Recent California Comments

Post a comment Contact webmaster

Posted January 15, 2019, by John Doyle (mejaydee [at] verizon [dot] net)

Thanks to everyone for the comments about Nelson Bar Bridge and the photo. I tried to find a photo in my files, but the best I could come up with is a frame from an old 8 mm movie.

UP - Tunnel 0 (California)
Posted January 15, 2019, by Clark Vance (cvance [at] dogmail [dot] com)

Photo 2 shows lining into the first several feet. People sometimes make nistakes....

UP - Tunnel 0 (California)
Posted January 15, 2019, by Daniel

Tunnel "0" is an abandoned, unlined single track railroad tunnel, approximately 800 feet in length and of inverted horseshoe section, with granite ashlar portal faces and wingwalls, and a stone masonry-lined bore.

I'm a little confused about that part. It's unlined, but it's masonry-lined?

Posted January 14, 2019, by Daniel

Am I missing something? This doesn't look like an arch. I'd guess box girder.

Posted January 14, 2019, by Mary Costello (auntrare45 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Stuck again for 3rd day in a row!!!!! Cancel everything !!

Also regret buying in the delta area due to constant bridge problems that are never fixed, constant work on 160. Almost two years of 1 lane for bridge being painted and now it doesn't work most of the time again!! What a humilation for Caltrans!

Posted January 13, 2019, by Luke

They're the same pics with newer URLs. Note how the latter part of the strings are the same in both those and the dead links.

Posted January 13, 2019, by Daniel

the image links no longer work. I found 2 in the RRHS photos of Monte Rio (well, they appear to be the same image, with some work done on one of them). Not sure if they're the same or not.

Posted January 13, 2019, by Daniel

These were present on some but not all of the round tension members (the bridge has some round and some rectangular tension members). While some were at midpoints, one weren't (the one I took a picture of). Then again, on one of them one side of the brace was no longer attached, so it's possible that they were all originally ad midpoints.

I didn't think to look at whether Haupt Creek or Gualala have any round tension members. I have a picture of the repair on Haupt Creek and it's rectangular. The other photos I took aren't good enough for me to determine if any of the tension members are round.

I also noticed 2 locations on this road where there used to be bridges parallel to the road, with foundations still present and the road now downhill of the foundations. I'm curious as to what went on there. The region sees a lot of ground motion, to the point that there were I think 8 sections that are now gravel (some of which are paved, with a centerline, on both sides of the gravel), I wonder if they decided it was cheaper to move it rather than maintain the old bridges.

I'm also a little surprised that none of the 3 have any posted weight limits. I'm not sure if you could get a typical semi to this one, as there are some very significant angle breaks on the road and I'd be afraid of high centering, but Skaggs Springs you absolutely could.

Posted January 13, 2019, by Art S. (asuckewer [at] knite [dot] com)

My guess (based on engineering logic but not experience) is that its some sort of rig to tune the bridge or a way to reduce the resonance for seismic activity protection.

The bridge seems to have lost much of its original detail so some of the original mechanisms to adjust the tuning/loading of the tension members may not function and this could be a patch. If the tension members are pushed apart, it may help in keeping the tension evenly distributed between the two members (the looser rod will bow out more than the tight one) if the adjustment devices no longer work.

Also, by connecting the tension members at their midpoint, the resonance frequency is increased and the amplitude is reduced (the seismic reason).


Art S.

Posted January 13, 2019, by Daniel

Any guesses as to what these are for? They were on a few braces, in different locations.

Posted January 12, 2019, by Luke

Bracing could make it function more like a rigid frame vs a simple stringer.

I'll like the engineering types decide that tho.

Posted January 12, 2019, by Daniel

Any input on type? I'd call it a steel stringer bridge, but I don't know if the braces change that.

There's a gate on the road that restricts access down to the bridge itself, hence no closer photos.

Posted January 11, 2019, by Andy French
Posted January 11, 2019, by Daniel

That's what I thought, just wanted to make sure I'd put it in the right category.

I wouldn't have added the bridge if it was modern, but there are very few concrete highway bridges this old that you can still drive across.

Posted January 11, 2019, by Matt Lohry

By definition, derelict simply means no longer maintained, and abandoned means no longer in service. So yes, I would still consider it to be correct.

Posted January 11, 2019, by Daniel

Is derelict/abandoned the correct option here? Based on photos I believe you can still get across it by car, but the 1928 bridge means it's no longer in use.

Photos etc are available at the link I provided.

