Share:

HIGHLAND BLVD WB over RTE 908B, RTE 908B

Map 

Coordinates:
+40.68041, -73.89675
40°40'49" N, 73°53'48" W
Source: National Bridge Inventory
Information not verified. Use at your own risk.

Facts 

Name:HIGHLAND BLVD WB over RTE 908B, RTE 908B
Structure number:000000002230010
Location:4.5 MI SW 25+INTERBRO PKY
Purpose:Carries highway and pedestrian walkway over highway
Route classification:Minor Arterial (Urban) [16]
Length of largest span:66.9 ft. [20.4 m]
Total length:75.8 ft. [23.1 m]
Roadway width between curbs:31.5 ft. [9.6 m]
Deck width edge-to-edge:45.9 ft. [14.0 m]
Vertical clearance below bridge:11.8 ft. [3.6 m]
Skew angle:43°
Owner:City or Municipal Highway Agency [04]
Year built:1937
Historic significance:Bridge is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places [5]
Design load:M 18 / H 20 [4]
Main span material:Concrete [1]
Main span design:Frame [07]
Deck type:Not applicable [N]
Wearing surface:Monolithic Concrete (concurrently placed with structural deck) [1]

Latest Available Inspection: February 2014 

Status:Open, no restriction [A]
Average daily traffic:10,162 [as of 2010]
Truck traffic:5% of total traffic
Deck condition:Satisfactory [6 out of 9]
Superstructure condition:Satisfactory [6 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:Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left in place as is [5]
Scour condition:Bridge not over waterway. [N]
Operating rating:63.9 tons [58.1 metric tons]
Inventory rating:22.9 tons [20.8 metric tons]
Evaluation:Functionally obsolete [2]
Sufficiency rating:74.1
Recommended work:Widening of existing bridge with deck rehabilitation or replacement. [34]
Estimated cost of work:$6,891,000

Previous Inspections 

DateSuff. ratingEvaluationDeckSuper.Sub.ADT
February 201474.1Functionally obsoleteSatisfactorySatisfactorySatisfactory10162
March 201274.1Functionally obsoleteSatisfactorySatisfactorySatisfactory10200
March 201064.1Functionally obsoleteGoodFairSatisfactory5259
May 200877.8Functionally obsoleteGoodSatisfactorySatisfactory5259
April 200677.8Functionally obsoleteGoodSatisfactorySatisfactory5259
April 200477.8Functionally obsoleteGoodSatisfactorySatisfactory5259
April 200276.0Functionally obsoleteGoodSatisfactorySatisfactory5374
February 200076.0Functionally obsoleteSatisfactorySatisfactorySatisfactory5374
February 199876.0Functionally obsolete-SatisfactorySatisfactory5374
March 199665.9Functionally obsolete-FairFair7919
March 199466.4Functionally obsolete-FairFair13200
April 199254.9Functionally obsolete-FairFair13200
September 199042.8Structurally deficient-PoorFair13200