Share:

CNTY-LAKE DNHAM RD over SIGLER BRANCH

Map

Coordinates:
+31.67524, -88.62901
31°40'31" N, 88°37'44" W

Facts

Source: National Bridge Inventory. Information not verified; use at your own risk.
Name:CNTY-LAKE DNHAM RD over SIGLER BRANCH
Structure number:SA7700000000079
Location:SEC 7 T 8N R 6W B
Purpose:Carries highway over waterway
Route classification:Minor Arterial (Urban) [16]
Length of largest span:9.8 ft. [3.0 m]
Total length:22.0 ft. [6.7 m]
Owner:City or Municipal Highway Agency [04]
Year built:1971
Historic significance:Bridge is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places [5]
Design load:MS 18 / HS 20 [5]
Number of main spans:2
Main spans material:Concrete [1]
Main spans design:Culvert [19]
Deck type:Not applicable [N]

Latest Available Inspection: September 2016

Good/Fair/Poor Condition:Good
Status:Open, no restriction [A]
Average daily traffic:2,400 [as of 2015]
Truck traffic:8% of total traffic
Structural appraisal:Equal to present desirable criteria [8]
Water adequacy appraisal:Better than present minimum criteria [7]
Roadway alignment appraisal:Equal to present desirable criteria [8]
Channel protection:Bank protection is being eroded. River control devices and/or embankment have major damage. Trees and rush restrict the channel. [5]
Culvert condition:No noticeable or noteworthy deficiencies which affect the condition of the culvert. Insignificant scrape marks caused by drift. [8]
Scour condition:Bridge foundations determined to be stable for the assessed or calculated scour condition. [8]
Operating rating:59.5 tons [54.1 metric tons]
Inventory rating:35.6 tons [32.4 metric tons]
Sufficiency rating:99.3

Previous Inspections

DateSuff. RatingConditionCulvert ConditionSD/FOADT
September 201699.3Good8 out of 10-2400
September 201499.3Good8 out of 10-2400
September 201299.3Good8 out of 10-2400
September 201099.3Good8 out of 10-2400
September 200999.3Good8 out of 10-2400
August 200799.3Good8 out of 10-2400
October 200599.2Good8 out of 10-2800
January 200499.2Good8 out of 10-2700
December 200199.2Good8 out of 10-2700
January 200099.2Good8 out of 10-2700
January 199899.3Good8 out of 10-2600
February 199699.4Good8 out of 10-2300