Background
3.1  	The road and highway system in New Brunswick plays a 
significant role in terms of connecting municipalities, 
airports, ports and railways. It is vital to the economic 
development in the Province. Provincial bridges are an 
integral part of the road and highway system. Properly 
maintained bridges are essential to the integrity of the 
transportation system and the safety of New Brunswickers. 
The provincial bridges account for a significant part of the 
Province’s infrastructure investments. Bridge structures 
totalling $895 million (excluding bridge structures under 
construction) were recorded on the Province’s Financial 
Statements as of March 31, 2012. 

3.2  	The Department of Transportation and Infrastructure 
(the Department) is responsible for the maintenance of 
2,608 bridge structures including seawalls and retaining 
walls on provincially designated highways in New 
Brunswick. The inspection and maintenance responsibility 
for the 519 bridges located on Rte. 2 from Moncton to the 
Quebec border, Rte. 95, and Route 1 from St. Stephen to 
River Glade are contracted out to the private sector under 
the respective public-private partnership agreements. The 
Province of New Brunswick also shares ownership of ten 
International bridges with the State of Maine. 
   
3.3  	The Department uses the Ontario Structures Inspection 
Manual (OSIM) as a reference in terms of its inspection 
activities. All structures under the responsibility of the 
Department are inspected on a one, two, or four year 
inspection frequency based on condition, age and structure 
type. The three main components of a bridge that are 
assessed during a bridge inspection are described in 
Appendix I.

3.4  	In 2005, the Department implemented a bridge rating 
system as per the OSIM called the Bridge Condition Index 
(BCI). Appendix II gives more details regarding BCI.
3.5  	As shown in the Exhibit 3.1, 293 bridges (listed in 
Appendix IV) are at or below a BCI of 60 which is 
considered a poor rating.  This rating is not an indicator of 
an unsafe bridge. It is an indication that significant 
maintenance work is required on that bridge in the near 
term in order to keep the bridge in service. Ontario for 
example will usually schedule maintenance within a year 
for bridges with a lower than 60 BCI. The area circled is the 
highest concentration of poor bridges and corresponds to the 
“wave” of bridges entering the latter half of their useful life. 
This can be seen in Exhibit 3.5 in the report. 

Exhibit 3.1 – Distribution of Bridge Condition Index Score by Age

 
Source: Graph created by the Office of the Auditor General of New Brunswick with data and information provided 
by the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure (unaudited).



3.6  	The Bridge Maintenance Unit under the Maintenance 
and Traffic Branch of the Department is directly responsible 
for the inspection and maintenance of all provincial 
designated bridges. Its mandate is:

To inspect and maintain the structural integrity of 
bridges on provincially designated highways in a 
safe, efficient and cost effective manner.
 
To inspect, operate and maintain ferries operating 
within the provincial transportation system in a safe, 
efficient and cost effective manner.

 To operate and maintain the buildings and grounds 
under the care and control of the Department of 
Transportation in a safe, efficient and cost effective 
manner.
Results in brief
Inspections are 
generally in line with 
accepted professional 
standards
3.7  	The Department performs regular detailed visual 
inspections on bridge structures. In general, the inspections 
are performed to the standard prescribed by the Department 
and in accordance with accepted professional standards. The 
Department has a draft Bridge Inspection Procedure 
document which provides some guidelines for the bridge 
inspection process. The Department has not yet developed 
its own comprehensive inspection manual.

3.8  	With certain exceptions, as noted in paragraph 3.51, the 
frequency of inspections for the sampled reports was in 
agreement with the inspection cycle guidelines established 
by the Department.
Inspection reports 
are generally 
complete, accurate 
and consistent
3.9  	The information contained within the inspection reports 
we tested is generally complete, accurate and consistent.

3.10  	The bridge condition comments and observations found 
in the narratives of the reports are comprehensive and 
amply depict the field observations collected for damaged 
and degraded bridge components. The information in the 
reports sampled was thorough enough to permit an adequate 
assessment of the service level of a bridge structure at a 
point in time and the required remedial actions. 

3.11  	The material ratings given to each component were 
consistent with the OSIM procedure and the reports 
adequately depict the general condition of the bridge 
components.

3.12  	However, we believe the information recorded in the 
report was insufficient to follow the evolution of the defects 
over time due to a lack of quantitative information.

3.13  	The reported information was found to be consistent 
between inspections over consecutive years for the same 
structure. Inspection reports between different structures 
were all completed to the same standard, as were the reports 
done by different inspectors.
Lack of quality 
assurance and 
control regarding 
bridge inspection
3.14  	The Department does not have a formal quality 
assurance and control process in place. A professional 
engineer is not required to sign off on any inspection reports 
and there is no evidence in the reports sampled of review by 
a professional engineer. Trained engineering technicians 
carry out the work which meets accepted standards but only 
if properly supervised by a professional engineer.
Unsystematic process 
for maintenance and 
capital planning
3.15  	The Department has an informal, unsystematic and 
undocumented process for developing and managing bridge 
intervention priorities.

3.16  	Inspection reports and the bridge conditions form the 
basis for which bridges should be placed on the priority list. 
However the maintenance and capital program can be 
heavily influenced by other non-condition related factors. 
We believe there should be guidelines established to govern 
the inclusion of the factors used for maintenance and capital 
project selection. There should be a clear link between 
projects chosen based on these factors and the Department’s 
overall goals and objectives.

3.17  	Bridges in need of major repair or replacement which 
are not included in the Capital Program are remediated 
through short term measures such as temporary bracing and 
through posting weight restrictions.  There were 163 bridges 
as of January 2013 with posted weight restrictions.
3.18  	We believe the Department should clearly identify, 
document, and communicate to the senior officials and 
Cabinet Ministers the implications or opportunity cost 
associated with the selected capital program. Such 
implications to be communicated should include the 
increased cost of capital maintenance by deferring major 
repairs.
3.19  	We also found repair work was not being done on a 
timely basis. For example, in cases where defects did not 
directly compromise the use of the bridge, (e.g. abutment 
settlement) no short-term follow-up work was performed. 
This means recommended maintenance identified during 
the inspection is not being done in a timely manner. No 
record of or tally of the deferred maintenance work other 
than what can be found in the body of the inspection reports 
is maintained.
The bridge asset 
management system 
is in the early stages 
of development 
3.20  	The Department defined its strategic bridge 
infrastructure objectives in its Bridges and Culverts Asset 
Management Plan:
a)	Adopting a least life cycle cost approach to 
rehabilitation and replacement programming; and
b)	Ensuring the condition profile does not decline over the 
planning period.

3.21  	However, bridge management is only in the early stages 
of moving towards these goals.
Long term least life 
cycle cost approach is 
not adopted
3.22  	The Department does not currently use the least life 
cycle cost approach to maintain the service level of its 
bridge inventory. The Department has not fully developed 
nor implemented the Bridge Asset Management System. 
This limits the Department’s ability to select the 
appropriate treatments at the optimal timing for a bridge at 
the operational level. Further, the Department does not have 
an action plan to move forward on the Bridge Asset 
Management System.
Lack of public 
reporting on the 
condition of bridges 
and the effectiveness 
of its bridge 
inspection activities
3.23  	The Department currently does not publicly report the 
conditions of bridges it maintains. The information is only 
available internally. The internal rating system the 
Department is using (i.e. the Bridge Condition Index or 
BCI) is the same as that used by the Ministry of 
Transportation of Ontario.

3.24  	By contrast, the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario 
and Transport Quebec publish sufficient information to 
allow the public to assess the overall condition of individual 
bridges in their respective jurisdictions.

3.25  	Although the Department did report the number of 
inspections completed during the year, it did not publicly 
report any performance targets for this activity (e.g. how 
many inspections it planned to perform during the year). 
Therefore, it is impossible, based on the publicly available 
information, to assess the Department’s actual performance 
for the year. 

3.26  	Without clear public reporting of results in relation to 
comparable targets, the public cannot assess the 
Department’s performance relating to its bridge inspection 
activities.
Reduced funding 
leads to deferred 
maintenance and 
deterioration of the 
provincial bridges
3.27  	The investment in regular maintenance and bridge 
rehabilitation in recent years has been steadily decreasing.

3.28  	As a result, there will be a significant increase in the 
funding requirement for regular and capital maintenance for 
provincial bridges in the coming years. Unless funding 
allocations to bridge maintenance are increased in future 
years, the Department will not be able to maintain the 
existing service level of its bridges (ie the bridges’ ability 
to support the weight and volume of the traffic relying on 
them).

3.29  	To address its own growing deferred maintenance issue, 
the Province of Quebec passed legislation to ensure 
adequate investment in infrastructure maintenance. This 
legislation followed the De la Concorde overpass collapse 
in Montreal in 2006.



Exhibit 3.2 – Summary of recommendations

Recommendation
Department’s response
Target date for 
implementation
Objective 1: Inspection standards, results, and maintenance and capital planning
3.46  We recommend the Department document its bridge inspection processes in 
a single comprehensive manual.
The Department will consolidate the existing 
practices and procedures which currently 
utilizes procedures from the Ontario 
Structures Inspection Manual into a single 
New Brunswick Bridge Inspection Manual.
June 2015
3.47  We recommend the Department have readily accessible to all staff the most 
current and complete copy of any manual or other documentation referenced in 
the inspection process.
The Department agrees and will make the 
necessary current manuals available to all 
staff.
Immediate
3.62  We recommend the Department follow the Ontario Structures Inspection 
Manual guidelines for reporting bridge component deterioration and record the 
quantitative information such as the width and extent of cracks in the inspection 
reports. The recording of actual quantities of the defects leads to a better 
estimation of rehabilitation needs.
The Department will carry out a review of its 
own inspection Procedures with respect to 
reporting deterioration and quantitative 
information.  The Ontario Structures 
Inspection Manual will be referenced.
June 2015
3.63  We recommend the Department include suggested completion dates within 
the maintenance recommendations in the inspection reports. This will provide 
additional detailed information for use by senior department officials and 
members of the Legislative Assembly, inventory data analysis and performance 
reporting.
The Department will develop criteria for 
suggesting completion time frames for 
maintenance recommendations, which will 
be incorporated in the Inspection Manual.
June 2015
3.69  We recommend the Department add a severity rating component to their 
material rating process similar to the Ontario Structures Inspection Manual. 
Standardized material ratings should be used.
The Department will carry out a review of 
the existing rating system in the development 
of its own Inspection Manual.
June 2015
3.75  We recommend the Department standardize the use of priority codes within 
the inspection reporting process.
The Department will carry out a review of 
the existing priority codes in the 
development of its own Inspection Manual.
June 2015
3.79  We recommend the Department implement and document a formal quality 
control and assurance procedure for inspections and reporting. In conjunction 
with this, the Department should formalize supervision of the inspection team by a 
qualified structural engineer. This could include, but not be limited to:
•	documented review by a professional engineer of a random sample of 
completed bridge inspection reports and photo files;
•	direct observation; and
•	re-performance of field inspections.
Currently a professional engineer 
experienced in maintenance, construction, 
and human and financial management 
supervises this team, with access to 
structural engineers where required for 
technical assistance on an as needed basis.

