bridge construction to projects like mass transportation and funding the state police.

Re:Liquid fuels tax

[bdcrazy]

As part of the election last november in Illinois. A lockbox provision was approved so that "transportation taxes" must only be spent on "transportation." I have been doing professional engineering services and consulting for IDOT, the Illinois Tollway, O'Hare, UP, CN railways etc. for 17 years, and it STILL took me a while to go through all the legalese on that question. It seems pretty thorough; Alas, I'm not a lawyer and currently waiting for all the legal contortions that will be spent to still spend that money on things that aren't quite related to transportation.

So much for that Trillion or so that Obama Spent.

[Noishkel]

Funny thing too, because I remember how Obama's stimulus plan was supposed to go towards this sort of issues. Although where I lived the money my town got for it was all spent on replacing the fully functional street lamps with new ones that looked nicer and a bike land literally no one has ever used due to being in rural Mississippi.

Re:And after 200,000 people had to flee because of

[tomhath]

Trump has shown he doesn't give a damn about Americans. He withheld federal money to pay for the dam that the state of CA build and maintained.

Seriously? He's been in office less than a month.

Structurally Deficient

[ChrisMaple]

"Structurally Deficient" has legal and engineering meaning (which may vary by state) and does not necessarily mean a bridge is unsafe. Quite often, it means that the bridge must have a sign in front of it stating a maximum gross vehicle weight.

Also, what qualifies as a bridge subject to government attention? Do you have a 20 foot concrete culvert passing under the road? That's a bridge, and the government (correctly) pays attention to it. But it isn't necessarily a big deal.

Re:Dams, too

[Freischutz]

I partially blame the Environmental groups involved, because of previous hyperbole used in previous reports. That being said (and being a nearby resident), I can assure you that most of the issue was due to the FAILED Primary Spillway not being maintained. The topover caused by the failed spillway was fully preventable, had the DWR and ACE and the rest done their job the last 7 years.

But, instead, we have more infrastructure projects proceeding even though we can't maintain what we got. After all, we need a High Speed Rail Train between Fresno and Bakersfield ASAP!!!!

Blame this on the environmentalists all you want but the Obama admin. tried to get infrastructure reform done for 8 years and the GOP blocked it for no purpose other than spite and a Machiavellian effort to further the interests of the GOP and make Obama look bad. If anybody is to blame for this it is Mitch McConnell and his predecessors. http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

2013

[Pretzalzz]

In 2013, 66,749 bridges were considered structurally deficient. This is a 17% decrease in the last 4 years. I think this should count as good news.

Re:Dams, too

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Blame this on the environmentalists all you want but the Obama admin. tried to get infrastructure reform done for 8 years and the GOP blocked it for no purpose other than spite and a Machiavellian effort to further the interests of the GOP and make Obama look bad. If anybody is to blame for this it is Mitch McConnell and his predecessors. http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

Bingo.

Mitch McConnell was instrumental in blocking proposed bills that would have started addressing the aging infrastructure. Not just once, but over and over again.

Re:So much for that Trillion or so that Obama Spen

[bluegutang]

Well, maybe you Mississippi politicians should have chosen to spend their stimulus funds on more useful things.