Posted January 7, 2019, by Daniel states:

The travels of the North Fork Bridge are documented. It appears to have been initially shipped to Smith River, CA (about 30 miles north of Crescent City), where it served as a lumber mill railroad bridge. In 1909 it was moved to a lumber mill in Northwood, CA (between Monte Rio and Guerneville), and served as a railroad bridge spanning the Russian River. Finally, in 1941, it was moved to its current location on the Gualala River and converted to automobile use as a replacement for earlier bridges that had washed away.

that's a significantly different date for it's current location than I've otherwise seen, and it seems unlikely that one of three (nearly?) identical bridges in the region didn't come from the same place as the others, but I figured I'd post it anyway.

Posted January 5, 2019, by Arnold (kugar13 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Thank you, steamboy05. I apologize for not stating in the original post, but I need a bridge in Shelby County, TN. Thanks again. Much appreciated.

Posted January 5, 2019, by steamboy05 (agshields1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

This bridge was refurbished in 2012? and is now used as a walking trail.

Posted January 5, 2019, by Michael S McCarty (ruggermike [at] charter [dot] net)

Photo from 1937 of the original 1921 built Deer creek bridge, contractors being "Cotton, McCauley & Co.. McCauley Const Co." , winning bid of $69,970.

that replaced the 1904 built 5 span trestle the was angled NW to the new bridge.

Posted January 5, 2019, by Michael S McCarty (ruggermike [at] charter [dot] net)

Another correction of wrong information concerning the builder ( contractor ) of said bridge.

Red Bluff Sentinel 15th July, 1876 ( again "period" paper )

Posted January 5, 2019, by Michael S McCarty (ruggermike [at] charter [dot] net)

And a "period" article from the Red Bluff Sentinel 2nd December, 1876

Posted January 5, 2019, by Michael S McCarty (ruggermike [at] charter [dot] net)

To correct some of the miss information:

The "Centennial" Free bridge was called that for a reason, as it was built during the nations 100th birthday in 1876.

I included an article from the Sacramento Daily Union 3rd January, 1884 concerning the said bridge.

Posted January 2, 2019, by Mike Goff (michael [dot] goff [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Knowing it can opened adds to my belief that the distortions in the verticals may be the result of the span locking mechanism.

We have similar but not visible span deflections on the Umpqua River Bridge in Reedsport, Oregon.

Posted January 2, 2019, by Daniel and unless that law is old, it's required to work

Posted January 2, 2019, by Daniel I don't know if that's about the right place given the description of locations, but it claims to be open and the coordinates match.

I suppose it's possible that there's that much sag when it's opened, hadn't thought of that.

Posted January 2, 2019, by Mike Goff (michael [dot] goff [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Does anyone know if this is an active draw bridge?

The bend in the vertical tension bars could be from a jacking/span lock system at the ends of the swing span.

Some of these old swing spans will deflect when they are opened with the free hanging ends dipping downward. When the span is closed a jack/lock will lift them back into place. This lifting could cause some odd compressive forces in the thin tension bar causing it to bend when the bridge is in the closed position.

Just a theory, from seeing other swing bridges.

Posted January 2, 2019, by Daniel

One of the photos states:

"Postcard of Albion Bridge from the 1930's?"

as the bridge was built in 1944, and the photo appears to show the current bridge (rather than the low pony truss that preceded it), I don't believe the claim of 1930s is accurate. I won't claim to know when it's from, though.

Oddly enough that photo is no longer on wiki, and google image search doesn't find it anywhere other than here. When I look at the wiki article from July 2013 it isn't there either.

Posted December 31, 2018, by Daniel

I'm wondering how the tension members ended up bent

Posted December 29, 2018, by Anonymous
Posted December 29, 2018, by Daniel

if we're talking submerged bridges in Northern California, there's one in Nicasio Reservoir (Marin County) and one in Lexington Reservoir (Santa Clara County). I haven't had the balls to go out to them when visible though - don't want to deal with the mud (not sure how deep it is)

Nicasio Reservoir has a fair amount of old road visible on google maps too - old Point Reyes-Petaluma (south of the current road, starting near the intersection), and old Nicasio Valley Road (west of the current road, at the south end of where it gets close)

Posted December 29, 2018, by Daniel

The strange thing (to me) is that it's listed here in the update log. The other one never listed it as carrying 4.

I'll try again.

Posted December 29, 2018, by Melissa Brand-Welch (melissabrandwelch [at] msn [dot] com)

I would Love to walk across this bridge!

Posted December 29, 2018, by Don Morrison

Cool. It's visible in 10/2009 Google Earth imagery.

It appears that the Hancock Creek bridge is also visible in 10/2009 at about 38.7578, -121.0745

Posted December 28, 2018, by Luke

Looks like you did it to the other entry?