The Department will develop a 
documentation procedure for this reporting.
May 2014


Exhibit 3.2 – Summary of recommendations - continued

Recommendation
Department’s response
Target date for 
implementation
Objective 1: Inspection standards, results, and maintenance and capital planning (continued)
3.88  We recommend the Department establish guidelines for bridge repair 
and replacement project selection and document the rationale for the 
projects selected.
The Department has a process for 
developing capital and ordinary 
projects and will formally document 
the rationale for project selection.
May 2014
Objective 2: Long term least life cycle cost approach
3.104  We recommend the Department clearly define the least life cycle cost for a 
bridge and adopt this approach in prioritizing all capital bridge work, as stated in 
the Department’s Bridges and Culverts Asset Management Plan.
The Bridge and Culvert Asset Management 
Plan is being developed to establish future 
capital bridge priorities.  The Department 
will continue its efforts in the 
implementation of these Asset Management 
Plans in regard to bridges.
2015 testing
2016 
Implementation
Objective 3: Public reporting on the condition of bridges and the effectiveness of its bridge inspection activities
3.115  We recommend the Department publicly report the Bridge Condition Index 
of all designated Provincial bridges on an annual basis.
The Department will assess the value of 
providing this information to the public.
May 2014
3.116  We recommend the Department have measurable objectives relating to the 
condition of Provincial bridges. Such objectives might include setting a target 
Bridge Condition Index.
With the continued development and 
implementation of the Bridge and Culvert 
Asset Management Plan the Department will 
identify objectives for the condition of 
Provincial bridges.
2016
3.124  We recommend the Department set targets for its bridge inspection program 
and publicly report the targets, actual results and the rationale for variances in its 
annual report.
The Department does have targets for 
inspections and will provide this information 
to the public in the future.
2014
Other observation: funding requirements to maintain the service level of bridges
3.136  The Department should develop and implement a long term plan to address 
current and expected future funding shortfalls in ordinary and capital bridge 
maintenance. This plan should be communicated annually during the capital 
budget process in order to appropriately inform senior officials and Cabinet 
Ministers.
Currently, ordinary and capital budget 
plans are communicated to senior officials 
and Cabinet Ministers on an annual basis.
March 2015



Audit objectives 
and scope
3.30  	The objectives of our audit were: 
1.	To determine whether the Department performs 
bridge inspections in accordance with accepted 
professional standards and uses the inspection 
results to identify and prioritize necessary 
capital maintenance and other remedial 
measures.

2.	To determine whether the Department 
maintains the service level of its bridge 
inventory based on a long term least life cycle 
cost approach

3.	To determine whether the Department publicly 
reports on the condition of designated 
Provincial bridges and the effectiveness of its 
bridge inspection activities

3.31  	The audit criteria we used for each objective were 
listed in Appendix V.
 
3.32  	The scope of our audit included 2,553 of the 2,608 
provincially designated bridge structures. Sea walls and 
retaining walls were excluded, as majority of them are 
not part of the major transportation network. The ten 
international bridges were also excluded, because the 
inspection and maintenance responsibility is shared with 
the State of Maine.

3.33  	Our audit work included:
*	performing walkthroughs on the Department’s 
bridge inventory system;
*	examining inspection reports and other 
documentation regarding bridge inspection 
procedures, the bridge asset management plan 
and annual reports;
*	interviewing the staff members of the 
Department; and
*	researching the bridge management practices in 
other jurisdictions.

3.34  	The Department performs four types of inspections 
on bridges:
*	detailed visual inspections;
*	special inspections;
*	emergency inspections; and
*	additional inspections.

3.35  	We tested the inspection reports generated from 
detailed visual inspection which we believe is the most 
comprehensive one of all the different types of 
inspections.

3.36  	We did not re-perform any bridge inspections nor test 
the Department’s bridge inventory system.

3.37  	During our audit, we engaged an out-of-province 
engineering expert to:
*	verify the accuracy, completeness, and consistence of 
a sample of inspection reports;
*	validate that the element ratings are reasonable and 
consistent with inspector’s observations based on 
available physical evidence from inspection 
photographs; and
*	provide general commentary on the effectiveness of 
the bridge inspection process, its conduct and 
documentation.

3.38  	Our audit was performed in accordance with 
standards for assurance engagements, encompassing 
value-for-money and compliance, established by the 
Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada, and 
accordingly included such tests and other procedures as 
we considered necessary in the circumstances.

3.39  	Certain financial and statistical information 
presented in this chapter was compiled from information 
provided by the Department of Transportation and 
Infrastructure. It has not been audited or otherwise 
verified.  Readers are cautioned that this financial and 
statistical information may not be appropriate for their 
purposes.
Objective I
3.40  	Our first objective was:  
To determine whether the Department performs bridge 
inspections in accordance with accepted professional 
standards and uses the inspection results to identify and 
prioritize necessary capital maintenance and other 
remedial measures.
Inspection Standards
3.41  	Unlike Ontario and other jurisdictions, the 
Department has not yet developed its own 
comprehensive inspection manual. The Department has a 
draft Bridge Inspection Procedure document which 
provides some guidelines for the bridge inspection 
process. It provides inspectors with instructions 
regarding the preparation of inspections, the field work 
and the post-inspection operations. It states that bridges 
are to be inspected with reference to the Ontario 
Structures Inspection Manual (OSIM) and the U.S. 
Federal Highway Administration’s Bridge Inspector’s 
Training Manual. 

3.42  	Any rigorous inspection system should meet a 
number of minimum requirements: 
*	Detailed visual inspections should be performed on a 
regular basis;
*	The entire history of the bridge should be properly 
documented and easily accessible to inspectors; 
*	A quality assurance system should be put in place to 
verify the reliability of the data generated during the 
visual inspections; and
*	Inspectors should be qualified and properly trained.


3.43  	The OSIM published by the Ontario Ministry of 
Transportation (MTO) sets standards for the visual 
inspection and condition rating of bridges and their 
components. It covers the complete inspection process, 
pre and post inspection operations; inspector’s 
qualifications, inspection frequency; inspection 
descriptions and technical information to clearly identify 
structural elements, material defects and performance 
deficiencies.
Incomplete Manual
3.44  	We believe it is critical the Department ensure the 
most recent and complete versions of referenced 
standards and manuals (ex. OSIM) are in use. We found 
the Department referenced an abbreviated copy of the 
most current version of the OSIM. The abbreviated copy 
came from the Ontario Good Roads Association, a trade 
body and not directly from MTO. In the conduct of our 
audit we were able to download the full version of the 
most recent OSIM directly from the MTO website. The 
copy referenced by the Department was missing all but 
one section of Part 1-Technical information along with 
the parts on “Additional Investigations and Material 
condition surveys”. It is important to note that in the 
conduct of our further examination of inspection results 
this did not appear to have a detrimental impact on the 
overall effectiveness of the inspections.
Outdated Manual
3.45  	The second document referenced in the Department’s 
Bridge Inspection Procedure is the U.S. Federal Highway 
Administration’s Bridge Inspector’s Training Manual. 
This manual is not officially in use anymore. The 
document referenced by the Department is the 1990 
edition, which was issued to update the manual initially 
issued in 1970. The most recent document available from 
the US Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) refers 
directly to the National Bridge Inspection Standards 
(NBIS). The latest version of the NBIS was published in 
December 2004. The US FHWA manual covered all of 
the basic techniques used in conducting detailed visual 
bridge inspections, which are still pertinent to 
inspections today. However, the Department should 
ensure it is referencing the most current version of other 
jurisdictions manuals to avoid any confusion or 
ambiguity in their own inspection procedures.
Recommendations
3.46  	We recommend the Department document its bridge 
inspection processes in a single comprehensive manual.

3.47  	We recommend the Department have readily 
accessible to all staff the most current and complete 
copy of any manual or other documentation referenced 
in the inspection process. 
Inspection frequency
3.48  	Accepted professional standards require a prescribed 
inspection frequency for all bridges. Actual inspection 
cycles should adhere to this standard. In Ontario, in 
accordance with the Public Transportation and Highway 
Improvement Act, provincial bridges undergo a legislated 
“detailed bridge inspection every two years” (Ontario 
Regulation 104/97, s.2. paragraph 3). The Ontario 
Structures Inspection Manual (OSIM) provides 
additional guidance by specifying that further enhanced 
visual inspection must be performed at least every 6th 
year on bridges over 30 years old with components in 
poor condition. It allows for bridge size culverts with 
three to six metre spans to be inspected every four years 
provided the structure is in good condition. The OSIM 
allows for the frequency of inspections to be increased as 
directed by the Engineer based on the type of structure, 
construction details, problems or restrictions.

3.49  	The Department’s draft Bridge Inspection Procedure 
(BIP) specifies that bridges are to be inspected on a 1, 2 
or 4 year basis dependent on age, type and condition. The 
BIP does not give any details about the criteria used to 
determine which inspection interval should be observed. 
A separate informal internal document/memorandum 
entitled “Bridge Inspection Cycle 1…2…&….4 Year 
Criteria” gives some specific guidance about what 
factors and criteria to follow in determining which 
inspection frequency level to use. 

3.50  	The bridge inspection frequency for each bridge is 
recorded within the Bridge Inventory Data base at the 
Department. An analysis of the bridge inventory was 
conducted using last inspection date and inspection cycle 
frequency.
Majority of 
Inspections are on 
Time
3.51  	Of the over 1,000 bridges that were scheduled to be 
inspected during the 2012 inspection season, there were 
17 that were not completed and out of date.

3.52  	This does not constitute a significant discrepancy and 
there is no indication of systemic problem in keeping up 
with inspection cycle frequencies. The inspection 
frequency, last inspection and next planned inspection 
dates are well documented and tracked within the 
database. Inspections missed are rescheduled and 
completed during the next inspection cycle.

3.53  	With the noted exceptions, the frequency of 
inspections for the reviewed reports was in agreement 
with the inspection cycle guidelines established by the 
Department.

3.54  	We also found that there is a difference between the 
Department’s BIP and the OSIM. The Department’s BIP 
supplemented by the informal criteria clearly specifies 
that some bridges should be on a one year cycle. 

