2015 Statewide Bridge Sufficiency Rating Report - Condensed

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "2015 Statewide Bridge Sufficiency Rating Report - Condensed"

Transcription

1 Purdue University Purdue e-pubs Indiana Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) Publications Indiana Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) Statewide Bridge Sufficiency Rating Report - Condensed Indiana LTAP Indiana Department of Transportation Indiana Department of Local Government Finance Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Indiana LTAP, Indiana Department of Transportation, and Indiana Department of Local Government Finance, "2015 Statewide Bridge Sufficiency Rating Report - Condensed" (2015). Indiana Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) Publications. Paper This document has been made available through Purdue e-pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact epubs@purdue.edu for additional information.

2 Indiana LTAP 2015 Statewide Bridge Sufficiency Rating Report

3 2015 Statewide Bridge Sufficiency Rating Report October 2015 Compiled by The Indiana LTAP Center Compiled using data provided by the Indiana Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and by the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance Purdue University Indiana LTAP Center 3000 Kent Ave. Ste. C2-118 West Lafayette, Indiana Telephone: Toll free in Indiana: Facsimile: This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Indiana LTAP Center at Purdue University in the interest of information exchange. Purdue University and the Indiana LTAP Center assume no liability for its contents or use thereof. Purdue University and the Indiana LTAP Center do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers names may appear herein only because they are considered essential to the objective of this document. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of Purdue University or the Indiana LTAP Center. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

4 Table of Contents Preface...1 Abstract...1 General Information...3 Purpose of County Bridge Sufficiency Rating Report...3 Bridge Deficiency Classifications...4 Sources of Bridge Funding...5 Eligibility of Specific Bridge Projects for Federal-Aid Funds...8 County Review of Report...9 Updating County Bridge Inspection Reports...10 Tables...11 Appendices... Follow All Tables Appendix A Definitions of Structurally Deficient and Functionally Obsolete Appendix B Sufficiency Rating Formula and Examples Appendix C Indiana Code Covering Cumulative Bridge Fund (8-16-3) Appendix D Indiana Code Covering Major Bridge Fund ( )

5 List of Tables County Specific Tables Hard copies of the county specific tables provided upon request. Tables 1, 2, and 3 can also be found in the electronic version of this report, which is available on the Indiana LTAP website Bridge Sufficiency Ratings (BSR s) by County 2. Listing of Structurally Deficient and Functionally Obsolete by County 3. Estimated Improvement Costs of Eligible for FHWA Replacement by County County Summary Tables 4. Summary of County BSR's - Counties in Alphabetical Order 5. Summary of County BSR's - Sorted by Average Sufficiency Rating 6. Summary of County BSR's - Sorted by Percent of with BSR less than Summary of SD and FO County - Counties in Alphabetical Order 8. Summary of SD and FO County - Sorted By Percent SD and FO 9. Summary of SD and FO County by Deck Area Counties in Alphabetical Order 10. Summary of SD and FO County by Deck Area Sorted By Percent SD and FO 11. Posted/Closed County 12. Cumulative Bridge Fund Information - Counties in Alphabetical Order 13. Cumulative Bridge Fund Information - Sorted by Bridge Fund Rate 14. Cumulative Bridge Fund Information - Sorted by Funding per Bridge 15. Cumulative Bridge Fund Information - Sorted by Funding per Bridge Deck Area 16. Major Bridge Fund Information 17. Summary of County - Counties in Alphabetical Order INDOT Bridge Tables 18. Sufficiency Ratings Distributed by County 19. Structurally Deficient and Functionally Obsolete by County Nationwide Bridge Tables Better Roads Bridge Inventory - States in Alphabetical Order Better Roads Bridge Inventory - Sorted by Combined Total Substandard

6 Preface The 2015 Statewide Bridge Sufficiency Rating Report is now available on the IN LTAP website, This report contains information specific to each of the counties, plus summary tables relating information about all Indiana county bridge conditions and funding levels. As it is impractical to include printed bridge sufficiency rating and deficiency information for all 13,090 county bridges, this information is provided in electronic format only. It is posted on the LTAP website and available on CD-ROM. Current information about bridges in Indiana is maintained on the Indiana state Bridge Inspection Application System (BIAS), which can be found at Indot-it.bentley.com. This system is for use by local agencies to enter and retrieve bridge inspection related data. Abstract The main purpose of this report is to provide bridge sufficiency rating information for the bridges in each county. This information results from the data generated by the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) program authorized by the 1968 Federal-Aid Highway Act. The county bridge sufficiency ratings and the associated summary reports provide county officials with a quick overall assessment of their bridge needs. County officials are urged to review their county bridge inventory and sufficiency ratings for completeness and accuracy. It is also recommended that local agencies refine and upgrade their bridge condition ratings by implementing an aggressive maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement program. This report discusses the various sources of funding for county bridges and provides information on the level to which Indiana counties use these funds. The information provided in this report gives county officials a convenient starting point for formulating a long-range plan to cope with their county bridge deficiencies. The sufficiency ratings and the listing of structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges are objective data which can be used in establishing a priority based bridge rehabilitation and reconstruction program. Estimated construction improvement costs are included in Table 3 and are based on

7 information from the inspection reports. It should be emphasized that these costs are accurate enough for network level planning only; costs for specific bridges should not be considered any more than ± 25% accurate. Only bridge and roadway construction improvement costs are included. The total project costs normally associated with the proposed bridge improvement projects include: right-of-way engineering and acquisition, detours and maintenance of traffic, design engineering, construction inspections, geotechnical evaluation, utility coordination, permits, and other incidental costs. In addition to county specific information, this report includes a series of tables which summarize bridge sufficiency data and bridge structural and functional inadequacy data for all of the Indiana counties. These tables can be used by county officials to determine how their bridges compare to those in other counties. Also provided in this report are a series of tables which relate to property tax based county bridge funding. These tables provide county officials with a means of comparing their bridge funding to that of other Indiana counties and justification for adjusting their cumulative bridge fund rates. Several of the tables included in this report relate to the condition of INDOT bridges and provide general bridge statistics as well as sufficiency and inadequacy data for state bridges on a county by county basis. This information enables county officials to compare the conditions of the county and state maintained bridges within their county. Two tables summarize the conditions of all of the bridges in the United States. These tables give officials a measure of how Indiana state and local bridges compare to those in other states and to the nation as a whole. The information in these tables is extracted from the Better Roads magazine.

8 General Information The National Bridge Inspection Standards program, first authorized by the 1968 Federal-Aid Highway Act, provides Indiana county officials with valuable information for assessing their county bridge needs. Essentially all of Indiana s county bridges twenty feet or more in length have been inventoried and rated for safety and structural adequacy. Historically, since 1970, successive sessions of Congress provided Federal-aid funds to assist in the cost of bridge rehabilitation and replacement. Now, under MAP-21, the framework for bridge funding has changed selected maintenance activities. Federal statutes provide for an area of deficient deck and relative costs for allocating these Federal-aid funds among the states. To implement the allocation of funds, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires each state to annually report a listing of the most current bridge inspection data available. Indiana s 2015 report was compiled by Indiana LTAP from Indiana Bridge Inspection Application System (BIAS) furnished by the Indiana Department of Transportation as well as the Federal Highway Administration. Purpose of County Bridge Sufficiency Rating Report Aside from the general background information on the National Bridge Inspection Standards program and Federal-aid bridge funds, the main purpose of the Bridge Sufficiency Rating Report is to distribute the same basic information currently being used by the FHWA to assess Indiana s county bridge needs to the officials in the affected counties. County officials should find this information quite useful in assessing the overall bridge needs of their particular county; however, this information may also be useful in a number of other ways, including programming improvements and establishing/revising bridge funding levels.

9 The data in Table 1, Bridge Sufficiency Ratings, of this report lists the following items for each county bridge. NBI# This number is the unique identifier for the bridge in the National Bridge Inventory. Bridge# This number relates to the number assigned to the bridge in the Bridge Inspection Report, initially compiled by county highway personnel or by the consultant retained by the county. Feature Crossed This title indicates the name of the ditch, stream, river, road or railroad crossed by the bridge. Facility Carried This title indicates the name of the county road on which the bridge is located. Missing entries suggest three possibilities: the county road has no name, the name of the road was omitted from the Inspection Report, or the name of the road was not coded into the computer. Sufficiency Rating This is the key item of this report. The bridge sufficiency rating (SR) represents a composite rating weighted to assess the following attributes of the bridge: Structural Adequacy and Safety Serviceability and Functional Obsolescence Essentiality for Public Use The sufficiency ratings vary from 0 to 100, with a lower value indicating a lower degree of sufficiency, but a higher degree of need for either repair or replacement. Appendix B contains the complete procedure used to compute the sufficiency rating.

10 Sources of Bridge Funding Federal funds for all transportation projects including bridges are provided in accordance with MAP-21, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (P.L ), which was signed into law on July 6, MAP-21 is the first long-term highway authorization enacted since the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). MAP-21 builds on many of the highway, transit, bike, and pedestrian programs and policies established in 1991 under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Highway funding for the Surface Transportation Program (STP) under MAP-21is provided through a lump sum total to each state. Once the State s share is calculated, it is divided up by program within the State. There is more latitude for states to decide whether to repair or replace, or build new facilities such as bridges. States are no longer required to spend money to repair deficient bridges, though they may choose to do so. Eligible activities have been expanded to include preventative maintenance, however the flexibility allowed for spending funds implies that there will be many more projects competing for scarce resources. The Highway Bridge Program was eliminated in MAP-21, and the funds were shifted to the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) and bridge repair can be funded through either the NHPP or the STP. NHPP funds are restricted for use to fix bridges on the National Highway System. Only STP money is explicitly available to repair local and regional bridges that are not on the National Highway System. There is a set-aside for off-system bridges: not less than 15% of the State s FY 2009 Highway Bridge Program Apportionment must be used for off-system bridges. Eligible activities for STP funds include the following bridge items: construction of new bridges on Federal-aid highways, inspection and evaluation of bridges, training for bridge inspectors, and installation of safety barriers and nets on bridges. MAP-21 establishes new management and performance requirements for the National Highway System (NHS), changes the definition of the NHS to include bridges that were not previously on the NHS and eliminates the Highway Bridge Program. Bridge funding for bridges on interstates and principle arterials is provided through NHPP and NHS, bridge funding for bridges on minor arterials and collectors is provided through NHPP and STP, and bridge funding for bridges on minor collectors and local roads is provided through STP. Due to the flexibility of funding at the

11 discretion of the State, details regarding the allocation of funds for local bridge funding in Indiana is not known. Bridge conditions MAP-21 establishes a minimum standard for NHS bridge conditions. If more than 10% of the total deck area of NHS bridges in a State is on structurally deficient bridges for three consecutive years, the State must devote NHPP funds in an amount equal to 50% of the State's FY 2009 Highway Bridge Program apportionment to improve bridge conditions during the following fiscal year (and each year thereafter if the condition remains below the minimum). Within 18 months of enactment, the Secretary, in consultation with States, MPOs, and other stakeholders, is directed to publish a rulemaking establishing: Minimum standards for States to use in developing and operating bridge and pavement management systems. Performance measures for Interstate and NHS pavement condition, NHS bridge condition, and Interstate and NHS performance. Minimum conditions for Interstate pavements may vary geographically. Data elements necessary to collect and maintain standardized data to carry out a performance-based approach. In order to allow the States three complete years under the NHPP as determined by 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2), FHWA will examine bridge condition data submitted by the States in April 2014, 2015, and If the deck area on structurally deficient NHS bridges exceeds the 10 percent bridge condition threshold for all three years, the penalty will be imposed on October 1, 2016 (the start of FY 2017). Local Match The county share of a Federal-aid bridge project is generally 20% of the bridge project cost. Counties will normally use one or more of the following sources for matching the Federal-aid funds: Cumulative Bridge Funds Motor Vehicle Highway Account MVHA Local Road and Street Account LRSA

