CLOVE ROAD over RTE I278, RTE I278


+40.61051, -74.09768
40°36'38" N, 74°05'52" W
Source: National Bridge Inventory
Information not verified. Use at your own risk.


Name:CLOVE ROAD over RTE I278, RTE I278
Structure number:000000001067790
Location:3.5MI W JCT I278+BELT PKY
Purpose:Carries highway over highway
Route classification:Other Principal Arterial (Urban) [14]
Length of largest span:84.0 ft. [25.6 m]
Total length:245.7 ft. [74.9 m]
Roadway width between curbs:56.1 ft. [17.1 m]
Deck width edge-to-edge:71.9 ft. [21.9 m]
Vertical clearance below bridge:15.4 ft. [4.7 m]
Skew angle:34°
Owner:State Highway Agency [01]
Year built:1965
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:4
Main spans material:Steel [3]
Main spans design:Stringer/Multi-beam or girder [02]
Deck type:Concrete Cast-in-Place [1]
Wearing surface:Bituminous [6]

Latest Available Inspection: July 2014 

Status:Open, no restriction [A]
Average daily traffic:27,880 [as of 2013]
Truck traffic:7% of total traffic
Deck condition:Satisfactory [6 out of 9]
Superstructure condition:Satisfactory [6 out of 9]
Substructure condition:Satisfactory [6 out of 9]
Structural appraisal:Equal to present minimum criteria [6]
Deck geometry appraisal:Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left in place as is [5]
Underclearances appraisal:Basically intolerable requiring high priority of corrrective action [3]
Roadway alignment appraisal:Meets minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as is [4]
Scour condition:Bridge not over waterway. [N]
Operating rating:83.8 tons [76.2 metric tons]
Inventory rating:49.9 tons [45.4 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:$2,507,000

Previous Inspections 

DateSuff. ratingEvaluationDeckSuper.Sub.ADT
July 201489.6Functionally obsoleteSatisfactorySatisfactorySatisfactory27880
June 201289.6Functionally obsoleteSatisfactorySatisfactoryGood27900
July 201179.0Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryFairGood17164
July 201078.4Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryFairGood26969
August 200878.4Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryFairGood26969
May 200679.0Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryFairGood17164
May 200479.0Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryFairGood17164
May 200390.1Functionally obsoleteGoodSatisfactoryGood17164
June 200289.1Functionally obsoleteGoodSatisfactoryGood17164
July 200089.1Functionally obsoleteSatisfactorySatisfactorySatisfactory17164
September 199877.0Functionally obsoleteFairSatisfactoryFair16026
October 199656.7Structurally deficientPoorFairPoor20008
November 199459.2Structurally deficientPoorFairPoor6200
October 199259.2Structurally deficientPoorFairPoor6200
September 199064.2Structurally deficientFairFairPoor6200