Share: 
BISHOP MEADE RD over SPOUT RUN
Map
Coordinates:
+39.06751, -78.03756
39°04'03" N, 78°02'15" W
+39.06751, -78.03756
39°04'03" N, 78°02'15" W
Facts
Source: National Bridge Inventory. Information not verified; use at your own risk.
| Name: | BISHOP MEADE RD over SPOUT RUN |
| Structure number: | 000000000005395 |
| Location: | 0.12 TO 662 - 0.03 TO 678 |
| Purpose: | Carries highway over waterway |
| Route classification: | Major Collector (Rural) [07] |
| Length of largest span: | 23.0 ft. [7.0 m] |
| Total length: | 44.9 ft. [13.7 m] |
| Roadway width between curbs: | 23.0 ft. [7.0 m] |
| Deck width edge-to-edge: | 25.6 ft. [7.8 m] |
| Owner: | State Highway Agency [01] |
| Year built: | 1928 |
| Historic significance: | Bridge is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places [5] |
| Design load: | M 13.5 / H 15 [2] |
| Number of main spans: | 2 |
| Main spans material: | Concrete [1] |
| Main spans design: | Tee beam [04] |
| Deck type: | Concrete Cast-in-Place [1] |
| Wearing surface: | Bituminous [6] |
Latest Available Inspection: March 2017
| Good/Fair/Poor Condition: | Fair |
| Status: | Open, no restriction [A] |
| Average daily traffic: | 1,444 [as of 2014] |
| Truck traffic: | 1% of total traffic |
| Deck condition: | Fair [5 out of 9] |
| Superstructure condition: | Fair [5 out of 9] |
| Substructure condition: | Satisfactory [6 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: | Equal to present minimum criteria [6] |
| Roadway alignment appraisal: | Equal to present minimum criteria [6] |
| 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] |
| Scour condition: | Bridge foundations determined to be stable for the assessed or calculated scour condition. [8] |
| Sufficiency rating: | 67.6 |
| Recommended work: | Bridge rehabilitation because of general structure deterioration or inadequate strength. [35] |
| Estimated cost of work: | $68,000 |
Previous Inspections
| Date | Condition | Deck | Superstructure | Substructure | ADT | Suff. Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| March 2017 | Fair | Fair | Fair | Satisfactory | 1444 | 67.6 |
| March 2015 | Fair | Fair | Fair | Satisfactory | 1444 | 67.6 |
| March 2013 | Fair | Satisfactory | Satisfactory | Satisfactory | 1460 | 78.9 |
| March 2011 | Fair | Satisfactory | Satisfactory | Satisfactory | 1460 | 79.9 |
| February 2009 | Fair | Satisfactory | Satisfactory | Satisfactory | 1460 | 79.9 |
| December 2006 | Fair | Satisfactory | Very Good | Satisfactory | 1398 | 79.9 |
| December 2004 | Fair | Satisfactory | Very Good | Satisfactory | 1311 | 81.0 |
| January 2003 | Fair | Satisfactory | Very Good | Satisfactory | 1166 | 81.0 |
| January 2001 | Fair | Satisfactory | Very Good | Satisfactory | 1017 | 81.0 |
| December 1998 | Fair | Satisfactory | Very Good | Satisfactory | 1017 | 81.0 |
| December 1996 | Fair | Satisfactory | Very Good | Satisfactory | 2300 | 78.0 |
| December 1994 | Fair | Satisfactory | Very Good | Satisfactory | 2000 | 78.0 |
| December 1992 | Fair | Satisfactory | Very Good | Satisfactory | 2000 | 78.0 |
| December 1990 | Fair | Satisfactory | Very Good | Fair | 1520 | 67.0 |
© 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/1574319
Disclaimer: All data is taken from the National Bridge Inventory and has not been verified.
This page's URL is http://bridgereports.com/1574319