WELLS ST over C&NW RR & CARROLL AV

Map 

Facts 

Name:	WELLS ST over C&NW RR & CARROLL AV
Structure number:	000016649820701
Location:	200W.& 340N.
Purpose:	Carries highway over highway and railroad
Route classification:	Collector (Urban) [17]
Length of largest span:	29.9 ft. [9.1 m]
Total length:	64.0 ft. [19.5 m]
Roadway width between curbs:	47.9 ft. [14.6 m]
Deck width edge-to-edge:	80.1 ft. [24.4 m]
Vertical clearance above deck:	13.8 ft. [4.2 m]
Vertical clearance below bridge:	16.4 ft. [5.0 m]
Owner:	City or Municipal Highway Agency [04]
Year built:	1989
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:	2
Main spans material:	Prestressed concrete [5]
Main spans design:	Box beam or girders - Multiple [05]
Deck type:	Concrete Precast Panels [2]
Wearing surface:	Bituminous [6]

2010 Inspection 

Status:	Open, no restriction [A]
Average daily traffic:	8,500 [as of 2006]
Truck traffic:	12% of total traffic
Deck condition:	Very Good [8 out of 9]
Superstructure condition:	Very Good [8 out of 9]
Substructure condition:	Satisfactory [6 out of 9]
Scour condition:	Bridge not over waterway. [N]
Operating rating:	48.5 tons [44.1 metric tons]
Inventory rating:	35.6 tons [32.4 metric tons]
Evaluation:	Functionally obsolete [2]
Sufficiency rating:	93.6

2000 Inspection 

Status:	Open, no restriction [A]
Average daily traffic:	12,109 [as of 1998]
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]
Operating rating:	48.5 tons [44.1 metric tons]
Inventory rating:	35.6 tons [32.4 metric tons]
Evaluation:	Functionally obsolete [2]
Sufficiency rating:	93.4

1992 Inspection 

Status:	Open, no restriction [A]
Average daily traffic:	121,000 [as of 1985]
Deck condition:	Fair [5 out of 9]
Superstructure condition:	Excellent [9 out of 9]
Substructure condition:	Very Good [8 out of 9]
Scour condition:	Bridge not over waterway. [N]
Evaluation:	Functionally obsolete [2]
Sufficiency rating:	83.1

Comments