Share: 
COUNTY HIGHWAY over NIOBRARA RIVER
Map
Coordinates:
+42.85167, -100.52167
42°51'06" N, 100°31'18" W
+42.85167, -100.52167
42°51'06" N, 100°31'18" W
Facts
Source: National Bridge Inventory. Information not verified; use at your own risk.
| Name: | COUNTY HIGHWAY over NIOBRARA RIVER |
| Structure number: | C0E1606105P |
| Location: | 1E 1S OF VALENTINE |
| Purpose: | Carries highway over waterway |
| Route classification: | Local (Rural) [09] |
| Length of largest span: | 129.9 ft. [39.6 m] |
| Total length: | 130.9 ft. [39.9 m] |
| Roadway width between curbs: | 13.1 ft. [4.0 m] |
| Deck width edge-to-edge: | 14.1 ft. [4.3 m] |
| Vertical clearance above deck: | 16.7 ft. [5.1 m] |
| Owner: | County Highway Agency [02] |
| Year built: | 1916 |
| Historic significance: | Bridge is on the National Register of Historic Places [1] |
| Main span material: | Steel [3] |
| Main span design: | Truss - Thru [10] |
| Deck type: | Wood or Timber [8] |
| Wearing surface: | Wood or Timber [7] |
Latest Available Inspection: June 2017
| Good/Fair/Poor Condition: | Fair |
| Status: | Posted for load [P] |
| Average daily traffic: | 20 [as of 2003] |
| Deck condition: | Good [7 out of 9] |
| Superstructure condition: | Fair [5 out of 9] |
| Substructure condition: | Satisfactory [6 out of 9] |
| Structural appraisal: | Basically intolerable requiring high priority of replacement [2] |
| Deck geometry appraisal: | Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left in place as is [5] |
| Water adequacy appraisal: | Better than present minimum criteria [7] |
| Roadway alignment appraisal: | Meets minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as is [4] |
| 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] |
| Pier/abutment protection: | Navigation protection not required [1] |
| Scour condition: | Bridge foundations determined to be stable for assessed or calculated scour condition. [5] |
| Sufficiency rating: | 22.7 |
| Recommended work: | Replacement of bridge or other structure because of substandard load carrying capacity or substantial bridge roadway geometry. [31] |
Previous Inspections
| Date | Condition | Deck | Superstructure | Substructure | ADT | Suff. Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| June 2017 | Fair | Good | Fair | Satisfactory | 20 | 22.7 |
| June 2015 | Fair | Good | Satisfactory | Satisfactory | 20 | 29.9 |
| June 2013 | Fair | Good | Satisfactory | Satisfactory | 20 | 29.9 |
| January 2012 | Fair | Good | Satisfactory | Satisfactory | 20 | 30.0 |
| February 2010 | Fair | Good | Satisfactory | Satisfactory | 20 | 30.0 |
| March 2008 | Fair | Good | Satisfactory | Satisfactory | 20 | 34.6 |
| June 2007 | Fair | Very Good | Good | Satisfactory | 20 | 34.6 |
| May 2005 | Fair | Very Good | Very Good | Satisfactory | 20 | 34.6 |
| December 2003 | Fair | Very Good | Very Good | Satisfactory | 20 | 34.6 |
| October 2001 | Fair | Very Good | Very Good | Satisfactory | 20 | 34.6 |
| June 1999 | Poor | Fair | Satisfactory | Poor | 20 | 22.0 |
| September 1997 | Poor | Fair | Satisfactory | Poor | 20 | 22.0 |
| December 1995 | Fair | Fair | Satisfactory | Fair | 20 | 23.6 |
| November 1993 | Fair | Fair | Satisfactory | Fair | 20 | 23.6 |
| October 1991 | Fair | Fair | Satisfactory | Fair | 20 | 28.8 |
© 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/1355687
Disclaimer: All data is taken from the National Bridge Inventory and has not been verified.
This page's URL is http://bridgereports.com/1355687