Material Usage and Condition of Existing Bridges in the U.S Based on NBI Data as of December 2003 Prepared by Shri Bhide Program Manager, Bridges December 2004 Cover photos: Top left: IMG47095; Bottom left: IMG48877; Top right: IMG12124; Bottom right: Graph of bridges built, reference: 2003 NBI Data This document is intended SOLELY for use by PORFESSIONAL PERSONNEL who are competent to evaluate the significance and limitations of the information provided herein, and who will accept total responsibility for the application of this information The Portland Cement Association DISCLAIMS any and all RESPONSIBILITY and LIABILITY for the accuracy of the application of the information contained in this publication to the full extent permitted by law TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract The National Bridge Inventory Data Used in this Report Bridge Condition Limitations of Data Overview of Data Presented in Appendix A Observations on Market Share and Bridge Condition References Appendix A: Summary of Market Share and Bridge Condition Data Table A.1 – Number and Percent of Bridges with Main Span Material of RC, PS, Steel and Timber for All Bridges 10 Table A.2 – Deck Area and Percent of Bridges with Main Span Material of RC, PS, Steel and Timber for All Bridges 11 Table A.3 – Number and Deck Area of Bridges with Main Span Material of Concrete (RC and PS) for All Bridges 12 Table A.4 – Structurally Deficient Bridges with Main Span Material of RC, PS, Steel and Timber for All Bridges 13 Table A.4a – Structurally Deficient and Functionally Obsolete Bridges with Main Span Material of RC, PS, Steel and Timber for All Bridges 14 Table A.5 – Number and Percent of Bridges with Main Span Material of RC, PS, Steel and Timber for Bridges – Built from 1990 through 2003 15 Table A.6 – Deck Area and Percent of Bridges with Main Span Material of RC, PS, Steel and Timber for Bridges – Built from 1990 through 2003 16 Table A.7 – Percent of Bridges with Main Span Material of Concrete (RC and PS) – Built from 1990 through 2003 17 Table A.8 – Structurally Deficient Bridges with Main Span Material of RC, PS, Steel and Timber for Bridges – Built from 1990 through 2003 18 Table A.9 – Number and Percent of Bridges with Main Span Material of RC, PS, Steel and Timber by System and Year Built – All States + DC and PR 19 Table A.10 – Number and Percent of Bridges with Main Span Material of RC, PS, Steel and Timber by System and Span Length – All States + DC and PR 20 Table A.11 – Deck Area and Percent of Bridges with Main Span Material of RC, PS, Steel and Timber by System and Year Built – All States + DC and PR 21 Table A.12 – Deck Area and Percent of Bridges with Main Span Material of RC, PS, Steel and Timber by System and Span Length – All States + DC and PR 22 Table A.13 – Percent of Structurally Deficient Bridges with Main Span Material of RC, PS, Steel and Timber by System and Year Built – All States + DC and PR 23 Table A.14 – Percent of Structurally Deficient Bridges with Main Span Material of RC, PS, Steel and Timber by System and Span Length – All States + DC and PR 24 Figure A.1 – Bridges Built 25 Figure A.2 – Structurally Deficient Built 25 i Material Usage and Condition of Existing Bridges in the U.S MATERIAL USAGE AND CONDITION OF EXISTING BRIDGES IN THE U.S ABSTRACT Data on the market share of the four major bridge construction materials used in the US (reinforced concrete, prestressed concrete, structural steel, and timber) are summarized in this report All bridges carrying public roadways are considered Data are extracted from the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) as of December 2003 The NBI is maintained by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Tables and figures present information on both the number and deck area of existing bridges To focus on current trends, data are also presented for bridges built during 19992003 The market share and performance (structural deficiency) of bridge materials are given by year of construction This report updates data published in a similar document in September 20011 The National Bridge Inventory Following the tragic collapse of the Sliver Bridge in December 1967, Congress passed legislation that required each state to inspect and maintain an inventory of all bridges on the Federal-aid system Inspection standards were issued in 1971 to satisfy this mandate of Congress Most states completed their inventory of bridges on the Federal-aid system by the end of 1973 In 1978, Congress passed the Surface Transportation Assistance Act which expanded the law to require all highway bridges on public highways to be added to the inventory Biennial inspections of all bridges were also required to ensure the safety of the traveling public The states are responsible for assuring that owners of all bridges on public roads perform the required inspections Each state then collects the inspection reports for all bridges in the state and submits them annually to the FHWA, where they are entered into the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) database The NBI must be updated annually as existing bridges are reinspected, new bridges are added, and old bridges are rehabilitated, replaced or abandoned The FHWA uses the NBI to identify bridges that are eligible for rehabilitation or replacement under federal programs The NBI is also used as the basis for a biennial report on the condition of the nation’s bridges The Secretary