James Baughn

The most recent inspection on the NBI is from August 2010. At that time, the bridge's sufficiency rating was 57.4, and the bridge was considered functionally obsolete, but not structurally deficient. The structural evaluation appraisal was given as 5, or "Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left in place as is".

I don't have the most recent inspection -- presumably from August 2012 -- but I'm really surprised this bridge has suddenly collapsed.

Jolly Mill actually has two bridges.

I'm surprised nobody has found the other April Fools gag. Look at the recent updates closely.

For Iowa bridges that didn't have coordinates in the NBI, I wrote a program to try to guess the coordinates based on the survey location (in this case T. 69 N., R. 10 W., Sec. 4). It picked out the northwest corner of the survey, so this bridge could be anywhere within a mile east or south of the point. There does appear to be something suspicious nearby -- I've moved the marker there.

We know the Cascade Bridge can be fixed, but good luck convincing the people in charge.

Thanks to everybody who submitted ideas. Here are my responses:

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS: I'm reluctant to disallow anonymous posts, since we do get a lot of useful tips from people who happen to drop by, but aren't likely to register just to make a single comment. You all might think the forum comments here are rough, but this website is really quite tranquil compared to the sites I oversee at my day job.

ABILITY TO EDIT OWN POSTS: I'll add this to the to-do list, but this will likely only be available for people with editor's accounts, since there's simply too much chance for spammers to abuse this: for example, they could post a seemingly innocuous comment, but then change it later (when it's dropped off the opening forum page and we're not paying close attention) to include a bunch of spammy links.

ADD MAPS SHOWING THE LOCATION OF EACH COUNTY: Will add that to the to-do list.

EMAIL ADDRESSES HIDDEN FROM ALL BUT SITE ADMIN: This is already available to editors -- just uncheck the "Show my email address" box on your Settings page. For everybody else, when posting comments, the email address box is optional.

HIDING MODERN BRIDGES: While this is available to editors, I'd like to make this available to everybody without requiring registration, probably using a cookie-based preference. This is on the to-do list.

The next challenge is deciding on the criteria for "modern." The big problem comes from bridges that don't have construction dates, especially footbridges. I'm thinking of adding new design categories specifically for pre-fabricated, welded truss pedestrian bridges. These bridges would be classified as modern regardless of the date built, which would help take care of most of the problem. For everything else, I think 1970 is still a good cutoff.

PREVENTING EDITORS FROM ADDING BRIDGES BUILT AFTER A CERTAIN YEAR: If somebody is willing to take the time to photograph and document a bridge, I'd rather not block that work, even if they've found something that most of us would consider boring or insignificant. There have been exceptions: some bridges are simply too hideous to allow posting here (and that's why I created uglybridges.com as a home for all bridges on the NBI).

I would never automatically forbid certain bridges, although I might consider showing a warning when adding UCEB-ish structures. The message might say, "Are you sure you want to add this bridge? This action is likely to cause the forum commenters to try beating you over the head with a clue stick."

PRESERVING STREET VIEW IMAGERY THAT MIGHT BE LOST IN THE FUTURE: I originally didn't think this was a problem. I had done a test with a particular bridge (in Alaska) that had been replaced. The latest Street View pass showed the ugly replacement bridge, but our Street View widget continued to show the old scene from a few years before. But when I last checked, the old scene had suddenly been removed and I was stuck gazing at a 360 degree panorama of a UCEB. Shudder. So I guess this is a problem, but I'm not sure how to solve it without running afoul of Google's arcane terms of service.

HIGHLIGHT ADJOINING COUNTIES WHEN USING THE "WHAT'S HERE" BUTTON: This is on the to-do list. I have quite a few improvements planned for the What's Here? tool... eventually.

REDUCE VOLUME OF UPDATES ON FRONT PAGE: Done.

ALLOW SORTING PHOTOS BY CATEGORY: This is something I've wanted to do for awhile, but I haven't quite figured out a good system that isn't too complicated or time-consuming for everybody to manage. I'd like to be able to tag individual photos with multiple categories (just like the tagging system for bridges), but it would be a lot of work to do that.

VOTE UNWORTHY BRIDGES OFF THE SITE: This was actually the main reason I added the 5-star ratings for each bridge. I was hoping that I would be able to quickly generate a list of 0 or 1 star bridges, and then easily decide which ones to delete. Unfortunately, the Half-Star Bandit -- or Bandits, as there appear to be several -- ruined this idea by downvoting perfectly good bridges.

LOAD ENLARGED PHOTOS IN A NEW BROWSER WINDOW: I added this today, although I'd like to find a better solution where the browser can remember your place in the photo gallery when using the back button.

DON'T STRIP METADATA FROM PHOTOS: This is a good idea, but I've found that the metadata (especially color profiles embedded by certain programs) can really bloat the size of JPEG images. There's also potential privacy concerns, but I can add a user preference to decide whether to strip the metadata or not.

INTRODUCTION FOR NEW VISITORS: Another good idea. I might build this as a Wiki-type setup, where editors can add informational pages as needed with links between them.

SLOTS FOR YEAR REHABILITATED: I don't really want to make the bridge editing form even more complicated than it already is, but I can add a series of categories for Year Rehabilitated to go along with Year Built. These would have to be manually assigned, but I can pre-populate them to a certain extent.

The 30 day removal requirement is patently absurd for a bridge of this size. I seriously doubt IDOT could find a contractor to completely remove a Mississippi River bridge in less than 30 days, even if price were no object, so what hope does anybody else have?

Tony: Yeah, I'm still trying to figure that one out. The historic photo has "Riley Lake" scribbled on it, but that may not be right. Both bridges, however, do have very similar portal braces and V-lacing.

This is the only bridge of its kind in Missouri, so it's natural that MoDOT wants to get rid of it.

This bridge (a King bowstring) comes to mind:

http://bridgehunter.com/ar/yell/bowstring/

The Beaver Bridge could not have been built in 1943, as the original drawings were dated October 21, 1947. You can find them here:

http://www.arkansashighways.com/historic_bridge/old_bridge_plans.aspx

You can also track railroads by using the detailed maps posted here. Go to the page for the particular county and then click "Detail map." The railroad labels shown on these maps are fairly current (well, as of 2005 anyway).

I just posted the latest NBI data for this bridge. It's no longer considered structurally deficient, but the superstructure is rated "poor."

The replacement span is built with bolted steel girders.

A couple of acres to the northwest of the bridge are owned by the state as part of Fort Davidson State Historic Site. This was the site of Missouri's first iron furnace in the 1810s, and then during the Civil War this crossing played a role in the Battle of Pilot Knob.

There's currently no good way to access the state's parcel, but they want to develop it in the future. It's likely that Highway 72 will be moved to a different alignment with a new bridge, leaving open the possibility that the current bridge could be saved and used as an overlook of the shut-ins. If this could be pulled off, it would be a triple crown for visitors: pioneer history, Civil War history, and a historic bridge.

See more here (scroll down to the section about Shut-Ins Gap):

http://mostateparks.com/page/55082/historic-site-plans