Bermudian Creek Bridge
Description
FROM THE 1996-2001 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORIC BRIDGE SURVEY: The single span, 153'-long, double intersection Pratt thru truss bridge built in 1884 by the Wrought Iron Bridge Co. is listed in the National Register (6/22/88). There have been no significant changes in the bridge's status since the previous survey. Some alterations were noted but they appear to predate 1988. The bridge has welded splices at the counters, impact damage to at least one vertical, and cover plate welded to the flanges of the floorbeams.Facts
- Overview
- Through truss bridge over Bermudian Creek on PA 4017
- Location
- York County, Pennsylvania
- Status
- Replaced by a new bridge
- History
- Built 1884 by the Wrought Iron Bridge Co.
- Builder
- - Wrought Iron Bridge Co. of Canton, Ohio
- Design
- Whipple through truss
- Dimensions
-
Length of largest span: 149.9 ft.
Total length: 152.9 ft.
Deck width: 13.1 ft.
Vertical clearance above deck: 13.5 ft.
- Recognition
- Posted to the National Register of Historic Places on June 22, 1988
- Approximate latitude, longitude
- +40.00861, -76.96306 (decimal degrees)
40°00'31" N, 76°57'47" W (degrees°minutes'seconds") - Approximate UTM coordinates
- 18/332449/4430558 (zone/easting/northing)
- USGS topographic map
- Wellsville
- Inventory numbers
- PA 66 4017 0030 0000 (Pennsylvania Bridge Management System number)
NRHP 88000817 (National Register of Historic Places reference number)
PANBI 44149 (Pennsylvania BRKEY bridge number on the 2011 NBI)
BH 31855 (Bridgehunter.com ID) - Inspection (as of 11/2007)
- Deck condition rating: Excellent (9 out of 9)
Superstructure condition rating: Excellent (9 out of 9)
Substructure condition rating: Excellent (9 out of 9)
Sufficiency rating: 99.0 (out of 100) - Average daily traffic (as of 2008)
- 543
Update Log
- December 26, 2011: Updated by Jodi Christman: Added description and other details
- March 1, 2011: New photo from Jodi Christman
- February 21, 2011: Updated by Daniel Hopkins: Replaced with new cement bridge
Sources
- Daniel Hopkins - chimera [at] clovermail [dot] net
- Jodi Christman - masterofchaos [at] outlook [dot] com
Comments
I also noted that the company that designed the replacement bridge... and who likely conducted the rehabilitation feasibility analysis for the historic bridge during Section 106... has absolutely no experience rehabilitating historic metal truss bridges, based on their portfolio. Hiring firms that lack a deep and varied portfolio of successfully rehabilitating historic metal truss bridges to conduct rehabilitation feasibility analysis for metal truss bridges has been a repeating problem in Pennsylvania.
Tony,
In response to your question about the Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC), I would compare their role in the process to that of an ant telling a steamroller to stop rolling toward it. PHMC advocates for preservation during the Section 106 process, but in my observation they have little more power over PennDOT than the average citizen.
Sad...but likely true.
Like a county hysterical society here in Indiana that wouldn't step up to save a 120+ year old abandoned Whipple truss from senseless destruction by the worthless county commissioners...because they were afraid they would lose their share of the casino revenues.
It's likely one of those agencies or groups that is the opposite of what it says it is. Political moves. Obfuscate wildly. Up is down, Yes means no, Historical means ready to bulldoze over, etc.
Probably because bridges have nothing to do with the american revolution so they don't care about it.
Pennsylvania has a Historic Commission?
Where the HELL are they hiding while all the state's HISTORIC bridges are being obliterated??
Just saw the replacement UCEB
http://www.centuryeng.com/BenatecTransSR4017.html
I'm sorry but I don't see how engineers think this is a successful solution.
This page's URL is http://bridgehunter.com/pa/york/664017003000000/