Share:

RTE I278 over RTE 907C, 59TH STREET

Map 

Coordinates:
+40.64255, -74.01972
40°38'33" N, 74°01'11" W
Source: National Bridge Inventory
Information not verified. Use at your own risk.

Facts 

Name:RTE I278 over RTE 907C, 59TH STREET
Structure number:00000000106531E
Location:JCT PROSPECT EXPY & I278
Purpose:Carries highway over highway
Route classification:Principal Arterial - Interstate (Urban) [11]
Length of largest span:79.7 ft. [24.3 m]
Total length:1811.8 ft. [552.2 m]
Roadway width between curbs:40.4 ft. [12.3 m]
Deck width edge-to-edge:45.6 ft. [13.9 m]
Vertical clearance below bridge:16.4 ft. [5.0 m]
Skew angle:40°
Owner:State Highway Agency [01]
Year built:1963
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:32
Main spans material:Steel [3]
Main spans design:Stringer/Multi-beam or girder [02]
Deck type:Concrete Cast-in-Place [1]
Wearing surface:Integral Concrete (separate non-modified layer of concrete added to structural deck) [2]

Latest Available Inspection: July 2015 

Status:Open, no restriction [A]
Average daily traffic:140,259 [as of 2011]
Truck traffic:11% of total traffic
Deck condition:Very Good [8 out of 9]
Superstructure condition:Fair [5 out of 9]
Substructure condition:Satisfactory [6 out of 9]
Structural appraisal:Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left in place as is [5]
Deck geometry appraisal:Meets minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as is [4]
Underclearances appraisal:Basically intolerable requiring high priority of corrrective action [3]
Roadway alignment appraisal:Equal to present minimum criteria [6]
Scour condition:Bridge not over waterway. [N]
Operating rating:61.8 tons [56.2 metric tons]
Inventory rating:37.0 tons [33.6 metric tons]
Evaluation:Functionally obsolete [2]
Sufficiency rating:64.0
Recommended work:Widening of existing bridge with deck rehabilitation or replacement. [34]
Estimated cost of work:$36,593,000

Previous Inspections 

DateSuff. ratingEvaluationDeckSuper.Sub.ADT
July 201564.0Functionally obsoleteVery GoodFairSatisfactory140259
July 201462.2Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryFairSatisfactory113332
August 201364.0Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryFairSatisfactory113332
September 201264.0Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryFairSatisfactory113332
October 201163.0Functionally obsoleteFairFairSatisfactory113332
October 201063.0Functionally obsoleteFairFairSatisfactory113332
September 200863.0Functionally obsoleteFairFairSatisfactory113332
September 200763.9Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryFairSatisfactory113332
October 200663.9Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryFairSatisfactory113332
October 200563.9Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryFairSatisfactory113332
September 200463.9Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryFairSatisfactory113332
July 200273.8Functionally obsoleteFairSatisfactorySatisfactory149323
October 200073.8Functionally obsoleteFairGoodSatisfactory149323
October 199871.8Structurally deficientPoorSatisfactorySatisfactory119671
September 199746.8Structurally deficientPoorPoorFair129187
September 199629.7Structurally deficientSeriousSeriousPoor129187
May 199529.7Structurally deficientSeriousSeriousPoor129187
September 199447.0Structurally deficientPoorPoorPoor121124
June 199330.0Structurally deficientSeriousSeriousPoor105446
June 199230.0Structurally deficientSeriousSeriousPoor113505
November 199075.0Functionally obsolete---154510