of Transportation is required by law to submit this report to Congress2 The format for the NBI data is defined in the “Recording and Coding Guide” published by FHWA3 The current guide contains 116 data fields, some of which contain sub-fields These fields contain a wide range of data about each bridge, including: • Location and highway designation • Year built and year reconstructed, if applicable • Ownership and maintenance responsibility • Structure geometry: structure length, main span length, number of main and approach spans, deck width, skew • Material and structure type for main span and approach spans, if any • Condition and appraisal ratings of structure • Traffic data Material Usage and Condition of Existing Bridges in the U.S The coding guide assists bridge inspectors in preparing data for identification items, such as bride location, and for rating items, such as substructure and superstructure condition The guide is intended to provide greater uniformity in reporting data Data Used in this Report The NBI is a dynamic database It is regularly updated to reflect the current status of the bridge inventory Therefore, any set of data taken from the NBI is a “snapshot” of existing bridges in the US at one point in time This market share report is based on data extracted from the inventory as of December 2003 On that date, the NBI contained information for 699,898 structures These structures included highway bridges (including culverts), railway bridges, tunnels, and other transportation structures carrying or passing over a public highway The NBI includes data for structures located in all states plus Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico The format of this report parallels that of Reference The main purpose for creating and maintaining the NBI is to monitor the condition of bridges carrying public highways Therefore, for funding and reporting purposes, the FHWA considers only structures meeting the following criteria: • The structure must support a roadway with vehicular traffic • The total structure length must be equal to or greater than 20 ft Based on the above criteria, there are 594,888 structures in the inventory as of December 2003 Of the structures considered in this report, 474,515 are identified as bridges, and 120,373 as culverts Culverts have been excluded from data considered for this report because they are typically buried structures Therefore, the database of structures used for this report contains a total of 474,515 structures This subset of the total NBI database, referred to as the report database in the following, is used to generate all tables and figures contained in this report For this report, data for all structures in the report database are retained, even when the structure has invalid or missing data in some data fields The number of structures with invalid or missing data in any given field is very small For ease of data extraction, invalid data fields were given null values While importing data for the total of 699,898 structures, there were 1129 errors associated with input format for the data fields Some structures had multiple invalid data fields, making the number of structures with invalid data fields smaller than 0.16% The missing and/or invalid data fields may result in minor discrepancies between total numbers listed in different portions of the tables Data extracted from the NBI are often reported in terms of the number of bridges Such an approach has limitations because it does not distinguish between different size bridges A bridge may have a single or multiple spans To address this limitation, data in this report are presented by the number of bridges and by the bridge deck area (i.e., product of structure length and width of bridge deck) Bridge deck area is more representative of the volume of construction, since large projects with greater deck area will receive more weight in the comparisons Bridge Condition Data contained in the NBI can be used to determine whether a bridge is deficient in structural condition or function The FHWA also requires that the time since construction (or reconstruction, if applicable) must be 10 years or more for a bridge to be classified as structurally or functionally deficient This additional age requirement is ignored when assessing deficiency in this report Material Usage and Condition of Existing Bridges in the U.S The structural condition of bridges is evaluated based on five major items Each item is rated on a scale of to 9, from bridge closed to excellent condition, respectively According to FHWA, a bridge is classified as structurally deficient if it meets any one of the following criteria: • A condition rating of or less for: – deck (Item 58) – superstructure (Item 59) – substructure (Item 60) • An appraisal rating of or less for: – structural evaluation (Item 67) – water-way adequacy (Item 71) The FHWA coding guide3 describes a condition rating of as “POOR CONDITION – advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling or scour.” An appraisal rating of is noted as a “Basically intolerable requiring high priority of replacement.” A structurally deficient bridge is restricted to light vehicular traffic, requires immediate rehabilitation to remain open, or is closed Of the 474,515 structures considered in this report, 79,519 or 16.8% are classified as structurally deficient A bridge may also be classified as functionally obsolete This classification indicates that