Posted by Wayne G. Barber
The state of Rhode Island has easily the highest percentage of deficient bridges of any state in the country according to Federal Department of Transportation statistics and data.
Of the state's 766 bridges, 429 of them are considered deficient according to federal statistics. That's 56 percent of the state's bridges.
That puts the state well ahead of the national average. On a national level, roughly 24 percent of the bridges in the country are considered deficient.
There are 610,749, bridges in the nation, and 145,890 are considered deficient.
Neighboring Massachusetts ranks a close second, with 52 percent of its 5,141 bridges being considered as having some level of deficiency. New York came a distant third place in the category of most deficient bridges in the country, with 39 percent of its 17,456 bridges being considered deficient.
About 23 percent of the state's bridges are considered "structurally deficient". Structurally deficient generally means that the condition of the bridge contains a significant defect. To be considered structurally deficient, a bridge's deck, superstructures, substructures, or culvert and retaining wall must receive sub-optimal ratings from inspectors.
There are 174 bridges in the state that are considered structurally deficient.
Another 255 of the state's bridges are considered "functionally obsolete". Functionally obsolete generally means that the bridge in question is not sufficient to meet the use of what it was designed for--meaning it may lack the proper deck geometry, or the proper under-clearances, for instance. That means 33 percent of the state's bridges are considered functionally obsolete.
Neither rating, structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, mean that the bridge is unsafe for travel.
But if a bridge is considered either structurally deficient, or structurally obsolete, it is considered "deficient", according to federal data.
The vast majority of the state's deficient bridges are over 40 years old, according to the data.
Source GoLocalProv
No comments:
Post a Comment