Recent Ohio Comments

Post a comment Contact webmaster

Posted May 23, 2017, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Good to know. I am glad that this one is still intact.

Posted May 23, 2017, by Nathan Holth (nathan [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

This seemed a little unbelievable to me, so I checked in with my Ohio contacts. They called Scott Brown at Ohio District 8 who provided the following information that shows not only that the bridge is still standing, but is being maintained:

"I just got off the phone with Tony McWhinney at the Preble County Engineer’s Office. The bridge in question is still standing, has not been replaced, relocated, etc. This bridge is located a little over half a mile east of Fairhaven College Corner Road.

There was another structure on Junction Road that was replaced by Preble County Engineer’s Office (located 0.17 miles west of Camden College Corner Road) back in 2011 (PID #83047). I’m not sure why the comments in Bridge Hunter were made – but perhaps those who commented were looking for the bowstring truss and came across the structure that was replaced in 2011 (i.e. were in the wrong location)?

Anyway, for what it’s worth, Preble County Engineer’s Office crews were at the truss last week, removing vegetation from around the structure that had come down during recent storms. If/when the County needs to address the existing truss, they acknowledged that they would rehab it to maintain the historic integrity, and would likely do it through a federal-aid project with ODOT oversight (since it is such a large structure)."

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

What the HELL!!! The Preble County powers that be have lost their D..M minds!!!

This used to be one of my favorite county's to visit, but then they proceeded to annihilate most of their pony trusses including the rare Longman Road Bridge. They destroy another pony just to replace it with one of the ugliest replica covered bridges I have even seen... and then plan to relocate a different pony into the state park. Then they finally do a good thing in rehabilitating the Seven Mile Road Bridge... Only to botch the placement of the historic plaques so that Mr. Cross can have his name equally placed. And now this? I can only hope that it is going somewhere that it will be better appreciated... and not into a scrap furnace!

Posted May 21, 2017, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Is there a chance that this bridge might be in storage? If this bridge got scrapped, it would be one of the worst losses of a historic bridge since this website got started.

Ohio and Iowa are essentially co-champions when it comes to surviving numbers of bowstring bridges per state. Iowa has lost some of its bowstrings in recent years and I really hope that Ohio does not follow suit.

Posted May 21, 2017, by Jeff Shroyer (Shroyer100 [at] aol [dot] com)

This beauty is gone as of 6/16😑😑.

Posted May 20, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)
Posted May 12, 2017, by Don Morrison

Sad to see another cantilever lost.

The method seems more sensible than the usual BOOM/splash then drag the pieces out of the river too.

I wonder if the cantilever spans' demise will be so graceful.

Posted May 12, 2017, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

That link has some quality demolition photographs. They really illustrate how a cantilever truss functions. In other words, they show that you can remove the center span of a cantilever truss and the towers will remain standing. Likewise the center span can be removed intact as an independent span.

These photos would be good materials for teaching Cantilever Trusses 101.

Posted May 12, 2017, by Scooter (kyscooter [at] yahoo [dot] com)

This bridge is in it's last days. :(

It seems a sort of humane dis-assembly.

Posted May 10, 2017, by Douglas Butler

I need help with this one also

Posted May 9, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Good to see it finally come to fruition!

Posted May 9, 2017, by Douglas Butler

Need help with this one!!!!

Posted May 8, 2017, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

Bridge being installed in its new home:

Posted May 3, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

This thing is ghastly looking on the outside... Completely unrealistic and whimsical in an unauthentic way! And why didn't they move the historic Cemetery Road Bridge that is buried in the weeds (and covered in graffiti) nearby and give it the respect it deserves. They already destroyed a Henry Hebble built span at Charleton Mill, it would be a shame to lose the Cemetery Road one as well.

Posted May 3, 2017, by Alexander D. Mitchell IV

This report says the bridge was reconstructed with both original and new parts:

I visited by driving on Rt. 35 last month, and the bridge (which leads only to a round turnaround) was still closed to traffic with construction barricades at the north end.

Posted May 1, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

But hey... This was supposedly a bridge at risk for structural failure! NOT!!