12 Major Bridge Funds Local Option Highway User Tax Funds LOHUT MVHA and LRSA funds are available to all local governments in Indiana by a formula distribution. Cumulative Bridge funds and LOHUT funds are local county revenues and vary widely depending on the county. Major Bridge Funds are local county revenues available to counties and cities of specified population for longer span bridges. The STP provides Federalaid funds for bridges that meet the required criteria established by INDOT in their call for projects. Federal-aid funds do not meet all county bridge needs. A Cumulative Bridge fund may be used to provide additional funds for local bridges. Cumulative Bridge funds may be used for bridge and approach maintenance, repair, and construction. These funds are derived from local property taxes. The Cumulative Bridge Fund levy is obtained by multiplying the Cumulative Bridge Fund rate (expressed in dollars per hundred dollars of Assessed Valuation) by the County Assessed Valuation and dividing by 100. The rate is limited to ten cents per hundred dollars of assessed valuation. The Cumulative Bridge Fund is covered in detail in the Indiana Code , which is attached as Appendix C. Some counties have established a Major Bridge Fund to aid in their bridge funding. According to Indiana Code , which is also attached as Appendix D, counties with populations between 100,000 and 700,000 with major obstructions between commercial or population centers may establish a Major Bridge Fund. This funding can be used for so-called major bridges. A major bridge is defined as a bridge 200 feet or more in length which traverses a depression or obstruction. The minimum length is reduced to 100 feet in cities with the following populations: 1.More than 65,000 but less than 70,000 2.More than 60,000 but less than 65,000 3.More than 31,000 but less than 31,500 Major bridge funding can also be used for underpasses of any length.

13 Eligibility of Specific Bridge Projects for Federal-Aid Funds To determine the eligibility and availability of Federal-aid funds for a specific county bridge project, county officials should contact: Kathy Eaton-McKalip LPA Grant Administrator, Indiana Department of Transportation Indiana Department of Transportation Indiana Government Center North Room N. Senate Avenue Indianapolis, IN Phone: Applications for Federal-aid funds are submitted to the INDOT Division of Local Assistance for review and approval. County bridges with lower sufficiency ratings are candidates for a higher priority of approval. To be eligible the bridge must meet the following criteria: 1. The Bridge must be on the NBI database. that are longer than 20 feet in length and carry a public road that is open to public travel are on the NBI database. 2. To be eligible for rehabilitation, the bridge must have a Sufficiency Rating of 80 or less; to be eligible for replacement, the bridge must have a Sufficiency Rating of less than New, INDOT s bridges, and bridges within the urbanized area of any MPO are not eligible. 4. Preventative Maintenance bridge projects are not eligible for funding.

14 County Review of Report Besides using this report to make a quick overall assessment of county bridge needs, county officials should make a special effort to assess the accuracy and completeness of the report. The essential checklist questions to be addressed are as follows: INVENTORY: Is the bridge inventory complete? Are all county/city bridges 20-feet or more in length and not on the state highway system listed considered? If not, the appropriate additions and corrections should be made by the certified team leader performing the bridge inventory-inspection. DATA RECORDED: Have all the required bridge data been entered and recorded in the Inspection Report? If not, the appropriate additions and corrections should be made by the certified team leader making the bridge inventory-inspection. DATA ACCURACY: Have the required ratings of bridge data been consistent and accurate? Weighing and assessing this question could be a tedious exercise; however, a few spot checks by state and Federal bridge engineers suggest that at least some of the ratings have been too high, thereby raising the sufficiency rating and lowering the priority for Federal-aid funding. For this reason alone, county officials should make a review of the individual bridge inventory-inspection sheets submitted in the County Bridge Inspection Report and assess the accuracy of the various ratings recorded. County officials can gain access to the online Bridge Inspection Application Software (BIAS) for their respective county by requesting access from either: (a) Their Bridge Inspection Consultant (b) Indiana LTAP Patrick Conner 3000 Kent Ave., Suite C2-118 West Lafayette, IN Phone: (765) connerp@purdue.edu

15 Updating County Bridge Inspection Reports Besides reviewing this report for omissions and errors as outlined in the previous section, the National Bridge Inspection Standards program requires county officials to ensure inspection of their county bridges at least every two years with a brief summary report. Periodic inspections will provide the opportunity: to re-examine all county bridges for new or additional structural or foundation deterioration which has occurred since the previous inspection, to upgrade and refine the required data ratings on each bridge, to correct any omissions or errors of the previous inspection, and to eliminate errors in coding the bridge data for computer processing. Some may view the expense of re-inspecting the county bridges as unwarranted; however, the increased traffic and the known ravages of weather and erosion provide convincing logic to support the need for re-inspection on a periodic basis. Besides the direct benefits of signing and posting load limits on weak bridges, a current, up-todate county bridge inspection program will enhance the allocation of Federal-aid funds for bridge replacement and rehabilitation. Unless Indiana has a complete and accurate inventory of bridges, there is no assurance that our state will receive its fair share of Federal-aid bridge funds.

16 Description of Tables TABLE 1: Bridge Sufficiency Rating Counties in Alphabetical Order TABLE 2: Listing of Structurally Deficient and Functionally Obsolete Counties in Alphabetical Order- Sorted by Average Sufficiency Rating TABLE 3: Estimated Improvement Costs of Counties in Alphabetical Order TABLE 4: Summary of County Bridge Sufficiency Rating Counties in Alphabetical Order TABLE 5: Summary of County Bridge Sufficiency Rating Sorted by Average Sufficiency Rating TABLE 6: Summary of County Bridge Sufficiently Rating Sorted by Percent of with BSR less than 50 TABLE 7: Summary of Structurally Deficient (SD) and Functionally Obsolete (FO) County Counties in Alphabetical Order TABLE 8: Summary of Structurally Deficient (SD) and Functionally Obsolete (FO) County Sorted by Percent SD and FO TABLE 9: Summary of Structurally Deficient (SD) and Functionally Obsolete (FO) County Bridge Deck Area Counties in Alphabetical Order

17 TABLE 10: Summary of Structurally Deficient (SD) and Functionally Obsolete (FO) County Bridge Deck Area Sorted by Percent SD and FO TABLE 11: Posted/Closed County Counties in Alphabetical Order TABLE 12: Bridge Fund Information Counties in Alphabetical Order TABLE 13: Bridge Fund Information Sorted by Cumulative Bridge Fund Amount TABLE 14: Bridge Fund Information Sorted by Funding Per Bridge TABLE 15: Bridge Fund Information Sorted by Funding Per Area ($/Sft) TABLE 16: Major Bridge Fund Information Sorted by Alphabetical Order and Bridge Fund Rate TABLE 17: Summary of County Counties in Alphabetical Order TABLE 18: Summary of State Bridge Sufficiency Rating Counties in Alphabetical Order TABLE 19: Summary if Structurally Deficient and Functionally Obsolete State Counties in Alphabetical Order TABLE 20: Better Roads 2013 Bridge Inventory States in Alphabetical Orders

18 TABLE 21: Better Roads 2013 Bridge Inventory Sorted by Combined Total SD/FO

19 TABLE 1: BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATINGS Counties in Alphabetical Order Available in electronic format by contacting LTAP

20 TABLE 2: Listing of Structurally Deficient and Functionally Obsolete Counties in Alphabetical Order Sorted by Average Sufficiency Rating Available in electronic format by contacting LTAP

21 TABLE 3: Estimated Improvement Costs of Eligible for FHWA Replacement Counties in Alphabetical Order Available in electronic format by contacting LTAP

22 TABLE 4: Summary of County Bridge Sufficiency Rating Counties in Alphabetical Order County # SR<50 %<50 # 50<SR<80 % 50<SR<80 # 80<SR<100 % 80<SR<100 Average SR Total # of Adams Allen Bartholomew Benton Blackford Boone Brown Carroll Cass Clark Clay Clinton Crawford Daviess Dearborn Decatur Dekalb Delaware Dubois Elkhart Fayette Floyd Fountain Franklin Fulton Gibson Grant Greene Hamilton Hancock Harrison Hendricks Henry Howard Huntington Jackson Jasper

23 County # SR<50 %<50 # 50<SR<80 % 50<SR<80 # 80<SR<100 % 80<SR<100 Average SR Total # of Jay Jefferson Jennings Johnson Knox Kosciusko Lagrange Lake LaPorte Lawrence Madison Marion Marshall Martin Miami Monroe Montgomery Morgan Newton Noble Ohio Orange Owen Parke Perry Pike Porter Posey Pulaski Putnam Randolph Ripley Rush Scott Shelby Spencer St. Joseph Starke Steuben Sullivan

24 County # SR<50 %<50 # 50<SR<80 % 50<SR<80 # 80<SR<100 % 80<SR<100 Average SR Total # of Switzerland Tippecanoe Tipton Union Vanderburgh Vermillion Vigo Wabash Warren Warrick Washington Wayne Wells White Whitley Total N/A Average N/A N/A N/A

25 TABLE 5: Summary of County Bridge Sufficiency Rating Sorted by Average Sufficiency Rating County # SR<50 %<50 # 50<SR<80 % 50<SR<80 # 80<SR<100 % 80<SR<100 Average SR Total # of Crawford Putnam Orange Sullivan Owen Greene Fountain Parke Martin Brown Clay Jennings Franklin Starke Porter Knox Gibson Dearborn Switzerland Miami Marion Pike Lawrence Howard Noble Perry Posey Randolph Clinton Rush Delaware Morgan Decatur Scott Lake Shelby Ripley Wabash

26 County # SR<50 %<50 # 50<SR<80 % 50<SR<80 # 80<SR<100 % 80<SR<100 Average SR Total # of Elkhart Warrick Hendricks Newton Monroe Johnson Vigo Wayne Fayette Daviess Vermillion Washington Boone Warren Hancock LaPorte Pulaski Allen Jefferson Dubois Vanderburgh Bartholomew Madison Floyd Spencer Grant St. Joseph Clark Kosciusko Wells Jay Henry Whitley Carroll Blackford Jackson Marshall Dekalb Tippecanoe Harrison

27 County # SR<50 %<50 # 50<SR<80 % 50<SR<80 # 80<SR<100 % 80<SR<100 Average SR Total # of Lagrange Huntington Fulton Union Cass White Benton Ohio Jasper Hamilton Adams Steuben Montgomery Tipton Total N/A Average N/A N/A N/A

28 TABLE 6: Summary of County Bridge Sufficiently Rating Sorted by Percent of with BSR less than 50 County # SR<50 %<50 # 50<SR<80 % 50<SR<80 # 80<SR<100 % 80<SR<100 Average SR Total # of Adams Harrison Jasper Lagrange Montgomery Ohio Steuben Tipton Hamilton Clark Cass Grant Henry Tippecanoe Blackford Fulton Dekalb White Benton Carroll Marshall Huntington Jay Vanderburgh Daviess LaPorte Floyd Kosciusko Madison Hancock Wells Pulaski Spencer Whitley Elkhart Union Vigo

