Structures program manager details bridge condition ratings and replacement timeline; $23.5 million project scheduled

Carolyn Koda, the Agency of Transportation's structures program manager, told Senate Transportation that the federal bridge-classification approach changed in 2017 and the agency now uses the good/fair/poor categories instead of the older "structurally deficient" label. "We don't use the term structurally deficient bridges anymore," Koda said, explaining the Federal Highway Administration's shift to a square-foot-of-deck-area method.

Koda walked the committee through the agency's performance goals and condition trends: the interstate system has a performance threshold of 6% poor deck area, the state highway system's threshold is 10%, and the town highway program's threshold is 12%. She showed historical and forecasted curves for percent of deck area in each condition band and said funding and bridge-age cohorts drive those results; many interstate bridges date to the 1960s and state and town systems include structures built in earlier decades.

Koda described recent replacement activity and ongoing flood-related projects. She said the agency has replaced more than 100 bridges in some years and identified nearly 30 bridges now slated for replacement because of flood damage. She outlined a major bridge project with phased construction and a two-winter shutdown plan: "They're hoping that the whole project will be completed in 2026. And it's a $23,500,000 project," Koda said, adding the work includes new structural steel, widened sidewalks, pedestrian railings and safety rails to deter vehicles from the walkway.

On inspection ratings, Koda explained how deck, superstructure and substructure ratings are combined: "We would take the worst condition for that bridge when we do inspections," she said, describing how a deck rated a 4 with other elements rated higher results in an overall 4 for prioritization. She noted that bridge projects often span multiple years of design and construction so the amount of opened deck area in any one year may reflect earlier funding decisions.

Koda offered to share the presentation and additional data by email for members needing follow-up. Committee members asked to receive the slides and further detail on the federal projects on hold and how replacement schedules interact with statewide prioritization.

Ending: The committee closed the presentation with a request that the structures program provide follow-up data and to remain available for technical questions as the T bill advances.