Share:

US 82 EBL over SCL RR

Map 

Coordinates:
+32.32656, -86.31889
32°19'36" N, 86°19'08" W
Source: National Bridge Inventory
Information not verified. Use at your own risk.

Facts 

Name:US 82 EBL over SCL RR
Structure number:005127
Old structure number:00000006510091B (from 1992 edition)
Location:1.1 MI.E.OF I65
Purpose:Carries highway and pedestrian walkway over railroad
Route classification:Principal Arterial - Other (Rural) [02]
Length of largest span:40.0 ft. [12.2 m]
Total length:144.0 ft. [43.9 m]
Roadway width between curbs:27.9 ft. [8.5 m]
Deck width edge-to-edge:33.5 ft. [10.2 m]
Vertical clearance below bridge:23.0 ft. [7.0 m]
Skew angle:45°
Owner:State Highway Agency [01]
Year built:1955
Historic significance:Bridge is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places [5]
Design load:MS 18 / HS 20 [5]
Number of main spans:5
Main spans material:Concrete [1]
Main spans design:Tee beam [04]
Deck type:Concrete Cast-in-Place [1]
Wearing surface:Monolithic Concrete (concurrently placed with structural deck) [1]

Latest Available Inspection: December 2015 

Status:Open, no restriction [A]
Average daily traffic:17,650 [as of 2013]
Truck traffic:8% of total traffic
Deck condition:Fair [5 out of 9]
Superstructure condition:Fair [5 out of 9]
Substructure condition:Satisfactory [6 out of 9]
Structural appraisal:Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left in place as is [5]
Deck geometry appraisal:Basically intolerable requiring high priority of corrrective action [3]
Underclearances appraisal:Meets minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as is [4]
Roadway alignment appraisal:Better than present minimum criteria [7]
Scour condition:Bridge not over waterway. [N]
Operating rating:39.1 tons [35.5 metric tons]
Inventory rating:23.4 tons [21.3 metric tons]
Evaluation:Functionally obsolete [2]
Sufficiency rating:51.5
Recommended work:Bridge rehabilitation because of general structure deterioration or inadequate strength. [35]
Estimated cost of work:$1,357,000

Previous Inspections 

DateSuff. ratingEvaluationDeckSuper.Sub.ADT
December 201551.5Functionally obsoleteFairFairSatisfactory17650
November 201375.8Functionally obsoleteFairSatisfactorySatisfactory17650
November 201175.9Functionally obsoleteFairSatisfactorySatisfactory16475
October 200975.5Functionally obsoleteFairSatisfactorySatisfactory19425
October 200774.6Functionally obsoleteFairSatisfactorySatisfactory19120
November 200575.6Functionally obsoleteFairSatisfactorySatisfactory18945
November 200376.6Functionally obsoleteSatisfactorySatisfactorySatisfactory19495
December 200176.6Functionally obsoleteSatisfactorySatisfactorySatisfactory19495
December 199974.5Functionally obsoleteSatisfactorySatisfactoryGood19930
January 199874.6Functionally obsoleteSatisfactorySatisfactoryGood19265
January 199675.1Functionally obsoleteSatisfactorySatisfactoryGood19255
January 199474.1Functionally obsoleteGoodSatisfactoryGood18665
December 199174.3Functionally obsoleteGoodGoodGood17470