New Steubenville Bridge
As seen from the Fort Steuben Bridge.
Photo taken by J.R. Manning in January 2008
BH Photo #110600
If I remember right, when built this bridge ended up being several feet (6?) out of alignment when it came to connect it to the Ohio side abutment. The opening was delayed for at least six months for evaluations to see if the constructed abutment would hold up or if it would have to be rebuilt. The final result was the bridge was connected to the existing abutment.
Just wondering if that has anything to do with the lowered scores on the reports????
The bridge does remain visually deficient however :)
The latest NBI data shows that the bridge is no longer structurally deficient, but the superstructure rating of "fair" (5 out of 9) is still a pretty ominous sign for a modern bridge like this.
It clearly states that ugly concrete eyesores are nothing more than ugly eyesores, and that they are purposely built to be a measly fix-it job to be a waste of tax revenue. Historic bridges, when built, were worth it. Imagine the bits of salt eaten concrete chunks falling off as "nickels, dime, and quarters" of our money. When the repairs come to the UCEB it hurts us even more. Rehabilitation and twinning historic spans, when logical, is by far the best route.
Actually, the bridge wasn't even 20 years old when that assessment was made. The data above is from the 2006 inventory. Since 2006, they apparently have made minor repairs to the bridge, since today's 2009 inventory shows the rating to be slightly higher... although still extremely low for such a young bridge. This bridge clearly shows how modern bridges will clearly not last as long as historic bridges. It also calls into questions claims by agencies that rehab projects will only yield 25 additional years of bridge life while a replacement bridge would yield 100 years. Clearly, we are not getting 100 years.
I am including detailed NBI sheets from the 2006 and 2009 inventories for information and comparison. Attachment 1 is 2006, Attachment 2 is 2009
Attachment #1 (application/pdf; 153,490 bytes)
Attachment #2 (application/pdf; 144,385 bytes)
This bridge is stucturally deficient, and it's only 20 years old? WOW. I bet a cantlievered truss wouldn't be in such condition after 20 years.