29 County # SR<50 %<50 # 50<SR<80 % 50<SR<80 # 80<SR<100 % 80<SR<100 Average SR Total # of St. Joseph Vermillion Washington Allen Dubois Wabash Bartholomew Jackson Newton Decatur Hendricks Delaware Rush Wayne Warrick Jefferson Boone Fayette Scott Johnson Monroe Warren Perry Howard Ripley Porter Marion Lake Posey Clinton Randolph Gibson Knox Noble Morgan Shelby Lawrence Pike Miami Franklin

30 County # SR<50 %<50 # 50<SR<80 % 50<SR<80 # 80<SR<100 % 80<SR<100 Average SR Total # of Switzerland Dearborn Starke Brown Clay Jennings Parke Greene Fountain Martin Owen Orange Putnam Sullivan Crawford Total N/A Average N/A N/A N/A

31 TABLE 7: Summary of Structurally Deficient (SD) and Functionally Obsolete (FO) County Counties in Alphabetical Order County Total # of # SD % SD # FO % FO Total # SD & FO % SD & FO Adams Allen Bartholomew Benton Blackford Boone Brown Carroll Cass Clark Clay Clinton Crawford Daviess Dearborn Decatur Dekalb Delaware Dubois Elkhart Fayette Floyd Fountain Franklin Fulton Gibson Grant Greene Hamilton Hancock Harrison Hendricks Henry Howard Huntington Jackson Jasper Jay

32 County Total # of # SD % SD # FO % FO Total # SD & FO % SD & FO Jefferson Jennings Johnson Knox Kosciusko Lagrange Lake LaPorte Lawrence Madison Marion Marshall Martin Miami Monroe Montgomery Morgan Newton Noble Ohio Orange Owen Parke Perry Pike Porter Posey Pulaski Putnam Randolph Ripley Rush Scott Shelby Spencer St. Joseph Starke Steuben Sullivan Switzerland

33 County Total # of # SD % SD # FO % FO Total # SD & FO % SD & FO Tippecanoe Tipton Union Vanderburgh Vermillion Vigo Wabash Warren Warrick Washington Wayne Wells White Whitley Total Average N/A N/A 31.7 N/A

34 TABLE 8: Summary of Structurally Deficient (SD) and Functionally Obsolete (FO) County Sorted by Percent SD and FO County Total # of # SD % SD # FO % FO Total # SD & FO % SD & FO Tipton Adams Cass LaGrange Fulton White Steuben Huntington Jay Dekalb Jasper Union Clark Harrison Benton Blackford Montgomery Madison Henry Hamilton Marshall Whitley Newton Grant Jefferson Kosciusko St. Joseph Tippecanoe Carroll Jackson Wabash Scott Wells Vanderburgh Ohio Warrick Posey Dubois

35 County Total # of # SD % SD # FO % FO Total # SD & FO % SD & FO Floyd Hancock LaPorte Vigo Allen Daviess Wayne Spencer Switzerland Fayette Boone Ripley Washington Pulaski Johnson Randolph Lawrence Bartholomew Elkhart Clinton Delaware Rush Perry Warren Noble Vermillion Hendricks Howard Morgan Miami Shelby Brown Porter Starke Lake Gibson Monroe Decatur Franklin Marion

36 County Total # of # SD % SD # FO % FO Total # SD & FO % SD & FO Pike Jennings Owen Knox Fountain Parke Dearborn Orange Greene Putnam Martin Sullivan Clay Crawford Total Average N/A N/A 31.7 N/A

37 TABLE 9: Summary of Structurally Deficient (SD) and Functionally Obsolete (FO) County by Deck Area Counties in Alphabetical Order County Area of All (sft) Area of SD (sft) % SD Area of FO % FO Total SD & FO Bridge Area (sft) % SD & FO Adams 284,040 2, , , Allen 1,409, , , , Bartholomew 634,125 63, , , Benton 192,617 8, , , Blackford 97,991 1, , , Boone 335,982 45, , , Brown 92,299 11, , , Carroll 281,580 5, , , Cass 401,687 5, , , Clark 296,249 4, , , Clay 196,246 39, , , Clinton 256,801 23, , , Crawford 112,894 44, , , Daviess 196,883 5, , , Dearborn 208,181 51, , , Decatur 275,145 36, , , Dekalb 228,851 2, , , Delaware 670,537 73, , , Dubois 230,223 22, , , Elkhart 652, , , , Fayette 217,373 42, , , Floyd 164,409 10, , , Fountain 244,353 63, , , Franklin 276,948 55, , , Fulton 142,024 4, , Gibson 335,613 43, , , Grant 346,990 1, , , Greene 222,338 37, , , Hamilton 1,097, , , Hancock 339,877 9, , , Harrison 145, , , Hendricks 543,906 92, , , Henry 286,021 8, , , Howard 330,875 42, , , Huntington 267,396 4, , , Jackson 323,858 17, , ,

38 County Area of All (sft) Area of SD (sft) % SD Area of FO % FO Total SD & FO Bridge Area (sft) % SD & FO Jasper 242,729 2, , , Jay 253,666 14, , , Jefferson 186,704 9, , , Jennings 239,731 76, , , Johnson 367,442 53, , , Knox 359,214 32, , , Kosciusko 189,470 19, , LaGrange 97, , Lake 847, , , , LaPorte 226,093 45, , , Lawrence 342,122 42, , , Madison 675,543 21, , , Marion 3,927, , , , Marshall 241,720 27, , , Martin 63,459 27, , , Miami 254,827 67, , , Monroe 279,258 5, , , Montgomery 418,429 1, , , Morgan 274,854 52, , , Newton 180,932 7, , , Noble 106,340 31, , , Ohio 43, , , Orange 155,124 38, , , Owen 198,839 38, , , Parke 281,799 60, , , Perry 122,500 7, , , Pike 130,985 20, , , Porter 271,997 64, , , Posey 233,234 17, , , Pulaski 184,939 33, , , Putnam 372, , , , Randolph 378,979 37, , , Ripley 195,017 11, , , Rush 280,455 45, , , Scott 137,655 8, , , Shelby 179,503 8, , , Spencer 742,175 76, , , St. Joseph 264,231 5, , , Starke 76,691 23, , ,

39 County Area of All (sft) Area of SD (sft) % SD Area of FO % FO Total SD & FO Bridge Area (sft) % SD & FO Steuben 72, , , Sullivan 238,951 88, , , Switzerland 62,151 6, , , Tippecanoe 892,897 49, , , Tipton 167,733 1, , , Union 105,145 2, , , Vanderburgh 537,025 17, , , Vermillion 169,066 16, , , Vigo 391,823 20, , , Wabash 342,638 59, , , Warren 186,821 18, , , Warrick 237,821 14, , , Washington 223,738 2, , , Wayne 711,566 40, , , Wells 250,835 28, , , White 355,141 12, , , Whitley 157,029 4, , , Total 31,468,410 3,557, ,173, ,731, Average 342,048 38,667 N/A 45,368 N/A 84,036 N/A

40 TABLE 10: Summary of Structurally Deficient (SD) and Functionally Obsolete (FO) County by Deck Area Sorted by Percent SD and FO County Area of All (sft) Area of SD (sft) % SD Area of FO % FO Total SD & FO Bridge Area (sft) % SD & FO LaGrange 97, , Cass 401,687 5, , , Tipton 167,733 1, , , Fulton 142,024 4, , White 355,141 12, , , Union 105,145 2, , , Huntington 267,396 4, , , Steuben 72, , , Adams 284,040 2, , , Dekalb 228,851 2, , , Henry 286,021 8, , , St. Joseph 264,231 5, , , Benton 192,617 8, , , Ohio 43, , , Newton 180,932 7, , , Jasper 242,729 2, , , Jay 253,666 14, , , Blackford 97,991 1, , , Carroll 281,580 5, , , Jefferson 186,704 9, , , Madison 675,543 21, , , Montgomery 418,429 1, , , Clark 296,249 4, , , Daviess 196,883 5, , , Whitley 157,029 4, , , Kosciusko 189,470 19, , Harrison 145, , , Hancock 339,877 9, , , Spencer 742,175 76, , , Scott 137,655 8, , , Wells 250,835 28, , , Jackson 323,858 17, , , Warrick 237,821 14, , , Posey 233,234 17, , , Vanderburgh 537,025 17, , ,

41 County Area of All (sft) Area of SD (sft) % SD Area of FO % FO Total SD & FO Bridge Area (sft) % SD & FO Floyd 164,409 10, , , Warren 186,821 18, , , Shelby 179,503 8, , , Switzerland 62,151 6, , , Marshall 241,720 27, , , Dubois 230,223 22, , , Ripley 195,017 11, , , Randolph 378,979 37, , , Hamilton 1,097, , , Washington 223,738 2, , , Boone 335,982 45, , , Brown 92,299 11, , , Grant 346,990 1, , , Vermillion 169,066 16, , , Lawrence 342,122 42, , , Rush 280,455 45, , , Clinton 256,801 23, , , Pulaski 184,939 33, , , Wabash 342,638 59, , , Marion 3,927, , , , Perry 122,500 7, , , Vigo 391,823 20, , , Morgan 274,854 52, , , Tippecanoe 892,897 49, , , Johnson 367,442 53, , , Decatur 275,145 36, , , LaPorte 226,093 45, , , Wayne 711,566 40, , , Fayette 217,373 42, , , Noble 106,340 31, , , Knox 359,214 32, , , Howard 330,875 42, , , Hendricks 543,906 92, , , Gibson 335,613 43, , , Franklin 276,948 55, , , Monroe 279,258 5, , , Allen 1,409, , , , Delaware 670,537 73, , , Miami 254,827 67, , ,

42 County Area of All (sft) Area of SD (sft) % SD Area of FO % FO Total SD & FO Bridge Area (sft) % SD & FO Fountain 244,353 63, , , Pike 130,985 20, , , Bartholomew 634,125 63, , , Starke 76,691 23, , , Elkhart 652, , , , Owen 198,839 38, , , Jennings 239,731 76, , , Dearborn 208,181 51, , , Parke 281,799 60, , , Orange 155,124 38, , , Greene 222,338 37, , , Porter 271,997 64, , , Lake 847, , , , Clay 196,246 39, , , Sullivan 238,951 88, , , Putnam 372, , , , Martin 63,459 27, , , Crawford 112,894 44, , , Total 31,468,410 3,557, ,173, ,731, Average 342,048 38,667 N/A 45,368 N/A 84,036 N/A

43 TABLE 11: Posted/Closed County Counties in Alphabetical Order County Number County # Posted (Coded "P") # Closed (Coded "G/K") # Restricted (Coded "R") 1 Adams Allen Bartholomew Benton Blackford Boone Brown Carroll Cass Clark Clay Clinton Crawford Daviess Dearborn Decatur Dekalb Delaware Dubois Elkhart Fayette Floyd Fountain Franklin Fulton Gibson Grant Greene Hamilton Hancock Harrison Hendricks Henry Howard Huntington Jackson Jasper Jay Total

