Oregon

Department
of Transportation

REPORT

Bridge Section Oregon Department of Transportation

Oregon
Department
of Transportation

Editing and Data Analysis by Liz Hunt

Bridge Project Data by Rachelle Nelson
Major Bridge Maintenace Program Data by Travis Kinney
Data Analysis by Corey Withroe
Maps by Corey Withroe and Geographic Information Services Unit
Photos courtesy of Flickr, ODOT Photo Services or as noted
Publication Design by Chittirat Amawattana
 018 BRIDGE
20 & TUN
CONDITION REPORT
NNEEL DATA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXEC
CUTIVE
E SUMMARY ............................................................ 5
REVIAT
ABBR TIONS AND DEFIN
NITIONS ............................ 12
DGES 10
BRID 01 ................................................................................ 14
8 BRIDG
2018 GE CONDITIONS................................................ 16
Inventory Changes ....................................................................................... 17
Key Performance Measure 16 (Percent Bridges Not Distressed) ..... 17
Bridge Conditions by Region ..................................................................... 19
2016-2018 Changes in Condition Ratings............................................. 20
Condition Changes over the Last 10 Years ........................................... 21
National Bridge Performance Measure...................................................24

MAK
KING AN OLD BRIDGE NE
EW AG
GAIN..................... 25
DGE PR
BRID ROGRAM UPDATES
S ........................................... 26
2021-2024 STIP Bridge Work Identification ..........................................27
Major Bridge Maintenance.........................................................................28
Bridge Preservation Painted Steel Bridges ............................................ 31
Seismic Program Status ..............................................................................34
Bridge Deck Study........................................................................................38

2018
8 TUNN
NEL DATA................................................. 40
DGE CO
BRID ONDITION PROJEC
CTION
NS ........................... 43
Projected Conditions Based on New Funding ......................................43

WHE
ERE TO
O FIND ADDITIONA
AL INF
FORMATION
Appendices -- Available online, select links below.
Brid
dge Con
ndition Summaries by Disstrict (D
Dashboard Link)
Brid
dge Projects Under Construction
n (Dashb
board Link)
Brid
dge Projects Programmed throug
gh 20211 (Dashboard Link)
k)
Sta
ate Restrricted Bridge List
ate Highway/Route Number Cro
Sta oss Reference
assificatiion of Distressed Bridge
Cla es
OD
DOT Bridge Inspection Pocket Co oding Guide Excerpts -P Program Requirementss,
Condition Ratings For Deck, Superrstructurre, Substructure, Culverts And Scour
Concrete Crack Guideline (Reportin
ng Cond
dition Assessment)
Suffi
fficiency Rating

3
4
 018 BRIDGE
20 & TUN
CONDITION REPORT
NNEEL DATA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

M aintaining bridges in good condition is critical to Oregon’s economy

and to preserving safe and reliable travel. The increased funding from
HB 2017 will help address deteriorating bridges, especially on major state
highways, that could impede mobility or force trucks to detour.

This year’s Bridge Condition Report details five Bridge Program Updates
including 2021-2024 STIP development, Major Bridge Maintenance
accomplishments, Bridge Preservation highlights, Seismic Program status, and
an on-going Bridge Deck Study with a focus on chlorides. The condition data
is based on the April 2018 submittal provided annually to the Federal Highway
Administration.

Overall, there was a slight decrease in KPM 16. While gains were made
addressing substandard rail, declines were noted in painting conditions and
low service life which can be attributed to the aging bridge population.

KPM 16: ODOT bridges in not distressed condition

includes culverts, percent is by count
ϳϵ͘ϱй
ϳϵ͘ϭй ϳϵ͘ϭй ϳϵ͘Ϭй

ϳϴ͘Ϭй

ϳϳ͘ϲй
ϳϳ͘Ϭй
zĞĂƌ

ϮϬϭϮ ϮϬϭϯ ϮϬϭϰ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϭϲ ϮϬϭϳ ϮϬϭϴ

ODOT bridges Not Distressed condition. Larger percentages are better.

5
 National Perforrmance Measu
ure
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) requires
states to establish bridge condition targets and report conditions based
on specified performance measures for the National Highway System
(NHS) including:

Percent of NHS bridges Percent of NHS bridges

by deck area classified in by deck area classified in
Good condition Poor condition.

Currently 12.7% of NHS bridges are in good condition, 1.9% are in poor
condition, and 85.4% are in fair condition. With so many bridges in fair
condition on the cusp of becoming poor, maintaining bridge conditions in
the future will be challenging.

Brridge Pro
ogram
m Updates
Five bridge program updates are presented to provide an overview of the
on-going tasks associated with maintaining and preserving ODOT’s bridge
infrastructure.

2021-2024 STIP Development

The development of the 2021-2024 STIP began the summer of 2017 when the
Oregon Transportation Commission started discussing the program funding
allocations which were decided upon in December 2017. In order to stay on
track, the Bridge Section initiated their project selection in the fall of 2017,
finalizing the 150% list project costs totaling about 150% of the anticipated
allocation in June 2018. A final 100% Draft STIP list is expected in July 2019.

STIP development for bridge projects requires many steps to determine the
scope and estimated cost of a project. After the bridge inspection data
is queried for needs and prioritized, a desk scope is developed based on
office information. The desk scope is used by the Regions to initiate an on-
site or field scope based on more detailed information and input from other
specialists around items like traffic control and environmental impacts. Once
a field scope is refined, a final estimate is developed. The field scope and
estimates are then evaluated at the Bridge Program level and pared down to
match the available funding.

Review Bridge Desk Scoping Field Scoping Final Projects

Inspection Data (~200% List) (150% List) (100% List)

6
 018 BRIDGE
20 & TUN
CONDITION REPORT
NNEEL DATA

Major Bridge Maintenance (MBM)

The variety and volume of work performed by the Major Bridge
Maintenance (MBM) program makes it a key component in
maintaining Oregon’s infrastructure. Accomplishments for 2017
include addressing 24 urgent bridge maintenance needs, 107 deck
“
Condition
improvements
treatments and several other projects associated with movable
as a result of
bridge repairs, problematic joints, deteriorated timber elements, etc.
MBM repairs
MBM projects can have a significant impact on the overall bridge are only
condition rating, because the worst detail on the bridge is normally
corrected. Often these repair projects can actually raise a bridge out temporary.
of Structurally Deficient classification. However, this rise in condition
is only temporary as the bridge will continue to deteriorate. These
repair projects aren’t intended to rehabilitate the entire structure, but
”
rather just address the defects that must be corrected.

The repaired portions of a structure also tend to have a higher rate

of deterioration. Bridge repair projects can be due to poor details
in the original structure. Repairing the damage due to these details
is challenging because the poor detail will usually remain after the
repair is complete. The Harrison Boulevard Bridge in Corvallis is a
good example of a bridge with poor details that generates repeated
repairs.

Bridge Preservation
ODOT is responsible for more than 370 painted steel bridges with
over 27 million square feet of surface area. Painting steel bridges
(applying a protective coating) is vital to preserving and extending
the service life of the state’s bridge system. Timely applications
of protective coatings prevent steel corrosion and any subsequent
structural capacity loss.

On average, the ODOT Bridge Program paints two bridges every year.
However, in the next five years, ODOT plans to more than double
that rate with painting an average of five bridges and over 750,000
square feet of steel every year. At this rate, the painting will keep
up with the rate of corrosion and also reduce the inventory of bridge
painting needs.

7
 Seismic Bridge Program
Additional funding to address seismic improvements related to highways and
bridges is included with the recently passed HB 2017 transportation package, HB
2017. With the new funds, ODOT plans to work on Phase 1 bridges moving from
Eugene, north on I-5 and finishing up on I-84 moving from east to west in 20 to
30 years. Projects are currently being scoped for seismic work on I-5 near Eugene
for the 2021-2024 STIP.

ODOT Phase 1 Seismic Routes - August 2018 Status

Ph
hase 1
Brridgess 4 26 153
Re
emaining::
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Estimated
Cost $600 M Completed Funded Remaining

I WAS Phase 1 Bridge Status Seismic Routes

H ING
TON !
( Completed Seismic Phase 1
!
( Funded Complete (both bridges
Remaining
and landslides addressed)
!
(
Astoria Astoria
Warrenton 8
$ Forward Supply Locations Funded

8
$
Æ
Ä
104 Seismic Phases 2-4
Not Funded
Clatsop Rainier
Ä
Æ Southern Oregon Triage
202 Æ
Ä
47 (Funded)
Æ
Ä 103 Columbia St.
County
Æ
Ä
53 Helens
Other State Highways

Tillamook
Æ
Ä
6
Portland ( !
(! ( (
! !
(
(!
!(
(
!
§
¦
¨
84
£
¢
30
(!
! (
! (
!
(
!
!
(
(!
(
Æ
Ä
8
Æ
Ä !
(!
(
Æ
Ä (!
!
(
!(! ( !
(! (!
(
Hillsboro
(!
!
120
§
¨
¦ (
!
205
(
!
(
!
!!
(
(!
(!
(!