Posted April 30, 2017, by Art S. (asuckewer [at] knite [dot] com)
Posted April 18, 2017, by Mike Tewkesbury (gb_packards [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Concrete Bridge abandoned when US 21 was rerouted. The owner permitted me to take photos of the bridge which is continuing to deteriorate at a rapid rate. The eastern approach ramp has broken away from the structure and I was not able to completely cross on foot. I was told that the 2004-05 flood severely exploited the structure's integrity. It was built following the 1913 flood that took out about every bridge in the county.

Posted April 10, 2017, by Jack A. Siffert (jasiffert [at] gmail [dot] com)

Bridge was in use as late as 1979 or 1981 depending on who you listen to. I saw a train west of it in 1979. The only way to use the track west of it was to go over it. Line was out way past where the train I saw was.

Posted April 3, 2017, by Matt Lohry

I would fully agree; the 1994 "rehabilitation" date is most assuredly the date that the previous bridge was replaced with this new one. Welded gussets were most likely NOT on anybody's radar back in 1924!

Posted April 3, 2017, by David Case

I am not sure that this bridge dates back to 1924. It is in a very pretty setting.

Posted April 3, 2017, by David Case

I believe this is one of the oldest surviving bridges in Wayne county.

Posted April 2, 2017, by Thomas R Engel (Thosengel [at] gmail [dot] com)

Bypassed PRR/Panhandle tunnels: about 7-8 miles East of Steubenville Dinsmore/Bertha/Tunnel #4; this was just west of Burgettstown PA. Bypassing ca. 1949 to increase clearances.

Posted March 31, 2017, by David Wormald (dwormald [at] fuse [dot] ent)

New replacement bridge for Western Hills Viaduct is a double deck cable stayed bridge. Not sure of any similar design in the US.

Posted March 28, 2017, by Sherman Cahal (shermancahal [at] gmail [dot] com)

The pond, when it was maintained, was full of water. It was probably attractive then. Not so much now.

Posted March 22, 2017, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

The Ohio Historic Bridge Inventory revealed the history of this bridge. I added the information verbatim to this bridge's page as an essay.

Posted March 22, 2017, by David Case

One has to wonder about the color selection for this bridge, but it does look good.

Posted March 21, 2017, by John Goold (BlueWilliamus [at] yahoo [dot] com)

8520 Hubbard Valley Rd, Seville, OH 44273 is the address of the property.

Posted March 21, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)


Posted March 21, 2017, by John Goold (BlueWilliamus [at] yahoo [dot] com)

I don't know if this bridge was moved or preserved in place but it is a good one.

Posted March 21, 2017, by David Case

This bridge isn't much to look at from the roadbed, but is very pretty underneath.

Posted March 20, 2017, by David Case

This is a neat bridge. I used to enjoy seeing it as a child traveling down I-77 in my parents car. I was fortunate to be able to visit it in person in March of 2017. I will not add photos as it is well represented here. I don't know how much longer this bridge will be around. It is not in real good structural condition.

Posted March 20, 2017, by David Case

This bridge has been replaced and is no longer with us.

Posted March 20, 2017, by David Case

This bridge is closed. An attempt was made to barricade it to all traffic, including foot traffic.

Posted March 5, 2017, by Clark Vance (cvance [at] dogmail [dot] com)

It appears the street view is the replacement.

Posted March 1, 2017, by rick shelton (shltn [dot] rck66 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Here are some shots of this thing receiving it's steel floor post '37 flood, early 70's by-pass and subsequent inglorious finale.

Posted February 20, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Still crazy how much this resembles the Cicero Creek Bridge!

Posted February 20, 2017, by Mike Tewkesbury (gb_packards [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Although difficult, my hope is to get a few pics from the opposite side of the creek.

Posted February 19, 2017, by Nathan Holth (nathan [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

Swing spans are hard to classify and in my experience 99% do not follow the textbook appearance of any common truss configurations, and in addition they may not always display forces matching a particular truss (diagonals must be in compression with a Howe, and in tension with a Pratt). My understanding of swing spans (and explanation for atypical member arrangements) is the issue is reversal of forces in the truss... because when the span is closed (bearing on the ends with wedges in place) forces are arranged in one fashion, and when the bridge is swung open, the ends must cantilever from the tower/pier.

Posted February 19, 2017, by Dana and Kay Klein

Nice shot Mike. Snap a few more if you get a chance!