44 County County # Posted # Closed # Restricted Total Number (Coded "P") (Coded "G/K") (Coded "R") 39 Jefferson Jennings Johnson Knox Kosciusko LaGrange Lake LaPorte Lawrence Madison Marion Marshall Martin Miami Monroe Montgomery Morgan Newton Noble Ohio Orange Owen Parke Perry Pike Porter Posey Pulaski Putnam Randolph Ripley Rush Scott Shelby Spencer St. Joseph Starke Steuben Sullivan Switzerland

45 County County # Posted # Closed # Restricted Total Number (Coded "P") (Coded "G/K") (Coded "R") 79 Tippecanoe Tipton Union Vanderburgh Vermillion Vigo Wabash Warren Warrick Washington Wayne Wells White Whitley Total Average

46 TABLE 12: Cumulative & Major Bridge Fund Information Counties in Alphabetical Order County Total # of Area of All (sft) Cumulative and Major Bridge Fund Funding per Bridge ($/bridge) Cumulative & Major Bridge Funding per Area ($/sft) Adams , , , Allen 390 1,409,597 1,626, , Bartholomew ,125 1,601, , Benton , , , Blackford 59 97, , , Boone , , , Brown 83 92,299 42, Carroll , , , Cass , , , Clark ,249 1,516, , Clay , , , Clinton , , , Crawford , Daviess ,883 1,117, , Dearborn , , , Decatur , , , Dekalb , , , Delaware ,537 1,634, , Dubois , , , Elkhart ,353 2,292, , Fayette , , , Floyd ,409 N/A N/A N/A Fountain , , , Franklin , , , Fulton , , , Gibson ,613 1,379, , Grant , , , Greene , , , Hamilton 305 1,097,655 2,715, , Hancock ,877 1,934, , Harrison , , , Hendricks ,906 3,648, , Henry , , , Howard , , , Huntington , , , Jackson , , , Jasper , , ,

47 County Total # of Area of All (sft) Cumulative and Major Bridge Fund Funding per Bridge ($/bridge) Cumulative & Major Bridge Funding per Area ($/sft) Jay , , , Jefferson , , , Jennings , , , Johnson , , , Knox , , , Kosciusko , , , Lagrange 57 97, , , Lake , , LaPorte ,093 2,657, , Lawrence , , , Madison ,543 1,038, , Marion 536 3,927, Marshall , , , Martin 45 63, , , Miami , , , Monroe ,258 1,638, , Montgomery , , , Morgan , , , Newton , , , Noble , Ohio 32 43, , , Orange , , , Owen , , , Parke , , , Perry , , , Pike , , , Porter ,997 67, Posey ,234 1,832, , Pulaski , , , Putnam ,520 1,130, , Randolph , , , Ripley , , , Rush , , , Scott , , , Shelby , , , Spencer , , , St. Joseph ,231 2,057, , Starke 58 76,691 21, Steuben 49 72, , ,

48 County Total # of Area of All (sft) Cumulative and Major Bridge Fund Funding per Bridge ($/bridge) Cumulative & Major Bridge Funding per Area ($/sft) Sullivan , , , Switzerland 41 62, , , Tippecanoe ,897 2,973, , Tipton , , , Union , , , Vanderburgh ,025 1,740, , Vermillion , , , Vigo , , , Wabash , , , Warren , , , Warrick , , , Washington , , , Wayne , , , Wells , White , , , Whitley , , , Total 13, ,468, ,310, ,

49 TABLE 13: Cumulative & Major Bridge Fund Information Sorted by Cumulative Bridge Fund Amount County Total # of Area of All (sft) Cumulative and Major Bridge Fund Funding per Bridge (S/bridge) Cumulative & Major Bridge Funding per Area ($/sft) Hendricks ,906 3,648, , Tippecanoe ,897 2,973, , Hamilton 305 1,097,655 2,715, , LaPorte ,093 2,657, , Elkhart ,353 2,292, , St. Joseph ,231 2,057, , Hancock ,877 1,934, , Posey ,234 1,832, , Vanderburgh ,025 1,740, , Monroe ,258 1,638, , Delaware ,537 1,634, , Allen 390 1,409,597 1,626, , Bartholomew ,125 1,601, , Clark ,249 1,516, , Gibson ,613 1,379, , Putnam ,520 1,130, , Daviess ,883 1,117, , Madison ,543 1,038, , Lawrence , , , White , , , Wayne , , , Boone , , , Dearborn , , , Dubois , , , Vigo , , , Jackson , , , Howard , , , Jefferson , , , Adams , , , Huntington , , , Grant , , , Marshall , , , Decatur , , , Johnson , , , Carroll , , , Harrison , , , Montgomery , , ,

50 County Total # of Area of All (sft) Cumulative and Major Bridge Fund Funding per Bridge (S/bridge) Cumulative & Major Bridge Funding per Area ($/sft) Parke , , , Ripley , , , Kosciusko , , , Shelby , , , Jay , , , Orange , , , Whitley , , , Franklin , , , Clinton , , , Cass , , , Dekalb , , , Knox , , , Fountain , , , Wabash , , , Jennings , , , Benton , , , Sullivan , , , Randolph , , , Washington , , , Newton , , , Henry , , , Miami , , , Greene , , , Morgan , , , Pike , , , Warren , , , Tipton , , , Vermillion , , , Fulton , , , Perry , , , Spencer , , , Fayette , , , Lagrange 57 97, , , Warrick , , , Jasper , , , Switzerland 41 62, , , Martin 45 63, , , Clay , , , Rush , , ,

51 County Total # of Area of All (sft) Cumulative and Major Bridge Fund Funding per Bridge (S/bridge) Cumulative & Major Bridge Funding per Area ($/sft) Pulaski , , , Steuben 49 72, , , Owen , , , Lake , , Scott , , , Blackford 59 97, , , Ohio 32 43, , , Union , , , Porter ,997 67, Brown 83 92,299 42, Starke 58 76,691 21, Crawford , Marion 536 3,927, Noble , Wells , Floyd ,409 N/A N/A N/A Total 13, ,468, ,310, ,

52 TABLE 14: Cumulative and Major Bridge Fund Information Sorted by Funding Per Bridge County Total # of Area of All (sft) Cumulative and Major Bridge Fund Funding per Bridge (S/bridge) Cumulative & Major Bridge Funding per Area ($/sft) LaPorte ,093 2,657, , St. Joseph ,231 2,057, , Hendricks ,906 3,648, , Tippecanoe ,897 2,973, , Elkhart ,353 2,292, , Hancock ,877 1,934, , Posey ,234 1,832, , Vanderburgh ,025 1,740, , Clark ,249 1,516, , Monroe ,258 1,638, , Daviess ,883 1,117, , Hamilton 305 1,097,655 2,715, , Dearborn , , , Delaware ,537 1,634, , Harrison , , , Bartholomew ,125 1,601, , Lawrence , , , Jefferson , , , Huntington , , , Whitley , , , Marshall , , , White , , , Switzerland 41 62, , , Howard , , , Gibson ,613 1,379, , Carroll , , , Dubois , , , Fulton , , , Martin 45 63, , , Kosciusko , , , Putnam ,520 1,130, , Orange , , , Madison ,543 1,038, , Boone , , , Lagrange 57 97, , , Vigo , , , Adams , , ,

53 County Total # of Area of All (sft) Cumulative and Major Bridge Fund Funding per Bridge (S/bridge) Cumulative & Major Bridge Funding per Area ($/sft) Jackson , , , Ripley , , , Franklin , , , Dekalb , , , Allen 390 1,409,597 1,626, , Wayne , , , Johnson , , , Ohio 32 43, , , Vermillion , , , Steuben 49 72, , , Grant , , , Cass , , , Tipton , , , Decatur , , , Montgomery , , , Parke , , , Jay , , , Warren , , , Benton , , , Fayette , , , Jennings , , , Perry , , , Pulaski , , , Fountain , , , Shelby , , , Newton , , , Pike , , , Union , , , Miami , , , Clinton , , , Washington , , , Wabash , , , Henry , , , Morgan , , , Warrick , , , Blackford 59 97, , , Greene , , , Sullivan , , , Jasper , , ,

54 County Total # of Area of All (sft) Cumulative and Major Bridge Fund Funding per Bridge (S/bridge) Cumulative & Major Bridge Funding per Area ($/sft) Knox , , , Scott , , , Randolph , , , Spencer , , , Owen , , , Clay , , , Rush , , , Lake , , Porter ,997 67, Brown 83 92,299 42, Starke 58 76,691 21, Crawford , Marion 536 3,927, Noble , Wells , Floyd ,409 N/A N/A N/A Total 13, ,468, ,310, ,

55 TABLE 15: Cumulative and Major Bridge Fund Information Sorted by Funding per Square foot (sft) County Total # of Area of All (sft) Cumulative and Major Bridge Fund Funding per Bridge (S/bridge) Cumulative & Major Bridge Funding per Area ($/sft) LaPorte ,093 2,657, , Posey ,234 1,832, , St. Joseph ,231 2,057, , Hendricks ,906 3,648, , Monroe ,258 1,638, , Hancock ,877 1,934, , Daviess ,883 1,117, , Clark ,249 1,516, , Harrison , , , Dearborn , , , Gibson ,613 1,379, , Jefferson , , , Switzerland 41 62, , , Dubois , , , Martin 45 63, , , Elkhart ,353 2,292, , Orange , , , Whitley , , , Tippecanoe ,897 2,973, , Vanderburgh ,025 1,740, , Putnam ,520 1,130, , Shelby , , , Ripley , , , Kosciusko , , , Ohio 32 43, , , Lawrence , , , Marshall , , , Lagrange 57 97, , , White , , , Boone , , , Huntington , , , Steuben 49 72, , , Adams , , , Bartholomew ,125 1,601, , Jackson , , , Hamilton 305 1,097,655 2,715, , Delaware ,537 1,634, ,

56 County Total # of Area of All (sft) Cumulative and Major Bridge Fund Funding per Bridge (S/bridge) Cumulative & Major Bridge Funding per Area ($/sft) Pike , , , Decatur , , , Perry , , , Howard , , , Carroll , , , Vigo , , , Jay , , , Fulton , , , Parke , , , Grant , , , Benton , , , Newton , , , Dekalb , , , Franklin , , , Tipton , , , Vermillion , , , Johnson , , , Clinton , , , Fountain , , , Warren , , , Jennings , , , Washington , , , Greene , , , Madison ,543 1,038, , Sullivan , , , Montgomery , , , Blackford 59 97, , , Miami , , , Wayne , , , Henry , , , Fayette , , , Morgan , , , Clay , , , Wabash , , , Knox , , , Allen 390 1,409,597 1,626, , Pulaski , , , Union , , , Warrick , , ,

57 County Total # of Area of All (sft) Cumulative and Major Bridge Fund Funding per Bridge (S/bridge) Cumulative & Major Bridge Funding per Area ($/sft) Cass , , , Jasper , , , Scott , , , Randolph , , , Owen , , , Rush , , , Brown 83 92,299 42, Spencer , , , Starke 58 76,691 21, Porter ,997 67, Lake , , Crawford , Marion 536 3,927, Noble , Wells , Floyd ,409 N/A N/A N/A Total 13, ,468, ,310, ,

58 TABLE 16: Major Bridge Fund Information Sorted by Alphabetical Order and Bridge Fund Rate County Number County Major Bridge Fund 2 Allen 1,626, Elkhart 1,570, Hamilton 2,715, LaPorte 979, St. Joseph 1,378, Total 8,270, Average 1,654,137.92

