RTE 405 over ROSCOE BLVD

Map 

Facts 

Name:	RTE 405 over ROSCOE BLVD
Structure number:	53 1409
Location:	07-LA-405-43.76-LA
Purpose:	Carries highway over highway
Route classification:	Principal Arterial - Interstate (Urban) [11]
Length of largest span:	103.0 ft. [31.4 m]
Total length:	187.0 ft. [57.0 m]
Roadway width between curbs:	136.2 ft. [41.5 m]
Deck width edge-to-edge:	141.1 ft. [43.0 m]
Vertical clearance below bridge:	22.6 ft. [6.9 m]
Skew angle:	1°
Owner:	State Highway Agency [01]
Year built:	1963
Historic significance:	Bridge is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places [5]
Design load:	MS 18 / HS 20 [5]
Main span material:	Concrete [1]
Main span 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:	216,000 [as of 1998]
Truck traffic:	4% of total traffic
Deck condition:	Fair [5 out of 9]
Superstructure condition:	Good [7 out of 9]
Substructure condition:	Good [7 out of 9]
Scour condition:	Bridge not over waterway. [N]
Operating rating:	82.2 tons [74.7 metric tons]
Inventory rating:	49.8 tons [45.3 metric tons]
Sufficiency rating:	81.0

2000 Inspection 

Status:	Open, no restriction [A]
Average daily traffic:	177,400 [as of 1997]
Truck traffic:	4% of total traffic
Deck condition:	Good [7 out of 9]
Superstructure condition:	Good [7 out of 9]
Substructure condition:	Good [7 out of 9]
Scour condition:	Bridge not over waterway. [N]
Operating rating:	82.7 tons [75.2 metric tons]
Inventory rating:	49.8 tons [45.3 metric tons]
Sufficiency rating:	83.0

1992 Inspection 

Status:	Open, no restriction [A]
Average daily traffic:	196,200 [as of 1990]
Deck condition:	Good [7 out of 9]
Superstructure condition:	Very Good [8 out of 9]
Substructure condition:	Very Good [8 out of 9]
Scour condition:	Bridge not over waterway. [N]
Operating rating:	82.2 tons [74.7 metric tons]
Inventory rating:	49.5 tons [45.0 metric tons]
Evaluation:	Functionally obsolete [2]
Sufficiency rating:	81.0

Comments