Hood
281
The(
!
(
! !
(
!
(

§
(! ( !
¨
(
¦
Æ
Ä !
(
(
! (!
(! !
((
! Dalles
131 Washington 405
!
( ! (
!
(
! Multnomah River
( Æ
Ä
(!( (
! 206
Tigard !
(
! 212
Æ
Ä Æ
Ä
!
(!
Tualatin ! 43 Æ
Ä
Ä
Æ (
(
! 35
240 (
!(!
((!
!(
(
!(!
! (!
!
(( Æ
Ä Gilliam
Newberg Oregon City 173
( Wilsonville
!
McMinnville (
!
ÆÄ Sherman
Ä Æ 154 219 ! (
! Æ
Ä
Ya m h i l l Æ Æ ( 211 Clackamas
Æ
Ä
130 Æ
Ä ÆÄ
Ä Ä 233 Woodburn Æ
Ä Æ
Ä
Æ
Ä
18
18B 153
Keizer
5 §
¦
¨ 213 224 216

Lincoln Æ
Ä (
!
!
(
(
! Salem Ä
Æ
City 221
£
¢
Æ
Ä 26 218
Polk 214
Wasco
Æ Ä
Ä Æ Æ
Ä
ÆÄ
Ä Ä
Æ 194 51 !
( Marion 293 Wheeler
Æ 229 22
182 Æ
Ä Æ Ä
Ä Æ !
(
223
Æ
Ä 99W ( 164
!
!
(
Jefferson
Newport
Æ
Ä180
226

Seal
£
¢
20B Albany ((
!
!
(
!
Corvallis !
(
!
(
Madras

Lincoln Æ
Ä
Rock
8
$ (
!
Lebanon Linn
361
(
!
Benton (
!
Æ
Ä Sweet
34 (
!
£
¢
Æ
Ä (
!
Æ
Ä
228 Home 20
501
Æ
Ä
99E !
(
!
( Redmond Prineville

p Crook
Æ
Ä (
!
Æ
Ä 242
36 !
( Redmond Airport 380
Æ
Ä
£
¢
101
Florence
Ä
Æ 126 §
¨
¦ (
!
105 Springfield
Bend
(Roberts Field)
Æ
Ä
27
Æ
Ä
200
(
!
Æ
Ä !
( Lane £
¤
97B
222

!
(!(!
(
Æ
Ä !
(
38
La Pine Deschutes

Æ
Ä
429
North Æ
Ä
Bend 241 (
!
8
$ Sutherlin
Æ
Ä
58
Æ
Ä99E
Coos Bay
Coos Bay Æ
Ä
§
¦
¨ !
(
Æ
Ä
138 5 213 (
!
Roseburg
Æ
Ä
42S Coos
Æ
Ä Douglas
£
¢
30 Portland
(
!
(!
!(
42

¦§¦
¨ §
¦
¨ !
(
§
¨ 84 84
Æ
Ä230 405
Æ
Ä
31
Æ
Ä
542 £
¢
26
£
¢
26
Lake (
!

Beaverton
Æ
Ä!
(
10
£
¢
26
§
¨
¦(
!
205
!
(
(
!
(
!
Æ
Ä (
!
!
( (
!
227 Æ
Ä Æ
Ä
62 Æ
Ä
422 Æ
Ä §
¦
¨
(5
!
224

Æ
Ä !
( 217
99 Æ
Ä
Jackson
Æ
Ä
234 !
( Klamath (
!
213
Grants
Josephine
Æ
Ä Æ
Ä
Pass 43
!
( 99E

§
¨
¦
!
(
Æ
Ä 140 205
Æ
Ä Curry !
(
255
£
¢
199 Æ
Ä 238
Medford
Klamath
!
(
!
(
(
!
(
!
!
( Æ
Ä (
! !!
(
Æ
Ä Falls !
(!
( 70
(
(!
! (
46 !
(
Ashland !
(
Æ
Ä
!
( 43
Æ
Ä
66
Æ
Ä
(
!
(
!
Æ
Ä £
¢
395
39
Æ
Ä273
0 1 2 4 6 8 213
Miles
CALIFORNIA

8
 018 BRIDGE
20 & TUN
CONDITION REPORT
NNEEL DATA

HB 2017 provided funding for an additional seismic project

entitled the Southern Oregon Triage strategy. The strategy
focuses on mitigating seismic impacts along Interstate 5 south of
Eugene, and OR 140 which are key lifeline routes to and from the
Rogue Valley. The project is now officially underway with funding
“ ODOT is
collaborating
of $35M to provide seismic upgrades to 17 bridges and seven
with western
hillside slopes. counties to
Further seismic efforts are underway with the Bridge Seismic
prioritize
Standards Engineer and other ODOT leadership working county seismic
collaboratively with Oregon counties to develop planning reports resiliency
documenting county routes and priorities for seismic resiliency. routes.
ODOT provides bridge data and technical support and the
counties provide information about their network. While the
information is useful for county planning, a comparison can be
made to the state seismic bridge priorities to determine possible
”
highway detour routes that may be more cost effective to
seismically retrofit or replace.

Bridge Deck Study

In a November 2017 report detailing the ODOT Winter Salt Pilot
Project, ODOT determined that salt can be used effectively in
maintaining roads, achieving little to no packed snow and ice
resulting in reduced crashes and improved mobility. Understanding
the impact of salt on the infrastructure, including bridges,
requires continuous investigation to ensure ODOT is managing the
highway system in a safe and cost effective way while protecting
the environment and infrastructure.

The Bridge Section has initiated deck testing to determine the

extent of salt (chloride) contents present in critical locations. The
key is to identify bridge decks without chloride contamination in
order to make use of thin treatments to prevent damage and to
better understand the potential needs for damaged decks from a
program level.

Tu
unnels
Tunnel conditions this year are based on the new National Tunnel
Inspection Standards (NTIS). For the eleven ODOT managed
tunnels:
7 are in Good Condition
3 are in Fair Condition
1 is closed following the Eagle Creek Fire

9
 Oregon Briidge Condition Proje
ections: 2018 to 2028
An analysis was done as part of the ODOT Transportation Asset
Management Plan (TAMP) to project bridge conditions in ten years for three
funding scenarios:

PROJECTIONS $85M/year Pre-HB 2017 funding levels

• Percent NHS bridges in good

condition
$122M/year HB 2017 funding levels, includes seismic funding
• Percent NHS bridges in poor
condition
• KPM 16 (percent not distressed) $350M/year Desired State of Good Repair funding (DSOGR)
based on OTC 2017 investment strategy
all ODOT bridges

The percentage of bridges in good condition will continue to decline even

with the new HB funding. By 2021 the percentage is predicted to dip below
the desired state of good repair (DSOGR), which has been established to be
10% based on an assessment of the level of funding allocated to preservation
of bridges in good condition.

Projections for bridges becoming poor show a steady increase in the next
ten years. However, the HB 2017 funding is projected to slow the decline.
By 2020-2021 the percentage is predicted to rise above the DSOGR, which
has been established at 3% based on an assessment of ODOT’s ability to
respond quickly to the anticipated resulting critical and urgent bridge needs
at that level of poor condition.

%NHSйE,^ƌŝĚŐĞƐŝŶ'ŽŽĚŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ
Bridges in Good Condition %NHS Bridges Reaching Poor Condition
йE,^ƌŝĚŐĞƐZĞĂĐŚŝŶŐWŽŽƌŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ
ϭϮ͘ϲй
ϲ͘ϲй
ϭϬ͘Ϭй
ϰ͘ϳй

ϯ͘Ϭй
ϰ͘ϭй

ϭ͘ϴй

ϮϬϭϴ ϮϬϮϯ ϮϬϮϴ

ϮϬϭϴ ϮϬϮϯ ϮϬϮϴ
tŝƚŚ, ^K'Z tͬK,
tŝƚŚ, ^K'Z tͬK,

Projected good conditions for NHS bridges. Projected pood conditions for NHS bridges.

10
 018 BRIDGE
20 & TUN
CONDITION REPORT
NNEEL DATA

%NHS Not Distressed Bridges

йEŽƚŝƐƚƌĞƐƐĞĚƌŝĚŐĞƐ
ϳϵ͘Ϭй
ϳϴ͘Ϭй

ϳϰ͘ϵй

ϳϮ͘ϴй

ϮϬϭϴ ϮϬϮϯ ϮϬϮϴ

tŝƚŚ, ^K'Z tͬK,

Projected Not Distressed bridges (KPM 16) for all state owned bridges.

The HB funding is expected to slow the decline of the % Not Distressed

for the ODOT bridge population; however, the decline will continue. The
decline is primarily due to the aging bridge system and a long history of
underfunding in the Bridge Program that precluded systematic replacement
of deteriorated bridges, which is captured in the KPM as Low Service
Life and also in bridge conditions with more bridges projected to become
structurally deficient.

11
 ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS
Diistressed Brridge – A bridge condition rating used by the Oregon Department of
Transportation to indicate that the bridge has been identified as either structurally deficient or as
having other deficiencies. A classification of “distressed bridge” does not imply that the bridge is
unsafe.

Fu
unctionally Obsole
ete (FO) – A bridge assessment rating used by the Federal Highway
Administration to indicate that a bridge does not meet current (primarily geometric) standards. The
rating is based on bridge inspection appraisal ratings. Functionally obsolete bridges are those that
do not have adequate lane widths, shoulder widths, vertical clearances, or design loads to serve
traffic demand. This definition also includes bridges that may be occasionally flooded.

Ke
ey Performa
ance Measure (KPM) – A measure used to evaluate the progress of an
organization in managing to a particular goal.

Ma ajor Bridge Mainttenance (MBM) – One of three funding approaches the Bridge
Program uses to manage the bridge system. The MBM program typically addresses smaller scale
bridge preservation needs and emergency bridge repairs that are outside the scope of work that can
be accomplished by an ODOT District.

Na
ational Brid
dge Inv
ventory (NBI) – The aggregation of structure inventory and appraisal
data collected to fulfill the requirements of the federal National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS).

Na ational Brid dge Insspection Standardss (NBIS S) – Federal regulations establishing

requirements for inspection procedures, frequency of inspections, qualifications of personnel,
inspection reports, and preparation and maintenance of a state bridge inventory. The NBIS apply to
all structures defined as bridges located on all public roads

Na
ational High
hway System (NHS) – The National Highway System comprises
approximately 225,000 miles of roadway nationwide, including the Interstate Highway System as well
as other roads designated as important to the nation’s economy, defense, and intermodal mobility.
The NHS was developed by the United States Department of Transportation in cooperation with the
states, local officials and metropolitan planning organizations. Congress approved the NHS in 1994.
National Tunnel Inspection Standards (NTIS) – Federal Highway Administration guidelines for the
inventory, inspection and load rating of tunnels.