Posted December 28, 2018, by Daniel

I would've sworn I changed the road it carries (to whatever google said) but now it says California Route 4 again. Is that sort of edit something that has to be approved, or did it get reversed, or did I just screw up?

Posted December 28, 2018, by Dana and Kay Klein

Got it. COOL!

Posted December 28, 2018, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Google refers to it as the Zuckerman Bridge

Posted December 28, 2018, by Luke

Dana, that one is in El Dorado county.

Posted December 28, 2018, by Dana and Kay Klein

Thanks for adding info. Believe there to be a 1925 concrete Arch bridge still under water North of there. Was told once it popped out of water a few years back.

Posted December 28, 2018, by Daniel same bridge, not sure how to merge

Posted December 27, 2018, by Luke

Nice find, Dana.

Platform Bridge (California)
Posted December 26, 2018, by Daniel

Any source on pedestrian only? As of November 2016 street view, it appears to be open to traffic with a 5 ton weight limit.

I don't know why anyone would use it given there's an easier way, but it wasn't closed to traffic.

Posted December 26, 2018, by Daniel came across a photo there. I believe this is of the old bridge at the same location but I could be mistaken (it's certainly in the same area). What I find particularly interesting is the 3 vertically separated cables.

Posted December 20, 2018, by Monica Mason (monicsmason530 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Such a cool story. That's good shit.Right on!!!

Posted December 18, 2018, by Daniel
Posted December 8, 2018, by Daniel

sorry for my bike in the way in all these pics, but I realized there were no recent images of it so I dug some up that I'd taken this year and a couple years ago. don't have any without the bike.

Posted December 4, 2018, by Luke

Found proof of something I suspected about the Southern Pacific and their associated lines.

Posted November 25, 2018, by MARTIN McILROY (mmcilroy [at] mgeeng [dot] com)

This bridge was recently replaced as part of a FLAP project through FHWA Central Federal Lands.

Posted November 20, 2018, by Luke

According to

the Pacific Electric upgraded a pile trestle across the Santa Ana near King Street (Which is to the east of this bridge.) in 1920 with steel spans.

By this time, the Pacific Electric was under Southern Pacific control, so the spans (And the other known relocated spans) are most definitely secondhands from the SP.

Problem now is finding where any of them came from.

Posted November 13, 2018, by Daniel

Makes sense. I'd been thinking originally RR and then later converted to road, but you're right about being built too light.

I'm still confused by the topos. Does early 1890s sound reasonable?

Posted November 12, 2018, by Matt Lohry

The deck also has longitudinal runner planks, which is indicative of a road bridge. Also, the portal bracing is not high enough to accommodate rail traffic.

Posted November 12, 2018, by Luke

Too light to be RR

Posted November 12, 2018, by Daniel

I had considered railroad bridge being the most likely scenario, but none of the topo maps show a rail crossing of the river here either.

It could be one, I guess a short spur from the rail line (which appears to always have been SE of the river here) to town or something.

Posted November 12, 2018, by George Oakley (Georgeoakley49 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

How many tunnels are there on the UP rail system in this area and/or in this county?I was baffled just trying to locate them.Seems they're everywhere you look!

Posted November 12, 2018, by Daniel

does "deck burned off" qualify as "lost"?

Posted November 12, 2018, by Daniel

Looking at old topo maps...

1962 doesn't show a road, nor do 1955, 1950

1980 shows a road, including crossing the river

but going much farther back...

1893 shows a road crossing the river at about the right place

1891 shows a significantly different route for the river, which surprises me (it doesn't make it's jog to the south)

It seems unlikely that the river changed it's course that much. Looking at the contour lines there's no other reasonable path.

Am I missing something?

Any thoughts on age? 1893 seems possible, but I'd be surprised at topo missing a bridge like this.

Posted November 11, 2018, by Craig Philpott (craigphilpott63 [at] gmail [dot] com)
Posted November 9, 2018, by Daniel I tried to post this as a link but couldn't get it to work

Posted November 8, 2018, by Daniel
Posted November 3, 2018, by Dick Morris

A correction to my previous comment - the bridge in 1927 was of wooden Howe truss construction. This was apparently a standard design for this area around 1900. A better photo of a similar bridge during the same flood exists of the Center Street, now Alondra, bridge three to four miles down river.

Posted November 3, 2018, by Dick Morris

Two photos show the Center Street (now Alondra) bridge during flooding in 1927. Judging by the water flow, Norwalk is on the left (east side of the river) and Bellflower on the right.

