Recent Minnesota Comments

Post a comment Contact webmaster

Posted June 4, 2018, by Joe Fishbein (jmfmando [at] gmail [dot] com)

This bridge was replaced in 2017 by a single-span PS concrete bridge.

Posted May 4, 2018, by John Marvig (marvigj27 [at] gmail [dot] com)

According to the Milwaukee Road Archives, this bridge was built in 1913 reusing a railroad span from bridge Z-1154 along the Iowa division.

Posted May 1, 2018, by John Marvig (marvigj27 [at] gmail [dot] com)

The more miles I log, the more oddities like this I seem to find. The railroad had their standardized designs, and probably just called it whatever the chief engineer felt like calling it. I will relist this bridge as a stringer, as that seems to be the agreed upon how it functions.

Posted May 1, 2018, by Matt Lohry

Looking at Photo 8, it's not clear whether there are perpendicular diaphragms between the two middle stringers...if there are not, this could almost be classified as two narrow side-by-side deck plate girder bridges. Either way, when they're spaced evenly like this, they basically act like stringers.

Posted May 1, 2018, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

It is a stringer (aka multi-beam bridge) composed of built-up beams. The steel you see perpendicular in between beams are diaphragms. Its possible the railroad loosely classified these as plate girders, but using modern terminology it is a multi-beam bridge.

Posted April 29, 2018, by John Marvig (marvigj27 [at] gmail [dot] com)

I was wondering about it. A track chart and a bridge report called this a deck girder, so I assumed that was the proper design.

Posted April 29, 2018, by Clark Vance (cvance [at] dogmail [dot] com)

Looking at photo 8 I'd classify it as a steel stringer. The I-beams appear to be assembled like a plate girder but to me girder suggests two parallel main components with load being transferred to them by beams running perpendicular to the girders.

I'm not used to seeing shallow built-up I-beams like these.

Posted April 29, 2018, by Justy (Justy [at] bikerider [dot] com)

There is a Ghost town not far from Lester Prairie. The town was once called St. George Village MN (Henkeltown).. Garden Ave once lead to St. George and all that remains today is the bridge. Located at 44į50'44.3"N 94į09'05.5"W.. The town disappeared in 1930's. There is no road that leads to the bridge anymore, but once connected Garden Ave as one road. South west to the St. George bridge is the old Koniska Bridge, Koniska is another lost city.

Posted March 26, 2018, by Dylan VanAntwerp (dylan_vanantwerp [at] live [dot] com)

Took a best guess on design

CSAH 14 Bridge (Minnesota)
Posted March 24, 2018, by Jake Lennington (simpspin [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Back in the 90's, the original bridge was in use on the east side of the newer bridge, I think, as part of a cross country ski trail. I'm not sure when the original bridge was removed, though.

Posted March 21, 2018, by John Marvig (marvigj27 [at] gmail [dot] com)

One of only a few railroad trusses remaining in this area. Beautiful as is, but even better with it's original twin span:

https://www.cardcow.com/images/set411/card00420_fr.jpg

Posted March 18, 2018, by Cale Schwarzrock (cale_schwarzrock [at] hotmail [dot] com)

My wife and I frequently walk our dog along the Dakota Rail and we noticed this bridge. It stands out as there is no embankment around it, looks so odd standing all alone like that. If anyone has any history on it I would love to hear it.

Posted March 11, 2018, by Jake Lennington (simpspin [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Here are some pics.

Posted February 22, 2018, by Luke

NR eligibility of a boring modern bridge aside, did John Weeks give Amanda permission to reuse his photos? Because last I checked, he wasn't keen on people reusing them.

Posted February 22, 2018, by justsaying

...........whole heartedly agree its a UCEB of the first order, how ever it is also in a populated area, more likely to have "committees" of well meaning people seeking funding and whatever preservation designations. Not implying its historic. NR listing CAN be political..........

Posted February 22, 2018, by John Marvig (marvigj27 [at] gmail [dot] com)

I've always viewed this site as a collection of historic bridges. I, along with many other contributors would likely take issue if this structure was listed to the National Register. While the surrounding area may be historic, there are actual historic truss bridges in Minnesota, among other states that date to the 1890s, 1880s and even older that have not been listed. Not to be overly critical, but this bridge is not historic and you would be hard pressed to find someone on this site who sees this as truly NR eligible.