No
on-Nationall Highw
way System (NNHS
S) – Routes not designated as part of the NHS.

Otther Deficie
encies (OD) – A bridge condition rating used by the Oregon Department of
Transportation to indicate that a bridge has identified needs in one or more of nine factors and

12
 018 BRIDGE
20 & TUN
CONDITION REPORT
NNEEL DATA

is a candidate for repair or replacement. This condition rating is specifically designed to address
specific bridge needs such as freight mobility, deterioration, serviceability, and safety.
A classification of “other deficiencies” does not imply that the bridge is unsafe.

Types of ODs include: Rail = Bridge Rail

LC = Load Capacity
LSL = Low Service Life
MB = Movable Bridge
DG = Other Geometric Clearances (Deck Geometry)
Paint = Paint
Scour = Scour
TS = Timber Structures (Substructure)
VC = Vertical Clearance

Sccour Critica
al Bridg
ge – A scour critical bridge is one with an abutment or pier foundation
rated as unstable due to (1) observed scour at the bridge site or (2) a scour potential as
determined by an engineering scour evaluation study.

Sttate Transp
portatio
on Improvement Prrogram
m (STIP) – Oregon’s four-year
transportation capital improvement program. The STIP document identifies the funding for, and
scheduling of, transportation projects and programs.

Sttructure Co
ondition
n Abbreviations – VG = Very Good
GD = Good
FR = Fair
PR = Poor
VP = Very Poor

Sttructurally Deficie
ent (SD) – A bridge condition rating used by the Federal Highway
Administration to indicate deteriorated physical conditions of the bridge’s structural elements
(primarily deck, superstructure, and substructure) and reduced load capacity. Some of these
bridges are posted and may require trucks of a certain weight to detour.
A classification of “structurally deficient” does not imply that bridges are unsafe. When an
inspection reveals a safety problem, the bridge is posted for reduced loads, scheduled for repairs,
or in unusual situations, closed until repairs can be completed. Structural deficiency is one of the
many factors that are used in the ODOT State Bridge Program for project ranking or selection.

13
 BRIDGES 101
Ge
eneral Detteriora
ation Factors
Experience has shown that bridge deterioration is dependent on complex interactions of
multiple factors as shown.

Extreme events (earthquakes, flooding, vehicle impacts) are another cause of bridge
distress not considered as general deterioration, but result in the need for quick response
and investment to restore mobility.

Adapted from “Why

America’s Bridges
are Crumbling,” by
K.F. Dunker and B.
G. Rabbat, 1993,
March, Scientific
American, 268, no. 3,
p. 69. Permission for
use courtesy of Jana
Brenning, illustrator.

Brridge Con
nditio
on Ratings
Bridge conditions are categorized by evaluating bridge components (deck,
superstructure, and substructure) as shown in the graphic.

National bridge inspection standards (NBIS) were established in 1968 to

monitor existing bridge performance to ensure the safety of the traveling
public. The NBIS regulations apply to all publicly owned highway bridges
longer than twenty feet located on public roads. To comply with the NBIS
and assess bridge conditions, ODOT manages a statewide bridge inspection
program that includes both routine and specialized inspections. Bridge
condition ratings are described on the next page.

14
 018 BRIDGE
20 & TUN
CONDITION REPORT
NNEEL DATA

Superstructure: supports the

deck; distributes loads to the
substructure
Deck: carries the roadway
surface; distributes loads to
the superstructure
Substructure: supports the
superstructure and distributes
loads to the ground.

The NBI ratings provide simple tools for agencies to describe the overall conditions of
their bridge populations and the overall effectiveness of their bridge programs. The
critical rating is when a highway bridge is classified as structurally deficient (SD).

NBI Component NBI Rating Condition Rating Description

• Deck Lowest Condition 8-9: Very Good Condition
• Superstructure NBI Rating of All 7: Good Condition
• Substructure Components 5-6: Fair Condition
• Culvert Rating (Scale =0-9) 4: Poor Condition
(if applicable) ≤ 3: Very Poor Condition

Bridge condition rating description.

Beginning in 2018, a bridge is classified as structurally deficient only if any component

(deck, superstructure, substructure) has an NBI rating of 4 or less. Previously load
capacity and hydraulic opening below the bridge could result in an SD classification.

Maintenance
e Nee
eds and Cost Imp
pacts
Keeping a bridge in fair to good condition requires routine inspections, proactive
maintenance and preservation treatments. Examples of proactive maintenance are:
• Sealing or replacing leaking joints to minimize the deterioration of superstructure
and substructure elements beneath the joints;
• Painting/coating or overcoating structural steel to protect against corrosion;
• Installing scour countermeasures to protect the substructure from undermining
and failure due to scour below the bridge.
Timing is critical when performing the work since the longer the deterioration occurs,
the more extensive/expensive the required treatment.

15
 2018 BRIDGE CONDITIONS

O DOT’s 2018 Bridge Condition Report summarizes

bridge condition ratings on state highways and
performance measures based on National Bridge
Inventory and ODOT data. As a consistent reference
point for evaluation, ODOT uses the bridge conditions
snapshot provided annually to the Federal Highway
Administration. Data from the April 2018 submittal is
the basis of this report.

Bridge conditions are reported in a number of

different measures, none of which stands alone in the
communication of bridge condition for decision making
purposes. The most common and those presented
“
The majority
of the 2,737
here, are the NBI ratings for the three major structural bridges that
components of the bridge (deck, superstructure, and odot manages
substructure, or the culvert rating), deficient bridge
classification, and structural condition rating.
are in fair
condition.
The structural condition rating ranging from ‘Very
Good’ to ‘Very Poor’ is based on the lowest of the deck,
superstructure, substructure, or culvert ratings.
”

16
 018 BRIDGE
20 & TUN
CONDITION REPORT
NNEEL DATA

In
nventory Chang
ges
ODOT currently manages 2,737 bridges. This year, in comparison to 2017, the
inventory decreased by five bridges due to the following changes:
8 Bridges were removed due to updated jurisdiction information
2 Bridges that were 97 years old were replaced with 2 new bridges
2 Bridges were replaced with 1 new bridge as part of a modernization project
3 New bridges were added for modernization
1 New bridge was added as a replacement for a non-NBI culvert

Key Perfform
(P
mance Meassure
Percentt of Bridges No
e 16
ot Diistresse
ed)
ODOT measures bridge conditions based on Key
“ ODOT added
SEVEN new
Performance Measure (KPM) 16 – Percent of Bridges
Not Distressed (%ND). KPM 16 includes two categories bridges to the
of bridges: 1) the percent of bridges not SD as defined inventory in
by FHWA and 2) the percent of bridges without other
2018 - only TWO
deficiencies (OD) as defined by ODOT. SD and OD
components capture different characteristics of bridge as a result of
conditions as shown. deteriorating
condition.
A condition of distressed indicates that the bridge is
rated as SD or has at least one OD. ODOT considers
both SD and OD aspects in determining bridge needs
and selecting projects for the statewide Transportation
”
Improvement Program (STIP).

SD: Structurally Deficient Deteriorated condition of deck,

(FHWA) substructure or superstructure

DISTRESSED BRIDGES

OD: Other Deficiencies Freight mobility needs: Load

capacity, vertical clearance,
(ODOT) geometric clearance

Bridge safety needs: Scour

and rail deficiencies

Serviceability needs: Painting,

cathodic protection, movable
bridge repairs, low service life

Characteristics of distressed bridges.

17
 For 2018, KPM 16 equals 79.0% indicating a 0.1% drop from 2017 exceeding the
target of 78%. While the KPM indicates that bridge conditions are generally
holding steady, the small change can be attributed in part to an update in
the data to reflect rail retrofits and replacements on 17 bridges. The Bridge
Program sets aside about $1,500,000 annually to address substandard bridge
rail across the state. Significant progress has been made and will continue
increasing safety for the traveling public.

KPM 16: ODOT bridges in not distressed condition

includes culverts (percent is by count)
ϳϵ͘ϱй
“
Current
evaluations
ϳϵ͘ϭй ϳϵ͘ϭй ϳϵ͘Ϭй
indicate a
ϳϴ͘Ϭй
slight decline
ϳϳ͘ϲй in the percent
ϳϳ͘Ϭй
zĞĂƌ Not Distressed
ϮϬϭϮ ϮϬϭϯ ϮϬϭϰ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϭϲ ϮϬϭϳ ϮϬϭϴ bridges.
ODOT bridges Not Distressed condition. Larger percentages are better.

While gains were made addressing rail, declines were noted in painting
”
conditions and low service life. Note that cathodic protection(CP) was dropped
as a distress as it does not impact program management. All of the bridges
with CP as a distress had other distresses so the change did not impact the
overall KPM.

The population of bridges in service and distressed is shown below for five
age groups. The largest number of in service bridges is 41-60 years old (built
between 1958 and 1977) which corresponds with the largest number of
distressed bridges. The predominant distresses in the 41-60 year old bridges
are low service life and other geometric clearances. The low service life is
based on the structural adequacy and serviceability of the bridge and the other
geometric clearances is based on the bridge dimensions and the average daily
traffic. Both distresses represent the aging infrastructure and in many cases a
lack of major bridge rehabilitation work.

Bridges in Service and Distressed

ϭϮϬϬ
ϭϬϬϬ
ϴϬϬ
ϲϬϬ
ϰϬϬ
ϮϬϬ
Ϭ

ϬͲϮϬ ϮϭͲϰϬ ϰϭͲϲϬ ϲϭͲϴϬ ϴϭͲϭϬϬн

ŐĞ'ƌŽƵƉ
/Ŷ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ ŝƐƚƌĞƐƐĞĚ

ODOT Distressed bridge by age group.

