Share: 
NE 105 Street over Daisy Creek
Map
Coordinates:
+29.30343, -81.96690
29°18'12" N, 81°58'01" W
+29.30343, -81.96690
29°18'12" N, 81°58'01" W
Facts
Source: National Bridge Inventory. Information not verified; use at your own risk.
| Name: | NE 105 Street over Daisy Creek |
| Structure number: | 364060 |
| Location: | 0.5 mile East of CR-315 |
| Purpose: | Carries highway over waterway |
| Route classification: | Local (Rural) [09] |
| Length of largest span: | 19.0 ft. [5.8 m] |
| Total length: | 108.6 ft. [33.1 m] |
| Owner: | County Highway Agency [02] |
| Year built: | 1940 |
| Historic significance: | Bridge is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places [5] |
| Number of main spans: | 5 |
| Main spans material: | Steel [3] |
| Main spans design: | Culvert [19] |
| Deck type: | Not applicable [N] |
Latest Available Inspection: February 2018
| Good/Fair/Poor Condition: | Good |
| Status: | Posted for load [P] |
| Average daily traffic: | 310 [as of 2015] |
| Truck traffic: | 5% of total traffic |
| Structural appraisal: | Better than present minimum criteria [7] |
| Water adequacy appraisal: | Better than present minimum criteria [7] |
| Roadway alignment appraisal: | Equal to present desirable criteria [8] |
| 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] |
| Culvert condition: | Shrinkage cracks, light scaling and insignificant spalling which does not expose reinforcing steel. Insignificant damage caused by drift with no misalignment and not requiring corrective action. Some minor scouring has occured near curtain walls, wingwalls or pipes. Metal culverts have a smooth symmetrical curvature with superficial corrosion and no pitting. [7] |
| Scour condition: | Bridge with "unknown" foundation that has not been evaluated for scour. [U] |
| Sufficiency rating: | 98.7 |
Previous Inspections
| Date | Condition | Culvert Condition | ADT | Suff. Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| February 2018 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 310 | 98.7 |
| February 2016 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 310 | 89.1 |
| February 2014 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 310 | 89.1 |
| February 2012 | Fair | 5 out of 10 | 310 | 78.1 |
| February 2010 | Fair | 5 out of 10 | 310 | 78.1 |
| February 2008 | Fair | 5 out of 10 | 310 | 78.1 |
| March 2006 | Fair | 5 out of 10 | 310 | 78.1 |
| March 2004 | Fair | 5 out of 10 | 310 | 76.1 |
| March 2002 | Fair | N out of 10 | 310 | 69.9 |
| February 2001 | Fair | 6 out of 10 | 308 | 69.9 |
| February 2000 | Fair | 6 out of 10 | 306 | 69.9 |
| February 1998 | Fair | 6 out of 10 | 303 | 70.6 |
| February 1996 | Fair | 6 out of 10 | 300 | 68.6 |
| January 1994 | Fair | 6 out of 10 | 650 | 68.2 |
| January 1992 | Fair | 5 out of 10 | 650 | 56.0 |
© Copyright 2012-20, James Baughn
Disclaimer: All data is taken from the National Bridge Inventory and has not been verified.
This page's URL is http://bridgereports.com/1082118
Disclaimer: All data is taken from the National Bridge Inventory and has not been verified.
This page's URL is http://bridgereports.com/1082118