RTE 60 EB over RTE 5 SB

Map 

Facts 

Name:	RTE 60 EB over RTE 5 SB
Structure number:	53 1462R
Location:	07-LA-060-.45-LA
Purpose:	Carries highway over highway
Route classification:	Principal Arterial - Other Freeways or Expressways (Urban) [12]
Length of largest span:	112.9 ft. [34.4 m]
Total length:	121.1 ft. [36.9 m]
Roadway width between curbs:	64.0 ft. [19.5 m]
Deck width edge-to-edge:	66.6 ft. [20.3 m]
Vertical clearance below bridge:	15.1 ft. [4.6 m]
Skew angle:	99°
Owner:	State Highway Agency [01]
Year built:	1960
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:	91,700 [as of 1997]
Truck traffic:	7% 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:	109.8 tons [99.8 metric tons]
Inventory rating:	69.9 tons [63.5 metric tons]
Evaluation:	Functionally obsolete [2]
Sufficiency rating:	81.3

2000 Inspection 

Status:	Open, no restriction [A]
Average daily traffic:	91,700 [as of 1997]
Truck traffic:	7% 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]
Inventory rating:	69.9 tons [63.5 metric tons]
Evaluation:	Functionally obsolete [2]
Sufficiency rating:	81.3

1992 Inspection 

Status:	Open, no restriction [A]
Average daily traffic:	90,000 [as of 1990]
Deck condition:	Very Good [8 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]
Inventory rating:	69.3 tons [63.0 metric tons]
Evaluation:	Functionally obsolete [2]
Sufficiency rating:	81.0

Comments