the deck geometry, clearances, load carrying capacity (comparison of the original design load to the current state legal load), or approach roadway alignment not satisfy the current minimum criteria for the system of which it is a part A bridge is excluded from the functionally obsolete category if it is classified as structurally deficient Of the 474,515 structures considered in this report, 81,953 or 17.3% are classified as functionally obsolete A total of 161,472 structures, or 34.0%, are classified as either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete Note that culverts are excluded in this analysis The FHWA uses data in the NBI to compute a sufficiency rating for each bridge This rating is based on structural adequacy and safety, serviceability and functional obsolescence, and essentiality for public use A bridge may be eligible to receive federal funding for rehabilitation or replacement if it has a low sufficiency rating, is structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, and meets the minimum age requirement stated above Structural deficiency provides an indication of bridge condition Therefore, it can be used to compare the relative durability and long-term performance of different US bridge materials However, for the comparisons to be meaningful, bridges must be of the same age In this report, data related to structural deficiency are based on the number of existing bridges Deck area is not used when reporting structural deficiency Structural deficiency does not necessarily reflect the overall condition of a bridge, but may only reflect the condition of a single element It would be misleading to represent the entire bridge area as deficient if only a single element or span of the structure is the source of the deficiency The condition of bridges is not directly related to market share It is included as a significant part of this bridge market share report for several reasons The first reason is that bridge condition can be used as a general indication of the potential size of the bridge replacement market The second reason is that the NBI data reveal that concrete bridges, both reinforced and prestressed, have demonstrated very good long-term performance Further, this performance is significantly better than that of bridges built using other materials (see References through 9) Material Usage and Condition of Existing Bridges in the U.S Limitations of Data It is important to note that the data presented in this report represent only bridges existing in the inventory as of December 2003 The NBI does not provide information on every bridge built in a given year, but only on those bridges that are still in service If a bridge is demolished or totally replaced, it is deleted from the inventory All new bridges must be inspected and added to the NBI Data on all bridges built in 2001 and 2002 may not have been entered into the 2003 NBI The delay may be due to a lag between inspection and entry of data into the NBI Therefore, data on bridges built during 2001 and 2002 may be incomplete The incomplete sample is reported because it is assumed to be representative of the total population built during those years In this report, each bridge is categorized according to the FHWA definition, i.e by the material of the main span superstructure In structures incorporating approach spans, the main span superstructure material may differ from the approach span superstructure material In this case, the contribution of the bridge to the market share is not accurate, since the material of the approach span is neglected However, this situation occurs for less than 2.9% of all bridges It is not possible to eliminate this minor source of error because the length of main and approach spans is not given in the NBI Data reported on the basis of deck area are more strongly influenced by this situation than data reported on the basis of number of bridges built The NBI lists the “Year Built” for each structure Where applicable, the “Year Reconstructed” is also given If the superstructure of a bridge is replaced, but the substructure is reused, “Year Built” remains the year of original substructure construction “Year Reconstructed” would then indicate the year the superstructure was replaced Such a situation can lead to apparent inaccuracies in the analysis of NBI data For example, prestressed concrete bridges were first built in the US in 1950 However, some bridges with prestressed concrete superstructures have a “Year Built” prior to 1950 These bridges have probably been “reconstructed” using prestressed concrete superstructures In this report, all data are presented using “Year Built” “Year Reconstructed” is ignored Data contained in the NBI not identify if the superstructure has been replaced during reconstruction It is expected that any error introduced by reconstructed superstructures is minor Prior to introduction of legislation requiring the inventory and inspection of all bridges on public highways, detailed records of construction were not always maintained Therefore, the year of reconstruction is not known for many older bridges When the inspection of all federal-aid bridges was first mandated in 1968, and the requirement was extended to all bridges in 1978, inspectors were required to estimate the year of construction for a bridge if the actual year was unknown It appears that these estimates were rounded to five- or ten-year increments This is particularly evident for