ROSE AVE over GARNAND BRANCH

Map

Coordinates:
+37.24756, -79.92019
37°14'51" N, 79°55'13" W

Source: National Bridge Inventory. Information not verified; use at your own risk.

Name:	ROSE AVE over GARNAND BRANCH
Structure number:	000000000021644
Location:	0002GDN CTY R
Purpose:	Carries highway over waterway
Route classification:	Local (Urban) `[19]`
Length of largest span:	21.0 ft. `[6.4 m]`
Total length:	21.0 ft. `[6.4 m]`
Roadway width between curbs:	23.0 ft. `[7.0 m]`
Deck width edge-to-edge:	24.0 ft. `[7.3 m]`
Skew angle:	32°
Owner:	City or Municipal Highway Agency `[04]`
Year built:	1932
Year reconstructed:	2009
Historic significance:	Bridge is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places `[5]`
Main span material:	Concrete `[1]`
Main span design:	Slab `[01]`
Deck type:	Concrete Cast-in-Place `[1]`
Wearing surface:	Monolithic Concrete (concurrently placed with structural deck) `[1]`

Good/Fair/Poor Condition:	Good
Status:	Open, no restriction `[A]`
Average daily traffic:	100 `[as of 1981]`
Truck traffic:	5% of total traffic
Deck condition:	Very Good `[8 out of 9]`
Superstructure condition:	Very Good `[8 out of 9]`
Substructure condition:	Good `[7 out of 9]`
Structural appraisal:	Better than present minimum criteria `[7]`
Deck geometry appraisal:	Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left in place as is `[5]`
Water adequacy appraisal:	Equal to present minimum criteria `[6]`
Roadway alignment appraisal:	Equal to present minimum criteria `[6]`
Channel protection:	Bank protection is in need of minor repairs. River control devices and embankment protection have a little minor damage. Banks and/or channel have minor amounts of drift. `[7]`
Scour condition:	Bridge foundations determined to be stable for assessed or calculated scour condition. `[5]`
Sufficiency rating:	99.0
Recommended work:	Other structural work, including hydraulic replacements. `[38]`
Estimated cost of work:	$1,000

Date	Condition	Deck	Superstructure	Substructure	ADT	Suff. Rating
August 2017	Good	Very Good	Very Good	Good	100	99.0
August 2015	Good	Very Good	Very Good	Good	100	99.0
August 2013	Good	Very Good	Very Good	Good	100	99.0
August 2011	Good	Very Good	Very Good	Good	100	99.0
June 2010	Good	Very Good	Very Good	Good	100	77.8
August 2009	Poor	Satisfactory	Poor	Satisfactory	100	48.8
August 2008	Poor	Satisfactory	Poor	Satisfactory	100	48.8
August 2007	Fair	Satisfactory	Fair	Satisfactory	100	64.8
September 2006	Fair	Satisfactory	Fair	Satisfactory	100	64.8
November 2005	Fair	Good	Fair	Satisfactory	100	64.8
October 2004	Fair	Satisfactory	Fair	Satisfactory	100	64.8
November 2003	Fair	Good	Fair	Satisfactory	100	64.8
October 2002	Fair	Good	Fair	Satisfactory	100	64.8
November 2001	Fair	Good	Fair	Satisfactory	100	67.8
November 2000	Fair	Good	Fair	Satisfactory	100	64.8
November 1999	Fair	Good	Fair	Satisfactory	100	64.8
August 1998	Fair	Good	Satisfactory	Satisfactory	100	74.8
October 1997	Fair	Good	Satisfactory	Satisfactory	100	74.8
November 1996	Fair	Good	Satisfactory	Satisfactory	100	74.8
November 1995	Fair	Good	Satisfactory	Satisfactory	100	74.8
November 1994	Fair	Good	Satisfactory	Satisfactory	100	74.8
October 1993	Fair	Good	Satisfactory	Satisfactory	100	74.8
November 1992	Fair	Good	Satisfactory	Satisfactory	100	74.8
November 1991	Fair	Very Good	Very Good	Satisfactory	100	74.8