Posted February 19, 2017, by Mike Tewkesbury (gb_packards [at] yahoo [dot] com)

This is my photo. I pass this bridge on Caywood Road on the way to my daughter's house once or twice a week. Some years ago a portion of the trestle that passed over the road was burned so that portion was removed away from the road. You can still see the burn marks on the heavy beams facing the road. The bridge now belongs to Ken Strahler and is part of the Duck Creek Farm.

Sincerely, Mike

Posted February 19, 2017, by Sean Dalton (Dsmdalton [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Bridge removed sometime in early February 2017. Replaced with a new span, still had construction dirt on it when I drove over it February 19th.

Posted February 19, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

That smaller X braced center panel over the center pier (and above the swing mechanism) certainly has a Howe look to it CV.

Posted February 18, 2017, by Clark Vance (cvance [at] dogmail [dot] com)

Anyone else see a Howe truss on the swing span?

Posted February 15, 2017, by Ed Pohlman (elpmlp [at] aol [dot] com)

Nice Photos. Believe it or not as a child I lived right next to that bridge (Toledo side). I saw the train the day it derailed in early 1982. Spilled corn all over the place that reeked for weeks.

I also walked that bridge a couple times and when the river froze over walked under that massive center span looking up. Many years ago.

I saw on the upper tressel (sic?) a plate that said "1902" on it.

Across the street (River Rd. Toledo) between the turnpike and the tracks back in the forest was the remains of a foundation for a small station that probably was a stopover for train engineers. When that RR bridge was constructed that area was nearly all wilderness. The first homes did not appear until the 1920s.

Sorry to hear the bridge will be demolished this year. Happy to hear that Metroparks Toledo will be converting some of the land where the tracks ran into a trail for walkers and cyclists.

Posted February 14, 2017, by David Case (dcase [at] woosteroh [dot] com)

Recently visited this bridge to view the restoration job and what a pleasant surprise. It looks very nice now. Some old timbers are present in the truss. Thanks to the County Engineers for all their work here, securing the funds and seeing the job through. It is appreciated!

Posted February 12, 2017, by ArtS (asuckewer [at] knite [dot] com)


I'm pretty sure its not a WIBCo. The plaque shape looks like a Smith or Toledo to me but the portal bracing looks like King. I just don't have the time research it right now (wish I did).


Art S.

Posted February 12, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Hard to tell for sure Art.

It has a couple unique features including what appear as Fish-belly floorbeams, but with what appear to be paired nuts at the points. Also the finials appear to be straight and solid in composition. The upper portal bracing features 4 rounded brackets that give an oval appearance, with a single X-brace and likely a date plaque in the center. I have seen those date plaques used by several firms, including King and WIBCo.

Posted February 11, 2017, by Art S. (asuckewer [at] knite [dot] com)

Smith or King?

Posted February 8, 2017, by John Goold (BlueWilliamus [at] yahoo [dot] com)

That new bridge makes me want to throw up.

Posted February 8, 2017, by Michael Quiet (mquiet [at] gmail [dot] com)

As you might have noticed, covered brides can be a bit touchy here, as they tend to be prioritized over iron and steel spans for preservation (a very long discussion for elsewhere though). Even for those of us that enjoy timber truss bridges, its complicated when you get into 'fake' ones (regular bridges with a cover added), modern constructions, then historic ones, as defining whats "authentic", "historic", etc.. gets murky. A lot of people will use "authentic" and "historic" interchangeably, so I don't think any offense was meant to this bridge when its referred to as "non-authentic", but just a notation that this is not "historic".

And as to the original bridge, I'd like to look here in VT as we have a few rail-trails and thankfully a lot of effort has been put into retaining/re-using existing bridges. For example, on the LVRT:

Even though this is a "run-of-the-mill" plate girder, it works great for the purpose that it serves now. And it contributes to the history of the rail-trail by preserving its heritage as to its original purpose. All around this bridge we have signs of the past. The railroads mile marker, excellent stone abutments, they all work together to tell the story of the past. Wipe out the bridge, and everything else doesn't mean as much.

A lot of us are here in this community because we like old bridges. Even something "run-of-the-mill" like this contributes to our collective past, which is disappearing faster then we'd like. Even if it is boring, I still find this preferable to replacement, which I think is the sentiment of many here.

Posted February 8, 2017, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Yes in 50 years I think this bridge probably will be considered historic. At that point it will probably take its rightful place in the National Register of Historic Places.