18
 018 BRIDGE
20 & TUN
CONDITION REPORT
NNEEL DATA

Bridge Cond
ditions By Regiion
The distribution of bridge conditions by ODOT Region
is presented below. Region 2 which includes a large
portion of the Willamette Valley, major coastal and
high elevation bridges has the greatest number of
distressed structures in Oregon. Of the 268 distressed
R1
bridges in Region 2, 53 are timber bridges requiring
frequent maintenance and Major Bridge Maintenance
R2 funding. The second chart includes the percent of the
R4 R5
total state deck area in not distressed or distressed
condition. Region 1 which includes the Portland area
R3 has the largest amount of deck area in Oregon and the
largest amount of distressed bridges by deck area.

ODOT Bridge Conditions by Region (bridge count)

360 148
R1 11
739 250
R2 18
381 63
R3 8
268 24
R4 2
415 46
R5 4

Not Distressed Other Deficiencies Structurally Deficient

ODOT bridge conditions by by count.

ODOT Bridge Conditions by Region (bridge deck area)

8,215 5,025
R1 146
7,534 2,809
R2 382
4,681 1,155
R3 151
2,212 276
R4 108
3,324 412
R5 115

Not Distressed Other Deficiencies Structurally Deficient

ODOT bridge conditions by 1,000 square feet of deck. Note that Region 1, which includes the
Portland Metro area, includes the greatest quantity by bridge deck area.

19
 20
016-2018 Chan
nges In Conditiion Ra
atings
The chart below shows both the dynamic nature of bridge conditions
and the growing backlog of work, for those bridges that have changed
conditions. The period from 2016 to 2018 reflects bridge conditions over
one full inspection cycle (24 months). In a balanced state, the number of
bridges moving from green to yellow and red (deteriorating conditions) would
be equal to the number moving from red to yellow and green (improving
conditions).
The chart shows that we are managing the Poor (Red) bridges reasonably
well, but the transition of bridges from Good (Green) to Fair (Yellow),
indicates that bridge preventative maintenance actions are not occurring at a
rate necessary to maintain current conditions. Totals reflect two-year counts
based on comparison of 2016 and 2018 snapshots.

12
New Bridges

Cyclic
Maintenance
Needs
7 or greater NBI
13 Rating 70

Preventative
Maintenance
Needs
5 or 6 NBI Rating

13 15
Replacement or
Major Rehabilitation
Needs
4 or less NBI Rating

6 Closed or Replaced Bridges | 5 Transferred Bridges | 2 Re-Classified Bridges

2016-2018 Changes in minimum ratings of superstructure, substructure, or deck condition ratings.

20
 018 BRIDGE
20 & TUN
CONDITION REPORT
NNEEL DATA

Condition Changes Over The Last 10 Years

An overall assessment of bridge condition changes can be determined by
comparing previous to current NBI ratings. The chart below provides the
percentage of bridges in good, fair and poor condition in the last ten years.
Bridges are classified as fair if the NBI value is 5 or 6, however, a value of
NBI=5 indicates more distress. Of concern is the increasing number of bridges
moving out of good condition into fair condition and the slightly increasing
number of bridges in fair (NBI=5) condition which are the bridges most at risk
of becoming structurally deficient.

ODOT Bridge Conditions over Last 10 Years

ϭϬϬй

ϴϬй

ϲϬй WŽŽƌ
&ĂŝƌͲϱ

ϰϬй &ĂŝƌͲϲ
'ŽŽĚ

ϮϬй

Ϭй
ϮϬϬϴ ϮϬϭϯ ϮϬϭϴ

Bridge conditions over last 10 years.

A further comparison was done based on the deck, superstructure, and

substructure conditions for the majority of bridges over the last ten years.
To provide a comparative analysis, only bridges with complete inspection
data available were used. The remaining number of bridges for comparison
was 2,352 or 86% of the bridges now in service.

21
 The analysis focused on the change in good conditions over time. The data
indicates that substructure good ratings have been decreasing (generally
to fair condition) more rapidly than deck or superstructures. Reasons for
the decrease in good substructure ratings can be attributed to the aging
bridge population and the lack of preventative maintenance options for
substructures.

Percent of Bridges: Decrease in Good Conditions

for Deck, Substructure and Superstructure

64%

48%

37%

While a bridge substructure deteriorating from good to fair condition is

not a major concern at this time, as substructure conditions continue to
decline it becomes more problematic. Replacing a deck or strengthening
the superstructure can be done multiple times, however, if a substructure
deteriorates from fair to poor the most cost effective treatment is
generally replacement.

22
 018 BRIDGE
20 & TUN
CONDITION REPORT
NNEEL DATA

NATIONAL BRIDGE
PERFORMANCE MEASURE
Co
ondition Based Performance
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) requires
states to establish bridge condition targets and report conditions based on
specified performance measures including:

1. Percent of NHS bridges by deck area 2. Percent of NHS bridges by deck area
classified as in Good condition classified as in Poor condition

q
State of Oregon
£
¤30
National Highway System
Warrenton
W A S H I N G T O N

£
¤
101
Clatskanie
Rainier
Gearhart Æ
Ä
202
Prescott
November 2017
£
¤
Æ
Ä
Cannon £
¤26 47 730
Æ
Ä
£
¤ § Irrigon
!

Beach Columbia City 11

730
Æ
Ä 53 Vernonia
£
¤ 30
Boardman
¦
¨ 82 Helix
Athena
Weston Æ
Ä
Æ
Ä 3

§
¦£
¨ ¤ Stanfield 204
Manzanita Nehalem Rufus
! Æ
Ä
¦£
§
¨ ¤ 84 30 Arlington 37 Adams
Cascade 30
£
¤
Wheeler 84 Mosier
26 North Echo
Rockaway Æ
Ä Locks !

06 Banks Plains
Æ
Ä
Beach Æ
Ä Æ
Ä 82
Garibaldi Wasco 74 207 Elgin
Bay City Hillsboro
Æ
Ä Wallowa
206 Pilot
Summerville
Gaston
Æ
Ä
219 £
¤
197
Dufur
Æ
Ä19
Ione
Lexington
Nye
Rock
Imbler Lostine

£
¤
Æ
Ä
¦£
§
¨ ¤
Æ
Ä 26
Æ
Ä
35
Æ
Ä
206 74 30 Æ
Ä
Grass 84 Joseph
£
¤ 101
Yamhill 47
Valley £
¤97 Island 237

£
Æ
Ä
Carlton Newburg
Lafayette Dundee
Estacada Rhododendron Æ
Ä
216
206
¤
395
City Cove

1
n

Æ
Ä
Barlow
§
¦
¨
Dayton 5
Æ
Ä Aurora 213 211
Æ
Ä ÆÄ
Ä Æ 244 Union
Æ
Ä 18 Hubbard
Æ
Ä
22 219 224 Maupin
Æ
Ä
a

Amity
!
!
Willamina 216 Æ
Ä
Gervais !
Æ
Ä Ukiah
Æ
Ä Mount 207 203
Æ
Ä 22 Angel Scotts Mills
Æ
Ä Lonerock North Powder
99E
£
e

18
Æ
Ä ¤
197 Shaniko
!

O
214
Æ
Ä218
Æ
Ä Halfway
19
Falls
Æ
Ä
£
¤ Haines

H
c

Depoe Bay City Turner Aumsville !

26 86
Sublimity Antelope Spray
Æ
Ä Monument Granite

A
223
Lyons Sumpter
§
¦£
¨ Richland
!
O

Siletz Æ
Ä Æ
Ä
¤
Jefferson
Æ
Ä 22 84

D
229 Adair 226 Detroit 30
Mill Greenhorn
£
¤
Æ
Ä Village Millersburg Gates 97
Æ
Ä
207 Long Creek
Æ
Ä 7

I
99W City
Scio
Idanha
!

Toledo
£
¤
101
£
¤20 Philomath Tangent £
¤ 20 Æ
Ä Metolius
Austin

22 Culver Mitchell Prairie

Sodaville Waterloo
c

Waldport
Æ Ä
Ä John City
Æ
Ä
245
£
Æ 99E
¤ £
Æ
Ä
Æ
Ä
34
99W
Halsey 228 20
Æ
Ä
!

¤
97 Dayville
Mount
Day Unity
Huntington
i

Yachats Monroe Brownsville

Harrisburg
126
Sisters
!

£
¤26
Vernon

2 £
¤
Æ
Ä 26
!

36
Æ
Ä Æ
Ä
f

242 201
Æ
Ä
§
¦
¨
5
380 84

§
¦
¨
Æ
Ä
Coburg
£
¤
!

105 126 McKenzie Seneca

£
¤ 30
i

Bridge Æ
Ä 395 Æ
Ä
27 451
Æ
Ä Veneta
126
c

Creswell Lowell
Dunes
Æ
Ä
99 Harper
City Æ
Ä Nyssa
a

Harper Jct.
!

£
¤
101
58

Westfir £
¤ 20
Drewsey
Adrian
Reedsport
Æ
Ä Oakridge £
¤ 20
P

38
Drain
La Pine

4
Boswell !
Hampton
Elkton Springs
Lakeside Yoncalla
Hines
§
¦
¨
Æ
Ä Æ
Ä
241 138 5

Oakland £
¤ 97 £
¤20
Lawen
Steamboat
Æ
Ä
138
!
Æ
Ä Glide
42
Æ
Ä
99
Æ
Ä
78

Bandon Æ
Ä
Æ
Ä Myrtle 42
Æ
Ä
42S Æ
Ä 138
Point 230 Æ
Ä
Camas Valley Myrtle
Creek
31
£
¤
395
!

Riddle Jordan
Canyonville !

£
¤95 Valley

3
Powers
Æ
Ä205

§
¦
¨
Crater Lake
5 National Park
Port
Æ
Ä 62 !

Orford Glendale Æ
Ä Æ
Ä
227 62
£
¤97
Paisley
National Highway System
Shady Cove
Oregon Highways
Æ
Ä
234 Chiloquin
Rogue Butte
Falls
River Æ
Ä
Hunter Creek
Gold
140
Bly Æ
Ä Route Type
Hill 140
Pistol River
£
¤199
Jacksonville
Phoenix
Lake
of the
Interstate
£
¤
Æ
Ä Woods

£
¤101
Cave
Junction
Æ
Ä
Æ
Ä
238
99

Æ
Ä Æ
Ä Bonanza
95

U.S. Routes
46 66 70

§
¦
¨ 5
Æ
Ä39
!