3.55  	We believe if reference is to be made to the 
procedures from other jurisdictions (OSIM), it should 
explicitly state which operations or specific sections to 
use instead of referring to the entire document. 
Ambiguity between reference manuals and informal or 
draft internal documents such as was found in inspection 
frequencies would be eliminated with a single 
departmental inspection manual.
Completeness, 
accuracy and 
consistency of 
inspection reports
3.56  	Inspection is one of the key elements of any bridge 
management system. The effectiveness of the system 
relies on the quality of the source information being fed 
into it. Management at head office and in the districts 
relies on the information found in the inspection reports. 
It is essential that the inspection report tells the full story 
of the service level (i.e. physical condition) of that 
bridge. It is critical that bridge inspection reports be 
complete, accurate, and consistent. 

3.57  	We selected a sample of 31 bridges to test the 
inspection reports.  The exceptions are listed in Exhibit 
3.3.  The detailed sample selection methodology can be 
found in Appendix VI.
Completeness of 
inspection reports
3.58  	Completeness of inspection reports would imply:
*	sufficient, appropriate information in all required 
fields; and
*	sufficient and required photographic evidence of 
report observations and findings to allow a reviewer 
to conclude on the condition of the bridge. 

3.59  	In the 31 items tested, we found the bridge comments 
and observations in the narratives of the report to be 
comprehensive. They amply depicted the field 
observations collected for damaged and degraded bridge 
components. The information in the reports sampled was 
thorough enough to permit an adequate assessment of the 
service level of a bridge structure at a point in time and 
the required remedial actions.

3.60  	However, we believe the information recorded was 
insufficient to follow the evolution of the defects over 
time due to a lack of quantitative information. For 
instance knowledge of the width and extent of cracks in 
various locations, which was not captured, can be 
important in determining the type of deterioration 
occurring in the concrete and is necessary information 
for estimating the breadth of required repair work. No 
timeframe was provided within the reports for the 
maintenance and future work recommendations as is 
required by the OSIM. 

3.61  	There were also 19 instances of incomplete 
photographic information. In these 19 instances at least 
one of the required pictures was missing in the picture 
report. In four of the instances the component ratings 
could not be assessed from the associated photographs. 
Recommendations
3.62  	We recommend the Department follow the Ontario 
Structures Inspection Manual guidelines for reporting 
bridge component deterioration and record the 
quantitative information such as the width and extent of 
cracks in the inspection reports. The recording of actual 
quantities of the defects leads to a better estimation of 
rehabilitation needs.

3.63  	We recommend the Department include suggested 
completion dates within the maintenance 
recommendations in the inspection reports. This will 
provide additional detailed information for use by senior 
department officials and the members of the Legislative 
Assembly, inventory data analysis and performance 
reporting.
Accuracy
3.64  	Accuracy of information within the report refers to:
*	the condition assessment; 
*	the narrative observations;
*	priority code; and, 
*	recommendations made. 

3.65  	In other words, do the component ratings of poor, 
fair, good, or excellent reflect the actual condition of the 
bridge component based on expert review of bridge 
inspection photographs? Further, are the ratings 
consistent with the rating guidelines found in the OSIM? 
Accurate ratings and 
Appropriate 
recommended repair
3.66  	In our testing, we found the material ratings given to 
each component to be consistent with the OSIM 
procedure and from our review of photographic evidence 
the reports accurately depicted the general condition of 
the bridge components. The component defect 
descriptions in the report accurately reflected the actual 
condition seen in the respective component photographs. 
When major defects were reported, the recommended 
repair work included in the inspection report was 
appropriate. 

3.67  	However, we did find that when a severity 
assessment was included in the narrative it did not 
systematically follow the OSIM or BIP guidelines. There 
were instances where a rating of very poor or severely 
poor was given. The OSIM prescribes four specific 
ratings: excellent, good, fair, and poor. There are 
predefined defect levels and measurements associated 
with each of the four ratings. The addition of an extra 
descriptive word in front of the standard rating adds a 
subjective element to the condition rating and induces a 
bias in the evaluation.  Consideration may be given to 
some structures over others in the same condition based 
on the                      non-standardized rating description. 
This could be avoided with the use of a separate field 
within the inspection report where one of the four pre-set 
ratings must be chosen. 
Lack of severity 
rating
3.68  	The OSIM requires a severity rating in addition to the 
material rating. This is not followed in the NB inspection 
process. The degree of severity of a component in the 
OSIM is based on specific quantitative observations and 
measurements of the size and exact nature of the defect. 
For example, cracks are evaluated as either hairline, 
narrow, medium or wide. Verification requires the defect 
measurements to be recorded in the inspection report. 
Although the ratings appear to be reasonably accurate, 
the only available information to follow the progression 
and rate of degradation is limited to the “Comments” and 
“Observations “sections and thus relies on the 
information the inspector deems necessary to report.
Recommendation
3.69  	We recommend the Department add a severity 
rating component to their material rating process 
similar to the Ontario Structures Inspection Manual. 
Standardized material ratings should be used.
Consistency
3.70  	Consistency was looked at three different ways:
*	The degree of concurrence between the bridge 
information and condition throughout the report and 
the related photographic evidence. Narrative 
descriptions should match the pictures and the 
component lists;
*	There should be consistency between reports 
prepared by different inspectors. All inspection 
reports should be prepared to the same standard from 
year to year; and
*	There should be consistency in inspection reports 
regardless of the type of bridge being inspected. 
Simple single span bridges should be completed to 
the same standard and in the same manner as larger 
more complex structures.
Consistent inspection 
reports
3.71  	From our testing, information included in inspection 
reports was found to be consistent for consecutive 
inspections of the same structure and between reports for 
different structures. Information and data reported by 
different inspectors was also found to be consistent. The 
Department’s processes and inspection applications lend 
themselves well to maintaining consistency within and 
between the inspection reports. Information recorded in 
the observations tab from previous inspections is readily 
accessible and reviewed by the inspectors prior to 
inspections. The small number of in-house inspectors 
working as a team out of the head office also contributes 
to uniformity in inspection standards and reports. The 
presence of specific fields of information in the bridge 
inspection software application, has also contributed to 
the level of consistency found in the reports. 
Benefits of using 
standard checklists
3.72  	However, we believe the Department’s manual 
should be supplemented with a detailed field inspection 
form or checklist to minimize the subjectivity in 
inspection documentation. This would also aid the 
collection of detailed information that would allow for 
improved planning for future maintenance and 
intervention activities. Additional information that 
should be routinely collected by inspection personnel on 
cracks and damaged areas includes:
*	crack widths (typical interval);
*	cracked area/location;
*	crack pattern;
*	scaled/damaged surface;
*	corrosion symptoms;
*	delaminated area/location;
*	spalled area/location; 
*	exposed rebar’s location/extent/section loss; and
*	moisture/deposits/discoloration.

Non-standardized 
priority code
3.73  	The priority code is a set of pre-determined text 
fields, selected from a drop down list within the 
inspection application. It is meant to provide a 
standardized and searchable field within the bridge data 
base to aid in maintenance and remediation planning. 
The standard priority or urgency codes are numbered and 
relate to the urgency of deck rehab, small or large bridge, 
or pipe replacement.

3.74  	The priority code is not currently attributed to the 
observed degradation of the bridge elements on a 
systematic basis. It should at least be provided for any 
defect for which an intervention is required in the 
“Recommendations” section, regardless of the rating or 
the component type.
Recommendation
3.75  	We recommend the Department standardize the use 
of priority codes within the inspection reporting 
process. 



Exhibit 3.3 - Listing of exceptions

Results of Bridge Inventory Inspection Frequency Test

Number of 
exceptions
Inspections not completed as planned in current year 
17 or 1.5% 
of 1,155 
planned
Results of bridge inspection testing
Listing of exceptions found in sample of 62 inspection reports for 
31 bridges
Number of 
exceptions
Inspection Frequency 


Documented inspection frequency is not in compliance 
with internal New Brunswick Department of 
Transportation and Infrastructure cycle criteria
3
Accuracy

Ratings could not be verified due to incomplete or lack of 
sufficient photographic evidence
4
Rating did not follow the prescribed guidelines –additional 
rating was given
2
Recommended maintenance work was not completed prior 
to the next inspection
5
Completeness


Inspection photographs not in accordance with Bridge 
Inspection Procedure

19
Insufficient deterioration details and measurements
all
Lack of time frame on repair recommendations
all

Quality control over 
inspections
3.76  	A quality assurance system should be in place to 
verify the reliability of the data generated during the 
visual inspections. Inspectors should have current 
qualifications and training. The US National Bridge 
Inspection Standards include a requirement for 
appropriate quality control (QC) and quality assurance 
(QA) steps to be taken. Specifically it states: Assure that 
systematic quality control (QC) and quality assurance 
(QA) procedures are used to maintain a high degree of 
accuracy and consistency in the inspection program. 
Include periodic field review of inspection teams, 
periodic bridge inspection training for program 
managers and team leaders, and independent review of 
inspection reports and computations. 

3.77  	The New Brunswick Bridge Inspection Procedure 
specifies that inspectors should be engineering 
technicians who have attended an approved bridge 
inspection course(s). These requirements are different 
from those stated by other bridge inspection systems, 
such as the OSIM. The OSIM requires inspectors to be 
professional engineers with a background in inspections 
or trained bridge inspectors reporting or under the 
supervision of a Professional Engineer. All New 
Brunswick inspectors were qualified engineering 
technicians, experienced in performing inspections and 
had bridge inspection training. 