Many of us Bridgehunters have been watching historic wrought iron bridges getting turned into soup cans while covered bridges get preserved. Thus covered bridges can be a bit of a sensitive subject on here.

Posted February 8, 2017, by Sherman Cahal (shermancahal [at] gmail [dot] com)

No one was professing that the covered bridge was a historic bridge, only that it was an aesthetically pleasing covered span. For 20 miles, it's one of the highlights of the trail, considering that it goes through unremarkable territory.

Look at Ashtabula County, which has 17 covered bridges, 10 of which are pre-1983 (versus 63 total many years ago). Those ten are historic, but the remaining seven are not - for now.

What defines historic in this instance? Some are entirely new bridges on new alignments; others are re-creations. Will it be historic when they reach the 50-year mark to be included on the National Register of Historic Places? Certainly, as will the two authentic covered bridges along the Maple Highlands Rail Trail.

Going back to the original topic, the railroad bridge seemed to have been removed long ago, preceding the construction of the rail trail. The county's park district has owned it since the 1980's (acquiring it from the B&O). From their standpoint, it can be argued that the covered bridge is more aesthetically pleasing than a run-of-the-mill plate girder, even if it is old. For a trail user, that's fine. It's highly unlikely that this will ever be used as a railroad again.

We'll have to agree to disagree on our interpretation of what the county did in this instance.

Posted February 7, 2017, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Essentially, the question becomes one of engineering significance versus historical significance. A modern bridge such as this one might, and arguably does, have engineering significance. A 1938 riveted Warren Pony truss may have relatively little engineering significance, but might have a large amount of local historic significance, especially if it the last of its kind in the county or region. An 1870 Bowstring of course will have aboth high level of both engineering and historical significance.

I have no argument against construction of a modern covered bridge - except when a historic bridge must be destroyed in the process.

Posted February 6, 2017, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

Its designed by Smolen... anyone familiar with Ashtabula County, Ohio would know that name. He used to be the county engineer and he liked the county's covered bridges. He later went into his own engineering. I believe they do function as trusses (the 2008-built one on CR-25/State Road that looks like a covered concrete expressway bridge is still listed on NBI as a timber truss). However, they cannot be considered historic, they are not old, nor do they have the visual appearance of an old bridge.

Posted February 6, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Doesn't look authentic compared to any other truly authentic historic covered bridges out there. Structurally it might well be the real deal, but it looks like something that the elves put together in their workshop.

Posted February 6, 2017, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

I would agree with that. Still, it did replace a bridge that did have some historical significance with respect to the railroad line.

Rail trails provide a great opportunity to preserve history, so I hope that removal of historic railroad bridges on rail trails does not become a trend.

Posted February 6, 2017, by Anonymous

Still beats an ugly unimaginative concrete bridge

Posted February 6, 2017, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Perhaps I should have been a bit more clear in my comment. The bridge might be a genuine covered bridge, but I would not consider it to have any historic significance.

Posted February 6, 2017, by Sherman Cahal (shermancahal [at] gmail [dot] com)

It's not a "fake." It's a authentic and registered covered bridge.

Posted February 3, 2017, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Plate girders are usually not overly attractive, so I don't spend as much time looking at them as I do trusses, March arches, stone arches, etc.

That being said, any pre - WWII plate girder/deck plate girder has at least a little bit of historic significance. This, if a plate girder was here when the trail was being developed, I would rather see it in place than a fake covered bridge. Likewise, I would rather see a historic bridge relocated to the trail for use than see a fake covered bridge.

Covered bridges do provide shelter in a surprise rain squall though...

Posted February 3, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

That "Thing" is hideous!

Posted February 3, 2017, by Sherman Cahal (shermancahal [at] gmail [dot] com)

It was a very simple plate girder bridge, hardly unique or historic.

Posted February 1, 2017, by Anonymous


Posted February 1, 2017, by Don Morrison

The murders actually occurred near Bad Creek Bridge in Oklahoma, possibly this one:

The story:

Posted January 31, 2017, by dena hall (denahall [at] facebook [dot] com)

I watched this and am appalled at the murderer of Skyla and Taylor , he needs to be put to death for this as soon as possible. If not, I do hope a revenge on the inside will come to him. And he will slowly suffer at the hands of prisoners , at what they call no mercy .

