I agree that there are many interesting concrete bridges out there, including some on the Interstate system. There are also bridges that look plain and boring from above, but have surprises underneath such as rock piers. However, there is no reason to document plain concrete or steel stringer bridges built in the last 50 years. Document the "cool" bridges like suspension, truss, and arch types and the "regular" bridges with interesting features or history (the I-40 Arkansas River bridge that collapsed is a good example, a completely unremarkable bridge with a tragic history). But leave out the plain bridges and overpasses with no distinguishing features. Those bridges are already in the NBI listings, and there's no reason to photograph these bridges because they all basically look the same. Keep bridgehunter.com interesting!
Hey everybody,
I agree that there's no need to post information or photos about most UCEBs (Ugly Concrete Eyesore Bridges).
However, it might be worthwhile to cover concrete freeway overpasses from the 1950s since these are mostly over 50 years old and might possibly perhaps maybe be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The earliest bridges from the Eisenhower Interstate System are quickly disappearing and should be documented, even if they are fairly ugly.
---
James Baughn
Webmaster, bridgehunter.com
I have already stopped ading them.
Why do you insist on adding these mundane, non-historical bridges?!? Please stop adding them!