Photos from LA Times photographic archives, UCLA, Library Special Collections, Charles E. Young Research Library.

Posted November 3, 2018, by Dick Morris

A correction to my previous comment - the bridge in 1927 was of wooden Howe truss construction. This was apparently a standard design for this area around 1900. A better photo of a similar bridge during the same flood exists of the Center Street, now Alondra, bridge three to four miles down river.

Posted November 2, 2018, by Elizabeth (abbiespamemail [at] gmail [dot] com)

love the arches

Posted October 26, 2018, by Luke
Posted October 26, 2018, by Dana and Kay Klein

Daniel I added the replacement bridge next to this private bridge, cant seem to find what was here previously if anything. Looks like well made private suspension bridge, probably not historic, Notable is up to individual.

Posted October 26, 2018, by Dick Morris

Although this site considers the Firestone Blvd. bridge to be a replacement for the Washburn Crossing bridge on Downey-Norwalk Road, the later was about 1500 feet downstream from Firestone Blvd. Firestone was the new, more direct road between the two cities. Most traffic probably moved to the new road, but the Washburn Crossing bridge appears to have remained in use until 1938.

I couldn't determine when the first bridge was build at this location, but plans and specifications submitted for the bridge at Washburn’s crossing were adopted by the L.A. County Board of Supervisors in mid-1876. In 1884 it was damaged or destroyed during a flood. It appears that a contract for its repair/replacement wasn't let until 1887. It was damaged or destroyed several other times, usually by floods. In 1904 it failed when being crossed by a carriage.

This 1924 photo shows that it had six A-frame spans with trestles at each end. Each span appears to have been about 24 feet long. The photo appears to be looking south.

The bridge was apparently in use until March 4, 1938. The L.A. Times reporting on a major flood described widespread road and bridge outages in L.A. and Orange Counties and said that one side of the bridge over San Gabriel River on Norwalk Road had dropped six feet. The Firestone Blvd bridge was 1500 feet upstream and the Imperial Hwy. bridge was .6 miles downstream. This probably resulted in it being permanently removed from service.

Posted October 25, 2018, by Daniel another suspension footbridge with "swinging" in it's name in CA - I'd forgotten I added this one

Posted October 25, 2018, by Luke
Posted October 25, 2018, by Anonymous
Posted October 25, 2018, by Daniel

The description states that "it is the only swinging bridge in California". What definition of "swinging bridge" does that use? There are certainly other bridges with slack lateral bracing cables - Mosquito Bridge, for example.

Posted October 15, 2018, by Brianna Tarness (briannatarness82 [at] gmail [dot] com)

The new bridge is open to traffic. The original through truss lift span has been disassembled and floated downstream. The truss approach spans, piers/abutments, and towers remain, although tower demolition is in progress.

Posted October 15, 2018, by Daniel

I stopped by on a ride yesterday. Holy crap the bridge moves a lot when cars/trucks drive over it, I sure wouldn't be willing to drive something that weighed 5 tons (the limit) over it.

People are also dumb and drive over it before the previous vehicle is off. I don't think there are signs saying not to, but still...

Posted October 15, 2018, by Brianna Tarness (briannatarness82 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Well, it would appear that the bridge status was never changed to “closed” since I posted my previous comment on August 20th.

However, I am pleased to announce that the bridge has been reopened to traffic, although the swing span reportedly is not currently operational.

Posted October 13, 2018, by melissa marsh (mo_marsh22 [at] hotmail [dot] com)

The original bridge was blown up in the late 80's or early 90's, and a new one was built next to the original location. The new one is the one in need of replacement, not the one built in 1949, which no longer exists.. Maybe it was meant to say 1994. My parent's lived at the mobile home park right there and we watched it all happen.

Posted October 11, 2018, by MFT (matsutwo [at] gmail [dot] com)

From, the southern hill portion is still in use on their 1968 photo. The next available image is in 1993, where it looks like the northern road is in place. Unfortunately that's a 25 year window, at least that narrows it down a little.

Posted October 9, 2018, by Daniel does it qualify as "lost" if they're replacing girders? I imagine so, and that's why this is already marked as "lost". Should a date of 2018 be added?

Hauser Bridge (California)
Posted October 2, 2018, by Fmiser (fmiser [at] gmail [dot] com)

Daniel, You got it right - use "related" to link the new and old bridge. And as I found out, it is only necessary to do it from one side. That is, from the new bridge page, set a link to the old bridge and there will now be a matching link on the old page.

The first one I linked I had to removed a duplicate 'cause I did it from both sides manually.

