Share: 
LOCAL over M F ONE HUNDRED TWO RIVE
Map
Coordinates:
+40.63368, -94.78857
40°38'01" N, 94°47'19" W
+40.63368, -94.78857
40°38'01" N, 94°47'19" W
Facts
Source: National Bridge Inventory. Information not verified; use at your own risk.
| Name: | LOCAL over M F ONE HUNDRED TWO RIVE |
| Structure number: | 000000000321250 |
| Location: | 067340705 |
| Purpose: | Carries highway over waterway |
| Route classification: | Local (Rural) [09] |
| Length of largest span: | 40.0 ft. [12.2 m] |
| Total length: | 89.9 ft. [27.4 m] |
| Roadway width between curbs: | 14.8 ft. [4.5 m] |
| Deck width edge-to-edge: | 15.7 ft. [4.8 m] |
| Owner: | County Highway Agency [02] |
| Year built: | 1905 |
| Year reconstructed: | 1964 |
| Historic significance: | Bridge is possibly eligible for the National Register of Historic Places [3] |
| 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: May 2017
| Status: | Bridge closed to all traffic [K] |
| Deck geometry appraisal: | Equal to present minimum criteria [6] |
| Water adequacy appraisal: | Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left in place as is [5] |
| Roadway alignment appraisal: | Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left in place as is [5] |
| Channel protection: | Bank protection is being eroded. River control devices and/or embankment have major damage. Trees and rush restrict the channel. [5] |
| Scour condition: | Bridge foundations determined to be stable for the assessed or calculated scour condition. [8] |
| Sufficiency rating: | 19.0 |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 2017 | - | - | - | - | - | 19.0 |
| June 2015 | - | - | - | - | 15 | 18.9 |
| June 2013 | - | - | - | - | 15 | 19.9 |
| May 2011 | Poor | Fair | Serious | Fair | 15 | 24.0 |
| June 2009 | Poor | Fair | Serious | Fair | 15 | 24.0 |
| May 2007 | Poor | Fair | Serious | Fair | 15 | 24.0 |
| March 2005 | Poor | Fair | Serious | Fair | 15 | 24.0 |
| November 2003 | Poor | Fair | Serious | Fair | 15 | 24.0 |
| March 2001 | Poor | Fair | Serious | Fair | 15 | 24.0 |
| May 1998 | Poor | Satisfactory | Serious | Fair | 15 | 25.0 |
| October 1996 | Poor | Satisfactory | Serious | Fair | 15 | 25.0 |
| March 1995 | Poor | Satisfactory | Serious | Fair | 15 | 25.0 |
| August 1994 | Poor | Satisfactory | Serious | Fair | 15 | 25.0 |
| August 1993 | Poor | Satisfactory | Serious | Fair | 15 | 23.0 |
| June 1991 | Fair | Satisfactory | Fair | Fair | 15 | 23.0 |
© 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/1126343
Disclaimer: All data is taken from the National Bridge Inventory and has not been verified.
This page's URL is http://bridgereports.com/1126343