the year 1900, for which the NBI records that 6,678 bridges were built This number rivals the number of bridges built during the peak years of interstate construction These estimated construction dates only affect bridges built prior to 1978 and have a minor impact on the data reported, since this report focuses on more recent trends Overview of Data Presented in Appendix A Tables A.1 through A.8 present a broad overview of market share and bridge condition (structural deficiency) information for each state Data for Washington DC and Puerto Rico are also reported Data based on the number and deck area of bridges are presented for all existing bridges and for those built during the 1990-2003 period Detailed data are given for the four most prevalent main span superstructure materials: reinforced concrete, prestressed concrete, steel, and timber Data for reinforced and prestressed concrete bridges are also combined to reflect the total market share for Material Usage and Condition of Existing Bridges in the U.S concrete Data on structurally deficient bridges are provided as an indication of the overall condition of bridges in each state This information can be used to assess the potential bridge replacement activity in a state These numbers should not be used to compare performance of bridges constructed using different materials because bridges of different ages are included in the data Data presented in Tables A.9 through A.14 and Figures A.1 & A.2 could be used to compare performance of bridges of similar ages, built of different materials The figures illustrate the changing market share of main span superstructure materials for existing bridges built in the indicated five- and ten-year periods since 1950 Data are presented in tables for the number, deck area and structural deficiency of existing bridges by main span superstructure material for the total inventory and for various highway systems: City Street, County Highway, Federal Lands Road, Interstate Highway, Other Road, State Highway, State Lands Road, and U.S Numbered Highway These data are further separated into ranges for year built and maximum span length The data on structurally deficient bridges may be used to evaluate the relative performance of bridges constructed using different superstructure materials that were built during the same period of time Observations on Market Share and Bridge Condition Many observations can be made from the information presented in this report However, observations made here will be limited because the report is intended to present data rather than interpret the data Trends also vary widely between states, making it difficult to make general observations References through provide detailed evaluations of NBI data, including market share and performance comparisons Although these references are based on data from previous versions of the NBI, the same trends hold true for data reported herein The most prominent observation is that reinforced and prestressed concrete make up an increasingly larger share of the bridge market This is evident from the Figure A.1 The combined market share for reinforced and prestressed concrete bridges in the US is close to 70 % of bridges built in recent years for both number and deck area of bridges This is a significant increase from the period 1950-1959 where the market share was approximately 43% based on number of bridges and 35% based on deck area of bridges The market share in each state may vary widely from the national trends To illustrate the differences in current market conditions between states, the two states at the extremes of market share are discussed here based on data from Table A.7 In Maryland, only 22.5% of existing bridges built recently (1990-2003) were constructed using reinforced and/or prestressed concrete superstructures In Hawaii, during the same period, the share is 100% In Maryland, only 11.3% of the bridge deck area was supported on reinforced and/or prestressed concrete superstructures In Hawaii, the corresponding percentage was 100% Condition and Material usage by various highway systems are shown in Tables A.9 through A.14 Interstate and State Highways have the largest share of the total deck area of bridges (28% and 26%, respectively) While County Highways have the largest number (45%) and the most structurally deficient bridges (22%), they account for only 17% of the total deck area County and State Highways show high (75% and 70%, respectively) usage of concrete bridge deck area in recent years, up from about 36% and 39% respectively, in the 50s Interstate Highways also demonstrate similar increase in the concrete bridge deck area; but the share of concrete bridge deck area is only 58% Data for all structurally deficient bridges in the US are listed in Tables A.13 and A.14 These data indicate that, for almost each road or highway system, reinforced and prestressed concrete bridges have a significantly lower rate of structural deficiency than steel or timber bridges within each range Material Usage and Condition of Existing Bridges in the U.S of years shown In most cases, timber bridges have the highest rate of structural deficiency by a wide margin Data for maximum span length for all bridges in the US (Table A.10) indicate that only 2.5% of all bridges have main spans of 150 ft or longer It can also be seen that steel is the more prevalent superstructure material for spans in excess of 150 feet, although the use of concrete