+41.19950, -95.98346
41°11'58" N, 95°59'00" W
Source: National Bridge Inventory
Information not verified. Use at your own risk.


Structure number:U1825B5105
Location:OMAHA 46TH @ U
Purpose:Carries highway over waterway
Route classification:Local (Urban) [19]
Length of largest span:19.0 ft. [5.8 m]
Total length:50.9 ft. [15.5 m]
Roadway width between curbs:16.1 ft. [4.9 m]
Deck width edge-to-edge:16.1 ft. [4.9 m]
Skew angle:30°
Owner:City or Municipal Highway Agency [04]
Year built:1935
Historic significance:Bridge is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places [5]
Design load:M 9 / H 10 [1]
Number of main spans:3
Main spans material:Wood or timber [7]
Main spans design:Stringer/Multi-beam or girder [02]
Deck type:Wood or Timber [8]
Wearing surface:Wood or Timber [7]

Latest Available Inspection: April 2015 

Status:Posted for load [P]
Average daily traffic:100 [as of 2003]
Truck traffic:10% of total traffic
Deck condition:Good [7 out of 9]
Superstructure condition:Satisfactory [6 out of 9]
Substructure condition:Satisfactory [6 out of 9]
Structural appraisal:Basically intolerable requiring high priority of corrrective action [3]
Deck geometry appraisal:Basically intolerable requiring high priority of corrrective action [3]
Water adequacy appraisal:Equal to present minimum criteria [6]
Roadway alignment appraisal:Better than present minimum criteria [7]
Channel protection:Bank protection is in need of minor repairs. River control devices and embankment protection have a little minor damage. Banks and/or channel have minor amounts of drift. [7]
Pier/abutment protection:Navigation protection not required [1]
Scour condition:Countermeasures have been installed to mitigate an existing problem with scour. [7]
Operating rating:16.0 tons [14.5 metric tons]
Inventory rating:11.0 tons [10.0 metric tons]
Evaluation:Functionally obsolete [2]
Sufficiency rating:49.8
Recommended work:Widening of existing bridge with deck rehabilitation or replacement. [34]

Previous Inspections 

DateSuff. ratingEvaluationDeckSuper.Sub.ADT
April 201549.8Functionally obsoleteGoodSatisfactorySatisfactory100
April 201328.0Structurally deficientGoodSatisfactoryPoor100
May 201147.8Functionally obsoleteExcellentSatisfactorySatisfactory100
April 200946.7Functionally obsoleteFairSatisfactorySatisfactory100
June 200846.7Functionally obsoleteFairSatisfactorySatisfactory100
July 200755.6Functionally obsoleteFairSatisfactorySatisfactory100
July 200555.6Functionally obsoleteFairSatisfactorySatisfactory100
May 200355.6Functionally obsoleteFairSatisfactorySatisfactory100
June 200155.6Functionally obsoleteFairSatisfactorySatisfactory100
July 199955.6Functionally obsoleteFairSatisfactorySatisfactory100
April 199755.6Functionally obsoleteFairSatisfactorySatisfactory100
June 199554.6Functionally obsoleteFairSatisfactorySatisfactory100
April 199355.6Functionally obsoleteSatisfactorySatisfactorySatisfactory100
May 199163.2Functionally obsoleteSatisfactorySatisfactorySatisfactory100