59 TABLE 17: Summary of County Counties in Alphabetical Order County # of Total Area of Bridge Decks (sft) % of SD & FO (%) % SD & FO by Bridge Deck Area (%) Average Sufficiency Rating Average Age (years) Cumulative & Major Bridge Funding per Area ($/sft) Adams , Allen 390 1,409, Bartholomew , Benton , Blackford 59 97, Boone , Brown 83 92, Carroll , Cass , Clark , Clay , Clinton , Crawford , Daviess , Dearborn , Decatur , DeKalb , Delaware , Dubois , Elkhart , Fayette , Floyd , N/A Fountain , Franklin , Fulton , Gibson , Grant , Greene , Hamilton 305 1,097, Hancock , Harrison , Hendricks , Henry , Howard , Huntington ,

60 County # of Total Area of Bridge Decks (sft) % of SD & FO (%) % SD & FO by Bridge Deck Area (%) Average Sufficiency Rating Average Age (years) Cumulative & Major Bridge Funding per Area ($/sft) Jackson , Jasper , Jay , Jefferson , Jennings , Johnson , Knox , Kosciusko , LaGrange 57 97, Lake , LaPorte , Lawrence , Madison , Marion 536 3,927, Marshall , Martin 45 63, Miami , Monroe , Montgomery , Morgan , Newton , Noble , Ohio 32 43, Orange , Owen , Parke , Perry , Pike , Porter , Posey , Pulaski , Putnam , Randolph , Ripley , Rush , Scott , Shelby , Spencer ,

61 County # of Total Area of Bridge Decks (sft) % of SD & FO (%) % SD & FO by Bridge Deck Area (%) Average Sufficiency Rating Average Age (years) Cumulative & Major Bridge Funding per Area ($/sft) St. Joseph , Starke 58 76, Steuben 49 72, Sullivan , Switzerland 41 62, Tippecanoe , Tipton , Union , Vanderburgh , Vermillion , Vigo , Wabash , Warren , Warrick , Washington , Wayne , Wells , White , Whitley , Total 13,090 31,468,410 Average ,

62 TABLE 18: Summary of State Bridge Sufficiency Rating Counties in Alphabetical Order County # SR<50 %<50 # 50<SR<80 % 50<SR<80 # 80<SR<100 % 80<SR<100 Average SR Total # of Adams Allen Bartholomew Benton Blackford Boone Brown Carroll Cass Clark Clay Clinton Crawford Daviess Dearborn Decatur Dekalb Delaware Dubois Elkhart Fayette Floyd Fountain Franklin Fulton Gibson Grant Greene Hamilton Hancock Harrison Hendricks Henry Howard Huntington Jackson

63 County # SR<50 %<50 # 50<SR<80 % 50<SR<80 # 80<SR<100 % 80<SR<100 Average SR Total # of Jasper Jay Jefferson Jennings Johnson Knox Kosciusko LaGrange Lake LaPorte Lawrence Madison Marion Marshall Martin Miami Monroe Montgomery Morgan Newton Noble Ohio Orange Owen Parke Perry Pike Porter Posey Pulaski Putnam Randolph Ripley Rush Scott Shelby Spencer St. Joseph Starke

64 County # SR<50 %<50 # 50<SR<80 % 50<SR<80 # 80<SR<100 % 80<SR<100 Average SR Total # of Steuben Sullivan Switzerland Tippecanoe Tipton Union Vanderburgh Vermillion Vigo Wabash Warren Warrick Washington Wayne Wells White Whitley Total N/A 6157 Average 1.62 N/A 9.47 N/A N/A

65 TABLE 19: Summary of Structurally Deficient and Functionally Obsolete State Counties in Alphabetical Order County Total # of # SD % SD # FO % FO Total # SD & FO % SD & FO Adams Allen Bartholomew Benton Blackford Boone Brown Carroll Cass Clark Clay Clinton Crawford Daviess Dearborn Decatur Dekalb Delaware Dubois Elkhart Fayette Floyd Fountain Franklin Fulton Gibson Grant Greene Hamilton Hancock Harrison Hendricks Henry Howard Huntington Jackson Jasper Jay

66 County Total # of # SD % SD # FO % FO Total # SD & FO % SD & FO Jefferson Jennings Johnson Knox Kosciusko LaGrange Lake LaPorte Lawrence Madison Marion Marshall Martin Miami Monroe Montgomery Morgan Newton Noble Ohio Orange Owen Parke Perry Pike Porter Posey Pulaski Putnam Randolph Ripley Rush Scott Shelby Spencer St. Joseph Starke Steuben Sullivan Switzerland

67 County Total # of # SD % SD # FO % FO Total # SD & FO % SD & FO Tippecanoe Tipton Union Vanderburgh Vermillion Vigo Wabash Warren Warrick Washington Wayne Wells White Whitley Total Average N/A 6 N/A 9.3 N/A

68 TABLE 20: 2013 Better Roads Bridge Inventory States in Alphabetical Orders States Total Interstate & State Total *SD/FO % Total City/County /Township Total *SD/FO % Total all Combined Total *SD/FO Alabama 5,753 1, ,153 2, ,906 3, Alaska Arizona 4, , , Arkansas 7,332 1, ,316 1, ,648 2, California 12, ,288 1, ,651 1,469 6 Colorado 3, , ,210 1, Connecticut 2,951 1, , ,202 1, Delaware District of Colombia Florida 6, ,091 1, ,461 1, Georgia 6, ,004 1, ,675 2, Hawaii , Idaho 1, , , Illinois 8,320 1, ,281 2, ,601 4, Indiana 5, ,057 2, ,936 3, Iowa 4, ,139 5, ,263 6, Kansas 5, ,536 3, ,977 4, Kentucky 9,000 2, ,022 1, ,022 4, Louisiana 7,887 2, ,934 1, ,821 3, Maine 2, , Maryland 2, , ,243 1, Massachusetts 3,585 1, , ,162 1, Michigan 4, ,514 1, ,977 2, Minnesota 3, ,900 1, ,800 1, Mississippi 5, ,837 2, ,584 3, Missouri 10,371 1, ,977 3, ,348 5, Montana 2, , , Nebraska 3, ,552 3, ,073 3, Nevada 1, , New Hampshire 1, , , New Jersey 2, ,182 1, ,608 1, New Mexico 2, , New York 8,339 3, ,058 3, ,397 6, North Carolina 17,413 5, ,271 5, North Dakota 1, , , %

69 States Total Interstate & State Total *SD/FO % Total City/County /Township Total *SD/FO % Total all Combined Total *SD/FO *Ohio 10, ,156 1, ,030 1,960 7 Oklahoma 7,663 1, ,445 4, ,108 5, Oregon 2, , ,752 1, Pennsylvania 16,125 5, ,498 3, ,623 8, Rhode Island South Carolina 8,418 1, ,296 1, South Dakota 1, ,953 1, ,750 1, Tennessee 8,307 1, ,464 2, ,771 3, Texas 34,892 3, ,126 4, ,018 8, Utah 1, , , Vermont 1, , , Virginia 19,414 4, , ,061 4, Washington 3,294 1, , ,327 1, West Virginia 6,989 2, ,100 2, Wisconsin 5, ,833 1, ,060 1, Wyoming 1, , % Total 300,001 55, ,093 69,144 60, ,4385 *Ohio did not include FO in their submission of state data.

70 TABLE 21: 2013 Better Roads Bridge Inventory Sorted by Combined total SD/FO States Total Interstate & State Total *SD/FO % Total City/County /Township Total *SD/FO % Total all Combined Total *SD/FO % Pennsylvania 16,125 5, ,498 3, ,623 8, Texas 34,892 3, ,126 4, ,018 8, New York 8,339 3, ,058 3, ,397 6, Iowa 4, ,139 5, ,263 6, Missouri 10,371 1, ,977 3, ,348 5, North Carolina 17,413 5, ,271 5, Oklahoma 7,663 1, ,445 4, ,108 5, Virginia 19,414 4, , ,061 4, Kentucky 9,000 2, ,022 1, ,022 4, Illinois 8,320 1, ,281 2, ,601 4, Kansas 5, ,536 3, ,977 4, Indiana 5, ,057 2, ,936 3, Louisiana 7,887 2, ,934 1, ,821 3, Mississippi 5, ,837 2, ,584 3, Nebraska 3, ,552 3, ,073 3, Alabama 5,753 1, ,153 2, ,906 3, Tennessee 8,307 1, ,464 2, ,771 3, Michigan 4, ,514 1, ,977 2, Georgia 6, ,004 1, ,675 2, West Virginia 6,989 2, ,100 2, Arkansas 7,332 1, ,316 1, ,648 2, *Ohio 10, ,156 1, ,030 1,960 7 Wisconsin 5, ,833 1, ,060 1, South Carolina 8,418 1, ,296 1, Washington 3,294 1, , ,327 1, Massachusetts 3,585 1, , ,162 1, Florida 6, ,091 1, ,461 1, New Jersey 2, ,182 1, ,608 1, Minnesota 3, ,900 1, ,800 1, Connecticut 2,951 1, , ,202 1, Oregon 2, , ,752 1, California 12, ,288 1, ,651 1,469 6 South Dakota 1, ,953 1, ,750 1, Colorado 3, , ,210 1, Maryland 2, , ,243 1,238 24

71 States Total Interstate & State Total *SD/FO % Total City/County /Township Total *SD/FO % Total all Combined Total *SD/FO North Dakota 1, , , Montana 2, , , Arizona 4, , , Vermont 1, , , New Hampshire 1, , , Idaho 1, , , Wyoming 1, , Maine 2, , New Mexico 2, , Hawaii , Rhode Island Utah 1, , , Nevada 1, , Alaska Delaware District of Colombia % Total 300,001 55, ,093 69, , ,385 *Ohio did not include FO in their submission of state data.

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90 IC Chapter 3. Cumulative Bridge Fund IC Repealed (Repealed by P.L , SEC.11.) IC Authorization to provide fund Sec. 1. Notwithstanding IC , all municipal corporations and county executives may provide a cumulative bridge fund to provide funds for the cost of construction, maintenance, and repair of bridges, approaches, and grade separations. However, in those counties in which a cumulative bridge fund has been established, the county executive is responsible for providing funds for all bridges, including those in municipalities, within the counties except those bridges on the state highway system. The county executive may use this fund for making county wide bridge inspection and safety ratings of all bridges in a county not on the state highway system. The inspection and safety ratings shall meet all the criteria of the National Bridge Inspection Standards promulgated by the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation and shall be supervised and approved by a competent, qualified engineer, registered in the state. (Formerly: Acts 1951, c.299, s.1; Acts 1957, c.76, s.1; Acts 1971, P.L.101, SEC.1; Acts 1973, P.L.72, SEC.1.) As amended by Acts 1977, P.L.113, SEC.1; P.L , SEC.18; P.L , SEC.8. IC Definitions Sec As used in this chapter: (1) "Bridge" means any structure designed to carry vehicular traffic over or under an obstacle to the normal flow of traffic and including any grade separation, culvert, or approach to a bridge. (2) "Approach" means any part of a road or street which is required to make a bridge a viable part of a county road or city street system but which does not extend more than five hundred (500) feet from the bridge. (3) "Construction" means both construction and reconstruction to a degree that new, supplementary, or substantially improved traffic service is provided and significant geometric or structural improvements are affected. (4) "Cost" means all expenditures required to construct, maintain, or repair a bridge, including engineering, equipment, land acquisition, materials, contracts, and bond interest.

