+32.24063, -90.23621
32°14'26" N, 90°14'10" W
Source: National Bridge Inventory
Information not verified. Use at your own risk.


Structure number:SA2500000000157
Location:SEC 30 T 5N R 1E
Purpose:Carries highway over relief for waterway
Route classification:Collector (Urban) [17]
Length of largest span:19.0 ft. [5.8 m]
Total length:38.1 ft. [11.6 m]
Roadway width between curbs:23.3 ft. [7.1 m]
Deck width edge-to-edge:24.6 ft. [7.5 m]
Owner:City or Municipal Highway Agency [04]
Year built:1996
Historic significance:Bridge is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places [5]
Design load:M 9 / H 10 [1]
Number of main spans:2
Main spans material:Wood or timber [7]
Main spans design:Stringer/Multi-beam or girder [02]
Deck type:Wood or Timber [8]
Wearing surface:Bituminous [6]

Latest Available Inspection: February 2016 

Status:Posted for load [P]
Average daily traffic:4,900 [as of 2014]
Truck traffic:8% of total traffic
Deck condition:Good [7 out of 9]
Superstructure condition:Good [7 out of 9]
Substructure condition:Satisfactory [6 out of 9]
Structural appraisal:Basically intolerable requiring high priority of replacement [2]
Deck geometry appraisal:Basically intolerable requiring high priority of replacement [2]
Water adequacy appraisal:Better than present minimum criteria [7]
Roadway alignment appraisal:Equal to present desirable criteria [8]
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 assessed or calculated scour condition. [5]
Operating rating:15.7 tons [14.3 metric tons]
Inventory rating:10.2 tons [9.3 metric tons]
Evaluation:Structurally deficient [1]
Sufficiency rating:36.3
Recommended work:Replacement of bridge or other structure because of substandard load carrying capacity or substantial bridge roadway geometry. [31]
Estimated cost of work:$156,000

Previous Inspections 

DateSuff. ratingEvaluationDeckSuper.Sub.ADT
February 201636.3Structurally deficientGoodGoodSatisfactory4900
February 201536.3Structurally deficientGoodGoodSatisfactory4900
February 201436.3Structurally deficientGoodGoodSatisfactory4900
February 201335.5Structurally deficientGoodGoodSatisfactory4900
February 201235.5Structurally deficientGoodGoodSatisfactory4900
February 201135.5Structurally deficientGoodGoodSatisfactory4900
February 201035.5Structurally deficientGoodGoodGood4900
January 200935.5Structurally deficientGoodGoodGood4900
November 200735.5Structurally deficientGoodGoodGood4900
January 200735.5Structurally deficientGoodGoodGood4900
December 200535.5Structurally deficientGoodGoodGood4900
January 200535.5Not deficientGoodGoodGood4900
February 200435.5Not deficientGoodGoodGood4900
January 200235.5Not deficientVery GoodVery GoodVery Good4900
December 200035.5Not deficientVery GoodVery GoodVery Good4900
February 200035.5Not deficientVery GoodVery GoodVery Good4900
February 199935.5Not deficientVery GoodVery GoodVery Good4900
March 199834.3Not deficientVery GoodVery GoodVery Good4900
April 19964.0Structurally deficientFairFairSerious4900