Meadow Hollow Road over Horsley Creek
Map
Coordinates:
+37.59264, -79.2345037°35'34" N, 79°14'04" W
Facts
Source: National Bridge Inventory. Information not verified; use at your own risk.
Name: | Meadow Hollow Road over Horsley Creek |
Structure number: | 000000000001480 |
Location: | 1.00-Dead End/0.80-Rt 799 |
Purpose: | Carries highway over waterway |
Route classification: | Local (Rural) [09] |
Length of largest span: | 30.8 ft. [9.4 m] |
Total length: | 60.0 ft. [18.3 m] |
Roadway width between curbs: | 11.8 ft. [3.6 m] |
Deck width edge-to-edge: | 14.1 ft. [4.3 m] |
Owner: | State Highway Agency [01] |
Year built: | 1935 |
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: | Steel [3] |
Main spans design: | Stringer/Multi-beam or girder [02] |
Deck type: | Wood or Timber [8] |
Wearing surface: | Bituminous [6] |
Latest Available Inspection: April 2017
Good/Fair/Poor Condition: | Fair |
Status: | Open, no restriction [A] |
Average daily traffic: | 37 [as of 2014] |
Deck condition: | Good [7 out of 9] |
Superstructure condition: | Satisfactory [6 out of 9] |
Substructure condition: | Fair [5 out of 9] |
Structural appraisal: | Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left in place as is [5] |
Deck geometry appraisal: | Basically intolerable requiring high priority of corrrective action [3] |
Water adequacy appraisal: | Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left in place as is [5] |
Roadway alignment appraisal: | Basically intolerable requiring high priority of corrrective action [3] |
Channel protection: | Bank protection is being eroded. River control devices and/or embankment have major damage. Trees and rush restrict the channel. [5] |
Pier/abutment protection: | In place but in a deteriorated condition [3] |
Scour condition: | Bridge foundations determined to be stable for assessed or calculated scour conditions; field review indicates action is required. [4] |
Sufficiency rating: | 49.1 |
Recommended work: | Bridge rehabilitation because of general structure deterioration or inadequate strength. [35] |
Estimated cost of work: | $671,000 |
Previous Inspections
Date | Condition | Deck | Superstructure | Substructure | ADT | Suff. Rating |
---|
April 2017 | Fair | Good | Satisfactory | Fair | 37 | 49.1 |
April 2015 | Fair | Good | Satisfactory | Fair | 37 | 49.1 |
April 2013 | Fair | Good | Satisfactory | Fair | 39 | 56.2 |
April 2011 | Poor | Good | Good | Poor | 39 | 48.1 |
April 2010 | Poor | Good | Good | Poor | 39 | 48.1 |
April 2009 | Poor | Good | Good | Poor | 39 | 48.1 |
April 2008 | Poor | Good | Satisfactory | Poor | 39 | 48.1 |
April 2007 | Poor | Good | Good | Poor | 38 | 48.1 |
April 2006 | Poor | Good | Good | Poor | 38 | 48.1 |
June 2005 | Poor | Good | Good | Poor | 38 | 48.1 |
May 2004 | Poor | Good | Good | Poor | 43 | 48.0 |
July 2003 | Poor | Good | Good | Poor | 43 | 48.0 |
May 2002 | Poor | Good | Good | Poor | 43 | 48.0 |
May 2001 | Fair | Good | Good | Satisfactory | 173 | 65.8 |
July 2000 | Fair | Good | Very Good | Satisfactory | 173 | 65.8 |
May 1999 | Fair | Good | Very Good | Satisfactory | 173 | 65.8 |
May 1998 | Fair | Very Good | Very Good | Satisfactory | 169 | 65.8 |
June 1997 | Fair | Very Good | Very Good | Satisfactory | 189 | 65.5 |
August 1996 | Fair | Very Good | Very Good | Satisfactory | 169 | 65.8 |
May 1995 | Poor | Satisfactory | Poor | Poor | 169 | 4.0 |
June 1994 | Poor | Satisfactory | Poor | Satisfactory | 102 | 4.0 |
May 1993 | Poor | Good | Poor | Satisfactory | 102 | 4.0 |
December 1991 | Poor | Good | Poor | Satisfactory | 91 | 2.0 |