for long span structures has been growing in recent years Material Usage and Condition of Existing Bridges in the U.S REFERENCES “Material Usage and Condition of Existing Bridges in the U.S.,” Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois, SR342, September 2001 “2002 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges and Transit: Conditions and Performance, Report to Congress,” Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, March 2003 “Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges,” Bridge Management Branch, Office of Bridge Technology, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, December 1995 Dunker, K.F and Rabbat, B.G., “Assessing Infrastructure Deficiencies: The Case of Highway Bridges,” Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Vol 1, No 2, June 1995, pp 100-119 Dunker, K.F and Rabbat, B.G., “Characteristics of the US Highway Bridge Population,” Computing in Civil Engineering, Proceedings of the First Congress, ASCE, Washington, DC, June 20-22, 1994, pp 1006-1013 Dunker, K.F and Rabbat, B.G., “Why America’s Bridges Are Crumbling,” Scientific American, March 1993, pp 66-72 Dunker, K.F and Rabbat, B.G., “Performance of Prestressed Concrete Highway Bridges in the United States – The First 40 Years,” Journal of the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Vol 37, No 3, May-June 1992, pp 48-64 Also, Discussions and Closure in Vol 38, No 2, March-April 1993, pp 94-97 Dunker, K.F and Rabbat, B.G., “Performance of Highway Bridges,” Concrete International, Vol 12, No 8, August 1990, pp 40-43 Also Discussion and Closure in Vol 13, No 4, April 1991, p 10 Dunker, K.F and Rabbat, B.G., “Highway Bridge Type and Performance Patterns,” Journal of the Performance of Constructed Facilities, Vol 4, No 3, August 1990, pp 161-173 Material Usage and Condition of Existing Bridges in the U.S Table A.3 – Number and Deck Area of Bridges with Main Span Material of Concrete (RC and PS) for All Bridges Number of Existing Bridges Sorted by State Sorted by Percentage State % State % AL 57.5% MD 24.4% AK 30.9% NE 26.2% 81.5% NY 27.3% AZ 48.7% VT 29.0% AR CA 83.4% NH 30.0% CO 48.9% MA 30.8% CT 35.4% AK 30.9% DE 40.7% ME 32.4% 35.8% NJ 33.3% DC 82.4% NC 34.2% FL 54.7% CT 35.4% GA 88.4% MO 35.5% HI ID 69.7% DC 35.8% IL 66.6% VA 36.8% IN 66.7% OK 38.3% IA 42.6% RI 39.0% KS 47.1% DE 40.7% KY 75.0% IA 42.6% LA 63.9% MN 43.4% ME 32.4% WY 45.3% MD 24.4% MI 46.0% MA 30.8% MT 46.2% MI 46.0% KS 47.1% MN 43.4% ND 47.3% MS 71.5% WV 47.5% MO 35.5% OH 47.9% MT 46.2% AR 48.7% NE 26.2% CO 48.9% NV 76.3% SD 53.8% NH 30.0% GA 54.7% NJ 33.3% AL 57.5% NM 66.7% PA 60.2% NY 27.3% WI 61.5% NC 34.2% UT 63.4% ND 47.3% LA 63.9% OH 47.9% IL 66.6% OK 38.3% NM 66.7% OR 74.3% IN 66.7% 69.5% TX 60.2% PA PR 81.5% ID 69.7% RI 39.0% TN 71.2% SC 81.1% MS 71.5% SD 53.8% OR 74.3% TN 71.2% KY 75.0% TX 69.5% NV 76.3% UT 63.4% WA 79.1% VT 29.0% SC 81.1% 81.5% PR 36.8% VA WA 79.1% AZ 81.5% 47.5% FL 82.4% WV WI 61.5% CA 83.4% WY 45.3% HI 88.4% Deck Area of Existing Bridges Sorted by State Sorted by Percentage State % State % AL 51.5% VT 9.8% AK 44.1% MD 10.2% AZ 83.4% NH 10.6% AR 27.9% MA 14.3% CA 84.1% ME 14.5% CO 60.2% NY 14.7% CT 15.9% CT 15.9% DE 20.2% NJ 16.9% DC 23.4% WV 20.0% FL 74.3% DE 20.2% GA 59.0% DC 23.4% HI 96.3% RI 25.0% ID 70.5% OH 25.6% IL 35.4% AR 27.9% IN 50.5% VA 31.7% IA 51.2% MI 33.5% KS 52.9% WY 33.9% KY 61.0% IL 35.4% LA 52.9% MO 35.8% ME 14.5% NE 38.5% MD 10.2% NC 39.8% MA 14.3% PA 43.3% MI 33.5% AK 44.1% MN 48.8% MN 48.8% MS 70.0% ND 49.1% MO 35.8% UT 49.3% MT 53.7% IN 50.5% NE 38.5% IA 51.2% NV 76.2% OK 51.3% NH 10.6% AL 51.5% NJ 16.9% SD 51.7% NM 74.1% WI 52.5% NY 14.7% LA 52.9% NC 39.8% KS 52.9% ND 49.1% MT 53.7% OH 25.6% SC 57.2% OK 51.3% GA 59.0% OR 67.9% CO 60.2% PA 43.3% KY 61.0% PR 90.9% TN 64.9% RI 25.0% OR 67.9% SC 57.2% TX 68.8% SD 51.7% MS 70.0% TN 64.9% ID 70.5% TX 68.8% NM 74.1% UT 49.3% FL 74.3% VT 9.8% WA 75.7% NV 76.2% 31.7% VA WA 75.7% AZ 83.4% WV 20.0% CA 84.1% WI 52.5% PR 90.9% WY 33.9% HI 96.3% Note: Percentages are computed from 2003NBI data by adding percentages for reinforced (RC) and prestress (PS) concrete from Tables A.1 and A.2 RC = Reinforced Concrete, PS = Prestressed Concrete 12 Material Usage and Condition of Existing Bridges in the U.S Table A.4 – Structurally Deficient Bridges with Main Span Material of RC, PS, Steel and Timber for All Bridges Total State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District Of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total: RC PS Steel # 2,324 145 159 1,427 2,991 401 307 33 18 301 1,232 155 317 2,353 2,083 5,281 3,190 1,105 2,200 325 386 589 1,923 1,146 3,891 5,162 604 2,606 58 710 824 370 2,144 2,313 834 3,057 8,110 566 5,356 269 191 1,283 993 1,608 2,711 260 498 1,075 477 1,065 1,663 430 % 23.0% 12.9% 5.0% 14.5% 14.4% 6.1% 8.6% 5.1% 7.3% 3.2% 13.5% 16.1% 8.0% 10.9% 12.4% 24.4% 17.4% 10.3% 19.8% 16.0% 9.9% 12.5% 20.5% 13.5% 28.2% 26.9% 12.3% 20.6% 6.1% 30.5% 13.8% 17.0% 13.7% 17.8% 22.5% 11.6% 48.6% 8.2% 26.0% 14.8% 26.5% 15.9% 20.2% 13.9% 8.7% 11.3% 19.8% 10.6% 6.3% 16.7% 14.1% 16.4% # 598 71 257 1,716 88 63 95 360 88 59 645 700 575 747 276 424 66 90 125 250 184 1,131 916 26 123 16 42 115 64 289 216 45 757 1,157 251 1,948 115 46 769 188 642 487 61 112 274 151 356 480 107 % 13.1% 13.6% 5.5% 5.5% 13.9% 6.9% 12.2% 3.7% 4.2% 4.7% 10.8% 15.2% 5.1% 12.4% 14.1% 11.0% 9.9% 8.4% 7.3% 10.7% 12.8% 18.1% 22.2% 17.5% 18.7% 22.3% 4.7% 6.0% 3.8% 7.3% 15.9% 11.9% 13.9% 19.3% 7.7% 11.7% 