Oregon Routes
£
¤
97
Merrill
Malin
£
¤
395 !

C A L I F O R N I A
N E V A D A ODOT Region Boundary
For more information about Oregon's
National Highway System Routes, contact 4 ODOT Region Number
ODOT Road Inventory and Classification
Services at (503) 986-4386. 0 12.5 25 50 75 100
Miles
DISCLAIMER:
Special Project #678 This product is for informational purposes only and may not have been
Produced by ODOT RICS Unit prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes.
(503) 986-4386 Users of this information should review or consult the primary data
November 2017 and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information.

National Highway System

23
 Na
ational Brridge Performance Mea
asure
e Details
Oregon is required to develop condition targets determined from asset management
analyses and procedures that reflect investment strategies that work toward achieving
a state of good repair over the life cycle of assets at minimum practicable cost.
Penalties are assessed if for 3 consecutive years more than 10.0% of a state DOT’s
NHS bridges are classified as poor.

Oregon expects to be able to maintain bridge conditions and not exceed the 10%
threshold in the near future. However, with so many bridges in fair condition on the
cusp of becoming poor, maintaining bridge conditions in the future will be challenging.
Oregon’s NHS bridge conditions and 2 and 4 year targets are shown below.

2018 Oregon National Bridge Performance Measure Values

Good 12.7% Fair 85.4% Poor 1.9%

2-Year Target 4-Year Target

Good: 11.4% | Poor: 2.4% Good: 10.0% | Poor: 3.0%

For perspective, a comparison of the Northwest states’ NHS bridge conditions

was developed using 2017 data submitted to FHWA. While Oregon ranks among
the best in the least amount of poor bridge conditions, it includes the smallest
percentage of bridges in good condition as a result of few bridge replacements.

2017 Western States NHS Conditions, by deck area

ϮϬϭϳtĞƐƚĞƌŶ^ƚĂƚĞƐE,^ŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ͕ďLJĚĞĐŬĂƌĞĂ
ϭϬϬй

ϵϬй

ϴϬй

ϳϬй
'ŽŽĚ͕&Ăŝƌ͕WŽŽƌ

ϲϬй

ϱϬй

ϰϬй

ϯϬй

ϮϬй

ϭϬй

Ϭй
KZ'KE /,K t^,/E'dKE Es Z/KE hd, >/&KZE/

The NPM does not include penalties around the percent of good condition bridges,
it does recognize the importance of having a range of bridge conditions in the
statewide inventory providing a balanced approach to managing the bridge system.

24
 018 BRIDGE
20 & TUN
CONDITION REPORT
NNEEL DATA

MAKING AN OLD BRIDGE NEW AGAIN

The Mosier Creek Bridge was designed by the Oregon Highway Department
under Conde McCullough and built in 1920. The bridge is considered a premier
historic bridge and a National Historic Landmark located on the Historic
Columbia River Highway in Mosier.

Over the years, the concrete deteriorated and the bridge columns required
significant repairs. In addition, the utility line was shedding asbestos insulation
and the narrow roadway did not accommodate pedestrian traffic. A project was
initiated to rehabilitate the bridge while maintaining the historic integrity.

A project was initiated in 2017 that included installing new utility lines and
relocating them closer under the bridge overhang, reducing visibility. The old
asphalt was removed and replaced on the bridge deck which was restriped as
a single lane for two-way traffic. The new alignment allows the shoulders to be
used for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, without altering the bridge layout.

The most significant improvement was an electrochemical concrete treatment

called realkalization used to improve the concrete density, making it more
durable and resistant to corrosion. After the electrochemical treatment, a cement
based paint was used to seal the surface. The rehabilitation is not only beautiful
but is also anticipated to extend the life of the bridge more than 50 years.

Original bridge construction in 1920.

New Mosier Creek bridge Recent bridge photo prior to rehabilitation.

25
 BRIDGE PROGRAM UPDATES

2021-2024 STIP Bridge Work Identification for future funding

• Funding
Major Bridge Maintenance • Accomplishments
• Repair of Older Bridges

Bridge Preservation FOCUS • Painted Steel Bridge Inventory

• New advancements

• Phase 1 Seismic Plus Bridges

Seismic Bridge Program • Region 3 Triage Program
• Coordination with Counties

Bridge Deck Study Chloride investigation

Failed paint on steel member.

Retrofitted bridge rail. Painting preparation on the Distressed bridge deck.

Astoria Megler Bridge.

26
 018 BRIDGE
20 & TUN
CONDITION REPORT
NNEEL DATA

2021-2024 STIP Bridge Work Identification

The development of the 2021-2024 STIP began in the summer of 2017when the
Oregon Transportation Commission started discussing the program funding
allocations which were decided upon in December 2017. In order to stay on track, the
Bridge Section initiated their project selection in the fall of 2017, finalizing the 150%
list project costs totaling about 150% of the anticipated allocation in June 2018. A
final 100% Draft STIP list is expected in July 2019.

Identification of bridge work needs for the 2021-2024 STIP starts out as a data driven
effort using information acquired from bi-annual bridge inspections. Input is also
collected from the maintenance offices, bridge inspectors and the Bridge Preservation
Unit which tracks performance of the protective bridge systems. Once a list of
potential projects is identified, the projects are assigned to Bridge Section engineers
to develop a desk scope based strictly on paper information.

When desk scoping is complete, the Bridge Section reviews the list and with input
from the Regions narrows the list down to 150% of the anticipated STIP funding.
The 150% list is then forwarded to the Regions to field scope considering more
site specific impacts the project might have. The Region develops a more refined
estimate that is then provided back to the Bridge Section that again with the Region
determines the final list of projects that matches the 100% funding. A generalized
flow chart is shown.

Review Bridge • Data from BrM database

Inspection Data • Input from Inspectors, Maintenance, Preservation Unit

• Office Review of bridge needs

Desk Scoping • Initial prioritization
• Initial rough estimates
• Initial business cases

• Region multi-disciplinary teams review projects in field

Field Scoping • Region Teams review/modify scope
• Region refines estimates
• Region develops final business cases

• Bridge Section reviews work using various analyses

Final List • Bridge Section with input from Regions prioritizes work
• Bridge Section matures projects with available budget

27
 Major Bridge Maintenance
In 1990, the state of Oregon established the Major Bridge Maintenance (MBM)
Program, to specifically address major and emergency bridge repairs. These repairs
are typically large enough to be outside the scope of work that can be funded at
the district level, but are too small or can’t wait to be included in the STIP. MBM
highlights include:
► Approximately 200 projects are selected annually.
► Starting in 2018, funding increased to $10,000,000/year.

Significant effort goes into deck treatments as the deck is typically the highest
value item on a bridge. It is also at the highest risk due to its exposure to weather,
de-icing chemicals, and wear from traffic. When concrete decks are cracked, the
risk to the deck is elevated because there are now pathways for water and de-
icing chemicals to get deep into the concrete to the level of the reinforcing steel.
Once the reinforcing steel begins to corrode costly deck rehab or replacement will
be required.

Typical Distresses Addressed by MBM

Failed Deck Damaged Bridge Joint

Distressed Timber Foundation Scour

28
 018 BRIDGE
20 & TUN
CONDITION REPORT
NNEEL DATA

2017 MBM Accomplishments

Activity Type Objective Action(s) Number Total Cost

Urgent maintenance Address defects identified during Repair damaged joints, 24 $1,010,000
routine bridge inspections that need replace deteriorated timber
to be corrected as-soon-as-possible members, and fix fatigue cracks
or pose a traffic safety concern in steel beams

Deck Treatments Preventive maintenance: Seal cracks Deck seals 62 $1,440,000

on decks in good condition to reduce (720,000 sf)
exposure to weather and de-icing chemicals

Preserve/seal the decks of bridges with Waterproofing membranes 45 $3,640,000

asphalt concrete wearing surfaces

Miscellaneous Address issues associated with scour, joints, timber, approaches, Many ~$2,000,000
bearing replacements, and maintenance on the movable bridges

Re
epairing Old
der Bridges is Challenging
g
Each year the MBM program funds approximately 200 bridge repair projects. These projects are
typically in response to a localized defect on the bridge:
► damaged joints,
► frozen bearings,
► rotted timber pile,
► spalling concrete, etc.
The projects can have a significant impact on the overall bridge condition rating, because the
worst detail on the bridge is corrected. Often these repair projects can actually raise a bridge
out of Structurally Deficient classification. However, this rise in condition is only temporary as the
bridge will continue to deteriorate. These repair projects aren’t intended to rehabilitate the entire
structure, but rather just address the defects that must be corrected.

The repaired portions of a structure also tend to have a higher rate

of deterioration. Bridge repair projects can be due to poor details
in the original structure. Repairing the damage due to these details
is challenging because the poor detail will usually remain after the
repair is complete.

The Harrison Boulevard Bridge in Corvallis is a good example of a bridge

with poor details that generates repeated repairs.

29
 The Harrison Blvd Bridge was originally built in 1964. The bridge has an
open joint above a concrete pier. Water runs through this joint and lands on
the pier below. This poor detail is exacerbated by the original design not
accommodating thermal movement without cracking the concrete. Either one
of these details alone would likely not create a significant maintenance issue.
However, the combination of these poor details results in rapid deterioration
of the pier below requiring repeated repairs.

“ Condition
improvements
as a result of
MBM repairs
are only
temporary.
Water seeping through support
wall from the open joint above.
Close up of crossbeam under the
support wall. Concrete is spalling
leaving exposed reinforcement.
”
Several repair projects have been mobilized over the years to address the
deterioration but each has had only limited success.
► In 2015 a repair project was completed at a cost of $85,000 dollars. The
photos above show significant deterioration that occurred quickly outside
the repaired area.
► In 2018 the MBM program funded a larger repair project with larger repair
limits. This project is expected to perform longer than the 2015 project, but
unfortunately it isn’t expected to be the last repair.

