Share:

CTH WW over SEYMOUR CREEK

Map 

Coordinates:
+43.71293, -90.33463
43°42'47" N, 90°20'05" W
Source: National Bridge Inventory
Information not verified. Use at your own risk.

Facts 

Name:CTH WW over SEYMOUR CREEK
Structure number:B62099500000000
Location:0.1M S JCT CTH W
Purpose:Carries highway over waterway
Route classification:Major Collector (Rural) [07]
Length of largest span:36.1 ft. [11.0 m]
Total length:36.1 ft. [11.0 m]
Roadway width between curbs:19.0 ft. [5.8 m]
Deck width edge-to-edge:20.0 ft. [6.1 m]
Owner:County Highway Agency [02]
Year built:1930
Historic significance:Bridge is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places [5]
Design load:M 18 / H 20 [4]
Main span material:Steel [3]
Main span design:Stringer/Multi-beam or girder [02]
Deck type:Concrete Cast-in-Place [1]
Wearing surface:Bituminous [6]

Latest Available Inspection: August 2015 

Status:Posted for load [P]
Average daily traffic:227 [as of 2015]
Deck condition:Poor [4 out of 9]
Superstructure condition:Poor [4 out of 9]
Substructure condition:Fair [5 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: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:Countermeasures have been installed to mitigate an existing problem with scour. [7]
Operating rating:23.3 tons [21.2 metric tons]
Inventory rating:14.3 tons [13.0 metric tons]
Evaluation:Structurally deficient [1]
Sufficiency rating:20.1
Recommended work:Replacement of bridge or other structure because of substandard load carrying capacity or substantial bridge roadway geometry. [31]
Estimated cost of work:$221,000

Previous Inspections 

DateSuff. ratingEvaluationDeckSuper.Sub.ADT
August 201520.1Structurally deficientPoorPoorFair227
October 201420.3Structurally deficientPoorPoorFair210
October 201258.1Structurally deficientPoorFairFair210
October 201058.1Structurally deficientPoorFairFair210
October 200858.1Structurally deficientPoorFairFair210
October 200658.1Structurally deficientPoorFairFair210
October 200458.1Structurally deficientPoorFairFair210
October 200258.1Structurally deficientPoorFairFair210
October 200072.2Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryGoodSatisfactory210
June 199872.2Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryGoodSatisfactory210
July 199672.3Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryGoodSatisfactory180
May 199472.5Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryVery GoodSatisfactory180
October 199272.5Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryVery GoodSatisfactory190
November 199072.5Functionally obsoleteGoodVery GoodSatisfactory190