04 Bridges Presentation — original pdf

Backup

State of Bridges Urban Transportation Commission | January 6, 2026 Austin Transportation and Public Works Outline  Bridge Inventory  Condition  Major Bridges  Small Culverts/Bridges  Pedestrian/Bike Bridges  Funding  Next Steps 2 Importance of Streets & Bridges  Austin's streets and bridges are FOUNDATIONAL to mobility, connecting communities to opportunity.  Connects – walk, bike, roll, transit, drive  Safety and accessibility  Health and sustainability  Economic growth 3 Bridge Inventory Bridge Inventory – Types  466 Major Bridges  National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) class bridges and culverts having an opening more than 20 FT.  Inspected by TxDOT.  810 Small Culverts  Small culverts, pipes, or bridges with spans of less than 20 FT carrying drainage water directly across ROW.  Inspected by City.  20 Pedestrian/Bike Bridges  Inspected by City.  Urban trail bridges inventory and condition assessment to be developed by FY27. Major Bridge (NBIS Class Bridge) (a) (c) (b) (d) 5 Bridge Inventory – Age  Average age: 45 years old.  3% are nearly 100 years old.  35% are past their anticipated design life of 40 to 50 years.  Older bridges with increasing traffic loading will experience an accelerating rate of deterioration.  Large block → surge in funding needs. 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Avg. Age: 45 years Age of Major Bridges (466) Number of Bridges 45 46 41 40 40 36 30 As large block of bridges (60%) ages, expect surge in funding needs. 18 17 16 13 21 21 15 11 10 9 11 7 7 12 0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-100 100+ Age Ranges in Years 6 Bridge Condition  Major Bridges  Small Culverts/Bridges  Pedestrian/Bike Bridges Bridge Condition – How we assess health High Level Inspection Screening (System-Wide + Individual Bridge Health) Detailed Inspections Informed By… (Forms Individual Bridge Needs) Experience, Training, Education CSR 3-1-1 Composite Structural Rating (CSR) (Based on TxDOT Visual Inspection, NBIS) Bridges in need of maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement 8 Bridge Condition – How we manage health Maintenance Rehabilitation + Replacement • Primarily reactive • Planned • Repair railings • Patch concrete • Prevent water from reaching re-enforcing steel • Repair fire damage + more • Funded through annual operating budget • Rehabilitating support structures • Widening to accommodate other modes of travel • Complete replacement • Funded through capital budget - bonds and grants 9 Bridge Condition – Goals Address bridges needing immediate maintenance and bridges that will likely need rehabilitation or replacement in the next 5 to 10 years. Goal 1: All bridges rated in structurally Fair or better condition (CSR ≥ 5 ).  Composite Structural Rating (CSR)  CSR places emphasis on structures with the highest failure risk Goal 2: To minimize the financial risk of unexpected, high-cost maintenance needs at once, continually address those rated Fair or Poor:  Major Bridges: CSR ≥ 90% - Satisfactory  Smaller Culverts/Bridges and Pedestrian/Bike Bridges: CSR ≥ 80% - Satisfactory 10 Bridge Condition – Major Bridges High Level Inspection Screening (System-Wide Health)  Average CSR - 6.5 (Satisfactory).  All major bridges in Fair or better structural condition.  95% in Satisfactory or better condition. Composite Structural Rating (CSR) Category # of Bridges Poor (Rating < 5) Fair (5 ≤ Rating < 6) Satisfactory (6 ≤ Rating < 7) Good (7 ≤ Rating < 8) Excellent (8 ≤ Rating < 10) 0 22 398 46 0 % 0 5 85 10 0 11 Bridge Condition – Major Bridges Detailed Inspections  7 bridges in need of rehabilitation or replacement.  At various levels of project development. Barton Springs Rd Bridge (1925) Replacement, (FHWA awarded) Redbud Trail Bridge (1948) Replacement/Rehabilitation, (Partially funded) E 7th St. Overpass (1948) Substructure Rehabilitation, (not currently funded) Over 50 years old Delwau Lane Bridge (1987) Replacement or Alternate Route, (not currently funded) Slaughter Lane Overpass (1993) Retaining Wall Rehabilitation, (not currently funded) William Cannon Overpass (1980) Retaining Wall Rehabilitation (East –partially funded) River Plantation Dr Bridge (1995) Channel Stabilization, (not currently funded) s e g d i r B f o t n u o C 8 11 32 17 20 36 80 71 82 61 48 1910s or before 1920s 1930s Named Bridge Projects 1940s 1950s 1980s Year Bridge was Originally Constructed 1960s 1970s 1990s 2000s 2010s or after 12 Bridge Condition – Small Culverts/Bridges High Level Inspection Screening (System-Wide Health)  Average CSR - 8.0 (Excellent).  