34.3% 11.8% 35.5% 15.8% 28.0% 16.0% 11.1% 16.0% 4.3% 11.8% 17.6% 10.5% 4.8% 29.7% 11.9% 11.1% # 44 16 14 391 29 36 54 18 14 53 257 302 208 31 117 87 23 21 176 64 27 23 30 14 41 97 99 285 25 98 103 68 634 55 19 99 53 98 75 55 27 43 45 126 32 % 3.6% 4.9% 1.1% 5.3% 7.9% 1.5% 4.8% 2.0% 11.8% 1.0% 1.1% 5.2% 3.4% 2.8% 4.8% 5.2% 2.8% 2.5% 6.6% 2.5% 9.2% 2.8% 5.5% 2.4% 0.7% 0.8% 1.7% 1.1% 2.3% 4.0% 3.2% 10.6% 4.5% 8.6% 2.1% 1.6% 3.4% 2.3% 9.2% 7.3% 16.2% 5.7% 5.6% 2.3% 0.7% 5.8% 3.2% 2.4% 1.5% 2.5% 3.9% 14.6% # 930 85 62 691 725 211 202 25 13 60 683 20 149 1,406 1,023 3,297 1,763 669 266 246 230 422 1,442 693 1,023 4,078 334 1,813 31 279 611 138 1,718 1,459 546 2,147 5,517 121 2,682 99 122 300 624 629 1,537 112 348 743 122 659 987 239 % 31.4% 15.9% 11.2% 16.0% 27.9% 7.5% 9.1% 7.1% 8.3% 5.5% 17.9% 32.3% 21.0% 19.9% 21.4% 35.6% 22.0% 26.3% 23.0% 18.5% 8.5% 14.0% 31.7% 22.8% 47.3% 33.6% 29.0% 23.9% 16.1% 19.1% 16.8% 29.4% 16.0% 19.5% 39.7% 16.0% 63.5% 11.8% 35.7% 29.7% 30.1% 21.4% 33.4% 21.9% 20.4% 15.4% 20.7% 11.7% 14.3% 20.3% 25.1% 20.0% 79,519 16.8% 18,371 13.1% 4,254 3.5% 44,331 24.5% Timber # % 748 57.5% 41 17.0% 12 33.3% 472 67.8% 159 20.2% 73 13.8% 13.3% 4.5% 0.0% 92 16.5% 171 57.8% 33 80.5% 56 11.6% 45 36.0% 58 8.1% 1,201 38.0% 640 43.0% 43 35.2% 1,423 52.0% 12 37.5% 43 23.1% 21 27.6% 55 10.9% 205 11.8% 1,710 96.4% 145 63.3% 214 14.3% 656 37.8% 13.8% 63 46.0% 57 22.1% 71 30.3% 38 8.7% 353 32.8% 218 37.7% 55 43.0% 1,333 83.9% 126 16.8% 92 38.7% 0.0% 25.0% 115 92.0% 128 33.3% 239 54.1% 608 35.1% 32 30.5% 35 37.6% 31 39.7% 161 22.1% 5.5% 70 11.8% 52 22.2% 12,225 Note: Percentages are computed from 2003 NBI data using the ratio of number of structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges listed above to number of bridges built, listed in Table A.1 RC = Reinforced Concrete, PS = Prestressed Concrete 13 39.2% Material Usage and Condition of Existing Bridges in the U.S Table A.4a – Structurally Deficient and Functionally Obsolete Bridges with Main Span Material of RC, PS, Steel and Timber for All Bridges Total State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total: RC PS Steel # 4,402 382 722 3,586 6,387 1,386 1,355 132 2,235 3,038 499 723 4,405 4,304 7,130 5,756 3,679 4,182 840 1,470 2,739 3,344 1,663 5,215 8,510 1,121 4,050 229 1,719 2,440 707 7,039 5,433 1,067 7,838 9,376 1,806 9,919 443 2,053 1,463 3,809 9,945 520 995 3,460 2,023 2,699 2,575 659 % 43.6% 34.0% 22.5% 36.5% 30.8% 21.1% 37.9% 20.6% 24.0% 33.4% 52.0% 18.3% 20.4% 25.6% 32.9% 31.3% 34.2% 37.6% 41.3% 37.6% 58.1% 35.7% 19.6% 37.8% 44.3% 22.8% 32.1% 24.1% 73.8% 40.8% 32.5% 45.0% 41.8% 28.8% 29.9% 56.1% 26.1% 48.2% 61.4% 25.4% 29.8% 32.9% 32.0% 22.6% 39.5% 34.0% 26.6% 42.4% 21.8% 25.2% # 1,707 302 1,181 3,719 357 257 21 547 947 348 187 1,130 1,297 827 1,582 1,378 1,373 218 329 379 499 306 1,721 1,908 130 210 111 187 282 137 1,099 671 59 1,640 1,477 779 3,101 87 1,184 277 1,683 2,896 130 229 951 932 772 749 219 % 37.3% 22.7% 23.6% 25.4% 30.1% 27.8% 49.9% 19.3% 26.9% 28.3% 60.1% 16.0% 21.8% 26.1% 15.9% 20.9% 41.9% 23.8% 35.2% 46.9% 54.8% 44.4% 29.1% 28.5% 46.5% 23.7% 10.2% 26.5% 32.7% 38.9% 25.6% 52.8% 60.0% 10.1% 25.4% 43.7% 36.5% 56.4% 53.0% 24.7% 16.4% 41.9% 25.9% 25.0% 36.0% 36.3% 29.8% 64.3% 18.6% 22.7% # 117 51 194 26 979 268 206 10 1,042 118 66 192 566 776 431 89 894 296 64 310 500 155 316 197 169 30 55 32 303 206 465 562 39 532 277 346 1,756 65 249 78 451 2,205 136 14 212 412 484 316 62 % 9.5% 15.6% 14.6% 19.7% 19.8% 13.9% 27.4% 6.6% 18.4% 7.2% 24.4% 12.1% 6.1% 12.4% 10.7% 8.2% 18.7% 22.4% 12.5% 25.6% 40.7% 15.7% 5.9% 8.2% 7.2% 9.8% 2.4% 17.9% 25.4% 23.9% 22.6% 21.2% 16.9% 3.3% 8.7% 9.2% 11.5% 25.5% 55.6% 14.3% 8.2% 10.7% 21.2% 14.5% 14.7% 18.8% 14.3% 26.5% 9.8% 28.3% # 1,527 220 208 1,797 1,349 587 836 95 377 1,776 40 253 2,629 2,057 4,345 3,028 1,340 667 593 979 1,879 2,258 952 1,442 6,222 505 2,827 54 601 1,692 226 5,238 3,607 669 5,493 6,189 416 4,548 264 503 858 1,380 3,776 211 672 2,236 406 1,391 1,412 302 % 51.6% 41.3% 37.7% 41.6% 52.0% 20.8% 37.8% 26.8% 34.8% 46.5% 64.5% 35.7% 37.3% 43.0% 46.9% 37.7% 52.6% 57.5% 44.6% 36.1% 62.3% 49.6% 31.3% 66.6% 51.3% 43.8% 37.3% 28.0% 41.2% 46.6% 48.2% 48.9% 48.3% 48.6% 40.9% 71.3% 40.4% 60.6% 65.2% 35.9% 45.9% 48.1% 50.0% 28.9% 39.9% 35.3% 47.5% 42.9% 35.9% 25.3% 161,472 34.0% 42,517 30.3% 17,324 14.5% 82,932 45.8% Timber # % 1,041 80.1% 106 44.0% 18 50.0% 569 81.8% 332 42.1% 171 32.4% 21 46.7% 18.2% 268 48.2% 193 65.2% 39 95.1% 90 18.6% 71 56.8% 116 16.2% 1,510 47.8% 994 66.8% 61 50.0% 1,845 67.5% 19 59.4% 62 33.3% 64 84.2% 84 16.6% 237 13.7% 1,734 97.8% 182 79.5% 317 21.2% 983 56.6% 24.1% 87 63.5% 103 39.9% 119 50.9% 101 23.0% 593 55.1% 300 51.8% 89 69.5% 1,414 89.0% 265 35.3% 156 65.5% 13 81.2% 117 93.6% 244 63.5% 285 64.5% 1,006 58.0% 42 40.0% 75 80.6% 51 65.4% 267 36.7% 45 49.5% 89 15.0% 76 32.5% 16,675 53.4% Note: Table does not include District of Columbia and Puerto Rico Also, the functionally obsolete bridges from these two states are not included in the total number of functionally obsolete bridges reported on Page Table A.4 and Page will be updated later Percentages are computed from 2003 NBI data using the ratio of number of structurally deficient bridge listed to number of bridges built, listed in Table A.1 RC = Reinforced Concrete, PS = Prestressed Concrete 14 Material Usage and Condition of Existing Bridges in the U.S Table A.5 – Number and Percent of Bridges with Main Span Material of RC, PS, Steel and Timber for Bridges – Built from 1990 through 