Table 5: Existing Bridge Geometry
| Bridge No. | Facility Carried | Facility Crossed | Main Span Material | Main Span Design | No. Spans/ Cells | Max Span Length (ft) | Width (ft) | Length (ft) | Vertical Clearance (ft) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 090028 | US-27 NB | Lake Anoka | R/Conc. | Slab | 5 | 25 | 60.83 | 125 | 2.0 |
| 090054 | US-27 SB | Lake Anoka | R/Conc. | Slab | 5 | 25 | 60.83 | 125 | 2.0 |
| 090050 | US-27 NB | Lake Jackson | R/Conc. | Slab | 3 | 28 | 61.1 | 84.0 | 5.7 |
| 090051 | US-27 SB | Lake Jackson | R/Conc. | Slab | 3 | 28 | 53.58 | 84.0 | 5.7 |
| 090004 | US-27 NB | Josephine Creek | R/Conc. | Slab | 13 | 15.25 | 42.24 | 195.5 | 3.5 |
| 090003 | US-27 SB | Josephine Creek | R/Conc. | Slab | 13 | 15.25 | 42.24 | 195.5 | 2.4 |
| 090002 | SCXF RR | US-27 | Steel | Plate Girder | 4 | 80.5 | 14.1* | 246.0 | 15.5 |
| 050047 | US-27 | County Creek | R/Conc. | Box Culvert | 3 | 10.0 | 125.0 | 32.5 | 4.0 |
* Bridge width as provided in the bridge inspection report.
The bridge inspection reports (BIR) provide detailed information on the condition of various bridge components (e.g., deck, girders, bearings, traffic railings, slope protection, etc.); rate the condition of major components (e.g., deck, superstructure, substructure, channel); and provide an overall health index rating. Generally, the bridges are in good overall condition; none of the bridges are considered fracture critical, scour critical or functionally obsolete.
Table 6 summarizes the information provided in the 2021 or 2022 BIRs for each bridge. Bridges have at least a rating of six (satisfactory) for the structural condition and meet vertical clearance requirements, as defined by FDOT standards. Bridge No. 050047 (indicated with red text) has a relatively low health index indicating the structural condition is deteriorating and may need to be replaced. Bridge No. 090003 (indicated with red text) does not meet load capacity standards which is determined by the Inventory and Operating rating factors.
Table 6: Summary of Existing Bridge Conditions
| Bridge No. | Year Built | Year Reconstructed | Age as of 2022 | Deck Rating (0 - 9) | Super. Rating (0 - 9) | Sub. Rating (0 - 9) | Channel Rating (0 - 9) | Culvert Rating (0 - 9) | Health Index (0 - 100) | Inventory Rating (tons) | Operating Rating (tons) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 090028 | 1969 | 2002 | 53 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 9 | - | 73.17 | 45.9 | 76.7 |
| 090054 | 2002 | - | 20 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 9 | - | 87.07 | 50.0 | 83.5 |
| 090050 | 1998 | - | 24 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 9 | - | 94.77 | 55.1 | 92.0 |
| 090051 | 1998 | - | 24 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 9 | - | 92.58 | 55.1 | 92.0 |
| 090004 | 1968 | 2000 | 54 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | - | 97.85 | 37.0 | 61.9 |
| 090003 | 1944 | 2000 | 78 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | - | 94.42 | 34.3 | 57.3 |
| 090002 | 1971 | - | 51 | - | - | - | - | - | 100 | - | - |
| 050047 | 1943 | 1973 | 79 | - | - | - | 6 | 5 | 34.27 | 43.1 | 71.8 |
FDOT's Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) Environmental Screening Tool (EST) was used as the primary source of information to screen the existing cultural, natural, physical and social resources in the region.
23