3.78  	The Department does not have a formal quality 
control or quality assurance process in place. For 
example, a professional engineer is not required to sign 
off on any inspection reports. During the inspection 
season, inspectors meet at least once a week with the 
bridge maintenance engineer to discuss any issues which 
were discovered during the previous week of inspecting 
(e.g. significant deterioration of a bridge which is not 
critical but should be investigated or repaired in the near 
future). This is an informal process and results are not 
typically documented and nothing guarantees that all 
issues will be addressed in a timely manner by a 
professional engineer. There is no evidence in the 
reports we tested of review. 
Recommendation
3.79  	We recommend the Department implement and 
document a formal quality control and assurance 
procedure for inspections and reporting. In conjunction 
with this, the Department should formalize supervision 
of the inspection team by a qualified structural 
engineer. This could include, but not be limited to:
*	documented review by a professional engineer of a 
random sample of completed bridge inspection 
reports and photo files;
*	direct observation; and
*	re-performance of field inspections.
Maintenance and 
capital planning
3.80  	An effective inspection process with reliable bridge 
information allows the Department to make short-term 
decisions where an inspection has shown the safety of a 
bridge to be a concern.  Inspections also provide the 
Department decision makers with information they can 
use to prioritize bridge maintenance and capital repairs. 
In an environment of scarce resources and ever 
increasing demands on those resources, it is critical to 
have processes in place that can be used to assist 
management in making the critical decision of what 
work to do and when.
Maintenance planning
3.81  	 Performing and keeping up with regular 
maintenance on any type of capital asset is important for 
getting the most out of its useful life and reducing the 
chance of needing more extensive work later on. 
Different types of bridges in different locations react and 
deteriorate differently. Not all bridges are the same. The 
treatments for a bridge must be in some part tailored to 
the needs of that particular bridge. Inspections are the 
main tool for learning how a particular bridge is 
behaving. Therefore maintenance and repair plans 
should stem from or in large part reflect the findings and 
recommended maintenance coming from the 
inspections. This should be apparent from a review of 
consecutive bridge inspection reports on the same 
structure. 
3.82  	This review was conducted for the bridge reports we 
tested. We found repair work was not being done on a 
timely basis. In cases for which defects that did not 
directly compromise the use of the bridge, (e.g. 
abutment settlement) no short-term follow-up work was 
performed. This means recommended maintenance 
identified during the inspection is not being done on a 
timely basis. No record of, or tally of the deferred 
maintenance work other than what can be found in the 
body of the inspection reports is maintained.

3.83  	The non-systematic application of the maintenance 
and repair recommendations adversely affects the size 
and manageability of the “deferred” maintenance deficit. 
It also draws concerns that:
*	It can promote application of the recommendations 
based on subjective interpretation of the inspection 
reports; and
*	Comments and observations entered within text 
blocks may be overlooked because they are not 
highlighted or sufficiently emphasized in the 
inspection report.
Capital project selection
3.84  	A capital replacement priority list is developed and 
maintained by Maintenance and Traffic branch with 
collaborative input from the district offices. This list is 
derived primarily from the results of the bridge 
inspections and internal discussions among the 
Department’s engineers.  The priority list is further 
rationalized down to a proposed capital program after 
considering other factors such as:
*	safety concerns; 
*	traffic volume and available detours; 
*	anticipated funding levels; 
*	availability of completed design and prep work; and, 
*	District priorities. 
3.85  	The proposed capital program is forwarded to the 
Department’s senior management for executive review 
and approval. The result of that review determines the 
final capital program to be carried out on bridges in the 
Province. During this process additional non-condition 
related variables such as economic and social 
development, industry considerations, and political 
activism may further influence the final selection of 
capital projects.

3.86  	There is no evidence of a cost-benefit analysis or that 
least life cycle cost was considered when determining the 
selection of capital bridge rehabilitation and replacement 
projects. The Department indicated during the final 
approval phase of the capital program there is a risk that 
non-optimal considerations may influence the choice of 
capital maintenance projects.

3.87  	We believe there should be guidelines established to 
govern the inclusion of non-bridge condition based 
factors to ensure there is a clear link between the 
selected projects and the Department’s overall goals and 
objectives.
Recommendation
3.88  	We recommend the Department establish guidelines 
for bridge repair and replacement project selection and 
document the rationale for the projects selected.
Conclusion on 
Objective I
3.89  	The Department performs regular detailed visual 
inspections on bridge structures. In general the 
inspections are performed to the standard prescribed by 
the Department and in accordance with accepted 
professional standards. The information contained within 
the reports is complete, accurate and consistent. 
However, we noted weaknesses in documenting a 
comprehensive set of inspection procedures, collecting 
quantitative information within the inspection reports, 
and attributing priority codes on a systematic basis.
3.90  	The Department relies on and incorporates the 
inspection results in its maintenance planning and in the 
initial establishment of its capital priority lists. However, 
the Department does not have a formal documented and 
systematic process for prioritizing maintenance and 
capital work for bridges.  
Objective II
3.91  	Our second objective was:
To determine whether the Department maintains the 
service level of its bridge inventory based on a long term 
least life cycle cost approach. 

3.92  	Levels of service describe the quality of service that 
the Department has decided are to be provided by bridges 
for the benefit of road users, such as weight and speed 
limits, bridge width and traffic volume.

3.93  	Life cycle cost refers to the total cost of ownership 
over the life of an asset. Least life cycle cost approach 
for maintaining a bridge means selecting the 
preservation treatments with lowest cost over the life of 
a bridge. In other words, it means to perform the right 
treatment to a bridge at the right time to minimize the 
overall costs of maintaining the asset in appropriate 
conditions for it to provide the required level of service.  

3.94  	The Department’s Asset Management Business 
Framework (AMBF) initiative was introduced in 2008 to 
provide a more strategic approach to long term, 
sustainable investment planning and program 
management. This will enable better decision-making by 
identifying the appropriate timing for the most effective 
and economical treatment based on long term, least life 
cycle costs taking into consideration the entire bridge 
and culvert stock to achieve optimal performance within 
annual budgets.

3.95  	In fact, the Department defined its strategic bridge 
infrastructure objectives in the Bridges and Culverts 
Asset Management Plan (AMP) prepared by the 
Department in 2010:
The 2010-14 rehabilitation programming was 
guided by several key strategic infrastructure 
objectives for bridges and culverts. This included:
a) Adopting a least life cycle cost approach to 
rehabilitation and replacement programming; and
b) Ensuring the condition profile does not decline 
over the planning period. 

3.96  	However, bridge asset management is only in the 
early stages of moving towards these goals.

3.97  	Additionally, the parameters affecting life cycle cost 
are not clearly defined in the AMP. For example, large 
bridge rehabilitation projects tend to generate significant 
costs associated with traffic delays. Without clearly 
defining what should be included in the calculation of 
life cycle cost, it is difficult to use this approach to set 
priorities.

3.98  	The AMP states:
“Asset management planning and programming 
for bridges is in the early stages of development” 
and “management of the bridges has historically 
been focused on safety and preservation on a 
bridge by bridge reactive basis. The Department 
inspects, monitors, repairs and replaces bridges 
and culverts to ensure that they remain in a 
structurally sound and safe condition and 
continue to provide the service for which they 
were originally designed.” 

3.99  	One of the key components of the AMP is the life 
cycle management which includes “long term 
deterioration modeling to determine future needs to 
identify the gap between current and desired 
performance, applying operational windows to identify 
the most cost effective timing for rehabilitation and 
integration with maintenance.” 

3.100  	A bridge, just like road or building, deteriorates over 
time. Exhibit 3.4 illustrates how the conditions of a deck 
on a bridge typically change over the life of the bridge. It 
is critical to identify the right treatments at the right time 
to avoid more costly repair in the future.

Exhibit 3.4 – Bridge deck deterioration cure

 
Source: the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure 


3.101  	Typically an asset management system would be 
used to:
*	predict and justify the need for funding;
*	set priorities; and
*	optimize decision making.

3.102  	The Department is not using the Bridge Asset 
Management System to set priorities. Departmental 
representatives indicated, the system is not sophisticated 
enough to precisely suggest the proper timing and 
treatments for a particular bridge, although it is 
relatively accurate to predict the future funding required 
for capital maintenance for all the bridges as a group  
However, it is not being used for this purpose either.
Conclusion on 
objective II
3.103  	The Department does not currently use the least life 
cycle cost approach to maintain the service level of its 
bridge inventory. The Department has not fully 
developed and implemented a bridge asset management 
system. This limits the Department’s ability to clearly 
define and articulate its funding requirements and 
related opportunity costs for future years. It also limits 
its ability to select the optimal timing of appropriate 
bridge treatments at the operational level. Further, the 
Department does not have an action plan to move 
forward its bridge asset management system.
Recommendation
3.104  	We recommend the Department clearly define the 
least life cycle cost for a bridge and adopt this 
approach in prioritizing all capital bridge work, as 
stated in the Department’s Bridges and Culverts Asset 
Management Plan.
Objective III
3.105  	Our third objective was:
To determine whether the Department publicly reports 
on the condition of designated Provincial bridges and 
the effectiveness of its bridge inspection activities.
Public reporting on 
bridge condition
3.106  	The Department currently does not publicly report 
the conditions of bridges it maintains. The information 
is only available internally. The internal rating system 
the Department is using (i.e. the Bridge Condition Index 
or BCI) is the same as that used by the Ministry of 
Transportation of Ontario.

3.107  	The BCI was developed as a means of combining  
component inspection information and its respective 
replacement cost into a single value that can be used to 
assist in managing a bridge inventory. BCI is not an 
indicator of bridge safety. It is commonly used as a 
rough proxy for the overall condition of a bridge for 
comparative purposes.

3.108  	The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario publishes 
the following information on its website:
*	general information regarding bridge inspection 
(which bridge components are inspected and how are 
bridge inspected);
*	general information regarding Bridge Condition 
Index (BCI) (i.e. what does a BCI represent); and
*	lists of BCI of all bridges by region.	

3.109  	Transports Quebec publishes, for its bridges and 
roads, information on its website, including:
*	status of each of the structures of the road network 
under the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport;
*	the nature of the work; and
*	the timing of interventions and inspections.

3.110  	This interactive section of its website also shows the 
type, condition, location, intervention planned and 
inspection report of each individual bridge under the 
responsibility of the Ministry of Transport.

3.111  	The information published allows the public to 
monitor the status of bridges and the implementation of 
the projects of the Department.

3.112  	Both examples of public reporting on bridge 
conditions from Ontario and Quebec are shown in 
Appendix VIII.

3.113  	Moreover, Transports Quebec has a clear and 
measurable objective regarding the conditions of 
bridges. It committed to reduce the number of structures 
considered deficient to 20%. This strategic vision has a 
direct implication on future decisions. It allows 
Transports Quebec to establish what should be done in 
priority to accomplish the goal.

3.114  	Publishing information on New Brunswick’s bridge 
status and condition, such as BCI, would help the public 
assess the overall condition of bridges in the Province.
Recommendations
3.115  	We recommend the Department publicly report the 
Bridge Condition Index of all designated Provincial 
bridges on an annual basis.

3.116  	We recommend the Department have measurable 
objectives relating to the condition of Provincial 
bridges. Such objectives might include setting a target 
Bridge Condition Index.
Public effectiveness 
reporting related to 
bridge inspection 
activities
3.117  	We believe the annual report of the Department 
should include the following relating to bridge 
inspection activities:
*	performance indicators relating to the quality and 
quantity of bridge inspections;
*	targets;
*	actual results; and
*	the rationale for variances between performance 
targets and actual results.

3.118  	This would allow legislators and the public to assess 
the performance of the Department relating to its bridge 
inspection activities and hold the Department to account 
for that performance.

