Neosho P.5-15.7 over TRIB. S. FK. POTT. CK.


+38.25557, -95.23114
38°15'20" N, 95°13'52" W


Source: National Bridge Inventory. Information not verified; use at your own risk.
Name:Neosho P.5-15.7 over TRIB. S. FK. POTT. CK.
Structure number:000021047505403
Location:1.3 S NEOSHO-HWY 169
Purpose:Carries highway over waterway
Route classification:Local (Rural) [09]
Length of largest span:24.0 ft. [7.3 m]
Total length:54.1 ft. [16.5 m]
Roadway width between curbs:51.8 ft. [15.8 m]
Deck width edge-to-edge:55.1 ft. [16.8 m]
Owner:County Highway Agency [02]
Year built:1950
Historic significance:Historical significance is not determinable at this time [4]
Number of main spans:2
Main spans material:Steel [3]
Main spans design:Culvert [19]
Deck type:Not applicable [N]

Latest Available Inspection: January 2018

Good/Fair/Poor Condition:Good
Status:Open, no restriction [A]
Average daily traffic:20 [as of 2014]
Structural appraisal:Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left in place as is [5]
Deck geometry appraisal:Superior to present desirable criteria [9]
Water adequacy appraisal:Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left in place as is [5]
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]
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:80.4

Previous Inspections

DateConditionCulvert ConditionADTSuff. Rating
January 2018Good7 out of 102080.4
December 2017Good7 out of 102048.3
December 2015Fair6 out of 102080.4
February 2014Fair6 out of 102080.4
November 2011Fair6 out of 102080.4
November 2009Fair6 out of 102080.4
November 2007Fair6 out of 102080.4
November 2005Fair6 out of 102080.4
October 2003GoodN out of 102080.4
May 2001GoodN out of 102080.4
June 1999GoodN out of 102080.8
March 1997GoodN out of 102080.8
February 1995GoodN out of 102080.4
July 1992GoodN out of 102080.4
February 1991GoodN out of 102080.4