The support wall and crossbeam are Repair complete. The poor concrete has
prepared for patching. Poor concrete is saw been patched and the wall sealed to keep
cut and removed leaving neat lines for the water from reaching the reinforcement.
new patching material.

30
 018 BRIDGE
20 & TUN
CONDITION REPORT
NNEEL DATA

Bridge Preservation:
Painted Steel Bridges
ODOT is responsible for more than 370 painted steel bridges with over 27
million square feet of surface area. Painting steel bridges (applying a protective
coating) is vital to preserving and extending the service life of the state’s bridge
system. Timely applications of protective coatings prevent steel corrosion and
any subsequent structural capacity loss. The current steel bridge surface area
distribution is shown.

Painted Steel Bridges

(millions of square feet)

R1 16.3

R2 4.9

R3 2.8

R4 1.7

R5 2.0

When Do We Paint Our Bridg

ges?
The factors that determine whether or not a
bridge needs to be painted include the corrosion
location, the paint failure mechanism, and the
bridge environment. For long term planning
purposes the bridge inspection element, Element
390 Painted Steel, was selected to track over time
on regular intervals.

The threshold for painting needs is when 15% of

the total area of painted steel is at Condition
State 3 (poor) or 4 (failed). Once 15% of the
painted steel has moved to Condition State 3 or
4, the entire bridge’s surface area is added to the
list of in-need bridges. Newly painted Ross Island Bridge

31
 Region 1, with more steel bridges than any other region has the highest quantity
of steel in Condition State 3 or 4. Significant progress is being made, however, to
improve the conditions with the completion of the Ross Island Bridge project. In
addition, more area will be improved with future painting on the Fremont Bridge.

The graphic below shows the current and future bridge paint conditions based
on what projects have been done and those that are currently programmed for
construction.

WĂŝŶƚĞĚ^ƚĞĞůEĞĞĚƐ
Painted Steel Bridge Needs
YƵĂŶƚŝƚLJŽĨ^ƚĞĞůǁŝƚŚхϭϱйŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ^ƚĂƚĞϯĂŶĚϰ
Quantity of Steel with > 15% Condition State 3 and 4 (millions of square feet)*

Zϭ 2,262,500
ϵ
1,310,000
ϴ

ZϮ 923,535
Ϯϱ
Ϯϭ
723,035

Zϯ
585,031
ϵ
ϱ
208,212
ƵƌƌĞŶƚ^ƚĂƚƵƐ;ϮϬϭϴͿ
Zϰ WŽƐƚWƌŽũĞĐƚƐ;ϮϬϮϭͿ

ϰƌŝĚŐĞƐ
Zϱ 44,000
44,000
ϰƌŝĚŐĞƐ

*If 15% or more of the total area of painted steel on a single bridge is in
Condition State 3 or 4 (Element 390), then the entire surface area of the bridge
is included in these figures.

Bridg
ge Painting
g Progrram
Compponnents fo
or Succcess
With limited funding, Bridge
Preservation carefully plans every
painting project in order to minimize
costs and maximize the service
life of the new coatings systems.
ODOT continues to use some well
proven techniques and processes
incorporating new advancements
made in the past few years.
Sandy River Bridge Inspection

32
 018 BRIDGE
20 & TUN
CONDITION REPORT
NNEEL DATA

Advancements in coating technologies

• Coatings may contain micaceous iron oxide that acts as an additional
barrier, increasing the service life. The modified coatings are also more
surface condition tolerant, so they can be used to limit the risk of future
corrosion in areas that are difficult to prepare.
• The Ross Island Bridge Painting utilized a UV-resistant topcoat that will
increase gloss retention, improve the aesthetics and increase the service life.

Preparation
SSPC SP-10, is the gold standard by which steel surfaces are prepared.
The process creates a superior coating surface and reduces chlorides
and maximizes the life of the coating. Service life has been significantly
improved, especially on the coast where chlorides that remain on the
steel prior to painting can be detrimental to a new coating system.

Inspection
Third party inspection required in some ODOT painting contracts,
provides independent impartial inspection services by a qualified
company. NACE Level II and III certified inspectors add expertise to
the Project Manager’s team to ensure a project is constructed to the
specifications.

uture Brid
Fu dge Pa
aint Condition Projecctions – Ne
ext 5 Years
On average, the ODOT Bridge Program paints two bridges every year. However,
in the next five years, ODOT plans to more than double that rate with painting
an average of five bridges and over 750,000 square feet of steel every year.

Next 25 Bridges 3.8 million

5 Years Painted square feet

Future conditions can be estimated based on the planned work and expected
corrosion rates. Projections on expected corrosion rates can be made using
bridge inspection reports over the past few years. Every year, about 400,000
square feet of painted steel is added to the list as needing maintenance painting.
Compared to the 750,000 square feet of planned painting, this shows that not
only will we keep up with the rate of corrosion, but we will reduce the inventory
of bridge painting needs.

33
 Seismic Program Status
The 2014 Seismic Plus report identified five phases of bridge seismic work to “provide the
maximum degree of mobility with reasonable investments spread over several decades.” The
goal of the phasing is to “retrofit all seismically vulnerable bridges and address unstable
slopes on key lifeline routes in a strategic and systematic program to allow for rescue and
recovery following a major earthquake.

Additional funding to address seismic improvements related to highways and bridges is

included with the HB 2017 transportation package. With the new funds, ODOT plans to work
on Phase 1 bridges moving from Eugene, north on I-5 and finishing up on I-84 moving from
east to west in 20 to 30 years. Projects are currently being scoped for seismic work on I-5
near Eugene for the 2021-2024 STIP. Phase 1 Seismic Routes are shown on the next page.

Phasse 1 Prrovides a conneection to the Re

edmo ond Airportt; east-west
frreight movvemennt and a north-ssouth
h corridor on US97 --
thhe cornersstone of the program
m.

ODOT Phase 1 Seismic Routes - August 2017 Status

Ph
hase 1
Brridgess 4 26 153
Re
emaining::
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Estimated
Cost $600 M Completed Funded Remaining

Seismic Bridge Costs Remaining by Phase

153 bridges
Phasse 1 $60
07M

185 bridges
Phasse 2 $63
30M
156 bridges
Phasse 3 $66
64M
155 bridges
Phasse 4 $55
57M

Phase 5 includes 12 bridge replacements like the Medford Viaduct, the Ross Island Bridge,
several historic coastal bridges and other large bridges. The estimated replacement costs
total $1.5 billion.

The costs for Phases 1-4 reflect an update from 2017. An error was made in the 2017
report where Phase 2-4 bridges identified for reconstruction were not accounted for. The
costs presented here include all bridges remaining by Phase with updated retrofit and
replacement costs in 2018 dollars. These estimates are still planning level, however, they
do provide a relative measure by phase. Also, with Phase 1 bridge work estimated at
about $600 million, funding at $20M/year results in 30 years to complete Phase 1 bridges
or at $30M/year, 20 years.

34
 018 BRIDGE
20 & TUN
CONDITION REPORT
NNEEL DATA

ODOT Phase 1 Seismic Routes - August 2017 Status

Miles
0 25 50 100 150 200

I WAS Phase 1 Bridge Status Seismic Routes

H ING
TON !
( Completed Seismic Phase 1
!
( Funded Complete (both bridges
Remaining
and landslides addressed)
!
(
Astoria Astoria
Warrenton 8
$ Forward Supply Locations Funded

8
$
Æ
Ä
104 Seismic Phases 2-4
Not Funded
Clatsop Rainier
Æ
Ä Southern Oregon Triage
202 Æ
Ä
47 (Funded)
Ä
Æ 103 Columbia St.
County
Æ
Ä
53 Helens
Other State Highways

Tillamook
Æ
Ä
6
Portland ( !
(! ( (
! !
(
(!
!(
(
!
§
¦
¨
84
£
¢
30
(!
! (
! !
(
(
!
!
(
(!
(
Æ
Ä
8
Æ
Ä !
(!
(
Æ
Ä (!
!
(
!(! ( !
(! (!
(
Hillsboro
120
§
¨
¦ (
!
205
(
!
(
!
(!
!
((
!
(!
(!
!!

Hood
281
The!(
(
! !
(
!
(

§
(! ( !
¨
¦
Æ
Ä (
!
!
( (!
(! (
!
((
! Dalles
131 Washington 405
!
( !(
!
(
! Multnomah River
! ( Æ
Ä
(( (
! 206
Tigard !
(
!
Æ
Ä Æ
Ä
212
( 43
Tualatin ! !
(
Æ
Ä
Ä
Æ !
((!
!(!
((!
! (!
!( 35 Gilliam
240
Newberg (!
(
(
!
! (
Oregon City
Æ
Ä
173
( Wilsonville
!
McMinnville (
!
ÆÄ Sherman
Ä Æ 154 219 (
! Æ
Ä
Ya m h i l l Æ Æ (
! 211 Clackamas
Æ
Ä
130 Æ
Ä ÆÄ
Ä Ä 233 Woodburn Æ
Ä Æ
Ä
Æ
Ä
18
18B 153
Keizer
5 §
¦
¨
213 224 216

Lincoln Æ
Ä !
(
(
!
(
! Salem Ä
Æ
City 221
£
¢
Æ
Ä 26 218
Polk 214
Wasco
Æ Ä
Ä Æ Æ
Ä
ÆÄ
Ä Ä
Æ 194 51 !
( Marion 293 Wheeler
Æ 229 22
182 Æ
Ä Æ
Ä Æ
Ä !
(
223
Æ
Ä 99W ! 164
(
(
!
Jefferson
Newport
Æ
Ä180
226

Seal
£
¢
20B Albany ((
!
!
(
!
Corvallis !
(
!
(
Madras

Lincoln Æ
Ä
Rock
8
$ (
!
Lebanon Linn
361
(
!
Benton (
!
Æ
Ä Sweet
34 !
(
£
¢
Æ
Ä (
! Æ
Ä228 Home 20
501
Æ
Ä
99E !
(
!
( Redmond Prineville

p Crook
Æ
Ä (
!
Æ
Ä 242
36 !
( Redmond Airport 380
Æ
Ä
£
¢
101
Florence
Ä
Æ 126 §
¨
¦
(
!
105 Springfield
Bend
(Roberts Field)
Æ
Ä
27
Æ
Ä
200
(
!
Æ
Ä !
( Lane £
¤
97B
222

!
(!(!
(
Æ
Ä !
(
38
La Pine Deschutes

Æ
Ä
429
North Æ
Ä
Bend 241 (
!
8
$ Sutherlin
Æ
Ä
58
Æ
Ä99E
Coos Bay
Coos Bay Æ
Ä
§
¦5
¨ !
(
Æ
Ä
138 213 (
!
Roseburg
Æ
Ä
42S Coos
Æ
Ä Douglas
£
¢ 30 Portland
(
!
(!
!(
42

¦§¦
¨ §
¦
¨ !
(
§
¨ 84 84
Æ
Ä230 405
Æ
Ä
31
Æ
Ä
542 £
¢
26
£
¢!( 26
Lake (
!