91 (5) "Municipal corporation" means a city or town. As added by Acts 1977, P.L.113, SEC.2. Amended by P.L , SEC.54; P.L , SEC.1. IC Repealed (Repealed by P.L , SEC.45.) IC Tax levy Sec. 3. (a) To provide for the cumulative bridge fund, county executives and municipal legislative bodies may levy a tax in compliance with IC not to exceed ten cents ($0.10) on each one hundred dollars ($100) assessed valuation of all taxable personal and real property within the county or municipality. (b) The tax, when collected, shall be held in a special fund to be known as the bridge fund. (c) An appropriation from the bridge fund may be made without the approval of the department of local government finance if: (1) the county executive requests the appropriation; and (2) the appropriation is for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, or repairing bridges, approaches, or grade separations. (Formerly: Acts 1951, c.299, s.3; Acts 1975, P.L.92, SEC.1.) As amended by P.L , SEC.33; P.L , SEC.20; P.L , SEC.1; P.L , SEC.9; P.L , SEC.136; P.L , SEC.322.

92

93

IC Chapter 2. Indiana Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners

IC Chapter 2. Indiana Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners IC 25-38.1-2 Chapter 2. Indiana Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners IC 25-38.1-2-1 Board of veterinary medical examiners Sec. 1. (a) The Indiana board of veterinary medical examiners is established.

More information

2016 SNAPSHOT REPORT. July for Indiana Community Foundations

2016 SNAPSHOT REPORT. July for Indiana Community Foundations 2016 SNAPSHOT July 2017 REPORT The 2016 GIFT Snapshot Report is a compilation of data from Indiana community foundations entered into the CF Insights database. for Indiana Community Foundations 2016 data

More information

State of Indiana Floodplain Management Work Plan FFY

State of Indiana Floodplain Management Work Plan FFY State of Indiana Floodplain Management Work Plan FFY 2005-2009 Prepared by: Gregory Main CFM, NFIP State Coordinator and Debbie Smith, Floodplain Management Supervisor, Indiana Department of Natural Resources,

More information

IHCP bulletin INDIANA HEALTH COVERAGE PROGRAMS BT OCTOBER 13, 2015

IHCP bulletin INDIANA HEALTH COVERAGE PROGRAMS BT OCTOBER 13, 2015 IHCP bulletin INDIANA HEALTH COVERAGE PROGRAMS BT201573 OCTOBER 13, 2015 FSSA announces FFY 2016 hospice rates The Centers for Medi & Medicaid Services (CMS) released new federal hospice rates for federal

More information

Road Funding in Indiana

Road Funding in Indiana On Local Government Road Funding in Indiana Larry DeBoer Purdue University October 2015 1 Funding Sources, Indiana Highway Expenditures, 2013 (thousands of dollars) Local 402,750 16% Federal 970,770 38%

More information

Transportation I H C P A n n u a l. S e m i n a r

Transportation I H C P A n n u a l. S e m i n a r Transportation I H C P 2 0 1 7 A n n u a l S e m i n a r VERMILLION CareSource Transportation Vendors CareSource partners with two vendors for transportation: Ride Right (northern Indiana) LCP (southern

More information

Data Report 2015 Indiana Nursing Licensure Survey

Data Report 2015 Indiana Nursing Licensure Survey Data Report 2015 Indiana Nursing Licensure Survey May 2016 0 010 0 010 0 0110101010 0110 0 010 011010 010 0 010 0 0110110 0110 0110 0 010 010 0 010 0 01101010 0110 0 010 010 0 010 0 0 N U R S E S 0 010

More information

Early Education Matching Grant

Early Education Matching Grant Early Education Matching Grant Request for Funding for Eligible Applicants January 2014 outline 1. Statute 2. Requirements 3. Application Process 4. Grant Participation Guiding principles Access School

More information

Indiana Solid Waste Management Districts Programmatic Per Capita Spending Data

Indiana Solid Waste Management Districts Programmatic Per Capita Spending Data Indiana s Programmatic Data - 2014 District State Average = $12.87 Adams Allen Bartholomew Blackford Boone Brown Cass Clark Clay Crawford Daviess Dearborn Adams Allen Bartholomew Blackford Boone Brown

More information

Critical Shortage of Physicians and Nurses Projected for Indiana

Critical Shortage of Physicians and Nurses Projected for Indiana I N D I A N A CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH FOR A HEALTHIER INDIANA JUNE 2008 Critical Shortage of Physicians and Nurses Projected for Indiana health conditions, and basic information to help individuals

More information

All Together or Not at All: The Snuggle for Existence

All Together or Not at All: The Snuggle for Existence 2017 IHI National Forum on Quality Improvement in Health Care Orlando, FL All Together or Not at All: The Snuggle for Existence Donald M. Berwick, MD, MPP President Emeritus and Senior Fellow Institute

More information

Pre-Announcement. Ohio Common Pleas Court Administrative Judges and Ohio Board of County Commissioners:

Pre-Announcement. Ohio Common Pleas Court Administrative Judges and Ohio Board of County Commissioners: Pre-Announcement Ohio Common Pleas Court Administrative Judges and Ohio Board of County Commissioners: Targeted Community Alternatives to Prison (T-CAP) Tentative Release Date: July 17, 2017 This Pre-Announcement

More information

Northwest Region Republican 271, % Democrat 167, % Other 22, % Variance (R) 103, % Erie. Seneca. Richland.

Northwest Region Republican 271, % Democrat 167, % Other 22, % Variance (R) 103, % Erie. Seneca. Richland. 2016 Ohio US Senate Race *Portman (R)... 3,118,567...... 58.03% Strickland (D).. 1,996,908...... 37.16% Other.......... 258,689....... 4.81% Variance (R)... 1,121,659..... 20.87% West Region Republican

More information

Running Head: NURSE-MIDWIVES IN ILLINOIS AND INDIANA

Running Head: NURSE-MIDWIVES IN ILLINOIS AND INDIANA Certified Nurse-Midwives 1 Running Head: NURSE-MIDWIVES IN ILLINOIS AND INDIANA Certified Nurse-Midwives in Illinois and Indiana: An Analysis of Need H. Paul LeBlanc III, Bret Simon, and Darin Garard Southern

More information

I N D I A N A U N I V E R S I T Y S C H O O L O F D E N T I S T R Y SC HOL A R SH I P C R I T E R I A

I N D I A N A U N I V E R S I T Y S C H O O L O F D E N T I S T R Y SC HOL A R SH I P C R I T E R I A I N D I A N A U N I V E R S I T Y S C H O O L OF D E N T I S T R Y S C HOL A R S H I P CRITERIA DR. ROBERT J. ALBER SCHOLARSHIP The Alber Scholarship is awarded in honor of Dr. Robert Alber (DDS 47) to

More information

Kentucky Prescription Assistance Program (KPAP)

Kentucky Prescription Assistance Program (KPAP) Kentucky Prescription Assistance Program (KPAP) KENTUCKY ACTED In the Spring 2008 Legislative Session, the General Assembly passed House Bill 406 that appropriated funds to consolidate all programs in

More information

American Indian and Alaska Native Total Population 2010

American Indian and Alaska Native Total Population 2010 The 00 Decennial Census publishes regional population demographics for ethnicity, race and age groups. This profile will feature county trends and statistics for s American Indian and Alaska Native Alone

More information

4/3/2017. Hospice Reimbursement Explained

4/3/2017. Hospice Reimbursement Explained Hospice Reimbursement Explained Indiana Association for Home and Hospice Care Annual Conference & Exposition May 9, 2017 3:30 PM 5:00 PM marcumllp.com Your Speakers Joshua S. Banach, CPA Senior Manager

More information

Kentucky Health Information Exchange

Kentucky Health Information Exchange Kentucky Health Information Exchange (KHIE) Kentucky e-health Historical Overview March 8, 2005 Legislation (Senate Bill 2) to create a secure interoperable statewide electronic health network Kentucky

More information

HOME DECORATING AND DESIGN Youth Center Thursday, July 26, 2018 Colette Masterson, Assistant Superintendent Brenda Young, Assistant Superintendent

HOME DECORATING AND DESIGN Youth Center Thursday, July 26, 2018 Colette Masterson, Assistant Superintendent Brenda Young, Assistant Superintendent HOME DECORATING AND DESIGN Youth Center Thursday, July 26, 2018 Colette Masterson, Assistant Superintendent Brenda Young, Assistant Superintendent GENERAL GUIDELINES 1. Age of Participants To be eligible

More information

Molina HealthCare of Illinois Provider Newsletter

Molina HealthCare of Illinois Provider Newsletter Molina HealthCare of Illinois Provider Newsletter Molina Healthcare of Illinois now serving HealthChoice Illinois Members 2018 Quarter 1 HealthChoice Illinois is the state s Medicaid managed care program

More information

ADAPT Utilizing Innovative Member Engagement Programs to Educate, Involve and Empower your Members

ADAPT Utilizing Innovative Member Engagement Programs to Educate, Involve and Empower your Members ADAPT Utilizing Innovative Member Engagement Programs to Educate, Involve and Empower your Members PRESENTED BY: Augusta Kairys, Senior Vice President, Medecision Kimberly Tuck, Plan President & CEO, Home

More information

Indiana County Historians (updated January 2018)

Indiana County Historians (updated January 2018) Each county has one volunteer county historian who promotes local history in their counties and serves as the primary county history contact. The County Historian Program was established in 1981 by the

More information

Prevention Works. Good Behavior Game. Nurse Family Partnership. Healthy Families America. Communities That Care ...

Prevention Works. Good Behavior Game. Nurse Family Partnership. Healthy Families America. Communities That Care ... Prevention Works Good Behavior Game Nurse Family Partnership Healthy Families America Communities That Care Prevention does not scale/sustain: Lack of payment Diverse settings Use of unlicensed professionals

More information

Ohio Local Government Officials Leadership Training

Ohio Local Government Officials Leadership Training Ohio Local Government Officials Leadership Training David Civittolo, Joe Lucente and Rose Fisher Merkowitz NACDEP May, 2015 Brief Session Objectives 1. Describe the various academy components and how they

More information

Iowa County Attorneys Association

Iowa County Attorneys Association Iowa County Attorneys Association Fiscal Year 2018 Salary Survey Inside This Issue: 8/8/17 Profile Full Time County Attorneys Page 2 Profile Part Time County Attorneys Page 4 Assistant County Attorney

More information

CONTENTS HIGHWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND REHABILITATION PROGRAM (HBRRP) 6.1 INTRODUCTION

CONTENTS HIGHWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND REHABILITATION PROGRAM (HBRRP) 6.1 INTRODUCTION Chapter 6 CHAPTER 6 CONTENTS HIGHWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND REHABILITATION PROGRAM (HBRRP) 6.1 INTRODUCTION... 6-1 6.1.1 Glossary... 6-1 6.1.2 HBRRP Website... 6-3 6.1.3 How to Apply for HBRRP Funds...

