CEDAR AVE over IR 90

Map 

Facts 

Name:	CEDAR AVE over IR 90
Structure number:	1807862
Location:	.41 MI. E. OF JCT. I-77
Purpose:	Carries highway over highway
Route classification:	Local (Urban) [19]
Length of largest span:	86.0 ft. [26.2 m]
Total length:	159.1 ft. [48.5 m]
Roadway width between curbs:	44.9 ft. [13.7 m]
Deck width edge-to-edge:	57.1 ft. [17.4 m]
Vertical clearance below bridge:	20.0 ft. [6.1 m]
Skew angle:	41°
Owner:	State Highway Agency [01]
Year built:	1958
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 continuous [4]
Main spans design:	Stringer/Multi-beam or girder [02]
Deck type:	Concrete Cast-in-Place [1]
Wearing surface:	Latex Concrete or similar additive [3]

2010 Inspection 

Status:	Open, no restriction [A]
Average daily traffic:	2,040 [as of 2002]
Truck traffic:	14% of total traffic
Deck condition:	Satisfactory [6 out of 9]
Superstructure condition:	Good [7 out of 9]
Substructure condition:	Satisfactory [6 out of 9]
Scour condition:	Bridge not over waterway. [N]
Operating rating:	44.6 tons [40.5 metric tons]
Inventory rating:	35.6 tons [32.4 metric tons]
Evaluation:	Functionally obsolete [2]
Sufficiency rating:	95.8

2000 Inspection 

Status:	Open, no restriction [A]
Average daily traffic:	1,000 [as of 1970]
Deck condition:	Satisfactory [6 out of 9]
Superstructure condition:	Good [7 out of 9]
Substructure condition:	Satisfactory [6 out of 9]
Scour condition:	Bridge not over waterway. [N]
Operating rating:	44.6 tons [40.5 metric tons]
Inventory rating:	35.6 tons [32.4 metric tons]
Sufficiency rating:	97.9

1992 Inspection 

Status:	Open, no restriction [A]
Average daily traffic:	1,000 [as of 1970]
Deck condition:	Fair [5 out of 9]
Superstructure condition:	Good [7 out of 9]
Substructure condition:	Very Good [8 out of 9]
Scour condition:	Bridge not over waterway. [N]
Operating rating:	59.4 tons [54.0 metric tons]
Inventory rating:	35.6 tons [32.4 metric tons]
Evaluation:	Functionally obsolete [2]
Sufficiency rating:	94.9

Comments