Posted February 22, 2018, by just saying

......Because we are a bridge focused group we tend to focus on bents and pilings and spans. Chase park and the river crossing are historic areas. Not the structure per say but the area. Has to do with funding and building restrictions, not a criticism just an idea.......

Posted February 22, 2018, by Clark Vance (cvance [at] dogmail [dot] com)

Not eligible per NBI, so probably an error.

Posted February 22, 2018, by John Marvig (marvigj27 [at] gmail [dot] com)

I notice this bridge is listed as eligible for the National Regiater of Historic Places. Iím curious why this would be listed as such? It clearly shouldnít be eligible, and if it is, Minnesota needs to rethink the definition of historic.

Posted February 22, 2018, by Amanda

The bridge is now open for pedestrian use.

However, it is clear that more work needs to be done to the bridge to restore it to the quality that is advertised on a bulletin board near the bridge... so thatís probably where the 2019 date comes from.

The bridge is currently preserved for pedestrian use as of February 2018.

Posted February 7, 2018, by John Marvig (marvigj27 [at] gmail [dot] com)

The railroad bridge at this location was a massive deck Truss structure approximately half a mile long. Possibly was one of the largest railroad bridges in Minnesota. Iím pretty familiar with this structure as my hometown is about half an hour away.

Kern Bridge (Minnesota)
Posted February 3, 2018, by Julie Bowers (jbowerz1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

It's a sad sad story. Even when you think you have a lead and some hope, then that hope dies too.

FOLKS, THIS ONE IS JUST WAITING TO COLLAPSE.

The longest bowstring in the US.

Issue: Dollars, always the dollars, probably $250,000 to get it off it's crumbling abutments. We are just waiting for gravity and hydrology to take the span down.

There are no mechanisms at DOTs or SHPO to step in when there is no more time.

It really will take a miracle, or we'll be pulling another one out of the river.

Any and All ideas are welcome.

New Money - Instant Cachet -

RARE RARE RARE - Own a piece of functioning history.

Posted January 18, 2018, by John Marvig (marvigj27 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Does anyone know if this bridge is in storage still?

Posted December 15, 2017, by John Marvig (marvigj27 [at] gmail [dot] com)

http://trn.trains.com/~/media/images/news-wire/2017/10-octob...

Looks like this bridge took some serious damage from the collision earlier this fall...

Posted December 3, 2017, by John Marvig (marvigj27 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Finally got to this rare example of a deck truss in Southern Minnesota. What a unique bridge!

Posted November 11, 2017, by Anonymous

Dana, your pics are of the CNW bridge.

Posted November 11, 2017, by Anonymous

Duplicate

Posted November 11, 2017, by Roger Deschner (rogerdeschner [at] gmail [dot] com)

So, what's my deal with all these bridges in Winona MN? I've passed through three times in the past year, and each time I find another fascinating current or historical bridge. This bridge is one of the most interesting, with a complicated history and good written and photographic records. I'm sure there's yet more to find when I make it back to this picturesque old river town. Which I plan to do when the rehab of the 1942 highway bridge is complete in 2018.

Posted November 7, 2017, by Luke
Posted November 1, 2017, by Tom Cooper

According to an article in the Minneapolis StarTribune (11/01/2017), MN DOT is trying to give away half of this bridge. The other half belongs to Canada and isn't available.

MN DOT reserves the right to approve the use of the bridge, and the recipient will need to pay for it to be moved.

Posted September 21, 2017, by Joe Fishbein (jmfmando [at] gmail [dot] com)

The last time we inspected this bridge, in 2011, there were some very large through holes in the concrete deck, 2-3 feet in diameter. It was closed with barricades by the county, but people kept driving around them and across the bridge. Newer, more robust barricades were installed later, which seemed to be effective.

Posted September 21, 2017, by Joe Fishbein (jmfmando [at] gmail [dot] com)

Most of these old trusses are on the local system, so it is up to the individual county or township to decide what happens to them. I am not aware of any official re-use program, although I have heard that a couple have been purchased and moved to a private location.

Posted September 19, 2017, by Matt Lohry

Ish. I hate it. They could have at least used a replacement like the Embarrass River Bridge or the West Swan River bridge that we've just seen in the forum...this is just an eyesore. As Tony has pointed out, it would sure have been nice to keep the historic bridge in place, but the county's dead-in-the-water maintenance plan did not do it any favors--it was so deteriorated that there was no feasible way to save it.

