Equipment World Digital Magazine
Issue link: http://read.dmtmag.com/i/894232
November 2017 | EquipmentWorld.com 28 and report targets by Oct. 1, 2018, in a baseline per- formance period report. Since the terminology is still in transition, and many states still use SD as a term, in our survey we asked for both the number of SD bridges and the number of Good/Fair/Poor condition bridges. In determining the ranking of states, however, starting on page 30, we opted for the incoming Good/Fair/Poor rating. Lowering the number of SD/Poor bridges More than half of the states and areas responding to this year's survey say they expect in the com- ing year to lower their rate of SD bridges – which again, would be termed "Poor" under the new classifi cation system. The District of Columbia is one of them. "Since 2010, we have reduced the number of SD bridges from 23 to fi ve," says Terry Owens, District DOT public information offi cer. "In the next two years, we project all of the bridges currently rated SD will be under construction and design. And the American Society of Civil Engi- neers recently gave the District a B-minus rating for bridges in its infrastructure report card." Oklahoma expects to reduce on-system SD bridges by 80 this year, reports Walt Peters, assistant bridge engineer-maintenance, Oklahoma DOT. "We are on track to have less than 1 percent of our on-system bridges rated SD by 2020," he says. Paul Kulseth, bridge management engineer for the Kansas DOT, sees a steady course as the best path to reducing "Poor" bridges in the state. "We hope to achieve this by keeping our Fair bridges in Fair condition or improving them to Good condition." One deterrent to this plan: having to respond to traffi c-induced needs – such as completing a major city bypass – which may include replacing bridges that are not rated Poor. Kentucky is concentrating on keeping bridges from becoming SD, says David Steel with the Ken- tucky Transportation Cabinet. If instead the state has to use its maintenance budget to repair bridges dam- bridge inventory | continued HOW THE STATES STACK UP TOP 5 STATES (lowest percent Poor Condition bridges) Total bridges Number Poor % Poor 1 Texas* 53,488 653 1.2% 2 Nevada 1,937 28 1.4% 3 Arizona 7,822 117 1.5% 4 Florida 12,312 233 1.9% 5 Utah 2,997 60 2.0% BOTTOM 5 STATES (highest percent Poor Condition bridges) Total bridges Number Poor % Poor 1 Rhode Island* 722 192 26.6% 2 Iowa 24,117 4,796 19.9% 3 Pennsylvania 22,711 4,141 18.2% 4 South Dakota 5,695 993 17.4% 5 West Virginia* 7,217 1,222 16.9% *As reported by 2016 FHWA National Bridge Inventory NATIONAL SNAPSHOT, BRIDGE CONDITIONS GOOD FAIR POOR 8% 45% 47% STATES WITH THE LARGEST NUMBER OF BRIDGES Total bridges* % Poor Condition 1 Texas 54,154 1.2% 2 Ohio 27,304 5.5% 3 Illinois 26,770 8.1% 4 Kansas 24,883 5.7% 5 California 24,868 3.0% STATES WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF GOOD CONDITION BRIDGES % Good Condition 1 California 71.7% 2 Florida 69.3% 3 Utah 67.4% 4 Mississippi 64.7% 5 Minnesota 63.5% * Includes Interstate, state and local bridges *As reported by both the 2017 Equipment World Better Roads Bridge Inventory and the 2016 FHWA National Bridge Inventory