SR 255 over US 72; SR 2


+34.74201, -86.67019
34°44'31" N, 86°40'13" W
Source: National Bridge Inventory
Information not verified. Use at your own risk.


Name:SR 255 over US 72; SR 2
Structure number:009812
Location:JCT US 72 * SR 255
Purpose:Carries highway overpass over highway
Route classification:Principal Arterial - Other Freeways or Expressways (Urban) [12]
Length of largest span:78.1 ft. [23.8 m]
Total length:283.2 ft. [86.3 m]
Roadway width between curbs:40.0 ft. [12.2 m]
Deck width edge-to-edge:45.3 ft. [13.8 m]
Vertical clearance below bridge:15.7 ft. [4.8 m]
Skew angle:19°
Owner:State Highway Agency [01]
Year built:1968
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:4
Main spans material:Concrete continuous [2]
Main spans design:Stringer/Multi-beam or girder [02]
Deck type:Concrete Cast-in-Place [1]
Wearing surface:Monolithic Concrete (concurrently placed with structural deck) [1]

Latest Available Inspection: October 2016 

Status:Open, no restriction [A]
Average daily traffic:14,040 [as of 2015]
Truck traffic:8% of total traffic
Deck condition:Good [7 out of 9]
Superstructure condition:Satisfactory [6 out of 9]
Substructure condition:Good [7 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:Basically intolerable requiring high priority of corrrective action [3]
Roadway alignment appraisal:Equal to present desirable criteria [8]
Scour condition:Bridge not over waterway. [N]
Operating rating:40.4 tons [36.7 metric tons]
Inventory rating:24.2 tons [22.0 metric tons]
Evaluation:Functionally obsolete [2]
Sufficiency rating:63.1
Recommended work:Bridge rehabilitation because of general structure deterioration or inadequate strength. [35]
Estimated cost of work:$3,263,000

Previous Inspections 

DateSuff. ratingEvaluationDeckSuper.Sub.ADT
October 201663.1Functionally obsoleteGoodSatisfactoryGood14040
October 201476.1Functionally obsoleteGoodSatisfactoryGood13710
October 201277.1Functionally obsoleteGoodSatisfactoryGood13178
October 201077.1Functionally obsoleteGoodSatisfactoryGood12370
October 200876.1Functionally obsoleteGoodSatisfactoryGood12675
October 200678.1Functionally obsoleteGoodSatisfactoryGood12105
October 200490.0Functionally obsoleteGoodSatisfactoryGood11795
October 200290.0Functionally obsoleteGoodSatisfactoryGood10995
October 200088.0Functionally obsoleteGoodSatisfactoryGood24500
October 199887.0Functionally obsoleteGoodSatisfactoryGood24100
October 199687.0Functionally obsoleteGoodSatisfactoryGood10665
October 199486.0Functionally obsoleteGoodSatisfactoryGood10675
October 199287.0Functionally obsoleteGoodGoodGood8260