Overall condition: Fair
Superstructure condition rating: Fair(5 out of 9)
Substructure condition rating: Fair(5 out of 9)
Deck condition rating: Good(7 out of 9)
Sufficiency rating: 62 (out of 100) View more at BridgeReports.com
Categories
Update Log
July 5, 2020: New photos from Patrick Gurwell
May 25, 2019: New photos from Joe Sonderman
May 26, 2016: Updated by Roger Deschner: Added category "US 66"
July 8, 2015: New photos from Michael Shulman
September 4, 2014: New photos from Royce and Bobette Haley
January 31, 2013: New photos from Jann Mayer
August 3, 2012: New photo from David Backlin
April 24, 2010: Updated by Craig Philpott: refined design description
April 22, 2010: New photos from Craig Philpott
April 11, 2010: Updated by Craig Philpott: refined design, added street view, more design assistance needed
Posted April 22, 2010, by Nathan Holth (form3 [at] historicbridges [dot] org)
Over on HistoricBridges.org, I call these modified Warrens because while they appear similar to Baltimore truss bridges, they use Warren config for the primary diagonals as opposed to the Pratt. A Baltimore is by definition a variation of a Pratt.
I don't know what the general consensus is here on BridgeHunter for this type. There was a discussion about weird truss types a while back:
Posted April 22, 2010, by Craig Philpott (cphilpott [at] puc [dot] edu)
This through truss in San Bernardino county is an unusual design, to me, and it needs a better design description. All assistance and education appreciated.
Over on HistoricBridges.org, I call these modified Warrens because while they appear similar to Baltimore truss bridges, they use Warren config for the primary diagonals as opposed to the Pratt. A Baltimore is by definition a variation of a Pratt.
I don't know what the general consensus is here on BridgeHunter for this type. There was a discussion about weird truss types a while back:
http://www.bridgehunter.com/story/1109/