SR 127 over MEADOW CREEK
Map
Coordinates:
+32.43723, -84.1543532°26'14" N, 84°09'16" W
Facts
Source: National Bridge Inventory. Information not verified; use at your own risk.
Name: | SR 127 over MEADOW CREEK |
Structure number: | 000000019300470 |
Location: | 5 MILES N.E. IDEAL |
Purpose: | Carries highway over waterway |
Route classification: | Major Collector (Rural) [07] |
Length of largest span: | 8.9 ft. [2.7 m] |
Total length: | 29.9 ft. [9.1 m] |
Skew angle: | 30° |
Owner: | State Highway Agency [01] |
Year built: | 1988 |
Historic significance: | Bridge is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places [5] |
Design load: | MS 18+Mod / HS 20+Mod [6] |
Number of main spans: | 3 |
Main spans material: | Concrete [1] |
Main spans design: | Culvert [19] |
Deck type: | Not applicable [N] |
Latest Available Inspection: December 2018
Good/Fair/Poor Condition: | Good |
Status: | Open, no restriction [A] |
Average daily traffic: | 280 [as of 2011] |
Truck traffic: | 1% of total traffic |
Structural appraisal: | Better than present minimum criteria [7] |
Water adequacy appraisal: | Equal to present desirable criteria [8] |
Roadway alignment appraisal: | Equal to present desirable criteria [8] |
Channel protection: | Banks are protected or well vegetated. River control devices such as spur dikes and embankment protection are not required or are in a stable condition. [8] |
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 foundations determined to be stable for the assessed or calculated scour condition. [8] |
Sufficiency rating: | 99.9 |
Estimated cost of work: | $176,000 |
Previous Inspections
Date | Condition | Culvert Condition | ADT | Suff. Rating |
---|
December 2018 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 280 | 99.9 |
December 2016 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 280 | 99.9 |
December 2014 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 280 | 99.9 |
December 2012 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 280 | 99.9 |
December 2010 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 320 | 99.9 |
January 2009 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 320 | 99.9 |
January 2007 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 310 | 99.9 |
December 2004 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 300 | 99.9 |
January 2003 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 300 | 99.9 |
January 2001 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 300 | 99.9 |
January 1999 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 300 | 99.9 |
January 1997 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 300 | 99.9 |
January 1995 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 240 | 99.9 |
February 1993 | Good | 8 out of 10 | 240 | 99.9 |
February 1991 | Good | 8 out of 10 | 240 | 99.9 |
Element Data
Source: National Bridge Elements dataset, 2019 edition. This feature is experimental.
Element | Units | Quantity | 1-Good | 2-Fair | 3-Poor | 4-Serious |
---|
Culvert |
Reinforced Concrete Culvert | linear ft. | 132 | 132 | 0 | 0 | 0 |