Posted September 19, 2017, by Matt Lohry

MnDOT does have some sort of re-use program in place, but only for a finite, pre-selected group. Most of these bridges are more notable and "rare" (they're ALL extremely rare now!); they seem to have considered these Warrens "common" and not worth salvaging; I don't know of any from up there that have been re-used. It's sad to see them all being wiped out; there were tons of these bridges when I was a kid; now there are none :'(

Posted September 18, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

It's just sad that rehabilitation doesn't seem to be given higher priority in many of these cases where the ADT count is so low.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for public safety, but are these new structures significantly cheaper than at least sustaining repairs on the historic ones?

Joe, and/or Matt... Does Minnesota promote dismantling and storing any of these trusses for possible future trail or park reuse?

Posted September 18, 2017, by Matt Lohry

I agree; it's certainly not an historic truss, but it beats Jersey barriers any day of the week! St. Louis County has been using this bridge type on county roads for several decades now; presumably to fit in a little bit better with their "rustic" atmosphere. They use Jersey and steel barriers on state and federal highways though.

Posted September 18, 2017, by Joe Fishbein (jmfmando [at] gmail [dot] com)

The replacement bridge, 69A30, is a 3-span steel girder bridge with timber deck and rails and a bituminous overlay. At least it isn't a UCB!

Posted September 18, 2017, by Joe Fishbein (jmfmando [at] gmail [dot] com)

This bridge has been replaced by a single-span steel girder bridge with timber deck and rails and a bituminous overlay (Bridge No. 69A58).

Posted September 18, 2017, by Joe Fishbein (jmfmando [at] gmail [dot] com)

This bridge is gone, replaced in 2016 by a single span prestressed concrete beam bridge (69591).

Posted August 19, 2017, by David Backlin (us71 [at] cox [dot] net)

There is a second bridge just to the north of here of similar design

Posted August 12, 2017, by Ross Brown (bluehavanaross [at] gmail [dot] com)

The bridge was closed earlier this month and will reopen as a pedestrian crossing in 2019. The lift span is still operating (don't know why), but the area is nice to have with less traffic.

Posted August 9, 2017, by Joe Fishbein (jmfmando [at] gmail [dot] com)

According to the St. Louis County engineer, this bridge has been removed and a replacement is being constructed. We will be in the area in September for other bridge inspections and will verify the status of this one.

Posted August 9, 2017, by Joe Fishbein (jmfmando [at] gmail [dot] com)

With the current demolition and replacement of the Embarrass River bridge (88773), this may be the last surviving pony truss in St. Louis County. To my knowledge it is still extant but closed. We will be up there in September for other bridge inspections and will verify the status of this one.

Posted July 1, 2017, by Fmiser (fmiser [at] gmail [dot] com)

The Google digitize book that supplied the photo describes the Fink trusses. So I quoted the relevant part in the description and expanded the design section.

Thanks for the additional images, Luke!

Posted June 30, 2017, by Art S. (asuckewer [at] knite [dot] com)

The first image shows what may be a Fink or two as approach spans on the far shore. The lack of resolution makes it difficult to confirm. If the build date of 1880 is accurate, it seems quite late for a Fink truss.

Also, does anyone know the type of compression member used on the Whipples?

Regards,

Art S.

Posted June 30, 2017, by Anonymous

Pretty sure I'm seeing fink elements on the main span.

Posted June 30, 2017, by BS

30 June 2017

See the West Central Tribune of Willmar, MN June 29/30-

Front page article about replacement & Bidletting on this Bridge --

Sad to say - It is all but gone-

BS

Posted June 30, 2017, by Fmiser (fmiser [at] gmail [dot] com)

This is listed as having a fink deck truss approach span. But the photos does not show any fink. What little I have found on it does not mention a Fink deck truss.

Is there really a fink?

Kern Bridge (Minnesota)
Posted June 26, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

It would be a woefully neglectful loss if this one should collapse

Kern Bridge (Minnesota)
Posted June 25, 2017, by James Baughn (webmaster [at] bridgehunter [dot] com)

Field visit today: this bridge is on the verge of collapse. Severe erosion is threatening the eastern stone pier. The stones under the southeast bearing shoe are barely hanging on.