3.119  	We reviewed the 2011-12 Annual Report of the 
Department and found the following statement relating 
to bridge inspections:
“The Bridge Maintenance section is responsible 
for the inspection and the administration of the 
Bridge Maintenance Program, which includes 
approximately 2,600 bridges and 1,947 large 
culverts …. Inspections were conducted on 1,254 
bridges and 500 large culverts.” 

3.120  	Although the Department did report the number of 
inspections completed during the year, it did not 
publicly report any performance targets for this activity 
(e.g. how many inspections it planned to perform during 
the year). Therefore, it is impossible, based on the 
publicly available information, to assess the 
Department’s actual performance for the year. 

3.121  	We believe a performance target for inspections 
would be easily determined. The Department’s 
inspection manual specifies each bridge should be 
inspected every one, two or four years depending on the 
bridge’s age and/or condition. It is fairly straightforward 
to calculate the number of regular inspections which 
should be conducted during a year. In our opinion, that 
number should be the minimum target, with which the 
Department compares its actual results.

3.122  	Without clear public reporting of results in relation 
to comparable targets, the public cannot assess the 
Department’s performance relating to its bridge 
inspection activities.
Conclusion on 
objective III
3.123  	The Department does not publicly report the 
condition of designated Provincial bridges or its 
effectiveness with regards to its bridge inspection 
activities.
Recommendation
3.124  	We recommend the Department set targets for its 
bridge inspection program and publicly report the 
targets, actual results and the rationale for variances in 
its annual report.
Other observations
3.125  	As illustrated by Exhibit 3.5, 1,396 bridges or 55% 
are over 30 years old. Most of the bridges constructed 
prior to 1970 were designed with a life expectancy of 
less than 50 years. Their service life has been extended 
through capital repair and imposed weight restrictions. 
Typical deterioration patterns of major bridge 
components suggest their conditions deteriorate at a 
faster rate after 30 to 40 years without timely and 
appropriate treatments.

3.126  	Exhibit 3.6 shows the current condition of the 
bridges in New Brunswick, in comparison to those in 
Ontario. There is a much higher percentage of poor rated 
bridges in New Brunswick (11% in NB vs. 5% in ON). 
Those bridges with good to fair rating will require 
significant investment in maintenance in the near future. 
The Department projected the annual funding 
requirements for bridge treatments and replacement will 
increase from $10 million in 2011 to $50 million in 
2039. 






























Exhibit 3.5 - Designated Bridge Age by Decade

 
Source: Graph created by the Office of the Auditor General of New Brunswick with data and 
information provided by the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure (unaudited).
Note: Most of the bridges constructed prior to 1970 were designed with a life expectancy of less 
than 50 years. Some bridges have had their service life extended by doing preventative 
maintenance, major upgrade work, and by imposing weight restrictions. Just over 6% of DTI 
maintained bridges have an imposed weight restriction.



















Exhibit 3.6 - Bridge BCI Comparison

 
 Source: Graph created by the Office of the Auditor General of New Brunswick with data and information provided by the 
Department of Transportation and Infrastructure (unaudited). 


3.127  	The investment in regular maintenance and bridge 
rehabilitation in recent years has been steadily decreasing, 
as shown in Exhibits 3.7 and 3.8.

Exhibit 3.7 - Investment in Ordinary Bridge Maintenance 

 
Source: Graph created by the Office of the Auditor General of New Brunswick with figures obtained from Public 
 Accounts at March 31



Exhibit 3.8 – Investment in Bridge Rehabilitation
 
Source: Graph created by the Office of the Auditor General of New Brunswick with figures obtained from Public 
Accounts at March 31


3.128  	As a result, there will be a need for a significant 
increase in funding levels for regular and capital 
maintenance for Provincial bridges in the coming years. 
Unless funding levels to bridge maintenance are 
increased in future years, the Department will not be able 
to maintain the planned service levels of its bridges. 
Furthermore, inadequate investment in maintenance will 
lead to growing deferred maintenance and deterioration 
of the Provincial bridges.

3.129  	To address the growing deferred maintenance issue in 
Quebec, the Province of Quebec passed legislation 
(Projet de loi no 32 Loi favorisant le maintien et le 
renouvellement des infrastructures publiques) regarding 
infrastructure maintenance. Bill 32 was implemented on 
December 21, 2007. 

3.130  	[Translation.] The purposes of this bill are to ensure:
*	Investment in public infrastructure is made in 
accordance with best management practices; and
*	There is adequate distribution of investments 
between infrastructure maintenance and new 
infrastructure.

3.131  	The legislation, in particular, requires:
   [Translation.] The capital budget to specify the 
amounts allocated to each of the following categories:
1.	maintenance of existing public infrastructure taking 
into account accepted standards;
2.	elimination of, within 15 years, the estimated 
maintenance deficit as of April 1, 2008; and
3.	addition, improvement or replacement of public 
infrastructure. 

3.132  	The legislation followed the De la Concorde overpass 
collapse in Montreal on September 30, 2006. The 
Minister of Transport Quebec (MTQ) immediately 
requested that any overpasses of similar design in 
Quebec be identified. It was confirmed that the de Blois 
overpass adjacent to the De la Concorde had a similar 
design. It was found to have the same issues which 
caused the collapse of the De la Concorde overpass and 
was closed to traffic less than three hours after the De la 
Concorde collapse and subsequently demolished. 

3.133  	We concluded in our review of highway capital 
maintenance in the 2012 Auditor General Report that:
“current funding levels do not allow the 
completion of optimal maintenance treatments on 
a timely basis. This will result in deferring 
required maintenance to future periods at greater 
overall cost to the Province.” 

3.134  	We were also concerned that:
“as the infrastructure debt grows, the Province 
will be in a situation where sustainability of the 
highway network cannot be maintained due to the 
higher cost of repairing greatly deteriorated 
roads with limited annual funds. At that point the 
Department may have to consider 
decommissioning an increasing number of assets 
if it hopes to maintain the remainder of the 
highway network in accordance with asset 
management objectives” 

3.135  	We have seen similar issues during this audit of 
Provincial bridges.
Recommendation
3.136  	The Department should develop and implement a 
long term plan to address current and expected future 
funding shortfalls in ordinary and capital bridge 
maintenance. This plan should be communicated 
annually during the capital budget process in order to 
appropriately inform senior officials and Cabinet 
Ministers.
Appendix I: Components of a Typical Bridge
A bridge typically has three major components: deck, superstructure, and substructure. The 
following photos illustrate the components which are assessed during a bridge inspection.

 

 

 
Appendix II: Excerpts from Ministry of Transportation of Ontario  
                      website defining the Bridge Condition Index (BCI) 

3.137  	A BCI rating is a planning tool that helps the Ministry 
schedule maintenance and upkeep.

3.138  	The BCI is not used to rate or indicate the safety of a 
bridge. 

3.139  	The result is organized into ranges from 0 to 100. 
Immediate action is taken to address any safety concerns.

3.140  	Good - BCI Range 70 -100
For a bridge with a BCI greater than 70, maintenance work is 
not usually required within the next five years. 
3.141  	Fair - BCI Range 60 -70 
For a bridge with a BCI between 60 and 70 the maintenance 
work is usually scheduled within the next five years. This is 
the ideal time to schedule major bridge repairs from an 
economic perspective.
3.142  	Poor - BCI Less than 60
For a bridge with a BCI rating of less than 60, maintenance 
work is usually scheduled within approximately one year. 
3.143  	To calculate the BCI rating, the current value is divided 
by the replacement cost of the bridge. The replacement value 
is based on the cost to reconstruct a new bridge. 
For example: 
Current value = $700,000 
Replacement cost = $1,000,000
BCI = Current Value x 100 
Replacement Cost 
= 700,000 x 100 
1,000,000 
= 70
(Source: Ministry of Transportation of Ontario website)



Appendix III:  Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Map  
                          of District Boundaries
(With major highways shown)

 


?
Appendix IV:  Listing of bridges in audit population with a poor rating 
(BCI of 60 or less) as at December 2012
The rating noted in the following chart was assessed by the Department. The information was 
directly taken from the Department’s internal system. We did not verify the accuracy and 
reasonableness of the rating.
BRIDGE #
BRIDGE NAME
DISTRICT #
BCI
YEAR 
BUILT
LAST 
INSPECTION
Rating
M440
MILLER BROOK
1
55
 
5/28/2012
Poor
D352
DICKIE COVE BROOK 
#1
1
36
 
5/30/2012
Poor
E475
EEL RIVER #7
1
40
 
5/29/2012
Poor
A570
ARMSTRONG BROOK 
#2
1
51
1960
5/30/2012
Poor
C216
CHARLO COVE 
BROOK #1
1
46
1961
5/30/2012
Poor
E620
ELMTREE RIVER #5
1
37
1963
5/28/2012
Poor
B384
BERESFORD BAR
1
60
1964
6/6/2012
Poor
M358
MIDDLE RIVER #1
1
16
1956
6/22/2011
Poor
M362
MIDDLE RIVER #4
1
48
1968
6/6/2012
Poor
M446
MILLER BROOK #1
1
21
1970
7/10/2012
Poor
L395
LITTLE ELMTREE 
RIVER #2
1
55
1990
7/14/2011
Poor
N615
NORTHWEST 
CARAQUET RIVER #4
1
42
1986
7/12/2011
Poor
N085
NASH CREEK (NORTH 
BRANCH #1)
1
41
1966
6/22/2011
Poor
E390
EEL RIVER #2
1
57
1966
6/14/2011
Poor
N090
NASH CREEK (SOUTH 
BRANCH #1)
1
37
1966
6/22/2011
Poor
S174
SCOTT BROOK #1
1
47
1980
7/12/2011
Poor
N415
NORTH EEL RIVER #4
1
23
1966
6/14/2011
Poor
S563
SOUTH EEL RIVER #5
1
33
 
6/14/2011
Poor
S213
SEAL BROOK #1
1
44
1976
6/5/2012
Poor
W145
WALKER BROOK #25
1
41
1976
5/29/2012
Poor
M226
MCINTOSH CREEK #5
1
58
1976
7/12/2011
Poor
B453
BIG HOLE BROOK
1
56
1975
7/12/2011
Poor
T475
TROUT BROOK #1
1
59
1974
7/13/2011
Poor
S539
SOUTH CHARLO 
RIVER #2
1
58
1974
6/21/2011
Poor
D515
DUGUAY BROOK #1
1
18
1973
11/8/2012
Poor

