No votes cast

Pepperell Covered Bridge 21-09-01 #3


Pepperell Covered Bridge 21-09-01 #3

Photo taken by Jack Schmidt in July 2014


BH Photo #312955


Street View 


Concrete stringer bridge with faux wooden truss covering over Nashua River on Groton Road
Pepperell, Middlesex County, Massachusetts
Open to traffic
Built 2010
- S&R Corporation of Lowell, Massachusetts
Concrete stringer bridge with a decorative and non-load bearing Pratt through truss covering to give the appearance of a covered bridge. There originally was a genuine covered bridge at this location, but this structure is not an actual covered bridge and the concrete stringer is the load-bearing element
Length of largest span: 94.2 ft.
Total length: 190.3 ft.
Deck width: 24.0 ft.
Approximate latitude, longitude
+42.66977, -71.57514   (decimal degrees)
42°40'11" N, 71°34'31" W   (degrees°minutes'seconds")
Approximate UTM coordinates
19/288978/4727359 (zone/easting/northing)
Quadrangle map:
Average daily traffic (as of 2013)
Inventory numbers
WGCB 21-09-01 #3 (World Guide to Covered Bridges number)
MA P06004 (Massachusetts bridge number)
BH 59811 (Bridgehunter.com ID)
Inspection report (as of July 2017)
Overall condition: Fair
Superstructure condition rating: Good (7 out of 9)
Substructure condition rating: Good (7 out of 9)
Deck condition rating: Satisfactory (6 out of 9)
Sufficiency rating: 75.4 (out of 100)
View more at BridgeReports.com

Update Log 

  • January 9, 2015: New photos from Jack Schmidt
  • December 27, 2014: New Street View added by Ian Martin
  • February 19, 2014: Added by Jack Schmidt

Related Bridges 


  • Jack Schmidt - jjturtle [at] earthlink [dot] net
  • Ian Martin


Pepperell Covered Bridge 21-09-01 #3
Posted August 20, 2020, by Nick Boppel (nickboppel01 [at] gmail [dot] com)

This bridge was a disappointment. This is not a real covered bridge. This is a concrete stringer bridge with a faux wooden covering on top of it. The wooden trusses on the sides/walls of the covering are supporting the trusses that are above the deck, and the trusses above the deck are in turn supporting the roof of the structure. However, the entire wooden covering is only supporting its own weight. The load-bearing elements of the bridge are handled by the underlying concrete stringer structure.

I was confused when first approaching this bridge, as I didn't see any weight limit signs or warning signs about a "one-lane bridge". When I crossed the bridge, I noticed that it was a two-lane bridge, which is highly unusual among genuine covered bridges. I also noticed that the truss work looked modern and reminded me of the new decorative covered bridge that was installed at Quechee Dam in Vermont after Hurricane Irene. When I walked out on the bridge to investigate further, I then discovered that the cover is not part of the load-bearing structure.

Considering the fact that covered bridges are over-popularized as a whole, I am extremely surprised and frankly shocked that a covered bridge would be demolished and replaced with a faux structure. Unless the previous bridge was destroyed by flooding, which I do not believe to be the case, I can't think of any reason why a covered bridge should be demolished.