I vote this bridge as "noteworthy" - if only because it shows that a modern replacement can have some style.

Hauser Bridge (California)
Posted October 2, 2018, by Daniel

Sonoma County rather than CalTrans, but you're correct in that it isn't your average replacement.


Posted October 1, 2018, by Luke

I found it in the waybackmachine, so the link should work again.

And that's definitely the predecessor bridge built by the Northern Electric Railway, which is shown here covered:

Posted October 1, 2018, by Dana

1906 postcard Feather RIVER. Could this be interurban?

Posted October 1, 2018, by Dana

Luke photo link no longer active.

Posted October 1, 2018, by Dana and Kay Klein

Not qualified to say if bridge is noteworthy or not but did enjoy the photos. # 9 very artistic quality to it. Thanks for sharing

Hauser Bridge (California)
Posted October 1, 2018, by Luke

The new bridge is a modern arch, but doesn't appear to be the usual Corten MOB fare.

I say the new page stays up. Yeah its modern and replaced a truss, but Caltrans could've easily put a concrete eyesore here and didn't.

Posted September 30, 2018, by Tom

The 1885 Firebaugh Drawbridge has standing ruins on the west bank of the San Joanquin River and the spindle in the river itself:

Hauser Bridge (California)
Posted September 30, 2018, by Daniel

What's the proper procedure for uploading info about the replacement bridge? Do I create a new page for it? It has nothing in common with the old bridge (other than location).

Posted September 28, 2018, by Daniel

Looks like a truss rather than a timber stringer bridge

Posted September 27, 2018, by Ee (Lbdougher [at] gmail [dot] com)

Tell when the struts were switched out. It appears to have 3 different presentations/looks Thur the years

Posted September 2, 2018, by Don Morrison

The old aquaduct AKA "the secret sidewalk" is being demolished. No word on the bridge's fate, but it will likely be demolished with the aquaduct.

Posted August 30, 2018, by Luke

Nice find!

Posted August 27, 2018, by Daniel

Regarding the ADT of 549, I know that's from NBI but that's WAY more than I'd expect. I saw a total of 1 other vehicle on the dirt section that extends ~3.5mi East of the bridge. It's VERY narrow in places due to slides. I doubt it sees much traffic, given the condition.

West of the bridge I saw a few vehicles, but I doubt many (if any) were going past the bridge - they were most likely going to the bridge to hang out on the river, and the parking is mostly on the West side.

If they did their traffic survey at one of the ends of Yankee Jims Road I could see the ADT claim being reasonable (still higher than I'd expect though), but across the bridge? Not really.

Posted August 26, 2018, by Tony Arioli (Califtony707 [at] aol [dot] com)

I believe the photo entitled "Bridge circa 1967" was actually taken in the spring of 1968 - this image was used as a cover illustration for the San Mateo phone directory that year.

Posted August 26, 2018, by Daniel

I rode over it today (motorcycle), took a few pictures but nothing has changed. While there were signs indicating it was a fee area, if you just want to check out the bridge I can't imagine it being a problem.

There were several cars parked there, and people hanging out down by the river, I suspect if you want to do that it's a good idea to pay.

Posted August 20, 2018, by Joseph (mlgquickscopez295 [at] gmail [dot] com)

I just wanted to say that you guys need to add a build date to this bridge. If you look closely on photo number 1 you can see on the top of the bridge it says 1901. Perhaps this is the year it was built. Just a suggestion. Thanks!

Posted August 20, 2018, by Brianna Tarness (briannatarness82 [at] gmail [dot] com)

This bridge has been closed indefinitely to all traffic including pedestrians, with the swing span locked in the open position. A recent maintenance report found that several superstructure elements had become unstable, and therefore recommended the immediate closure of the bridge. CalTrans reportedly wants to reopen the bridge, although it is unclear when or if that will happen.

Posted August 16, 2018, by Daniel
Posted August 12, 2018, by Bill (Bmwsson [at] yahoo [dot] com)

An absolute beautiful bridge if it’s not historic does not make any difference because it certainly needs to be preserved very special place they created with this bridge my opinion

Posted August 11, 2018, by Dan (schleusenmeister [at] gmail [dot] com)

The Puerto Suello Tunnel is in use as of August 2018. SMART commuter trains have been using it since August 2017 to reach their (for now) southernmost station at San Rafael. I don't know if NWP freight trains use the tunnel.

Posted August 3, 2018, by Luke

Additionally, the NBI gives "Winding Road" as the generic name for several roads in the Sierra National Forest.

Posted August 3, 2018, by Dana and Kay Klein

I imported NBI from pin location. May not be correct.