Beaverton
Æ
Ä
10
£
¢
26
§
¨
¦(
!
205
(
!
(
!
(
!
Æ
Ä (
!
!
( !
(
227 Æ
Ä Æ
Ä
62 Æ
Ä
422 Æ
Ä §
¦
¨
(5
!
224

Æ
Ä !
( 217
99 Æ
Ä
Jackson
Æ
Ä
234 !
( Klamath (
!
213
Grants
Josephine
Æ
Ä Æ
Ä
Pass 43
!
( 99E

§
¨
¦
!
(
Æ
Ä 140 205
Æ
Ä Curry !
(
255
£
¢
199 Æ
Ä 238
Medford
Klamath
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
!
!
( Æ
Ä (
! !!
(
Æ
Ä Falls !
(!
( 70
(
(!
! (
46 !
(
Ashland !
(
Æ
Ä
!
( 43
Æ
Ä
66
Æ
Ä
(
!
(
!
Æ
Ä £
¢
395
39
Æ
Ä273
0 1 2 4 6 8 213
Miles
CALIFORNIA

35
 Other Fund
ded Se
eismic Projects
HB 2017 provided funding for an additional seismic project entitled the Southern
Oregon Triage strategy. The strategy focuses on mitigating seismic impacts along
Interstate 5 south of Eugene, and OR 140 which are key lifeline routes to and from
the Rogue Valley. Most of the seismic impacts on the routes are expected to be
addressed through quick repairs or temporary detours. The funding will be used to
address those bridges and potentially unstable slopes that are more problematic
or where a feasible detour does not exist.

Seismic Response Kits to be located at maintenance station facilities on the coast

at Astoria, Seal Rock and Coos Bay are being considered but are currently not
funded. The purpose of the Seismic Response Kits is to stockpile key materials
and supplies that can be used to assist local communities in the early days
following a seismic event. The kits will include culvert pipes of various sizes;
construction materials; solar power generators and trailer mounted solar light
panels; diesel and unleaded fuel storage tanks; survival supplies (water, field
rations, first aid supplies); power tools; batteries; portable boats; flat railroad
cars; and satellite phones and Ham radios.

Bridge damage caused by historic earthquakes. Photos courtesy of USGS.

36
 018 BRIDGE
20 & TUN
CONDITION REPORT
NNEEL DATA

Lo
ocal Agen
ncy Se
eismic Resiliencce Su
upport
The Bridge Seismic Standards Engineer and other ODOT leadership, is working
collaboratively with Oregon counties to develop planning reports documenting
county routes and priorities for seismic resiliency. ODOT provides bridge
data and technical support and the counties provide information about their
network. While the information is useful for county planning, a comparison
can be made to the state seismic bridge priorities to determine possible state
highway detour routes that may be more cost effective to seismically retrofit
or replace. Eventually the planning reports may provide an opportunity for
seismic resiliency funding from either state or federal funds.

Currently Tillamook and Lane counties have completed reports; Linn, Jackson,
Washington and Clackamas counties have reports underway. The goal is to
coordinate with all western counties by June 2020. The map shows the status
of the collaborative reports by county.

± £
¤101B
C
C oo ll uu m
m bb ii aa
Local Agency Seismic Resilliance
ODOT Support Schedule
Complete

Ongoing
Scheduled

Not Required

£
¤101
Æ
Ä
202
Ä
Æ 332
C
C ll aa tt ss oo pp 30 £
¤ £
¤730
Æ
Ä 3
£
¤ § ÆÄÆ
TillamookW W aa ss hh ii nn gg tt oo nn ¨
¦
30 82 37
Ä 11
§
¨
¦
Æ
Ä W
Æ Ä
Æ 84
M
M oo rr rr oo w
w 204 W aa ll ll oo w
w aa
£
¤ §
Ä 6 8 26
Æ
Ä 82
Æ
Ä
131 ÆÄ
Ä ¨
¦
Æ 217
205
M
H
H oo oo dd R
M uu ll tt nn oo m
m aa hh
R ii vv ee rr Æ Æ
Ä Ä 74
U
Umm aa tt ii ll ll aa
Æ
Ä
350
Ä
Æ47
219
Æ
Ä
211
Æ
Ä
35
S
S hh ee rr m
Æ
Ä
216
m aa nn
Æ
Ä
19
£
¤395
Ä
Æ
237
Æ
Ä
351

§
¨
¦ Clackamas
Æ
Ä
130 Y
Y aa m
m hh ii ll ll W
206 Æ
Ä
5 W aa ss cc oo
Æ
Ä Æ
Ä 207 244 U
Æ
Ä
U nn ii oo nn

¤£¤
Æ
Ä G 203
18 221 97 G ii ll ll ii aa m
m
£
Æ
Ä 213 197 ÄÄ
Æ Æ
Æ Æ
Ä Æ
Ä 413
Æ
Ä P
P oo ll kk Æ
Ä 218 86
229 214
293
ÆÄ Æ
Ä ÄÆ 164 M
M aa rr ii oo nn
Æ
Ä
402 B
B aa kk ee rr
£
¤ 223
20
Ä 180
226 Æ
Ä
Æ
Ä JJ ee ff ff ee rr ss oo nn G
G rr aa nn tt 7
LL ii nn cc oo ll nn
Æ
Ä 22
Ä
Æ
361
Æ
Ä Æ
Ä 99W Linn W
W hh ee ee ll ee rr
B
34
B ee nn tt oo nn
228
Æ
Ä Æ
Ä 370 £
¤
26

Æ
Ä36
Æ
Ä 242
Æ
Ä C
C rr oo oo kk §
¨
¦ 84
Æ
Ä
201

§
¨
380
Æ
Ä
200 ¦105
126
Æ
Ä Æ
Ä
451

£
¤101
D
27

£
¤ 20
D ee ss cc hh uu tt ee ss
Æ
Ä
Lane
£
¤ 454
Æ
Ä Æ
Ä
58 20
38
Æ Æ
Ä Æ
Ä
429
Ä 241
540 Æ
Ä
Ä
Æ 205
Æ
Ä D
D oo uu gg ll aa ss 138
42S C
C oo oo ss M
Æ
Ä Æ
Ä M aa ll hh ee uu rr
Æ Ä
Ä 42
230 31
£
¤395 H
H aa rr nn ee yy
£
¤
Æ ÄÆ 542 97 Æ
Ä
250 Æ
Ä 78
99 LL aa kk ee
Ä
Æ
C
C uu rr rr yy
§
¨
¦ 5
227

ÆÄÆ
Æ
Ä
422
K
K ll aa m
m aa tt hh
JJ oo ss ee pp hh ii nn ee Miles
Ä 62 140
£
¤
199 Æ
Ä Jackson
0 15 30 60 90 120
Æ
Ä
255
Æ
Ä 46
238
Æ
Ä
66
£
¤
97B
Ä
Æ
Æ
Ä
70
Æ
Ä £
¤95
Æ
Ä
273 39 140

37
 Bridge Deck Study
In a November 2017 report detailing the ODOT Winter Salt Pilot Project, ODOT
determined that salt can be used effectively in maintaining roads, achieving
little to no packed snow and ice resulting in reduced crashes and improved
mobility. Understanding the impact of salt on the infrastructure, including
bridges, requires continuous investigation to ensure ODOT is managing
the highway system in a safe and cost effective way while protecting the
environment and infrastructure.

Brridge Decck Chloride Testing

As ODOT’s bridge inventory ages and the use of rock salt to deice highways
expands, increasing numbers of bridge decks are being found to have salt or
chloride contents above a critical corrosion threshold. Once this threshold is
exceeded, steel reinforcement begins to corrode resulting in delamination of
concrete cover and eventual spalling which exposes the deck to additional
damage as well as provides hazards to motorists, as shown.

Thin overlay failing due to corrosion. Spalled deck concrete.

Crowson Creek deck replacement. Region 5 thin deck treatment.

38
 018 BRIDGE
20 & TUN
CONDITION REPORT
NNEEL DATA

Prroactive Appro
oach
ODOT has become proactive about placing thin, epoxy-based wearing surfaces
on decks in good condition to protect them from wheel rutting, impact on joint
details, and future chloride contamination. Once chloride induced corrosion
damage is observed, however, the only options to restore the deck are a
structural overlay or deck replacement. The key is to identify bridge decks
without chloride contamination in order to make use of thin treatments for
prevention and to better understand the potential needs from a program level.

At the program level, ODOT Bridge is working on two studies:

1. The Strategic Highway Research Program 2 (SHRP2) R19A project, used
to determine remaining service life of bridge decks and appropriate
preservation/rehabilitation methods sponsored by the FHWA. Bridges
were chosen on a program level for a variety of reasons ranging from
signs of deterioration to age of construction or geographic location.
In a lot of cases, high chloride content was not expected.

