SAND HILL ROAD (N) over STATE ROUTE 280

Map 

Facts 

Name:	SAND HILL ROAD (N) over STATE ROUTE 280
Structure number:	35 0008
Location:	04-SM-280-R1.61
Purpose:	Carries highway and pedestrian walkway over highway
Route classification:	Other Principal Arterial (Urban) [14]
Length of largest span:	153.9 ft. [46.9 m]
Total length:	539.1 ft. [164.3 m]
Roadway width between curbs:	29.9 ft. [9.1 m]
Deck width edge-to-edge:	37.1 ft. [11.3 m]
Vertical clearance below bridge:	18.0 ft. [5.5 m]
Skew angle:	57°
Owner:	State Highway Agency [01]
Year built:	1969
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:	Prestressed concrete continuous [6]
Main spans design:	Box beam or girders - Multiple [05]
Deck type:	Concrete Cast-in-Place [1]
Wearing surface:	Monolithic Concrete (concurrently placed with structural deck) [1]

2010 Inspection 

Status:	Open, no restriction [A]
Average daily traffic:	13,000 [as of 1998]
Truck traffic:	1% of total traffic
Deck condition:	Good [7 out of 9]
Superstructure condition:	Very Good [8 out of 9]
Substructure condition:	Good [7 out of 9]
Scour condition:	Bridge not over waterway. [N]
Operating rating:	109.8 tons [99.8 metric tons]
Inventory rating:	35.9 tons [32.6 metric tons]
Sufficiency rating:	79.5

2000 Inspection 

Status:	Open, no restriction [A]
Truck traffic:	1% of total traffic
Deck condition:	Good [7 out of 9]
Superstructure condition:	Very Good [8 out of 9]
Substructure condition:	Good [7 out of 9]
Scour condition:	Bridge not over waterway. [N]
Inventory rating:	35.9 tons [32.6 metric tons]
Evaluation:	Functionally obsolete [2]
Sufficiency rating:	94.0

1992 Inspection 

Status:	Open, no restriction [A]
Truck traffic:	1% of total traffic
Deck condition:	Good [7 out of 9]
Superstructure condition:	Good [7 out of 9]
Substructure condition:	Satisfactory [6 out of 9]
Scour condition:	Bridge not over waterway. [N]
Inventory rating:	35.6 tons [32.4 metric tons]
Evaluation:	Functionally obsolete [2]
Sufficiency rating:	94.0

Comments