Posted June 20, 2017, by Matt Lohry

I agree with Nathan's comment; however, considering the razor-thin escape from the wrecking ball that this bridge pulled off, I'm sure happy to see carriage bolts on this historic bridge over a new, ugly, MOB, which was the plan until only a couple of years ago!

Posted June 19, 2017, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

Overall this is both a good and amazing outcome for a bridge of this size. The use of bolts is a disappointment being as it is something that multiple organizations reached out to them in favor of. They could have done the rivets if they had wanted to.

Posted June 18, 2017, by Matt Lohry

I went out with my family today and took photos of the newly restored bridge. Overall good restoration; most of the rivets along the bottom chords of the bridge have been replaced with bolts and the bearings have been replaced. Other than that, mainly blast and paint, and new concrete deck.

Posted June 9, 2017, by Fmiser (fmiser [at] gmail [dot] com)

Yea! It's nice to see a Minnesota bridge not slated for demolition.

Unlike the Eisenhower bridge http://bridgehunter.com/mn/goodhue/9040/ that I went across recently and could see that ground work is beginning for the new bridge.

Posted June 9, 2017, by Joe Fishbein (jmfmando [at] gmail [dot] com)

Inspected this bridge 6/7/17. Bridge was completely repainted to a battleship gray color in 2016. Looks good!

Posted June 9, 2017, by John Marvig (marvigj27 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Not shocking that this bridge is doomed. Carver County (my home county) hasn't had a truss to show for itself in decades; and is working on eradicating the remaining historic bridges.

Posted May 29, 2017, by Don Morrison
Posted May 29, 2017, by Jacob Lennington (simpspin [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Close call with boat that went up in flames beneath it:

http://www.fox9.com/news/257672536-story

Channel Bridge (Minnesota)
Posted May 22, 2017, by Joe Fishbein (jmfmando [at] gmail [dot] com)

Just noticed there was no photo on file for this bridge. This was taken in August 2016.

Posted May 22, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

They try and try to give these replacement UCEB's character... And it just doesn't work.

Posted May 22, 2017, by Joe Fishbein (jmfmando [at] gmail [dot] com)

This bridge is gone, replaced by a single span PCB bridge (23028). Another one bites the dust.

Posted May 22, 2017, by Joe Fishbein (jmfmando [at] gmail [dot] com)

Bridge is gone, replaced by a 2-barrel concrete box culvert.

Posted May 11, 2017, by Butch Viitala (viiala [at] hotmail [dot] com)

The demolition of the bridge will begin on May 22nd. This past week the phone company laid a temporary cable from East to West through the woods over the river. Lake Country Power had crews move two power poles installing temporary poles that will remain until the bridge work is completed. The detour signs are standing by ready to barricade the highway from CR22 with the detour routes marked.

Posted April 5, 2017, by Butch Viitala (viitala [at] hotmail [dot] com)

The rights of way on both sides of the river were cleared in February. Lake Country Power staked the right of way for the power line and where one power pole near the river will be moved toward the woods line about 25 -30 feet. Bridge removal and new construction will begin in May if not before. Culvert replacement may precede the bridge work to the east.

Posted March 20, 2017, by Nathan Holth (nathan [at] historicbridges [dot] org)
Posted March 12, 2017, by Dana and Kay Klein

duplicate

Posted March 12, 2017, by Dana and Kay Klein

duplicate

Posted February 15, 2017, by Douglas Butler

This former lift bridge is similar to the Lake Ewauna rail bridge in Klamath Falls OR.

Posted February 7, 2017, by Sherril Gautreaux (cityofranier [at] frontiernet [dot] net)

The bridge does not raise automatically to marine traffic. The height of the bridge from water fluctuates depending on the level of the Rainy River. If a boat needs to have the bridge raised to pass under the bridge, a bridge tender in Chicago must be called, who in turn relays information to CN workers onsite. The bridge is supposed to be raised in a timely fashion. Due to the increased traffic on the bridge, marine traffic often has to wait significant amounts of time. The port of entry is currently the busiest US Customs rail of port of entry in the US.

Posted February 4, 2017, by Jacob Lennington (simpspin [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Some photos of the Rehabilitation.