More information

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century (MAP-21)

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century (MAP-21) Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century (MAP-21) Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) ATP 6 Discussion June 28, 2013 Minnesota Overview: MAP-21 vs. SAFETEA-LU Overall apportionment consistent

More information

Table of Contents/Links

Table of Contents/Links Iowa Vets Prepared by: Stephan Arndt, Ph.D. Iowa Consortium for Substance Abuse Research & Evaluation University of Iowa With funds from the Iowa Department of Public Health Veterans in Iowa 3 PTSD 6 Depression

More information

Transportation Improvement Program for Lake, Porter, and LaPorte Counties, Indiana for

Transportation Improvement Program for Lake, Porter, and LaPorte Counties, Indiana for Transportation Improvement Program for Lake, Porter, and LaPorte Counties, Indiana for 2012-2015 Part II: TIP Development and Project Selection Processes MPO Planning Process The NIRPC Board of Commissioners

More information

6. HIGHWAY FUNDING Introduction Local Funding Sources Property Tax Revenues valuation County Transportation Excise Tax

6. HIGHWAY FUNDING Introduction Local Funding Sources Property Tax Revenues valuation County Transportation Excise Tax 6. HIGHWAY FUNDING Introduction This chapter discusses local, state and federal highway funding sources. Local Funding Sources Property Tax Revenues Once the Board of Supervisors has established a roadway,

More information

The Center for Urban Policy and the Environment

The Center for Urban Policy and the Environment Analysis of the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Juvenile Accountability Block Grants Program Administered by the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, 2005 and 2006 Grant Awards

More information

Summary of. Overview. existing law. to coal ash. billion in FY. funding in FY 2013 FY 2014

Summary of. Overview. existing law. to coal ash. billion in FY. funding in FY 2013 FY 2014 H.R. 4348, THE MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ACT CONFERENCE REPORT Summary of Key Highway and Research Provisions The following summary is intended to highlight thee highway and research

More information

KYOVA Interstate Planning Commission

KYOVA Interstate Planning Commission KYOVA Interstate Planning Commission Sub-allocated Funding Process and Application Package This packet includes information and guidance about the process used by KYOVA Interstate Planning Commission to

More information

A Guide for Members of the Military

A Guide for Members of the Military Benefits for Veterans A Guide for Members of the Military Distributed by: Indiana House Republicans www.indianahouserepublicans.com 1-800-382-9841 INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 302 W. Washington

More information

Iowa DOT Update 2016 APWA Fall Conference JOHN E. DOSTART, P.E.

Iowa DOT Update 2016 APWA Fall Conference JOHN E. DOSTART, P.E. Iowa DOT Update 2016 APWA Fall Conference JOHN E. DOSTART, P.E. Hilton Garden Inn September 29, 2016 Member of the Day Personal Updates M.J. Charlie Purcell Promoted to Project Delivery Bureau Director

More information

FY 2015 Value Pricing Pilot Program Discretionary Grant Program

FY 2015 Value Pricing Pilot Program Discretionary Grant Program 1 FY 2015 Value Pricing Pilot Program Discretionary Grant Program Summary This notice announces the availability of funding for the Value Pricing Pilot Program (VPPP). In addition this notice identifies

More information

2007 Annual List of Obligated Projects

2007 Annual List of Obligated Projects This document is available in accessible formats when requested five days in advance. This document was prepared and published by the Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organization and is prepared in cooperation

More information

Non-Motorized Transportation Funding Options

Non-Motorized Transportation Funding Options Non-Motorized Transportation Funding Options Bicycle and pedestrian projects are broadly eligible for funding from nearly all major federal highway, transit, safety, and other programs. To be eligible

More information

SENATE, No. 876 STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 218th LEGISLATURE PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 2018 SESSION

SENATE, No. 876 STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 218th LEGISLATURE PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 2018 SESSION SENATE, No. STATE OF NEW JERSEY th LEGISLATURE PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 0 SESSION Sponsored by: Senator STEPHEN M. SWEENEY District (Cumberland, Gloucester and Salem) Senator STEVEN V. OROHO District

More information

Appendix 5 Freight Funding Programs

Appendix 5 Freight Funding Programs 5. Chapter Heading Appendix 5 Freight Programs Table of Contents 4.1 Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG);... 5-1 4.2 Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery Discretionary Grant Program

More information

Construction Update Pennsylvania Rapid Bridge Replacement Project Issue 3: Spring 2016

Construction Update Pennsylvania Rapid Bridge Replacement Project Issue 3: Spring 2016 Construction Update Pennsylvania Rapid Bridge Replacement Project Issue 3: Spring 2016 BEFORE JV 556 SR2013, Slate Creek, Westmoreland Co. AFTER DURING CONSTRUCTION Over 200 Bridges to be Replaced Across

More information

MiTIP APPLICATION PACKET

MiTIP APPLICATION PACKET SFY 2022-2023 Illustrative Projects 2018-2021 INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (IRTIP) MiTIP APPLICATION PACKET Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization October 2017 This

More information

STATE:OHIO I N C O M E L I M I T S

STATE:OHIO I N C O M E L I M I T S Akron, OH MSA FY 2007 MFI: 60300 30% OF MEDIAN 12900 14700 16550 18400 19850 21350 22800 24300 VERY LOW INCOME 21450 24500 27600 30650 33100 35550 38000 40450 LOW-INCOME 34350 39250 44150 49050 52950 56900

More information

Regional Transportation Plan: APPENDIX B

Regional Transportation Plan: APPENDIX B Regional Transportation Plan: 2007-2030 Appendix B APPENDIX B POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES Funding sources for transportation improvement projects are needed if the recommended projects of the Transportation

More information

State of Tennessee. Department of State. Tennessee State Library and Archives 403 Seventh Avenue North Nashville, Tennessee (615)

State of Tennessee. Department of State. Tennessee State Library and Archives 403 Seventh Avenue North Nashville, Tennessee (615) Tre Hargett Secretary of State State of Tennessee Charles A. Sherrill State Librarian and Archivist Department of State Tennessee State Library and Archives 403 Seventh Avenue North Nashville, Tennessee

More information

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Tuesday, April 24, 2018 Tuesday, April 24, 2018 New Chief of Highway Police Drug Arrest PFC Emrick at the Alma weigh station Traffic Stop results in confiscating 232 pounds of marijuana. University of Arkansas College of Engineering

More information

Appendix E Federal and State Funding Categories

Appendix E Federal and State Funding Categories Appendix E Federal and State Funding Categories This page left blank intentionally. Federal and State Funding Categories Appendix E E 3 Appendix E Federal and State Funding Categories Highway Programs

More information

CONTENTS. 1,191 births; rate, The Southern Sanitary Section, population 686,443, reports

CONTENTS. 1,191 births; rate, The Southern Sanitary Section, population 686,443, reports MONTHLY BULLETIN Indiana State BoardofHealth [Entered as second-class matter at the Indianapolis Postoffice.] [Acceptance for mailing at special rate of postage provided for in Sectioni 1105, Act of October

More information

9. REVENUE SOURCES FEDERAL FUNDS

9. REVENUE SOURCES FEDERAL FUNDS 9. REVENUE SOURCES This Chapter summarizes multimodal revenue sources and estimates that are applicable to the City of Coolidge and the Town of Florence, together with financial constraints and opportunities

More information

SMALL CITY PROGRAM. ocuments/forms/allitems.

SMALL CITY PROGRAM.  ocuments/forms/allitems. SMALL CITY PROGRAM The Small City Program provides Federal funds to small cities with populations from 5,000 to 24,999 that are NOT located within Metropolitan Planning Organizations' boundaries. Currently

More information

WELCOME TO THE KALAMAZOO AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY

WELCOME TO THE KALAMAZOO AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY WELCOME TO THE KALAMAZOO AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY (269) 343-0766 www.katsmpo.org Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study @KATSMPO Purpose of Training 1. Discuss the Purpose, Products, and Structure of a Metropolitan

More information

Kentucky Birth Surveillance Registry

Kentucky Birth Surveillance Registry Kentucky Birth Surveillance Registry Counting Every Baby because Every Baby Counts National Birth Defect Prevention Annual Meeting February 27, 2012 Sandy Fawbush RN, BSN Mission To develop and implement

More information

Fort Wayne District Public Open House

Fort Wayne District Public Open House Fort Wayne District Public Open House The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) will host a public open house at the Fort Wayne District Office (Sub District Building) on Tuesday, March 24, 2015,

More information

S E N A T E F I S C A L O F F I C E I S S U E B R I E F 2016-S RhodeWorks FEBRUARY 2, 2016

S E N A T E F I S C A L O F F I C E I S S U E B R I E F 2016-S RhodeWorks FEBRUARY 2, 2016 2016-S-2246 - RhodeWorks FEBRUARY 2, 2016 SUMMARY 2016-S-2246 - The Rhode Island Bridge Replacement, Reconstruction and Maintenance Fund Act of 2016, also known as RhodeWorks, does the following: Allows

More information

ODM FACILITY COMMUNICATION FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ) Updated 09/2016

ODM FACILITY COMMUNICATION FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ) Updated 09/2016 ODM 09401 FACILITY COMMUNICATION FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ) Updated 09/2016 This document was developed as a response to the webinars that the Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM) held to train nursing

More information

Prepared by Voinovich Center for Leadership and Public Affairs Ohio University

Prepared by Voinovich Center for Leadership and Public Affairs Ohio University Prepared by Voinovich Center for Leadership and Public Affairs Ohio University November 2006 Table of Contents Acknowledgements... ii Executive Summary... 1 Introduction... 4 How the Survey Was Conducted...

More information

DCHC MPO Funding Source Overview & Guidance draft January 2015

DCHC MPO Funding Source Overview & Guidance draft January 2015 DCHC MPO ing Overview & Guidance draft January 2015 General Ratio APD Bond R CMAQ DP SHRP Appalachian Development Highway Revenue Bond Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Demonstration, Priority, and

More information

NAPA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Board Agenda Letter

NAPA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Board Agenda Letter Agenda Date: 8/20/2013 Agenda Placement: 9D Set Time: 9:30 AM Estimated Report Time: 30 Minutes NAPA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Board Agenda Letter TO: FROM: Board of Supervisors Lederer, Steven - Director

More information

Topics Covered. Introduction Historic Perspective. Transportation. National Highway Bridge Program Challenges and Opportunities in Bridge Engineering

Topics Covered. Introduction Historic Perspective. Transportation. National Highway Bridge Program Challenges and Opportunities in Bridge Engineering Roles and Responsibilities of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) MMitL M. Myint Lwin, Director FHWA Office of Bridge Technology U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC Topics Covered Introduction

More information

INTRODUCTION nonprofit organizations are also a major force in the state s economy

INTRODUCTION nonprofit organizations are also a major force in the state s economy INTRODUCTION Nonprofit organizations contribute to the quality of life for all Pennsylvania citizens through the health care, education, job training, youth development, nursing home care, arts, culture,

More information

2014 SCHOLARSHIP INFORMATION. Applications are due Friday, January 24, 2014 and can be found on the School of Engineering website.

2014 SCHOLARSHIP INFORMATION. Applications are due Friday, January 24, 2014 and can be found on the School of Engineering website. 2014 SCHOLARSHIP INFORMATION Applications are due Friday, January 24, 2014 and can be found on the School of Engineering website. You must also submit a current résumé. http://www.siue.edu/engineering/scholarships.shtml

More information

Admission/Discharge. Lab. Participating facilities as of August 2018 Anthem Medicaid

Admission/Discharge. Lab. Participating facilities as of August 2018 Anthem Medicaid Anthem Medicaid Centers for Diagnostic Imaging (CDI) CHNw - Community Anderson CHNw - Community East CHNw - Community North CHNw - Community South CHNw - Heart and Vascular CHNw - Howard Regional (Kokomo)

More information

2018 POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR PSRC S FEDERAL FUNDS

2018 POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR PSRC S FEDERAL FUNDS 2018 POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR PSRC S FEDERAL FUNDS TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1: Background... 3 A. Policy Framework... 3 B. Development of the 2019-2022 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)..

