Share:

FLUSHING MEADW PK over MEADOW LAKE

Map 

Coordinates:
+40.72873, -73.83421
40°43'43" N, 73°50'03" W
Source: National Bridge Inventory
Information not verified. Use at your own risk.

Facts 

Name:FLUSHING MEADW PK over MEADOW LAKE
Structure number:000000002248260
Location:IN FLUSHING MEADOWS PARK
Purpose:Carries highway and pedestrian walkway over waterway
Route classification:Local (Urban) [19]
Length of largest span:25.9 ft. [7.9 m]
Total length:129.9 ft. [39.6 m]
Roadway width between curbs:24.0 ft. [7.3 m]
Deck width edge-to-edge:32.2 ft. [9.8 m]
Owner:City or Municipal Highway Agency [04]
Year built:1963
Historic significance:Bridge is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places [5]
Design load:M 18 / H 20 [4]
Number of main spans:5
Main spans material:Prestressed concrete [5]
Main spans design:Box beam or girders - Multiple [05]
Deck type:Not applicable [N]
Wearing surface:Bituminous [6]

Latest Available Inspection: May 2015 

Status:Open, no restriction [A]
Truck traffic:5% of total traffic
Deck condition:Good [7 out of 9]
Superstructure condition:Good [7 out of 9]
Substructure condition:Fair [5 out of 9]
Structural appraisal:Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left in place as is [5]
Deck geometry appraisal:Equal to present minimum criteria [6]
Water adequacy appraisal:Equal to present minimum criteria [6]
Roadway alignment appraisal:Better than present minimum criteria [7]
Channel protection:There are no noticeable or noteworthy deficiencies which affect the condition of the channel. [9]
Scour condition:Bridge foundations determined to be stable for assessed or calculated scour condition. [5]
Operating rating:109.8 tons [99.8 metric tons]
Inventory rating:64.9 tons [59.0 metric tons]
Sufficiency rating:87.0
Recommended work:Widening of existing bridge with deck rehabilitation or replacement. [34]
Estimated cost of work:$5,536,000

Previous Inspections 

DateSuff. ratingEvaluationDeckSuper.Sub.ADT
May 201587.0Not deficientGoodGoodFair-
April 201469.9Not deficientGoodGoodFair1000
July 201369.9Not deficientGoodGoodFair1000
May 201269.9Not deficientGoodSatisfactoryFair1000
August 201169.1Not deficientGoodSatisfactoryFair1000
May 201069.9Not deficientGoodSatisfactoryFair1000
August 200969.9Not deficientGoodSatisfactoryFair1000
May 200869.9Not deficientGoodSatisfactoryFair1000
May 200668.9Not deficientGoodSatisfactoryFair1000
April 200467.9Not deficientGoodSatisfactoryFair1000
April 200267.9Not deficientGoodSatisfactoryFair1000
March 200067.9Not deficientGoodSatisfactoryFair1000
April 199867.9Not deficient-SatisfactoryFair1000
March 199670.0Structurally deficient-FairPoor60
February 199466.8Structurally deficient-PoorPoor60
April 199266.8Structurally deficient-PoorPoor60
May 199066.8Structurally deficient-PoorPoor60