Posted January 31, 2017, by Nathan Holth (nathan [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

This is interesting information... the Historic Bridge inventory felt that (and I agree) that the details of this truss bridge suggest it was originally fabricated by the Wrought Iron Bridge Company in the 1890s. Yet the history of a 1913 flood washing out a bridge makes sense too, this flood decimated Ohio. So if both of these histories are correct, these spans must have been reused spans that were relocated here.

Posted January 31, 2017, by Dana and Kay Klein

Thanks Sherman! Added to bridge page, crediting you.

Posted January 31, 2017, by Sherman Cahal (shermancahal [at] gmail [dot] com)

I discovered today that this was locally known as Welty's Bridge. It replaced two earlier covered spans, the latter of which was destroyed in a flood in 1913:

Permission granted to use photo for BridgeHunter.

Posted January 27, 2017, by Mark D. Hawk (hcatranch3 [at] gmail [dot] com)

The picture of the DC&P BRIDGE over Ludlow Creek/Falls has a little history to it in the bottom left of the picture is the CCC&STL train station in Ludlow Falls Ohio and people who got off there could go to the camp grounds and recreational area ran by CCC&STL. Now this is not to be confused with the Overlook Line is what they called DC&P interurban that ran from Dayton to Piqua. Anyways the DC&P ran a recreational area called Overlook Park in West Milton Ohio that was in competition with the area ran by the CCC&STL

Posted January 23, 2017, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

I was told that because the floods are due to a reservoir, they are not turbulent and do not pose a risk to the bridge in terms of being washed out.

I site visited the bridge last year and discovered that when it was moved here the bottoms of the unique end posts were encased in concrete. One might wonder if that was done to keep floods from washing it away. In either case, iron trusses are not meant to be encased like this, as it prevents them from expanding and contracting properly, and the concrete traps moisture leading to deterioration.

Now, I did review historical HAER photos and it seems that concrete encasement was the case in its previous location as well. However, this was not the original design intent, and should not have been replicated here. And if it was replicated here for some sort of flood protection, then I would agree the better solution would have been a location where this wasn't a concern.

Posted January 23, 2017, by Christopher Finigan

I seriously think that this bridge should be relocated to higher ground to protect it from being frequently flooded.

Posted January 23, 2017, by Joshua Wright (joshua [dot] wright171 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Bridge is currently closed to traffic and due do be demolished. City and state are tring to get funding together as this is one of only two access points to a neighborhood (other being an at grade crossing about 2-3 blocks up)

Posted January 21, 2017, by Douglas Butler

I never known that a Rall type bascule bridge was constructed in Ohio there according to the information they're were only 6 of a few Rall types constructed especially in East Chicago Indian and one in Chicago Illinois

Posted January 20, 2017, by Dave King (DKinghawkfan [at] hotmail [dot] com)
Posted January 19, 2017, by Michael Quiet (mquiet [at] gmail [dot] com)

This is a neat find, its a shame that it didn't survive.

The design looks like a lenticular cut in half, but its actually an Inverted Bowstring truss, an obscure type of which only three remain, all in Ohio. Here's a remaining all metal example:

Posted January 18, 2017, by Brandon Cooper

Nice photo Dave. Thanks for the add.

Posted January 17, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Took some digging... But I knew I had a photo in my archives showing this little bridge sitting in the water.

Posted January 17, 2017, by Kelly McClanahan

At one time, I had confused this with the Copeland Tunnel. One of my [many] railroad videos, one of them covering the Pennsey (Pennsylvania Railroad)had a part where they where showing the progress of the railroad, one being bypassing tunnels. I have been "researching" on and off for this tunnel. and I finally found it.

Posted January 17, 2017, by Anonymous

abutments visible in water Sat views South east of pin

Posted January 17, 2017, by M. (Rice)

This bridge belonged to my grandfather's family as part of their land. I remember my grandparents taking me to see it for the last time as the lake was taking it over.

Posted January 16, 2017, by Ed Hollowell (erhollowell [at] aol [dot] com)

Good movie railing...if it was still there!

Posted January 15, 2017, by Anonymous

Good Movie Railing........

Posted January 13, 2017, by Erik Baldwin

Canal was Ohio and Erie Canal. Miami and Erie Canal was the one in Western half of the state, Toledo to near Cincinnati.

Posted January 13, 2017, by Luke

Because it's still open to the railroad.

