RTE 27 over RTE 27, RTE 27, 27 27X2


+40.64783, -73.97504
40°38'52" N, 73°58'30" W
Source: National Bridge Inventory
Information not verified. Use at your own risk.


Name:RTE 27 over RTE 27, RTE 27, 27 27X2
Structure number:000000001066040
Location:1.8 MI SE JCT I278 + SH27
Purpose:Carries highway and pedestrian walkway over highway
Route classification:Principal Arterial - Other Freeways or Expressways (Urban) [12]
Length of largest span:77.8 ft. [23.7 m]
Total length:134.8 ft. [41.1 m]
Roadway width between curbs:60.0 ft. [18.3 m]
Deck width edge-to-edge:92.2 ft. [28.1 m]
Vertical clearance below bridge:14.8 ft. [4.5 m]
Skew angle:21°
Owner:State Highway Agency [01]
Year built:1961
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:Steel [3]
Main spans design:Stringer/Multi-beam or girder [02]
Deck type:Concrete Cast-in-Place [1]
Wearing surface:Monolithic Concrete (concurrently placed with structural deck) [1]

Latest Available Inspection: February 2014 

Status:Open, no restriction [A]
Average daily traffic:67,823 [as of 2011]
Truck traffic:4% of total traffic
Deck condition:Good [7 out of 9]
Superstructure condition:Good [7 out of 9]
Substructure condition:Satisfactory [6 out of 9]
Structural appraisal:Equal to present minimum criteria [6]
Deck geometry appraisal:Meets minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as is [4]
Underclearances appraisal:Basically intolerable requiring high priority of corrrective action [3]
Roadway alignment appraisal:Equal to present desirable criteria [8]
Scour condition:Bridge not over waterway. [N]
Operating rating:94.8 tons [86.2 metric tons]
Inventory rating:56.9 tons [51.7 metric tons]
Evaluation:Functionally obsolete [2]
Sufficiency rating:89.6
Recommended work:Widening of existing bridge with deck rehabilitation or replacement. [34]
Estimated cost of work:$589,000

Previous Inspections 

DateSuff. ratingEvaluationDeckSuper.Sub.ADT
February 201489.6Functionally obsoleteGoodGoodSatisfactory67823
February 201292.1Functionally obsoleteGoodGoodSatisfactory17400
February 201093.2Functionally obsoleteGoodGoodSatisfactory16669
March 200893.3Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryGoodSatisfactory14708
January 200693.2Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryGoodSatisfactory16669
February 200493.2Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryGoodSatisfactory16669
March 200293.2Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryGoodSatisfactory16669
February 200093.2Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryGoodSatisfactory16669
February 199882.0Functionally obsoleteSatisfactorySatisfactoryFair17452
March 199663.3Structurally deficientFairFairPoor17452
January 199465.7Structurally deficientFairPoorPoor10400
January 199265.7Structurally deficientFairPoorFair10400
April 199064.7Structurally deficientFairPoorPoor10400