2003 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District Of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total: Total # 1,524 256 662 2,055 2,034 1,564 323 159 1,950 1,366 29 473 3,927 2,946 2,580 2,431 2,266 1,594 181 613 285 1,112 1,272 3,538 4,687 410 1,961 257 226 593 265 2,409 1,936 318 4,746 3,062 745 1,946 399 52 1,411 459 1,837 5,795 433 221 1,412 940 1,562 2,695 252 # 761 94 796 684 140 19 15 454 363 180 507 665 784 1,033 38 1,065 23 46 14 47 310 1,530 558 42 548 41 36 33 44 246 29 1,034 240 54 70 58 17 594 131 172 715 73 74 293 176 33 1,396 36 RC % 49.9% 0.0% 14.2% 38.7% 33.6% 9.0% 5.9% 9.4% 50.0% 23.3% 26.6% 20.7% 38.1% 12.9% 22.6% 30.4% 42.5% 1.7% 66.8% 12.7% 7.5% 4.9% 4.2% 24.4% 43.2% 11.9% 10.2% 27.9% 16.0% 15.9% 5.6% 16.6% 10.2% 1.5% 2.8% 21.8% 7.8% 7.2% 3.6% 14.5% 32.7% 42.1% 28.5% 9.4% 12.3% 16.9% 33.5% 20.8% 18.7% 2.1% 51.8% 14.3% # 498 90 548 57 1,282 763 146 76 1,042 726 23 202 2,861 1,505 1,015 313 1,956 221 24 92 165 889 750 1,374 1,576 264 509 169 42 297 180 918 1,348 280 2,297 1,408 613 1,404 316 16 570 259 1,361 3,268 206 27 275 655 1,023 1,060 31 PS % 32.7% 35.2% 82.8% 2.8% 63.0% 48.8% 45.2% 47.8% 0.0% 53.4% 53.1% 79.3% 42.7% 72.9% 51.1% 39.3% 12.9% 86.3% 13.9% 13.3% 15.0% 57.9% 79.9% 59.0% 38.8% 33.6% 64.4% 26.0% 65.8% 18.6% 50.1% 67.9% 38.1% 69.6% 88.1% 48.4% 46.0% 82.3% 72.1% 79.2% 30.8% 40.4% 56.4% 74.1% 56.4% 47.6% 12.2% 19.5% 69.7% 65.5% 39.3% 12.3% 76,171 16,327 21.4% 36,990 48.6% Steel # % 145 9.5% 91 35.5% 15 2.3% 1,112 54.1% 56 2.8% 625 40.0% 146 45.2% 64 40.3% 50.0% 291 14.9% 179 13.1% 0.0% 69 14.6% 522 13.3% 487 16.5% 550 21.3% 1,051 43.2% 223 9.8% 82 5.1% 121 66.9% 408 66.6% 97 34.0% 85 7.6% 123 9.7% 331 9.4% 2,526 53.9% 72 17.6% 872 44.5% 44 17.1% 134 59.3% 213 35.9% 38 14.3% 1,109 46.0% 551 28.5% 23 7.2% 1,396 29.4% 1,374 44.9% 44 5.9% 443 22.8% 25 6.3% 17 32.7% 213 15.1% 61 13.3% 262 14.3% 1,416 24.4% 150 34.6% 106 48.0% 821 58.1% 94 10.0% 436 27.9% 128 4.7% 173 68.7% 19,615 25.8% Timber # % 117 7.7% 75 29.3% 0.3% 90 4.4% 10 0.5% 35 2.2% 12 3.7% 2.5% 0.0% 163 8.4% 98 7.2% 0.0% 22 4.7% 25 0.6% 278 9.4% 231 9.0% 28 1.2% 43 1.9% 142 8.9% 10 5.5% 67 10.9% 3.2% 91 8.2% 89 7.0% 303 8.6% 27 0.6% 32 7.8% 29 1.5% 1.2% 14 6.2% 48 8.1% 1.1% 128 5.3% 0.4% 1.9% 17 0.4% 38 1.2% 34 4.6% 26 1.3% 0.0% 3.8% 34 2.4% 1.7% 42 2.3% 279 4.8% 0.9% 14 6.3% 18 1.3% 12 1.3% 70 4.5% 101 3.7% 11 4.4% 2,952 3.9% Note: Percentages are computed from 2003NBI data using the ratio of number of bridges built from each material to number of bridges in each state RC = Reinforced Concrete, PS = Prestressed Concrete 15 Material Usage and Condition of Existing Bridges in the U.S Table A.6 – Deck Area and Percent of Bridges with Main Span Material of RC, PS, Steel and Timber for Bridges – Built from 1990 through 2003 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District Of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total: Total SF (x 10^6) 18.4 1.3 15.9 14.2 45.8 13.1 3.5 1.7 0.0 37.3 22.0 0.4 3.0 16.6 12.0 13.3 15.0 9.6 26.7 1.8 7.0 1.9 7.2 11.7 21.5 27.0 1.9 9.2 4.1 1.7 6.8 3.0 13.8 21.0 1.8 19.5 15.5 5.0 13.5 9.2 1.0 16.1 2.5 18.9 90.6 5.7 0.6 21.5 8.6 7.3 13.0 1.6 661.3 Reinf Concrete SF % (x 10^6) 3.8 20.9% 0.0 0.0% 1.0 6.0% 2.4 16.8% 7.1 15.6% 0.8 5.9% 0.1 1.9% 0.0 1.9% 0.0 79.4% 3.8 10.1% 3.5 15.9% 0.2 55.9% 0.4 13.6% 1.6 9.6% 2.3 19.4% 2.7 20.5% 5.1 34.1% 0.1 0.7% 4.8 18.0% 0.1 3.0% 0.3 4.8% 0.0 0.8% 0.4 5.8% 1.5 12.8% 4.1 18.9% 1.2 4.5% 0.1 6.2% 1.7 18.7% 0.2 4.3% 0.1 5.4% 0.2 3.4% 0.3 9.5% 0.8 5.8% 0.2 0.8% 0.0 1.2% 2.3 11.9% 1.1 7.4% 0.7 13.7% 0.1 0.5% 0.4 4.7% 0.1 7.2% 4.5 28.0% 0.7 26.4% 0.5 2.5% 4.8% 4.4 0.2 3.0% 0.1 11.4% 1.6 7.6% 0.9 10.1% 0.1 1.6% 3.0 23.2% 0.1 6.9% 71.7 P/S Concrete SF % (x 10^6) 10.7 58.3% 0.8 62.6% 14.5 91.3% 1.1 8.0% 37.9 82.8% 8.5 64.5% 0.9 26.6% 1.0 60.3% 0.0 0.0% 26.0 69.8% 17.1 77.6% 0.2 44.1% 2.0 66.8% 7.8 46.8% 6.1 51.1% 7.5 56.3% 4.1 27.0% 8.3 85.7% 14.5 54.2% 0.4 21.9% 0.5 6.5% 0.7 38.4% 5.0 69.7% 7.1 60.7% 14.2 66.0% 11.6 42.8% 1.2 64.7% 3.7 39.9% 3.2 80.0% 0.1 6.6% 2.8 40.7% 2.3 78.8% 3.4 24.7% 12.8 60.8% 1.4 81.7% 7.1 36.2% 11.5 74.5% 4.1 81.0% 7.7 57.2% 8.6 93.4% 0.6 65.3% 4.6 28.5% 1.4 54.1% 13.2 69.8% 61.3 67.6% 2.2 39.1% 0.0 6.8% 7.4 34.5% 5.9 69.4% 3.0 41.0% 7.7 59.1% 0.1 6.6% 385.9 10.8% Steel SF % (x 10^6) 3.7 20.2% 0.4 31.0% 0.4 2.5% 10.6 74.7% 0.7 1.6% 3.8 29.1% 2.5 71.1% 0.6 37.6% 0.0 20.6% 7.3 19.7% 1.2 5.6% 0.0 0.0% 0.6 19.0% 7.1 42.7% 3.2 26.5% 2.8 21.1% 5.8 38.3% 1.3 13.0% 5.7 21.5% 1.3 73.2% 6.1 86.8% 1.2 60.2% 1.7 22.9% 2.9 24.6% 2.9 13.6% 14.2 52.5% 0.5 27.8% 3.8 41.0% 0.6 15.7% 1.5 87.2% 3.7 54.1% 0.3 11.7% 9.4 68.4% 8.1 38.4% 0.3 16.7% 10.1 51.6% 2.7 17.6% 0.2 4.6% 5.7 42.2% 0.2 1.9% 0.3 27.2% 7.0 43.3% 0.5 19.2% 5.2 27.5% 17.3 19.1% 3.3 57.9% 0.4 79.8% 12.4 57.7% 1.7 19.7% 4.1 56.4% 2.2 16.9% 1.3 85.3% 190.8 58.4% 28.8% Timber SF % (x 10^6) 0.1 0.6% 0.1 6.4% 0.0 0.0% 0.1 0.5% 0.0 0.0% 0.1 0.4% 0.0 0.4% 0.0 0.3% 0.0 0.0% 0.2 0.4% 0.2 0.9% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.6% 0.1 0.4% 0.4 2.9% 0.3 2.1% 0.0 0.3% 0.0 0.4% 0.2 0.6% 0.0 0.8% 0.1 1.9% 0.0 0.6% 0.1 1.6% 0.2 1.9% 0.3 1.5% 0.1 0.2% 0.0 1.3% 0.0 0.4% 0.0 0.1% 0.0 0.8% 0.1 1.1% 0.0 0.1% 0.1 1.1% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.4% 0.0 0.1% 0.0 0.2% 0.0 0.7% 0.0 0.2% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.3% 0.0 0.2% 0.0 0.3% 0.0 0.1% 0.3 0.3% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 2.1% 0.0 0.1% 0.0 0.6% 0.1 1.0% 0.1 0.7% 0.0 0.7% 3.6 0.5% Note: Percentages are