Appendix IV:  Listing of bridges in audit population with a poor rating     
      (BCI of 60 or less) as at December 2012 (continued)
BRIDGE #
BRIDGE NAME
DISTRICT 
#
BCI
YEAR 
BUILT
LAST 
INSPECTION
Rating
P065
PALMER BROOK
2
40
1959
6/7/2011
Poor
P485
PINEVILLE
2
41
1970
6/9/2009
Poor
B123
BARNABY RIVER #8
2
54
1925
10/12/2011
Poor
H410
HAYES BROOK
2
58
1957
7/9/2012
Poor
B564
BLACK RIVER #5
2
47
1961
7/12/2012
Poor
S794
STEWART BROOK
2
49
1962
7/9/2012
Poor
P725
PORTAGE RIVER #1
2
57
1965
6/5/2012
Poor
B489
BLACK BROOK
2
53
1971
7/10/2012
Poor
B216
BAY DU VIN RIVER #7
2
42
1971
7/12/2012
Poor
V150
VANDY BROOK
2
5
1971
7/12/2012
Poor
C596
COLSON CREEK
2
53
1959
6/10/2011
Poor
M730
MUZROLL BROOK #1
2
36
1969
7/11/2011
Poor
E400
EEL RIVER #2
2
33
1972
6/8/2011
Poor
S773
STANDISH BROOK #1
2
39
1955
6/7/2011
Poor
P210
PEABODY BROOK
2
39
1987
7/12/2012
Poor
P740
PORTAGE RIVER #2
2
59
1982
7/12/2012
Poor
M620
MORRISON COVE
2
48
1980
7/12/2012
Poor
W335
WELLS BROOK #1
2
60
1980
7/12/2012
Poor
S668
SOUTHWEST 
MIRAMICHI RIVER #2
2
49
1972
6/8/2011
Poor
T010
TABUSINTAC RIVER #2
2
48
1958
7/12/2011
Poor
B630
BOGAN BROOK
2
41
1976
7/9/2012
Poor
N905
OX BROOK #2
2
41
1975
7/19/2011
Poor
T105
TAYLOR CREEK #1
2
53
1975
7/12/2012
Poor
B762
BUCHANAN
2
55
1975
7/11/2012
Poor
W575
WHITE RAPIDS BROOK 
#2
2
59
1974
6/8/2011
Poor
J450
JONATHAN CREEK #1
3
41
 
10/2/2012
Poor
G345
GOODEN BROOK
3
44
 
10/2/2012
Poor
P400
PETITCODIAC RIVER #6
3
57
1949
10/4/2011
Poor
T675
TURTLE CREEK #4
3
60
1912
10/2/2012
Poor
S572
SOUTH 
KOUCHIBOUGUAC
3
47
 
10/11/2011
Poor
L345
LITTLE BOUCTOUCHE 
RIVER #1
3
29
1940
10/17/2012
Poor
Appendix IV:  Listing of bridges in audit population with a poor rating     
      (BCI of 60 or less) as at December 2012 (continued)
BRIDGE 
#
BRIDGE NAME
DISTRICT 
#
BCI
YEAR 
BUILT
LAST 
INSPECTION
Rating
N475
NORTH MCINNES 
BROOK #2
3
44
1971
10/11/2011
Poor
C508
COCAGNE RIVER #3
3
57
1942
10/9/2012
Poor
H792
INTERVALE CREEK #4
3
38
1943
9/25/2012
Poor
S183
SCOTT BROOK #2
3
36
1931
9/21/2011
Poor
K510
KOUCHIBOUGUACIS 
RIVER #1
3
30
1943
7/19/2012
Poor
F405
FIVE POINTS
3
56
1945
9/25/2012
Poor
B559
BLACK RIVER #5
3
42
 
10/12/2011
Poor
P220
PECKS COVE
3
57
1952
10/2/2012
Poor
C768
COVERDALE RIVER #9
3
28
1939
10/5/2011
Poor
B039
BAIE VERTE STATION
3
53
1929
9/21/2011
Poor
B201
BAXTER BROOK #1
3
43
1960
10/2/2012
Poor
G135
GASPEREAU RIVER #1
3
48
1960
7/25/2012
Poor
W360
WEST BRANCH 
BOUCTOUCHE #3
3
50
 
9/28/2011
Poor
S177
SCOTT BROOK #1
3
46
1931
9/21/2011
Poor
W310
WELDON CREEK #2
3
54
1971
10/6/2011
Poor
M266
MCQUADE BROOK #1
3
1
1967
7/12/2011
Poor
N210
NEVER'S BROOK 
BRANCH
3
21
1963
10/4/2011
Poor
E240
EAST TURTLE CREEK #2
3
34
1925
10/6/2011
Poor
S530
SOUTH BOUCTOUCHE #2
3
48
1927
10/11/2011
Poor
C594
COLPITTS BROOK #2
3
58
 
9/13/2011
Poor
M234
MCKAY BROOK
3
41
1950
10/13/2011
Poor
M404
MILL CREEK #3
3
59
1989
8/9/2012
Poor
G030
GALLANT BROOK #1
3
44
1985
10/5/2011
Poor
H900
ISLAND CREEK #3
3
59
1982
6/8/2010
Poor
M688
MURPHY BROOK
3
41
1982
8/1/2012
Poor
B081
BALLA PHILIP
3
41
1982
9/26/2012
Poor
M254
MCLEAN BROOK #1
3
41
1981
9/26/2012
Poor
M408
MILL CREEK #1
3
24
1962
10/4/2011
Poor
W435
WEST ST. NICHOLAS #3
3
41
1980
9/26/2012
Poor
N480
NORTH MCINNES 
BROOK #4
3
56
1928
10/11/2011
Poor
R665
RUSSELL BROOK #2
3
57
1979
7/18/2012
Poor
Appendix IV:  Listing of bridges in audit population with a poor rating     
      (BCI of 60 or less) as at December 2012 (continued)
BRIDGE #
BRIDGE NAME
DISTRICT 
#
BCI
YEAR 
BUILT
LAST 
INSPECTION
Rating
C196
CHAMPLAIN BROOK #1
3
40
1979
10/3/2012
Poor
W507
WHEELER BLVD. 
PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL
3
59
1979
10/3/2012
Poor
B246
BEAR CREEK
3
40
1979
10/13/2011
Poor
J520
JONATHAN CREEK #3.5
3
46
1979
10/4/2011
Poor
S132
SAULNIER CREEK #1
3
2
1979
10/12/2011
Poor
M214
MCINNES BROOK #2
3
41
1978
7/19/2012
Poor
D510
DUFFY BROOK #1
3
58
1977
9/15/2011
Poor
B093
BARCHARD BROOK #2
3
58
1944
10/3/2011
Poor
B420
BIG BROOK
3
42
1976
9/28/2011
Poor
A255
ALDOUANE RIVER #3
3
59
1976
7/25/2012
Poor
R670
RUSSELL BROOK 
(NORTH BRANCH)
3
24
1976
7/18/2012
Poor
A060
ABOUJAGANE RIVER #4
3
3
1976
10/18/2012
Poor
B484
BIGGS BROOK #4
3
44
1975
10/16/2011
Poor
B861
BUTLER CREEK
3
29
1975
10/1/2012
Poor
B702
BREAU CREEK #1
3
50
1974
9/14/2011
Poor
A270
ALDOUANE RIVER #4
3
45
1974
10/12/2011
Poor
M380
MILL BROOK #1
3
50
1973
9/21/2011
Poor
W020
WALKER
3
42
1973
10/3/2012
Poor
M412
MILL CREEK #1
3
1
1973
7/25/2012
Poor
C756
COVERDALE RIVER #6
3
48
1973
10/2/2012
Poor
B435
BIG COVE CREEK #1
3
60
1973
10/12/2011
Poor
M402
MILL CREEK #2
3
48
1973
10/12/2011
Poor
D315
DENNIS STREAM #4
4
36
1930
9/13/2011
Poor
M016
MACLEOD BROOK #1
4
58
1925
8/16/2011
Poor
M562
MOHANNAS STREAM #7
4
50
1929
9/11/2012
Poor
M134
MARTINON OVERHEAD
4
56
1929
9/26/2012
Poor
S462
SMITH CREEK #6
4
50
1938
7/25/2012
Poor
P525
POCOLOGAN RIVER #0.5
4
42
1967
8/30/2011
Poor
T280
THORNES BROOK
4
51
1945
7/23/2012
Poor
H295
HARDSCRABBLE
4
44
1946
8/21/2012
Poor
M196
MCGARDNER BROOK
4
56
1947
9/12/2012
Poor

Appendix IV:  Listing of bridges in audit population with a poor rating     
      (BCI of 60 or less) as at December 2012 (continued)
BRIDGE 
#
BRIDGE NAME
DISTRICT 
#
BCI
YEAR 
BUILT
LAST 
INSPECTION
Rating
A390
ANAGANCE RIVER
4
31
1953
8/9/2011
Poor
H135
HAMILTON
4
49
1927
9/13/2011
Poor
H420
HAYES WILBERT
4
51
1965
8/9/2011
Poor
P420
PHILAMUNROE #5
4
46
 
8/17/2011
Poor
B648
BOONE
4
56
1921
9/14/2011
Poor
B699
BRAYDEN
4
58
1937
8/23/2011
Poor
C832
CRIPPS STREAM
4
53
1958
9/24/2012
Poor
J780
JONES CREEK #1
4
57
1938
8/18/2011
Poor
E640
EMERSON CREEK #1
4
41
1960
9/19/2012
Poor
S852
STONY CREEK
4
40
1961
8/18/2011
Poor
D430
DIPPER HARBOUR
4
53
1959
8/31/2011
Poor
H345
HARRY BROOK #1
4
53
1966
7/24/2012
Poor
H090
HALFWAY BROOK #4
4
22
1967
8/8/2012
Poor
C420
CLEMENTS BROOK #2
4
1
1967
8/8/2012
Poor
B228
BEAR BROOK #1
4
44
1967
8/20/2012
Poor
M114
MARKHAMVILLE
4
59
1971
8/16/2011
Poor
B375
BENNETT BROOK
4
46
1998
7/24/2012
Poor
L015
LACEY
4
59
1960
8/25/2011
Poor
B627
BOG BROOK
4
55
1972
9/11/2012
Poor
K185
KENNEBECASIS #15
4
46
1972
7/25/2012
Poor
D075
DAVIDSON
4
45
1996
9/14/2011
Poor
A420
ANDERSON BROOK #1
4
43
1972
8/17/2011
Poor
T540
TROUT CREEK #1
4
45
1936
9/30/2009
Poor
S438
SMITH BROOK
4
28
1991
8/22/2012
Poor
S219
SEAL COVE DRAW
4
37
 
