TWP 785 over JUD DITCH # 7
Map
Coordinates:
+44.90574, -95.2309544°54'21" N, 95°13'51" W
Source: National Bridge Inventory (1992, 2000, 2010 editions)
Information not verified. Use at your own risk.
Facts
| Name: | TWP 785 over JUD DITCH # 7 |
| Structure number: | 34501 |
| Location: | 0.2 MI W OF JCT CSAH 7 |
| Purpose: | Carries highway over waterway |
| Route classification: | Minor Collector (Rural) [08] |
| Length of largest span: | 23.0 ft. [7.0 m] |
| Total length: | 47.9 ft. [14.6 m] |
| Roadway width between curbs: | 26.6 ft. [8.1 m] |
| Deck width edge-to-edge: | 27.9 ft. [8.5 m] |
| Owner: | County Highway Agency [02] |
| Year built: | 1963 |
| Historic significance: | Bridge is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places [5] |
| Number of main spans: | 2 |
| Main spans material: | Wood or timber [7] |
| Main spans design: | Slab [01] |
| Deck type: | Wood or Timber [8] |
| Wearing surface: | Gravel [8] |
2010 Inspection
| Status: | Open, no restriction [A] |
| Average daily traffic: | 60 [as of 2002] |
| Deck condition: | Very Good [8 out of 9] |
| Superstructure condition: | Satisfactory [6 out of 9] |
| Substructure condition: | Satisfactory [6 out of 9] |
| Channel protection: | Banks are protected or well vegetated. River control devices such as spur dikes and embankment protection are not required or are in a stable condition. [8] |
| Scour condition: | Bridge foundations determined to be stable for the assessed or calculated scour condition. [8] |
| Operating rating: | 59.3 tons [53.9 metric tons] |
| Inventory rating: | 42.0 tons [38.2 metric tons] |
| Sufficiency rating: | 97.0 |
| Recommended work: | Replacement of bridge or other structure because of substandard load carrying capacity or substantial bridge roadway geometry. [31] |
| Estimated cost of work: | $154,000 |
2000 Inspection
| Status: | Open, no restriction [A] |
| Average daily traffic: | 80 [as of 1998] |
| Deck condition: | Very Good [8 out of 9] |
| Superstructure condition: | Satisfactory [6 out of 9] |
| Substructure condition: | Very Good [8 out of 9] |
| Channel protection: | Banks are protected or well vegetated. River control devices such as spur dikes and embankment protection are not required or are in a stable condition. [8] |
| Scour condition: | Bridge foundations determined to be stable for the assessed or calculated scour condition. [8] |
| Operating rating: | 58.9 tons [53.5 metric tons] |
| Inventory rating: | 41.7 tons [37.9 metric tons] |
| Sufficiency rating: | 98.0 |
| Recommended work: | Replacement of bridge or other structure because of substandard load carrying capacity or substantial bridge roadway geometry. [31] |
1992 Inspection
| Status: | Open, no restriction [A] |
| Average daily traffic: | 110 [as of 1990] |
| Truck traffic: | 1% of total traffic |
| Deck condition: | Very Good [8 out of 9] |
| Superstructure condition: | Good [7 out of 9] |
| Substructure condition: | Poor [4 out of 9] |
| 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: | Scour calculation/evaluation has not been made. [6] |
| Operating rating: | 40.8 tons [37.1 metric tons] |
| Inventory rating: | 28.5 tons [25.9 metric tons] |
| Evaluation: | Structurally deficient [1] |
| Sufficiency rating: | 69.0 |
| Recommended work: | Replacement of bridge or other structure because of substandard load carrying capacity or substantial bridge roadway geometry. [31] |
| Estimated cost of work: | $113,000 |