+38.30380, -79.61900
38°18'14" N, 79°37'08" W
Source: National Bridge Inventory
Information not verified. Use at your own risk.


Structure number:000000000010266
Location:7.57 RT 694 - .03 RT 606
Purpose:Carries highway over waterway
Route classification:Local (Rural) [09]
Length of largest span:30.8 ft. [9.4 m]
Total length:30.8 ft. [9.4 m]
Roadway width between curbs:19.4 ft. [5.9 m]
Deck width edge-to-edge:21.0 ft. [6.4 m]
Skew angle:10°
Owner:State Highway Agency [01]
Year built:1926
Historic significance:Bridge is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places [5]
Main span material:Steel [3]
Main span 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:120 [as of 2014]
Deck condition:Fair [5 out of 9]
Superstructure condition:Poor [4 out of 9]
Substructure condition:Satisfactory [6 out of 9]
Structural appraisal:Meets minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as is [4]
Deck geometry appraisal:Basically intolerable requiring high priority of corrrective action [3]
Water adequacy appraisal:Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left in place as is [5]
Roadway alignment appraisal:Equal to present minimum criteria [6]
Channel protection:Bank is beginning to slump. River control devices and embankment protection have widespread minor damage. There is minor stream bed movement evident. Debris is restricting the channel slightly. [6]
Scour condition:Bridge foundations determined to be stable for the assessed or calculated scour condition. [8]
Operating rating:27.9 tons [25.4 metric tons]
Inventory rating:16.9 tons [15.4 metric tons]
Evaluation:Structurally deficient [1]
Sufficiency rating:27.9
Recommended work:Replacement of bridge or other structure because of substandard load carrying capacity or substantial bridge roadway geometry. [31]
Estimated cost of work:$90,000

Previous Inspections 

DateSuff. ratingEvaluationDeckSuper.Sub.ADT
February 201627.9Structurally deficientFairPoorSatisfactory120
February 201545.8Structurally deficientFairPoorSatisfactory92
February 201459.4Structurally deficientFairPoorSatisfactory92
February 201359.4Structurally deficientFairPoorSatisfactory92
May 201159.4Structurally deficientFairPoorSatisfactory92
May 201059.4Structurally deficientFairPoorSatisfactory92
February 200975.5Not deficientFairFairSatisfactory92
March 200875.5Not deficientFairFairSatisfactory92
January 200787.5Not deficientSatisfactorySatisfactorySatisfactory92
January 200687.5Not deficientSatisfactorySatisfactorySatisfactory92
January 200587.5Not deficientGoodSatisfactorySatisfactory92
February 200470.4Functionally obsoleteGoodSatisfactorySatisfactory112
April 200270.4Functionally obsoleteGoodSatisfactorySatisfactory112
April 200170.7Functionally obsoleteGoodSatisfactorySatisfactory112
February 200069.7Functionally obsoleteSatisfactorySatisfactorySatisfactory112
February 199986.7Not deficientSatisfactorySatisfactorySatisfactory75
March 199886.7Not deficientSatisfactoryVery GoodSatisfactory75
January 199785.7Not deficientGoodVery GoodSatisfactory75
January 199685.7Not deficientGoodVery GoodSatisfactory75
January 199585.7Not deficientGoodVery GoodSatisfactory75
January 199485.7Not deficientGoodVery GoodSatisfactory86
January 199285.7Not deficientGoodVery GoodSatisfactory86
November 199085.7Not deficientGoodVery GoodSatisfactory70