8/31/2011
Poor
K020
KEENES
4
59
1987
8/31/2011
Poor
P095
PARKER
4
55
1987
9/25/2012
Poor
B396
BERRY BROOK
4
45
1986
8/21/2012
Poor
L545
LITTLE RIVER #2
4
42
1985
9/20/2012
Poor
S695
SPRAGUE
4
53
1949
8/10/2011
Poor
A615
ARMSTRONG MILL #2
4
46
1982
9/11/2012
Poor
T025
TAIT
4
44
1982
7/9/2012
Poor
L835
LORNEVILLE CREEK #1
4
1
1981
8/18/2011
Poor
Appendix IV:  Listing of bridges in audit population with a poor rating     
      (BCI of 60 or less) as at December 2012 (continued)
BRIDGE #
BRIDGE NAME
DISTRICT 
#
BCI
YEAR 
BUILT
LAST 
INSPECTION
Rating
F230
FIRST RUN BROOK #2
4
59
1981
7/26/2012
Poor
H540
HIGGINS BROOK
4
25
1981
7/26/2012
Poor
P130
PARLEE BROOK #4
4
60
1980
8/16/2011
Poor
G275
GIPSY
4
50
1980
8/10/2011
Poor
C812
COX BROOK
4
58
1980
8/30/2011
Poor
T645
TRUNDLE
4
55
1980
9/14/2011
Poor
P170
PASSEKEAG CREEK #4
4
52
1980
8/18/2011
Poor
M392
MILL BROOK #3
4
46
1980
8/31/2011
Poor
P297
PENOBSQUIS LANE #5
4
37
1979
10/27/2011
Poor
T240
THIRD LAKE OUTLET
4
30
1979
8/15/2012
Poor
S518
SOUTH BAY
4
29
1978
8/16/2011
Poor
N840
OSSEKEAG CREEK
4
59
1978
10/20/2009
Poor
D080
DAVIDSON CREEK
4
25
1978
8/14/2012
Poor
W530
WHITE HEAD FERRY 
LANDING
4
42
1977
10/27/2009
Poor
K010
KANES BROOK
4
18
1977
8/17/2011
Poor
S843
STONE BROOK #1
4
51
1977
8/15/2011
Poor
B312
BEDFORD BROOK #2
4
40
1977
8/23/2012
Poor
S228
SECOND RUN BROOK #2
4
26
1976
7/26/2012
Poor
P295
PENOBSQUIS LANE #4
4
56
1976
8/15/2011
Poor
L075
LAKE STREAM
4
47
1976
9/1/2011
Poor
W470
WESTFIELD OVERHEAD
4
50
1950
8/24/2011
Poor
P880
PROCTOR BROOK #2
4
6
1974
8/14/2012
Poor
M506
MILLSTREAM RIVER #10
4
56
1973
8/10/2011
Poor
T305
THREE BROOKS
4
52
1973
8/31/2011
Poor
H595
HOLMES BROOK #2
5
23
 
6/27/2012
Poor
M156
MAZEROLLE STREAM
5
41
 
8/29/2012
Poor
H300
HARDWOOD BROOK #2
5
43
 
6/28/2012
Poor
N345
NOONAN BROOK
5
58
 
6/4/2012
Poor
M383
MILL BROOK #1 (DUCEY 
HILL)
5
42
 
7/31/2012
Poor
G220
GIDNEY BROOK #3
5
48
1969
7/26/2011
Poor
B718
BRIGGS (RTE. 116)
5
40
 
8/15/2012
Poor
P265
PENNIAC STREAM #4
5
44
 
8/22/2012
Poor
Appendix IV:  Listing of bridges in audit population with a poor rating     
      (BCI of 60 or less) as at December 2012 (continued)
BRIDGE #
BRIDGE NAME
DISTRICT 
#
BCI
YEAR 
BUILT
LAST 
INSPECTION
Rating
N845
OTNABOG RIVER #1
5
48
 
7/24/2012
Poor
S815
STICK BROOK #1
5
55
 
7/4/2012
Poor
S250
SEYMOUR
5
40
 
7/31/2012
Poor
L458
LITTLE MACTAQUAC 
STREAM #1
5
20
 
8/29/2012
Poor
S873
SUCKER BROOK
5
43
 
7/26/2011
Poor
T291
THOROUGHFARE (SOUTH)
5
47
1924
7/3/2012
Poor
T290
THOROUGHFARE (NORTH)
5
45
1924
7/3/2012
Poor
B804
BULLS CREEK #2
5
41
1926
9/11/2012
Poor
B300
BEDELL BROOK #1
5
58
1965
7/27/2011
Poor
B276
BEAVER DAM
5
53
1937
6/6/2011
Poor
D531
DUNBAR (SOUTH)
5
60
1931
8/22/2012
Poor
B795
BULL CREEK #2
5
53
1935
8/27/2012
Poor
P850
PRESQUE ISLE RIVER #4
5
46
1936
6/27/2012
Poor
R475
ROCKWELL STREAM #1
5
44
1937
9/4/2012
Poor
B723
BRIZLEY BROOK #1
5
58
1937
8/29/2012
Poor
C808
COW PASTURE
5
60
1939
7/25/2011
Poor
Y500
YORK MILLS
5
54
1939
7/30/2012
Poor
M682
MURCH
5
53
1941
8/29/2012
Poor
S426
SLIPP BROOK #2
5
58
1927
6/1/2011
Poor
L760
LONG CREEK #2
5
29
1950
7/4/2012
Poor
T100
TAY RIVER #4
5
49
1953
8/27/2012
Poor
M202
MCGIVNEY BROOK
5
43
1954
7/3/2012
Poor
N260
NEWCASTLE CREEK #1
5
45
1955
7/23/2012
Poor
N015
NACKAWIC RIVER #3
5
40
1955
9/12/2012
Poor
M384
MILL BROOK #1
5
28
1956
7/24/2012
Poor
C180
CENTERVILLE ROAD
5
42
1957
7/3/2012
Poor
B801
BULLS CREEK #1
5
40
1958
9/11/2012
Poor
R145
REGENT STREET 
UNDERPASS
5
47
1959
8/27/2012
Poor
T450
TREADWELL
5
55
1960
7/4/2012
Poor
P260
PENNIAC STREAM #3
5
58
1962
8/22/2012
Poor
H565
HILL BROOK #3
5
38
1969
7/26/2011
Poor
L805
LONGS CREEK #2
5
37
1962
9/4/2012
Poor
Appendix IV:  Listing of bridges in audit population with a poor rating     
      (BCI of 60 or less) as at December 2012 (continued)
BRIDGE #
BRIDGE NAME
DISTRICT 
#
BCI
YEAR 
BUILT
LAST 
INSPECTION
Rating
N580
NORTH SHIKATEHAWK 
RIVER #1
5
39
1963
6/28/2012
Poor
S351
SHIKATEHAWK RIVER #1 
(SOUTH)
5
45
1930
7/25/2011
Poor
M578
MONQUART RIVER #1
5
58
1934
7/20/2011
Poor
S578
SOUTH MACTAQUAC 
RIVER #2
5
21
1965
8/29/2012
Poor
C304
CHRISTIE MILL POND
5
32
 
7/28/2011
Poor
P270
PENNIAC STREAM #5
5
46
1965
8/21/2012
Poor
D355
DICKINSON BROOK #1
5
48
1965
7/17/2012
Poor
B873
BUTTERMILK CREEK #3
5
20
1965
10/23/2012
Poor
P255
PENNIAC STREAM #2
5
50
1966
8/22/2012
Poor
N855
OTTER BROOK
5
43
1966
9/5/2012
Poor
B735
BROOKS LAKE
5
58
1966
8/28/2012
Poor
M240
MCKENZIE BROOK
5
44
1967
7/31/2012
Poor
G250
GILCHRIST BROOK #2
5
58
1955
8/8/2011
Poor
M385
MILL BROOK #1 (DAY 
HILL)
5
40
1967
8/28/2012
Poor
W705
WRIGHT BROOK #1
5
40
1967
9/11/2012
Poor
M036
MACTAQUAC RIVER #5
5
44
1948
7/28/2011
Poor
M258
MCLEARY BROOK
5
45
1968
7/17/2012
Poor
L744
LODERS CREEK #1
5
41
1970
7/3/2012
Poor
L960
LYON STREAM
5
50
1970
9/6/2012
Poor
F720
FOUR MILE BROOK #3
5
57
1972
8/28/2012
Poor
T350
THREE TREE CREEK #1
5
53
1972
9/5/2012
Poor
C380
CLARKE
5
21
1963
7/20/2011
Poor
B690
BRANDY BROOK
5
60
 
8/2/2011
Poor
L895
LOWER GUISIGUIT 
BROOK #1
5
35
1967
7/20/2011
Poor
R085
RED BANK CREEK
5
31
1969
8/20/2009
Poor
M038
MACTAQUAC ROAD-RTE. 
102 OVERPASS
5
47
1966
8/25/2011
Poor
B798
BULL CREEK #3
5
47
1968
7/26/2011
Poor
G215
GIDNEY BROOK #2
5
16
1972
7/26/2011
Poor
U455
UPPER TROUT BROOK #2
5
58
1990
7/4/2012
Poor
L380
LITTLE COAC
5
57
1988
9/10/2012
Poor
Appendix IV:  Listing of bridges in audit population with a poor rating     
      (BCI of 60 or less) as at December 2012 (continued)
BRIDGE 
#
BRIDGE NAME
DISTRICT 
#
BCI
YEAR 
BUILT
LAST 
INSPECTION
Rating
M188
MCDOUGALL BROOK
5
29
 
6/22/2011
Poor
C905
CURRIE BROOK
5
56
1966
8/25/2011
Poor
B729
BROOKS
5
57
1984
9/12/2012
Poor
F245
FITCH CREEK #1
5
44
1983
11/2/2011
Poor
J440
JONAH BROOK
5
7
1983
7/24/2012
Poor
R675
RYAN BROOK
5
55
1982
7/3/2012
Poor
B654
BOONE BROOK #2
5
59
1980
8/3/2011
Poor
U250
UPPER GUISIGUIT BROOK 
#1
5
60
1967
7/20/2011
Poor
C468
CLINCH BROOK #3
5
15
1980
7/31/2012
Poor
K395
KING BROOK
5
32
1979
8/1/2012
Poor
N430
NORTH FORKS #2
5
55
1979
8/27/2012
Poor
K315
KEYHOLE
5
7
1977
7/3/2012
Poor
S894
SYPHER BROOK #1
5
25
 
7/25/2011
Poor
A105
ACTON
5
60
1976
9/6/2012
Poor
P790
PORTOBELLO STREAM
5
34
1976
8/28/2012
Poor
K060
KELLY BROOK #2
5
4
1975
7/4/2012
Poor
H175
HAMMOND BROOK
5
39
1975
8/1/2012
Poor
T365
THREE TREE CREEK #6
5
59
1975
8/29/2012
Poor
M174
MCCATHEL BROOK #2
5
41
1975
7/4/2012
Poor
F320
FIVE FINGERS BROOK #4
6
42
 