2. The Salt Pilot Program Phase II program level testing, sponsored by

ODOT. Bridges were selected to be distributed evenly throughout
the mile points where rock salt is being used to deice the highway.
They were also chosen to capture structures with diversity of age and
detailing such as having previous structural overlays or widening
work performed.

The data from these projects and additional information collected from cores
taken during project level testing will continuously be evaluated and updated to
improve the understanding of timing and treatment type of bridge deck projects.

John Day River Bridge deck overlay preparation. John Day River Bridge deck overlay completed.

39
 2018 TUNNEL DATA
Keeping ODOT tunnels functioning with
regular monitoring and timely maintenance
is critical to ensure safe passage for
all users. In addition, minimizing tunnel
closures is critical to prevent hardship for
the travelling public in the area served by
the tunnel.

ODOT manages nine state-owned

Oneonta Tunnel following the 2017 Eagle
Creek Fire
vehicular tunnels and is responsible for
all inspection, maintenance, and major
rehabilitation of the structures. ODOT
also provides inspection of two pedestrian
tunnels that were formerly vehicular
tunnels and starting in 2017, six vehicular
tunnels owned by other road agencies.

Inspections have been performed on

ODOT tunnels for more than 20 years
based on the National Bridge Inspection
Standards (NBIS), modified by Oregon
DOT Tunnel Inspection Procedures. Under
the ODOT program, tunnels were on a
two-year regular inspection cycle, with in
depth inspections on a 10-year cycle and
drainage inspections each year by the
ODOT district maintenance crews.
Tooth Rock Tunnel being inspected following
the 2017 Eagle Creek Fire

Ne
ew Nationa
al Tunnel Inspection Sttandarrds (NTIS) Im
mplementation
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines require state DOTs to follow the
new National Tunnel Inspection Standards (NTIS) for the inventory, inspection and load
rating of tunnels. In March 2018 and annually, thereafter, ODOT is required to provide a
snapshot of Oregon tunnel conditions to the FHWA.
The data provided in the table on the next page is based on the new NTIS standards. As
a result of updating to the new standards, ODOT has developed a revised assessment of
the structural condition for the tunnels.

40
 018 BRIDGE
20 & TUN
CONDITION REPORT
NNEEL DATA

Putting the element condition information together to determine the overall

tunnel condition (good, fair or poor) provides a new challenge as there is no
established national standard. The old method of rating generally considered
one tunnel element, the liner. With the new NTIS implementation additional
elements are individually assessed like ceiling slab, anchors, ceiling girder,
wearing surfaces, etc.

To classify the tunnel condition with the updated Oregon data ODOT
borrowed a bridge condition parameter termed Health Index (HI) with values
ranging from 0 to 100. The HI, in general, incorporates the condition of each
element with a weighted average based on the importance of the element
to the tunnel and the unit of measurement. The 2018 tunnel condition
information reported is based on the updated HI method calibrated with
a general assessment of the tunnel conditions and engineering judgement.
Based on the new method, only the Cape Creek Tunnel condition changed
moving from Good to Fair

Tunnel near Bonneville, 1937 Salt Creek Tunnel

41
TUNNEL CONDITIONS AS OF APRIL 2018
Reegion District MP Tunnel Tunneel Name Yeear Length, ft Materials Condition Owner/Notes

1 22 73.5 09103 Vista Ridge Tunnel, Hwy 47 EB 1969 1002 Reinforced Good ODOT
Concrete
1 22 73.6 9103B Vista Ridge Tunnel, Hwy 47 WB 1970 1048 Reinforced Good ODOT
Concrete
1 23 41.2 04555 Tooth Rock Tunnel, Hwy 2 EB 1936 827 Reinforced Fair ODOT
Concrete
1 23 20.2 20318 Oneonta Tunnel (Bike/Ped), 2008 115 Shotcrete Closed ODOT
Hwy 100 at MP 20.15 (Pedestrian traffic only)

2 01 35.7 02247 Arch Cape Tunnel, Hwy 9 1937 1228 Shotcrete/ Good ODOT
Concrete
2 01 40.9 02552 Sunset Tunnel, Hwy 47 1940 772 Shotcrete/ Good ODOT
(Dennis L Edwards Tunnel) Concrete
2 05 56.1 02539 Salt Creek Tunnel, Hwy 18 1939 905 Reinforced Fair ODOT
Concrete
2 05 178.5 03961 Cape Creek Tunnel, Hwy 9 1931 714 Shotcrete/ Fair ODOT
Concrete
2 05 19.7 07139 Knowles Creek Tunnel, 1958 1430 Reinforced Good ODOT
Hwy 62 at MP 19.68 Concrete

3 07 39.8 03437 Elk Creek Tunnel, Hwy 45 1932 1090 Shotcrete Good ODOT

4 09 56.0 00653 Mosier Tunnels 1920 369 Shotcrete Good ODOT

(Pedestrian traffic only)

51C26 W Burnside Tunnel 1940 230 Reinforced Fair PDX

h r Agenncyy Tunnels

51C32 Rocky Butte Tunnel 1939 400 Reinforced Fair PDX

n

Concrete
25B125 Cornell Tunnel #1, NW Cornell Rd 1940 497 Reinforced Fair PDX
Concrete
O he

25B127 Cornell Tunnel #2, (W), NW Cornell Rd 1941 247 Reinforced Fair PDX
Ot

Concrete

22476 Owyhee Tunnel, Owyhee Lake Rd 1929 200 Rock Fair Malheur County

42
 018 BRIDGE
20 & TUN
CONDITION REPORT
NNEEL DATA

OREGON BRIDGE CONDITION

PROJECTIONS: 2018-2028
An analysis was done as part of the ODOT Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) to
project bridge conditions in ten years for three funding situations:

PROJECTIONS $85M/year Pre-HB 2017 funding levels

• Percent NHS bridges in good

condition HB 2017 funding levels,
$122M/year includes seismic funding
• Percent NHS bridges in poor
condition
Desired State of Good Repair
• KPM 16 (percent not distressed) $350M/year funding (DSOGR) based on OTC
all ODOT bridges 2017 investment strategy

NH
HS Bridge
es in Good Condition
NHS bridge condition projections indicate the percentage of bridges in good
condition will continue to decline even with the new HB funding. By 2021 the
percentage is predicted to dip below the desired state of good repair (DSOGR),
which has been established to be 10% based on an assessment of the level of
funding allocated to preservation of bridges in good condition.

Given the age of our system, the decline is inevitable as bridge replacement
is taking place at a much slower rate than the decline in conditions. Bridge
preservation or rehabilitation actions generally cannot raise a bridge rating to
good condition. Bridge replacement is the primary action that results in a good
rating. In addition there is a recent trend showing that new bridge decks are
slipping from good to fair much earlier than normal that reflects a construction
quality issue in concrete mixtures and placement.

%NHS Bridges in Good Condition

йE,^ƌŝĚŐĞƐŝŶ'ŽŽĚŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ
ϭϮ͘ϲй
ϭϬ͘Ϭй

“ The percent of
NHS bridges in
ϰ͘ϭй
good condition
is projected
to decrease.
ϮϬϭϴ
tŝƚŚ,
ϮϬϮϯ
^K'Z

Projected good conditions for NHS bridges.

tͬK,
ϮϬϮϴ
”
43
 NH
HS Bridge
es in Poor Condition
Projections for bridges becoming poor show a steady increase in the next ten
years. However, the HB 2017 funding is projected to slow the decline. By 2020-
2021 the percentage is predicted to rise above the DSOGR, which has been
established at 3% based on an assessment of ODOT’s ability to respond quickly
to the anticipated resulting critical and urgent bridge needs at that level of poor
condition.

The decline is expected to be managed with the use of Major Bridge Maintenance
(MBM) funding which addresses the immediate repairs needed to keep an at
risk bridge from being classified as poor and the prioritization of NHS bridge
work over non-NHS bridge work. However, this strategy continually increases the
number of bridges with repairs that have a higher risk of additional deterioration
and the need for future emergency actions to preserve public safety. As the
number of state bridges with less than optimal repairs and less predictable
behavior grows, the ability of state forces to manage public safety is reduced.

%NHSйE,^ƌŝĚŐĞƐZĞĂĐŚŝŶŐWŽŽƌŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ
Bridges Reaching Poor Condition

ϲ͘ϲй

ϰ͘ϳй
“ The percent
of NHS
ϯ͘Ϭй bridges
in poor
ϭ͘ϴй condition is
projected to
ϮϬϭϴ ϮϬϮϯ ϮϬϮϴ increase.
tŝƚŚ, ^K'Z

Projected poor conditions for NHS bridges.

tͬK,

44
 018 BRIDGE
20 & TUN
CONDITION REPORT
NNEEL DATA

KP
PM 16 (Pe
ercentt Not Distressed
d Brid
dges)
The HB funding is expected to slow the decline of the % Not Distressed for
the ODOT bridge population; however, the decline will continue. The decline is
primarily due to the aging bridge system and a long history of underfunding
in the Bridge Program that precluded systematic replacement of deteriorated
bridges, which is captured in the KPM as Low Service Life and also in bridge
conditions with more bridges projected to become structurally deficient.

%NHS Not Distressed Bridges

йEŽƚŝƐƚƌĞƐƐĞĚƌŝĚŐĞƐ
ϳϵ͘Ϭй
ϳϴ͘Ϭй

ϳϰ͘ϵй

ϳϮ͘ϴй
“ KPM 16 is
projected to
continue to
decline.
ϮϬϭϴ
tŝƚŚ,
ϮϬϮϯ
^K'Z tͬK,
ϮϬϮϴ
”
Projected Not Distressed bridges (KPM 16) for all state owned bridges.

45
 Oregon
http://www.oregon.gov/odot/bridge/pages/index.aspx Department
of Transportation