2 bridges identified in Poor condition.  99% in Satisfactory or better condition. Composite Structural Rating (CSR) Category # of Bridges Poor (Rating < 5) Fair (5 ≤ Rating < 6) Satisfactory (6 ≤ Rating < 7) Good (7 ≤ Rating < 8) Excellent (8 ≤ Rating < 10) Not Inspected 2 9 22 288 458 31 % <1 1 3 36 56 4 13 Bridge Condition – Small Culverts/Bridges Detailed Inspections  18 bridges in need of rehabilitation or replacement.  Preliminary Engineering Reports needed to estimate costs. 14 Bridge Condition – Pedestrian/Bike Bridges High Level Inspection Screening (System-Wide Health)  Average CSR - 6.4 (Satisfactory).  1 bridge is rated in Poor condition and closed for public use.  80% in Satisfactory or better condition.  Bridges on trail network to be inspected in FY27 (currently not included in data). Composite Structural Rating (CSR) Category # of Bridges Poor (Rating < 5) Fair (5 ≤ Rating < 6) Satisfactory (6 ≤ Rating < 7) Good (7 ≤ Rating < 8) Excellent (8 ≤ Rating < 10) 1 3 12 2 2 % 5 15 60 10 10 15 Bridge Condition – Pedestrian/Bike Bridges Detailed Inspections  10 bridges in need of rehabilitation or replacement.  Preliminary Engineering Reports needed to estimate costs. 16 Funding Funding – Maintenance  Basic repair and maintenance need identified in inspection reports are addressed utilizing in-house and contracted resources.  Repair types – surface repairs, guardrail and railing repairs, vegetative and debris removal, fire damage, fencing, rip rap, and minor concrete repairs.  FY26: $1.8M annual operating budget.  FY27: funding determined through budget process, expecting an increased need. 18 Funding – Rehabilitation and Replacement  Bridges and structures are critical links necessary to keep Austin moving.  If not addressed, bridges may need to be load rated (heavy vehicles prohibited) or closed.  Detours to next crossing can be long and inconvenient increasing emergency response times and congestion.  It is difficult to predict when to rehab/replace, some bridge may perform well and delay the need. 19 Funding – Rehabilitation and Replacement  Assuming $3 Billion in bridge assets, an optimistic 100-year life and therefore 1% replacement per year, bridge needs could be as high as ~$30 Million/year. – annualized approach  Based on condition, over the next 20 years estimated ~$400 Million. – condition-based approach  Current funding: allocated to specific projects.  Future funding: determined through bond process and grant pursuits to address the most critical and urgent needs. 20 Funding – Rehabilitation and Replacement Funding Category Capital (rehab/replacement) Estimate Need + Timing Years 0 – 5 Year 6 + Beyond Major Bridges ~$125M Small Bridges ~$16.5M1 Pedestrian/Bike Bridges ~$7M2 Total ~$148.5M ~$30M/yr 1. Includes $1.5 M for Project Engineering Reports (PERs) to estimate construction cost, rough construction cost estimate of $15M. 2. Includes $1M for PERs to estimate construction cost, rough construction cost estimate of $6M. • ~$400 - $600 M needed in next 20+ years. • ~$73 M in bond fundings since 1998 (average of under $3M/Year). 21 Next Steps  Continue to prioritize available funding to enhance bridge safety to keep them in good serviceable condition for our community.  Complete CIP projects.  Develop a Street and Bridge Rehabilitation Plan.  Continue to seek alternative funding sources – Federal and State Grants.  Complete inventory and inspection of ped/bike bridges in the Urban Trail network in FY27.  Complete routine inspections of small bridges in next inspection cycle - FY28.  Develop the requirements for an automated Bridge Management Information System (BMIS) implementation that continues to align with the federal specifications. 22 Thank You