Winona Bridge (Minnesota)
Posted January 30, 2017, by Roger Deschner (rogerdeschner [at] gmail [dot] com)

Apparently good news here. After some uncertainty over cost, MNDOT will rehab the main steel truss spans of the old bridge after all, but they'll completely replace the approach spans in what appears to be a compromise to keep the overall project within budget. They will be replaced one at a time to maintain contractor access for rehabbing the main steel truss spans at the same time. First Minnesota end, then Wisconsin. So it will indeed wind up as an old/new couplet of 1-way bridges.

I was just through Winona, and I drove across the new westbound bridge. It has opened to 2-way traffic until work on the old bridge is completed and it's reopened for eastbound traffic in 2019. Demolition work has begun on the west (Minnesota) approach spans.

http://www.postbulletin.com/news/local/fixing-the-winona-bri...

Posted January 29, 2017, by Jason Smith (flensburg [dot] bridgehunter [dot] av [at] googlemail [dot] com)

Details on the bridge project: http://www.postbulletin.com/news/local/oakland-place-bridge-... New bridge is scheduled to be open by May 2017.

Posted January 4, 2017, by Jerry L Brooks (jerrylbrooks [at] yahoo [dot] com)

This is a nice looking train bridge.Impressive that it was built in 1897 and still in regular use.

US 71 Bridge (Minnesota)
Posted January 3, 2017, by Jason Smith (flensburg [dot] bridgehunter [dot] av [at] googlemail [dot] com)

Here's an article about the new replacement span being open. It is much wider than the previous one, yet the lanes have now been restricted to three lane instead of four lane. Whether that will be effective in the long term remains to be seen. Yet the new span is nearly identical to the State and Ashley Street Crossings. Rather boring when you look at them..... http://www.exploreokoboji.com/news/news-stories/highway-71-b...

Posted December 19, 2016, by Anonymous

By pass make great Canoe put in, fishing platform and picnic area. Lack of maintenance does not indicate replacement, indicates need for maintenance...

Posted December 19, 2016, by Butch Viitala (viitala [at] hotmail [dot] com)

I realize there is historic sensitivity involved with this old bridge. However Highway 5 itself is in poor driving condition and has been for many years. People that wish to visit the McCarthy State Park coming in from the N.W. on Highway 1 usually bypass Highway 5 because it is so rough. There comes a time when replacement is necessary. At today's prices one can only imagine how much it would cost to replace this bridge 10 years from now, along with upgrading the highway itself. There are issues with the culverts that direct water drainage sometimes with flows crossing from one side of the highway to the other a few times if not several times before drainage is guided well. Culvert replacement has been undertaken this past summer and will continue. There are many culverts along the approximate 8 mile stretch between CR22 and Hwy 1 in need of replacement or relocation. This is a monumental project. But it is clear that it requires attention now.

Posted November 25, 2016, by Dana and Kay Klein

A Nod is as good as a wink to a blind man! Not sure view from Hazel street IS this. Cant tell so will leave street view off.Looks like under pass for something else...Pontist Mystery. Thanks for your usual keen Eye

Posted November 25, 2016, by Luke

Dana, the bridge in the picture looks old enough to be added to the site... (nudge nudge)

Posted November 25, 2016, by Dana and Kay Klein

Thanks Luke!

Posted November 25, 2016, by Ronald Skwier (rskwier [at] msn [dot] com)

The original Warren truss was removed, but was replaced by what appears to be a lighter bridge some years(?) ago. Old electrical insulators are evident to one side of the upper portion. The right of way was converted to a trail, but this replacement bridge was there previously.

Posted November 9, 2016, by Jason Smith (flensburg [dot] bridgehunter [dot] av [at] googlemail [dot] com)
Posted November 7, 2016, by John Marvig (marvigj27 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Had a very nice chat with the gentleman who owns this bridge. He would like to preserve it at all costs, and does his best to maintain it currently. The world needs more bridge lovers like this!

Posted November 7, 2016, by John Marvig (marvigj27 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Heard from a couple of gentlemen in Good Thunder that this bridge has been reopened

Posted November 5, 2016, by Brian J. Patterson (pattersonbj [at] earthlink [dot] net)

As part of the Long Meadow Bridge, the previous and NOT original wooden deck was replaced with a "lightweight" reinforced concrete deck with no wear layer. The ORIGINAL deck was 1920 era reinforced concrete with an asphalt wear layer. The original deck was failing and replaced with the wooden deck some time in the late 1940s to early 1950s.