Posted January 13, 2017, by Dave Duncan (leroys4wd [at] gmail [dot] com)

that bridge has been closed to traffic for 3 years now. It is closed for good. you can even see the road block signs in the picture, dont know why it says its open to traffic.

Posted January 13, 2017, by Dana

Glad the "crew" could sort it out. Always enjoy your bridge art.

Posted January 13, 2017, by Luke

According to the linked article, this was the bridge at Lock 52 on Erie Street.

Article also has pictures of a couple of fixed-span bridges and a couple pictures of the NKP swing bridge over Swan Creek.

Posted January 13, 2017, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Thanks, Nathan. I did not realize that.

Posted January 13, 2017, by Douglas Butler

Thanks Nathan and Robert for your help

Posted January 13, 2017, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)


Howe trusses often have counters at each panel point and can look like other truss types as a result. Swing Howes often had curved top chords. The photo Doug has posted looks very similar to the Fox and Howard swing bridges that were popular in Chicago in the 1800s. You can see a photo of one here:


I am fairly certain it is closer to this bridge:

The road this bridge crossed was originally the Miami and Erie Canal, which was filled in. Immediately north of this canal was the Swan Creek and a riveted steel swing bridge was there. The caption in your photo seems to be describing a location where the swan creek and the canal were close to each other with Swan Creek acting as n alternate route for the canal.

Also, your caption mentions an Armada Mill, and I searched online and it appears that this mill, as well as the Swan Creek sidecut also mentioned in the caption were near Mill Street, Newton Street, and Logan Street, all of which are near this location as well. Here is the listing online:

Posted January 13, 2017, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Well, the stream looks a bit small to be navigable - although one could say the same thing for the (highly altered) Grand Calumet River as well.

The swing bridge in the drawings does not look like a Howe pony truss to me. Do we have two different bridges here?

Posted January 13, 2017, by Douglas Butler

I wondered is this bridge the correct location ?

Posted December 30, 2016, by Douglas Butler

Luke you are correct it had a earlier swing bridge that collapsed in the 1900's

So probably a bascule bridge was built in 1911 to replace a swing bridge though.

Posted December 30, 2016, by Luke

Douglas, based on the quote you've supplied, and the fact that the bascule was removed in the 80s, I think it's safe to say that this bridge was planned, but never built.

A good find, especially considering a bridge in the "Never Built" category hasn't been added in a while!

Posted December 30, 2016, by Dana and Kay Klein

Thanks always appreciate an assist. Guess this was OBVIOUS but some times get caught up in satellite views and don't look at big picture!

Posted December 30, 2016, by Luke
Posted December 30, 2016, by Dana and Kay Klein

Hey mike, way cool bridge. Be kind to us old poops at least he is "Protecting" bridge from those with less honorable intent! Curious if any flint chips or debitage in area and if they were Flint Ridge origin or Hornstone. Happen to see any? Dana

Posted December 30, 2016, by Mike

Visited it on 12/29/16. I just happened to spot it back in the weeds while traveling. I drove past it and accidentally found the actual access road while trying to turn around on Rt 68. The old poop in the white house came out and glared at me, but was sensible enough to keep his mouth shut. The roadway and bridge are VERY clearly public domain so dont take any crap from the old jerk. If he engages you - tell him youre gonna call the sheriff.

Its worth getting out and looking at the foundation of the bridge on the east side. The stone work is impressive and interesting. It appears that the arches may have been replaced and re-set. See photo below. There is an empty key on the foundation - and the current arches look unweathered as does the hardware. The buttress at the base of the arches also looks new. However the arch inside the bridge is full of nails - as if posters and flyers had been hung over the years. This suggests that the arch may be the original.

The location of the bridge was thoughtfully selected. As a geologist I noticed that it was both on a straight segment of the river so as to avoid under cutting and it was on bedrock. I suspect the bedrock is limestone of the Ordovician aged "Whitewater Formation" - if this is true, it should be loaded with fossils - making a look under the bridge even more fun with kids. The sandy beach under the makes for a nice picnic spot.

Posted December 30, 2016, by Erik Baldwin (chinacat1966 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

The picture of the bridge listed for Duck Creek is not the bridge over Duck Creek. The actual bridge does not have a paved road running in front of it. It is in the middle of a farmer's field. Look at Google Earth for further proof. The farmer is using the bridge to access his fields. The comments from the person believing it to actually being the bridge in Indiana are correct.