+35.06139, -90.09250
35°03'41" N, 90°05'33" W
Source: National Bridge Inventory
Information not verified. Use at your own risk.


Name:FAU 4196 over CYRESS CREEK
Structure number:790M0100003
Purpose:Carries highway over waterway
Route classification:Minor Arterial (Urban) [16]
Length of largest span:32.2 ft. [9.8 m]
Total length:157.2 ft. [47.9 m]
Roadway width between curbs:27.9 ft. [8.5 m]
Deck width edge-to-edge:30.8 ft. [9.4 m]
Skew angle:30°
Owner:City or Municipal Highway Agency [04]
Year built:1969
Historic significance:Historical significance is not determinable at this time [4]
Design load:MS 18 / HS 20 [5]
Number of main spans:5
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: April 2015 

Status:Open, no restriction [A]
Average daily traffic:5,850 [as of 2016]
Truck traffic:3% 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:Basically intolerable requiring high priority of replacement [2]
Water adequacy appraisal:Equal to present desirable criteria [8]
Roadway alignment appraisal:Equal to present desirable criteria [8]
Channel protection:Bank is beginning to slump. River control devices and embankment protection have widespread minor damage. There is minor stream bed movement evident. Debris is restricting the channel slightly. [6]
Scour condition:Bridge with "unknown" foundation that has not been evaluated for scour. [U]
Operating rating:47.5 tons [43.2 metric tons]
Inventory rating:29.7 tons [27.0 metric tons]
Evaluation:Functionally obsolete [2]
Sufficiency rating:73.2
Recommended work:Replacement of bridge or other structure because of substandard load carrying capacity or substantial bridge roadway geometry. [31]
Estimated cost of work:$2,338,000

Previous Inspections 

DateSuff. ratingEvaluationDeckSuper.Sub.ADT
April 201573.2Functionally obsoleteSatisfactorySatisfactorySatisfactory5850
April 201373.2Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryGoodSatisfactory5850
May 201115.3Structurally deficientSatisfactoryGoodFair5850
June 200962.0Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryGoodFair5850
October 200762.0Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryGoodFair5850
October 200562.1Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryGoodFair5500
October 200362.0Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryGoodFair6080
November 200162.0Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryGoodFair5900
March 200062.0Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryGoodFair5790
May 199864.9Functionally obsoleteGoodGoodFair6330
June 199864.1Functionally obsoleteFairGoodFair5350
December 199576.4Not deficientSatisfactorySatisfactorySatisfactory4950
September 199376.4Not deficientSatisfactorySatisfactorySatisfactory4850
December 199180.3Not deficientSatisfactorySatisfactorySatisfactory1320