computed from 2003NBI data using the ratio of deck area of bridges built from each material to deck area of bridges in each state RC = Reinforced Concrete, PS = Prestressed Concrete, SF = Square Feet 16 Material Usage and Condition of Existing Bridges in the U.S Table A.7 – Percent of Bridges with Main Span Material of Concrete (RC and PS) – Built from 1990 through 2003 Number of Existing Bridges Sorted by State Sorted by Percentage State % State % AL 82.6% MD 22.5% AK 35.2% ME 26.0% 97.0% WY 26.6% AZ 41.5% NH 34.5% AR CA 96.7% AK 35.2% CO 57.7% VA 40.2% CT 51.1% AR 41.5% DE 57.2% MO 45.5% DC 50.0% VT 45.7% FL 76.7% NY 48.3% GA 79.7% DC 50.0% HI 100.0% CT 51.1% ID 80.8% OK 53.8% IL 85.8% NE 53.9% 73.7% KS 55.4% IN IA 69.7% NJ 55.6% KS 55.4% DE 57.2% KY 88.0% CO 57.7% LA 80.7% MA 62.8% ME 26.0% RI 63.5% MD 22.5% UT 64.4% MA 62.8% WV 67.6% MI 84.2% TX 68.7% MN 83.3% IA 69.7% MS 82.1% OH 70.2% MO 45.5% NC 71.1% MT 74.6% IN 73.7% NE 53.9% MT 74.6% NV 81.7% PA 75.7% NH 34.5% FL 76.7% NJ 55.6% GA 79.7% NM 84.5% LA 80.7% NY 48.3% ID 80.8% NC 71.1% NV 81.7% ND 90.9% MS 82.1% OH 70.2% SC 82.5% OK 53.8% AL 82.6% OR 89.5% MN 83.3% 83.5% TN 75.7% PA PR 93.7% MI 84.2% 84.5% NM 63.5% RI SC 82.5% SD 85.0% IL 85.8% 85.0% SD TN 83.5% KY 88.0% WA 88.4% 68.7% TX UT 64.4% OR 89.5% VT 45.7% ND 90.9% VA 40.2% WI 91.1% WA 88.4% PR 93.7% WV 67.6% CA 96.7% 97.0% AZ 91.1% WI WY 26.6% HI 100.0% Deck Area of Existing Bridges Sorted by State Sorted by Percentage State % State % AL 79.1% MD 11.3% AK 62.6% NH 12.0% AZ 97.3% WY 13.4% AR 24.8% VT 18.1% CA 98.4% AR 24.8% CO 70.5% ME 24.9% CT 28.5% CT 28.5% DE 62.1% NY 30.5% DC 79.4% MA 39.2% FL 79.9% UT 42.1% GA 93.5% VA 42.1% HI 100.0% WV 42.6% ID 80.4% NJ 44.1% IL 56.3% MO 47.3% IN 70.5% OH 48.1% IA 76.8% IL 56.3% KS 61.1% SC 56.5% KY 86.4% PA 57.6% LA 72.2% NE 58.6% ME 24.9% KS 61.1% MD 11.3% NC 61.6% MA 39.2% DE 62.1% MI 75.5% AK 62.6% MN 73.5% CO 70.5% MS 84.9% IN 70.5% MO 47.3% MT 70.9% MT 70.9% LA 72.2% NE 58.6% TN 72.3% NV 84.3% TX 72.4% NH 12.0% RI 72.6% NJ 44.1% MN 73.5% NM 88.3% MI 75.5% NY 30.5% IA 76.8% NC 61.6% AL 79.1% ND 82.9% DC 79.4% OH 48.1% WA 79.5% OK 81.8% FL 79.9% OR 94.7% ID 80.4% PA 57.6% SD 80.5% PR 98.1% OK 81.8% 72.6% WI 82.3% RI SC 56.5% ND 82.9% SD 80.5% NV 84.3% TN 72.3% MS 84.9% TX 72.4% KY 86.4% UT 42.1% NM 88.3% VT 18.1% GA 93.5% VA 42.1% OR 94.7% WA 79.5% AZ 97.3% WV 42.6% PR 98.1% 98.4% CA 82.3% WI WY 13.4% HI 100.0% Note: Percentages are computed from 2003NBI data by adding percentages for reinforced (RC) and prestressed (PS) concrete from Tables A.6 and A.6 RC = Reinforced Concrete, PS = Prestressed Concrete 17 Material Usage and Condition of Existing Bridges in the U.S Table A.8 – Structurally Deficient Bridges with Main Span Material of RC, PS, Steel and Timber for Bridges – Built from 1990 through 2003 Total State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District Of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total: RC PS # 75 94 68 5 0 13 20 40 31 13 21 43 46 434 33 13 0 15 12 879 14 45 10 38 116 4 10 11 % 4.9% 1.2% 0.0% 4.6% 3.3% 0.3% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 1.5% 3.4% 0.6% 0.2% 1.4% 1.2% 0.5% 0.9% 2.7% 5.0% 0.8% 0.7% 4.1% 0.2% 12.3% 0.7% 3.2% 0.1% 1.6% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.3% 1.3% 0.3% 28.7% 0.0% 0.4% 3.5% 1.9% 3.2% 2.2% 2.1% 2.0% 0.9% 1.8% 0.6% 0.2% 0.6% 0.2% 4.4% # 33 0 29 0 1 6 1 20 0 0 0 40 0 11 0 0 % 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 4.2% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 16.7% 0.0% 0.2% 0.9% 0.8% 0.4% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 2.1% 0.6% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 5.2% 0.0% 0.7% 1.5% 6.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 2.8% # 2,189 2.9% 202 1.2% Steel 0 31 0 2 10 2 2 31 1 0 2 0 10 1 0 0 % 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.3% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 1.0% 0.1% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.9% 0.0% 1.1% 1.2% 3.5% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.7% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 6.2% 0.2% 1.5% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 6.5% # 19 63 0 22 17 19 13 144 24 10 0 815 15 70 3 8 % 13.1% 2.2% 0.0% 5.7% 14.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 2.2% 0.0% 1.4% 0.6% 4.5% 3.1% 0.8% 8.5% 1.2% 7.4% 0.7% 0.0% 15.3% 0.8% 43.5% 1.0% 13.9% 0.1% 6.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.9% 4.3% 0.5% 59.3% 0.0% 1.4% 4.0% 0.0% 4.2% 6.6% 5.7% 4.9% 2.0% 2.8% 0.9% 1.1% 1.8% 1.6% 4.6% 143 0.4% 1,356 6.9% Timber # % 14 12.0% 1.3% 0.0% 24 26.7% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.3% 14 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 31 21.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 269 88.8% 0.0% 6.2% 3.4% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 12.5% 16.7% 0.0% 21 55.3% 0.0% 7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 31 91.2% 0.0% 21.4% 37 13.3% 25.0% 7.1% 5.6% 8.3% 1.4% 1.0% 0.0% 484 16.4% Note: Percentages are computed from 2003NBI data using the ratio of number of structurally deficient bridges listed to number of bridges built, listed in Table A.5 RC = Reinforced Concrete, PS = Prestressed Concrete 18 Material Usage and Condition of Existing Bridges in the U.S Table A.9 – Number and Percent of Bridges with Main Span Material of RC, PS, Steel and Timber by System and Year Built – All States + DC and PR Year Built 1960– 1970– 1969 1979