Share:

LOEST ROAD over LONGBRANCH CREEK

Map 

Coordinates:
+30.19361, -82.01556
30°11'37" N, 82°00'56" W
Source: National Bridge Inventory
Information not verified. Use at your own risk.

Facts 

Name:LOEST ROAD over LONGBRANCH CREEK
Structure number:724095
Location:0.1MI S OF MAX MIDDLEBURG
Purpose:Carries highway over waterway
Route classification:Local (Urban) [19]
Length of largest span:15.7 ft. [4.8 m]
Total length:61.0 ft. [18.6 m]
Roadway width between curbs:20.7 ft. [6.3 m]
Deck width edge-to-edge:22.0 ft. [6.7 m]
Owner:City or Municipal Highway Agency [04]
Year built:1982
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:4
Main spans material:Wood or timber [7]
Main spans design:Stringer/Multi-beam or girder [02]
Deck type:Wood or Timber [8]

Latest Available Inspection: February 2015 

Status:Posted for load [P]
Average daily traffic:261 [as of 2015]
Truck traffic:5% of total traffic
Deck condition:Satisfactory [6 out of 9]
Superstructure condition:Serious [3 out of 9]
Substructure condition:Fair [5 out of 9]
Structural appraisal:Basically intolerable requiring high priority of corrrective action [3]
Deck geometry appraisal:Meets minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as is [4]
Water adequacy appraisal:Equal to present minimum criteria [6]
Roadway alignment appraisal:Superior to present desirable criteria [9]
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 is scour critical; bridge foundations determined to be unstable. [3]
Operating rating:25.1 tons [22.8 metric tons]
Inventory rating:15.1 tons [13.7 metric tons]
Evaluation:Structurally deficient [1]
Sufficiency rating:9.0
Recommended work:Replacement of bridge or other structure because of substandard load carrying capacity or substantial bridge roadway geometry. [31]
Estimated cost of work:$663,000

Previous Inspections 

DateSuff. ratingEvaluationDeckSuper.Sub.ADT
February 20159.0Structurally deficientSatisfactorySeriousFair261
February 20139.0Structurally deficientSatisfactorySeriousFair261
February 20119.0Structurally deficientGoodSeriousFair261
February 20099.0Structurally deficientGoodSeriousFair261
February 20088.0Structurally deficientFairSeriousFair261
February 20078.0Structurally deficientFairSeriousFair261
March 200536.5Not deficientFairFairFair261
March 200332.1Not deficientFairFairFair261
March 200149.5Not deficientSatisfactorySatisfactorySatisfactory261
March 199932.4Functionally obsoleteSatisfactorySatisfactorySatisfactory261
March 199760.8Not deficientGoodSatisfactorySatisfactory261
December 199526.8Structurally deficientSeriousSatisfactorySatisfactory261
December 199367.0Not deficientGoodGoodGood261
December 199167.0Not deficientGoodGoodGood261