The contractors used modern "lightweight" reinforced concrete without a wear layer to provide long life, reduce the dead weight of the bridge, and retain most of the design capacity of the bridge. They also used that material because the ORIGINAL deck was reinforce concrete, and not wood. Since this was a NRHP Bridge Restoration, they also used pine boards for forms rather than modern steel forms to get the "board texture" that would have been present on the curbing of the original deck.

Posted October 26, 2016, by Joe Fishbein (jmfmando [at] gmail [dot] com)

This bridge is not long for this world. Fillmore County has funding to replace it with a 2-barrel concrete box culvert. The project will occur later this year or early in 2017.

Posted October 26, 2016, by Joe Fishbein (jmfmando [at] gmail [dot] com)

This bridge recently underwent a 2-year rehab which included a new deck, replacement of severely corroded floorbeams over Pier 3 (due to many years of leakage through the deck joint), new bearings and a complete repaint. It is now brown in color and looks very nice.

Posted October 20, 2016, by Matthew Hill (mattcintosh [at] gmail [dot] com)

10/20/16 update. Concrete railings have been removed sometime and replaced with black metal railings. Appears that the width of bridge was narrowed by about 16" on each side and the railings put at the new edge.

Posted October 19, 2016, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Great to see... Especially for one that once appeared to be a goner!

Posted October 19, 2016, by Matt Lohry

Outstanding!! After a 14-year wait, it will be nice to have public access to this bridge once again! The pipe-and-cable railings appear to be similar to those used on the Gateway Trail Bridge over Manning Avenue in Washington County--minimal visual intrusion to the truss portions of the bridge should allow for easy viewing. I will be sure to make it a point to visit once I'm in the area again.

Posted October 19, 2016, by Brian J. Patterson (pattersonbj [at] earthlink [dot] net)

The Long Meadow Bridge restoration is complete. The bridge is now open to pedestrian and bicyclist traffic. The bridge is scheduled to close during the Spring of 2017 to allow unhindered access to lightweight paving equipment, which will be paving the path between the south end of the Long Meadow Bridge and the north end of the pedestrian/bicyclist portion of the Cedar Avenue Bridge. This low-resolution picture is courtesy of the City of Bloomington, MN.

Posted October 4, 2016, by Matt Lohry

Well, so much for this one--the tee-beam is the last one. I'm sure it will be pointlessly and wastefully demolished soon as well.

Posted September 23, 2016, by Don Morrison

The linked article in Bluff Country News says the bridge is to become a fishing pier. So monumented it is.

Much better than the awful ACoE suggestion to mount it's upper truss structure as decoration on a new bridge as mentioned in the article.

Just about every river up here in the northeast Iowa

/southeast Minnesota area is approaching flood stage right now, so I hope the bridge is ok.

Posted September 22, 2016, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Nathan just has a quicker trigger finger than you Matt!! ;-)

Posted September 22, 2016, by Nathan Holth (Webmaster [at] HistoricBridges [dot] org)

Matt... Great minds think alike... And apparently at the same time as well! As an afterthought I also wonder if this bridge's fate was part of a management plan, I think the state made those for some bridges although I haven't looked at this for a while.

Posted September 22, 2016, by Matt Lohry

Nathan,

Jinx!! Looks like we posted very similar comments at the same time :>)

Posted September 22, 2016, by Matt Lohry

It looks like they put new permanent concrete posts in to keep heavy traffic off, so I would say that they plan to keep it around for pedestrians and bicycles; maybe a trail will eventually be placed across.

Posted September 22, 2016, by Joe Fishbein (jmfmando [at] gmail [dot] com)

This bridge is gone. A new single-span PS concrete bridge is under construction in its place.

Posted September 22, 2016, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

Joe,

It looks like the contractor is no longer on-site, and it also looks like new bollards were installed at the ends of the bridge. That being the case, I would guess the bridge has been "monumented" meaning it has been bypassed and abandoned with no restoration work undertaken.

Posted September 22, 2016, by Joe Fishbein (jmfmando [at] gmail [dot] com)

This bridge is still standing but no longer carries traffic. A new bridge is in place on a new parallel alignment. At this point I don't know if the old bridge will be demolished or kept in place for a trail.

Posted August 30, 2016, by george oakley (georgeoakley49 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Thanks Don.Good to know there is history on both these bridges.