6/19/2012
Poor
L210
LEFT BRANCH POKIOK 
RIVER #1
6
52
 
6/27/2012
Poor
H080
HALEY BROOK #1
6
46
1936
6/25/2012
Poor
M670
MUNIAC RIVER #7
6
39
1965
6/27/2011
Poor
L585
LITTLE RIVER #2
6
43
1958
6/18/2012
Poor
M044
MADAWASKA RIVER #2
6
54
1959
6/12/2012
Poor
P235
PELKEY BROOK
6
44
1964
6/26/2012
Poor
S372
SIEGAS RIVER #2
6
53
1952
7/6/2011
Poor
B234
BEAR BROOK #2
6
35
1966
6/26/2012
Poor
T170
TEDLEY BROOK
6
19
1967
6/14/2012
Poor
T370
TIE CAMP
6
31
1967
6/26/2012
Poor
F520
FOLEY BROOK #1
6
13
1968
6/25/2012
Poor
L565
LITTLE RIVER #2
6
54
1971
7/19/2011
Poor
Appendix IV:  Listing of bridges in audit population with a poor rating     
      (BCI of 60 or less) as at December 2012 (continued)
BRIDGE #
BRIDGE NAME
DISTRICT #
BCI
YEAR 
BUILT
LAST 
INSPECTION
Rating
L685
LITTLE TOBIQUE 
RIVER #4
6
46
1994
6/28/2011
Poor
L560
LITTLE RIVER #1
6
22
1965
7/19/2011
Poor
L625
LITTLE SALMON 
RIVER #2
6
29
1958
7/6/2011
Poor
P185
PAT BROOK (WEST 
BRANCH)
6
2
1979
6/20/2012
Poor
G020
GAGNON BROOK #2
6
38
1972
6/27/2011
Poor
G475
GRANDMAISON 
BROOK
6
58
1972
6/28/2011
Poor
H767
INDIAN BROOK #2
6
30
 
7/20/2011
Poor
F500
FOLEY BROOK #1
6
43
1975
6/12/2012
Poor
B507
BLACK BROOK #1
6
59
1975
6/20/2012
Poor
M593
MOONEY BROOK #3
6
48
1975
6/25/2012
Poor
S416
SIX MILE BROOK
6
41
1975
6/20/2012
Poor
P180
PAT BROOK
6
40
1974
6/20/2012
Poor
H025
HAILES BROOK #2
6
35
1974
6/19/2012
Poor
B615
BLUE BELL BROOK #1
6
46
1974
7/6/2011
Poor
M676
MUNIAC RIVER #10
6
47
1973
7/4/2011
Poor
P820
POWERS CREEK #2
6
30
1973
7/6/2011
Poor
293
Total






?
Appendix V: Audit Objectives and Criteria

Objective 1
3.144  	To determine whether the Department performs 
bridge inspections in accordance with accepted 
professional standards and uses the inspection results to 
identify and prioritize necessary capital maintenance and 
other remedial measures.
Criteria
*	The most recent Ontario Structure Inspection 
Manual was used;
*	The inspection standards being used were up to 
date;
*	Bridges in all regions were inspected regularly at 
the required frequency;
*	Bridge inspection reports were complete, accurate 
and consistent;
*	A quality assurance process was put in place to 
verify the reliability of the data generated during 
the visual inspections; and
*	The priority list developed by the Maintenance 
Branch was based on the bridge inspection results 
and a pre-determined set of criteria.

Objective 2
3.145  	To determine whether the Department maintains the 
service level of its bridge inventory based on a long term 
least life cycle cost approach.
Objective 3
3.146  	To determine whether the Department publicly 
reports on the condition of designated Provincial bridges 
and the effectiveness of its bridge inspection activities.
Criteria
*	The Department should report publicly the 
condition of all designated Provincial bridges
*	The annual report of the Department should 
include the following relating to designated 
Provincial bridge condition:
o	performance indicators
o	targets
o	actual results
o	the rationale for variances



Appendix VI: Sampling Methodology

3.147  	A risk based approach was chosen in determining the 
sample size. A sample size of 31 bridge structures and 62 
inspection reports were selected for testing. They are 
listed in Appendix VII.
3.148  	The testing sample consisted of bridge structures in 
poor condition, large and complex structures and those 
with interim remediation measures in place such as 
imposed weight restrictions. 
3.149  	In selecting the sample, a subset of bridge structures 
was taken from the 2010-2011 large bridge replacement 
list, and the 2011-2012 small bridge replacement list. 
The remaining samples selected were from the lowest 
third of the bridges based on the BCI rating of the 
stratified bridge inventory listing. 
3.150  	Additionally any bridges within the top 2/3 based on 
the BCI score in the inventory listing which had an 
imposed weight restriction were added to the testing 
sample.  Lastly, of the remaining population, the three 
largest bridges based on number of spans and individual 
span length was added to the testing sample.
3.151  	Judgment was applied to individual selection within 
the target population to ensure that there was a variety of 
different bridge types included in the sample. 
Characteristics of the 
analyzed sample
3.152  	The inspection documents reviewed were from 2008 
to 2012 and included 62 Bridge Inspection Reports (BIR) 
and 62 Picture Sheets. These reports covered 31 bridges 
and culverts spanning across 15 counties of the province 
for the 2008-2012 period. The types of bridge structures 
encountered included: pipe arches; wood and steel 
stringers; covered and uncovered Burr, Howe and Pratt 
trusses; cantilevered arch trusses; steel plate girders; 
reinforced concrete tee beams; and steel rolled beams. 
The overall length of these bridges ranged from a few 
meters to over a kilometre.

?
Appendix VII: List of bridges for which we reviewed inspection reports

Bridge #
Bridge Name
Span Type
County
Inspection(s)
BCI  
as at 
Dec 
2012
B015
BACK CREEK #2
Covered Howe truss
SUNBURY
2010, 2012
Fair
C244
CHATHAM BRIDGE
Large cantilever-truss system
NORTHUMBER-
LAND
2008, 2012
Good
C420
CLEMENTS BROOK #2
Culvert
KINGS
2010, 2012
Poor
C468
CLINCH BROOK #3
Steel stringer
YORK
2010, 2012
Poor
C768
COVERDALE RIVER #9
Open Howe truss with concrete deck slab
ALBERT
2011, 2009
Poor
D380
DIGDEGUASH RIVER #4
Covered Howe truss
CHARLOTTE
2011, 2012
Good
F520
FOLEY BROOK #1
SPCSP pipe arch
VICTORIA
2010, 2012
Poor
H077
HALES BROOK #1
Concrete arch culvert
CARLETON
2010, 2008
Good
H090
HALFWAY BROOK #4
Wood stringer
KINGS
2010, 2012
Poor
K315
KEYHOLE
SPCSP pipe arch
QUEENS
2010, 2012
Poor
K510
KOUCHIBOUGUACIS 
RIVER #1
Arch Burr Truss, Reinforced concrete tee 
beam
KENT
2011, 2012
Poor
L345
LITTLE BOUCTOUCHE 
RIVER #1
Arch Burr Truss
KENT
2010, 2012
Poor
L560
LITTLE RIVER #1
Wood stringer
VICTORIA
2011, 2009
Poor
L625
LITTLE SALMON RIVER 
#2
Wood stringer
VICTORIA
2011, 2009
Poor
L760
LONG CREEK NO. 2
Reinforced concrete tee beam (haunched)
QUEENS
2010, 2012
Poor
L835
LORNEVILLE CREEK #1
SPCSP pipe arch
SAINT JOHN
2011, 2009
Poor
M188
MCDOUGALL BROOK
Twin CSP pipe arch
SUNBURY
2011, 2009
Poor
M266
MCQUADE BROOK #1
SPCSP pipe arch
WESTMORLAND
2010, 2008
Poor
M346
MERSEREAU STREAM 
#1
Wood stringer
SUNBURY
2011, 2009
Good1
M384
MILL BROOK # 1
Wood stringer
QUEENS
2010, 2012
Poor2
N025
NACKAWIC RIVER #5
Covered Howe truss
YORK
2010, 2012
Good
N210
NEVER'S BROOK 
BRANCH
Steel stringer
WESTMORLAND
2011, 2009
Poor
N665
NORTHWEST 
MIRAMICHI #1
Steel thru truss, reinforced concrete slab 
with steel beams
NORTHUMBER-
LAND
2011, 2008
Good
P645
POLLETT RIVER #4
Burr truss with reinf concrete slab
WESTMORLAND
2011, 2008
Good1
R145
REGENT STREET 
UNDERPASS
Steel Rolled Beam
YORK
2010, 2012
Poor
S563
 SOUTH EEL RIVER #5
Wood stringer
RESTIGOUCHE
2011, 2009
Poor
S578
SOUTH MACTAQUAC 
RIVER #2
Wood stringer
YORK
2010, 2012
Poor
T170
TEDLEY BROOK
Wood stringer
MADAWASKA
2010, 2012
Poor
T525
TROUT BROOK #1
Reinf concrete tee beam
VICTORIA
2010, 2012
Good
T590
TROUT CREEK #10
Steel stringer
KINGS
2010, 2012
Good
V150
VANDY BROOK
SPCSP pipe arch
NORTHUMBER-
LAND
2010, 2012
Poor
1 Bridge replaced in 2012 –BCI of new bridge
2 Bridge replaced in 2012 –BCI of replaced bridge 
Appendix VIII: Examples of bridge condition public reporting from  
                          other Canadian jurisdictions
Example #1:
 
Source:  www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/bridges/west-region.pdf
Appendix VIII: Examples of bridge condition public reporting from  
                          other Canadian jurisdictions (continued)
Example #2: 

 

Source:  www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/pls/apex/f?p=TBM:STRCT:3422872473549441::NO:RP,56:: 
  English version not available on Transport Québec website
 




 




 




 




Provincial Bridges                                                                                                                                   Chapter 3	                                                                                                                          

Chapter 3                                                                                                                                   Provincial Bridges

82
                                                                                                                   Report of the Auditor General - 2013
77
Report of the Auditor General – 2013               
Provincial Bridges                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Chapter 3                                                                                                                          

Chapter 3                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Provincial Bridges

84
                                                                                                                                                                                                      Report of the Auditor General - 2013
83
Report of the Auditor General – 2013                                         

Provincial Bridges                                                                                                                                   Chapter 3                                                                                                                       
Chapter 3                                                                                                                                    Provincial Bridges

126
                                                                                                                             Report of the Auditor General - 2013
127
Report of the Auditor General – 2013