More information

Indiana LTAP. Local Government Asset Management and Pavement Preservation

Indiana LTAP. Local Government Asset Management and Pavement Preservation Indiana LTAP Local Government Asset Management and Pavement Preservation Reporting Indiana Local Road Conditions Indiana local roads are deteriorating and available funding has not kept pace Indiana LTAP

More information

Admission/Discharge. Lab. Participating facilities as of July 2017 Anthem Medicaid

Admission/Discharge. Lab. Participating facilities as of July 2017 Anthem Medicaid Anthem Medicaid Centers for Diagnostic Imaging (CDI) CHNw - Community Anderson CHNw - Community East CHNw - Community North CHNw - Community South CHNw - Heart and Vascular CHNw - Howard Regional (Kokomo)

More information

State of Mississippi EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING RECORD

State of Mississippi EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING RECORD State of Mississippi EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING RECORD APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO: MS Military Dept., ATT: NGMS-SRP P. O. Box 5027 Jackson, MS 39296-5027 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TYPE OR PRINT IN BLACK

More information

COUNTY HISTORICAL DATA Date and Origin of County Names

COUNTY HISTORICAL DATA Date and Origin of County Names COUNTY DATA EXCHANGE Published by the County Commissioners Association of Ohio CCAO Educational and Research Foundation 37 West Broad Street - Suite 650 Columbus, Ohio 43215-4195 614/221-5627 fax 614/221-6986

More information

MAP-21 and Its Effects on Transportation Enhancements

MAP-21 and Its Effects on Transportation Enhancements Date: July 13, 2012 Subject: MAP-21 and Its Effects on Transportation Enhancements The recently enacted Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century (MAP-21) includes a number of substantial changes

More information

Qualified Provider Assurances: How Pennsylvania Reports on the Quality of Home and Community Based Service Providers to CMS

Qualified Provider Assurances: How Pennsylvania Reports on the Quality of Home and Community Based Service Providers to CMS Qualified Provider Assurances: How Pennsylvania Reports on the Quality of Home and Community Based Service Providers to CMS Session Objectives Review the Qualified Provider Assurance, Sub-Assurances, and

More information

STATE OF FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION REQUEST FOR INFORMATION RFI /15 PROVISION OF NON-EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

STATE OF FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION REQUEST FOR INFORMATION RFI /15 PROVISION OF NON-EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES STATE OF FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION REQUEST FOR INFORMATION RFI 003-14/15 PROVISION OF NON-EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES A. BACKGROUND/PURPOSE 1. Background In accordance with section

More information

ANNUAL REPORT. Pursuant to: Chapters 36 and 152 of the 2011 Acts of Assembly of the Virginia General Assembly

ANNUAL REPORT. Pursuant to: Chapters 36 and 152 of the 2011 Acts of Assembly of the Virginia General Assembly ANNUAL REPORT Pursuant to: Chapters 36 and 152 of the 2011 Acts of Assembly of the Virginia General Assembly Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 November

More information

RULES CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM

RULES CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Division of Transportation Development RULES CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM 2 CCR 601-19 [Editor s Notes follow the text of the rules at

More information

Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE) Alabama Arts Education Initiative (AAEI) Grant Application

Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE) Alabama Arts Education Initiative (AAEI) Grant Application Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE) Alabama Arts Education Initiative (AAEI) 2017-2018 Grant Application Closing October 31, 2017 Instructional Services Section P. O. Box 302101 3345 Gordon Persons

More information

Prepared by Voinovich Center for Leadership and Public Affairs Ohio University

Prepared by Voinovich Center for Leadership and Public Affairs Ohio University Prepared by Voinovich Center for Leadership and Public Affairs Ohio University February 2006 Table of Contents Table of Contents... i Acknowledgements... ii Executive Summary... 1 How the Study was Conducted...

More information

CALVERT - ST. MARY S METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

CALVERT - ST. MARY S METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CALVERT - ST. MARY S METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2015-2018 Calvert County Planning Commission St. Mary s County Department of County Services Plaza

More information

LPA Programs How They Work

LPA Programs How They Work LPA Programs How They Work Ann Wills, P.E. Transportation Engineering Conference 2018 www.dotd.la.gov Requirements For ALL LPA Projects 1. Risk Assessment 2. Entity-State Agreement 3. Responsible Charge

More information

MAP-21: Overview of Project Delivery Provisions

MAP-21: Overview of Project Delivery Provisions MAP-21: Overview of Project Delivery Provisions This paper provides an overview of the project delivery provisions in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). It also briefly summarizes

More information

Federal Public Transportation Program: In Brief

Federal Public Transportation Program: In Brief Federal Public Transportation Program: In Brief William J. Mallett Specialist in Transportation Policy December 2, 2013 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R42706 Contents Introduction...

More information

2015 Five-Year County Highway and Bridge Improvement Plan Guide

2015 Five-Year County Highway and Bridge Improvement Plan Guide 2015 Five-Year County Highway and Bridge Improvement Plan Guide Table of Contents A. What is the Five-Year County Highway and Bridge Improvement Plan?... 1 B. State Requirements 1 C. Developing and Updating

More information

Federal Financing of Transportation in Texas

Federal Financing of Transportation in Texas Federal Financing of Transportation in Texas LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD STAFF MARCH 2012 FEDERAL FINANCING OF TRANSPORTATION IN TEXAS SUBMITTED TO THE 82 ND TEXAS LEGISLATURE MARCH 2012 PREPARED BY LEGISLATIVE

More information

SAFETEA-LU. Overview. Background

SAFETEA-LU. Overview. Background SAFETEA-LU This document provides information related to the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) that was previously posted on the Center for

More information

49 USC NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see

49 USC NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION SUBTITLE VI - MOTOR VEHICLE AND DRIVER PROGRAMS PART B - COMMERCIAL CHAPTER 311 - COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY SUBCHAPTER I - GENERAL AUTHORITY AND STATE GRANTS 31100. Purpose

More information

Transportation. Fiscal Research Division. March 24, Justification Review

Transportation. Fiscal Research Division. March 24, Justification Review Fiscal Research Division Hiighway Fund and Hiighway Trust Fund Secondary Roads Program Transportation Justification Review March 24, 2007 The General Assembly should eliminate or reduce funding for the

More information

A Field Guide. Local Program Opportunities

A Field Guide. Local Program Opportunities A Field Guide Local Opportunities Local Opportunities Fact Sheets: 1 Surface Transportation (STP) 2 Highway Safety Improvement (HSIP) 3 High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) 4 Railway-Highway Grade Crossing 5 Congestion

More information

FFY Transportation Improvement Program

FFY Transportation Improvement Program Lawton Metropolitan Planning Organization DRAFT FFY 2018-2021 Transportation Improvement Program Approved, 2017 The Federal Fiscal Years (FFY) 2018-2021 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is updated

More information

GAO HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. Further Efforts Needed to Address Data Limitations and Better Align Funding with States Top Safety Priorities

GAO HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. Further Efforts Needed to Address Data Limitations and Better Align Funding with States Top Safety Priorities GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate November 2008 HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Further Efforts

More information

Levels of Hospital Perinatal Care in Indiana.

Levels of Hospital Perinatal Care in Indiana. Endorsed by the Indiana Section of ACOG and AAP, Indiana Chapter Levels of Hospital Perinatal Care in Indiana October 2008 Po s i t i o n Objectives Su m m a r y of Recommendations Me t h o d o l o gy

More information

A Field Guide. Local Program Opportunities

A Field Guide. Local Program Opportunities A Field Guide Local Opportunities Local Opportunities Table of Contents Fact Sheets: 1 Surface Transportation (STP) 2 Highway Safety Improvement (HSIP) 3 High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) 4 STP Safety Railroad

More information

An Overview of 2015 Licensure Renewal Data

An Overview of 2015 Licensure Renewal Data Ohio Action Coalition RN & APRN Workforce in Ohio An Overview of 2015 Licensure Renewal Data December 2016 Support for this report was provided in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The views

More information

Georgia Trauma Commission. Six Immediate Goals

Georgia Trauma Commission. Six Immediate Goals Georgia Trauma Commission Six Immediate Goals 2009-2010 #56 EMS Vehicles Replaced Seminole County Alabama Model System Processes Identify trauma patients requiring Trauma Center level of care based upon

More information

Pennsylvania Department of Health - Health Status Indicators - Page 18

Pennsylvania Department of Health - Health Status Indicators - Page 18 Summary of Percent of Children by Age Below Poverty Level, 1997 Related Children All Children

More information

TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES (TA) SET ASIDE PROGRAM July 2016

TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES (TA) SET ASIDE PROGRAM July 2016 Regional Transportation Commission TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES (TA) SET ASIDE PROGRAM July 2016 Contents 1.0 Purpose and Eligibility... 2 2.0 Process... 5 3.0 Implementation of Funded Projects... 5 Attachment

More information

Genoa Township Area Road and Bridge Projects

Genoa Township Area Road and Bridge Projects Genoa Township Area Road and Bridge Projects Delaware County Engineer s Office May 18, 2017 Delaware County Engineer s Office 2016 Construction Highlights Biggest construction year in Delaware County Engineer

More information

Justice Reinvestment in Indiana Analyses & Policy Framework

Justice Reinvestment in Indiana Analyses & Policy Framework Justice Reinvestment in Indiana Analyses & Policy Framework December 16, 2010 Council of State Governments Justice Center Marshall Clement, Project Director Anne Bettesworth, Policy Analyst Robert Coombs,

More information

Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) Recreational Trails Program (RTP)

Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) Recreational Trails Program (RTP) Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) Recreational Trails Program (RTP) www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/transportation_alternatives/overview/presentation/ 1 Transportation Alternatives Program Authorized

More information

Ohio Department of Transportation. Transportation Funding for LPAs

Ohio Department of Transportation. Transportation Funding for LPAs Ohio Department of Transportation Transportation Funding for LPAs Christopher L. Brown, P.E., District Three LPA Errol R. Scholtz, E.I., District Three LPA John R. Kasich, Governor Jerry Wray, Director

More information

RETURN TO: STATE PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT 64 NORTH UNION STREET, SUITE 300 MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

RETURN TO: STATE PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT 64 NORTH UNION STREET, SUITE 300 MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Form 3 - Revised November 1997 DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE APPLICATION FOR EXAMINATION RETURN : STATE PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT 64 NORTH UNION STREET, SUITE 300 MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36130 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

More information

LTCFOUNDATION SCHOLARSHIPS

LTCFOUNDATION SCHOLARSHIPS LTCFOUNDATION SCHOLARSHIPS 2018-19 Foundation Scholarship Guidelines General Scholarships Larry E. Beabout Jr. Scholarship Fund** - A $500 Scholarship when funds are available to a full-time LTC sophomore

More information

TRANSPORTATION. The American County Platform and Resolutions

TRANSPORTATION. The American County Platform and Resolutions TRANSPORTATION STATEMENT OF BASIC PHILOSOPHY The National Association of Counties (NACo) believes that the nation s transportation system is a vital component in building and sustaining communities, moving

More information