Rating:
2 votes

Humptulips River Bridge

Photos 

Portal View.

Photo From WSDOT State Route Web

Enlarge

BH Photo #190328

Map 

Street View 

Facts 

Overview
Polygonal Warren through truss bridge over Humptulips River on WA 109
Location
Grays Harbor County, Washington
Status
Open to traffic
History
Built 1956
Design
Polygonal Warren through truss
Dimensions
Length of largest span: 233.9 ft.
Total length: 363.9 ft.
Deck width: 25.9 ft.
Vertical clearance above deck: 15.5 ft.
Approximate latitude, longitude
+47.05095, -124.04317   (decimal degrees)
47°03'03" N, 124°02'35" W   (degrees°minutes'seconds")
Approximate UTM coordinates
10/420768/5211353 (zone/easting/northing)
Quadrangle map:
Copalis Crossing
Average daily traffic (as of 2016)
5,549
Inventory number
BH 34235 (Bridgehunter.com ID)
Inspection report (as of May 2018)
Overall condition: Fair
Superstructure condition rating: Satisfactory (6 out of 9)
Substructure condition rating: Satisfactory (6 out of 9)
Deck condition rating: Good (7 out of 9)
Sufficiency rating: 48.3 (out of 100)
View more at BridgeReports.com

Update Log 

  • May 30, 2013: New photo from M. D. Caillet
  • December 15, 2010: Updated by Matthew Lohry: Updated bridge type
  • December 14, 2010: New Street View added by Nathan Holth

Sources 

Comments 

Humptulips River Bridge
Posted September 19, 2017, by Richard Vining (Vining3 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Does any know where there is or have an image of this crossing in the 1920's. Specifically 1926.

Humptulips River Bridge
Posted December 16, 2010, by J.P.

once again I do not believe in territories in bridge hunting. When I travel i hit bridges in that area, If I find a bridge I add it with historical photos if possible and history when I can. So my fellow bridge hunters this is not a game is not for who is covering what, because me and several bridge hunters would have butted heads by now if that was true. So I'm going to be blunt get over yourself and remember this is about historical preservation and documentation of these old iron, concrete, stone, and wooden bridges for future generations. So come on people "can't we all just get along."

In Regards, and A merry Christmas

J.P.

Humptulips River Bridge
Posted December 15, 2010, by Craig Philpott (cphilpott [at] puc [dot] edu)

Well folks, it is interesting to see some strongly held differing views on here.

Right now I just feel like talking in bullet points.

1. This is not my site, I am a guest and only have an editor account through the good graces of the webmaster.

2. Nobody told me there were territories for each of us. I have posted a new bridge, and before I get the photos uploaded someone else might add the "streetview". So what!

3. I think "streetview" is one of the most fantastic tools used by the site and they often allow a close up view of the span that is not even an option in a live visit if there is no sidewalk on an active bridge.

4. Nathan is a pro, and a quiet professional. He has quietly assisted me in learning the details of history and of engineering and that support has improved my posting accuracy, thank you.

5. Regarding concrete, I have posted some contemporary concrete that seemed big enough, high enough, long enough, or representative of the current replacement status, to warrant inclusion. On the other hand, the "sheldon" type postings are a disappointment indeed.

6. This site is a form of joy and relaxation that is hard to describe. It provides excuses for weekend drives and get aways and any excuse for photography is a good excuse.

7. Merry Christmas everyone.

Humptulips River Bridge
Posted December 15, 2010, by Anthony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

WOW!.....our little forum has been quite abuzz while I have been at work today!

I think many of us may be suffering from "UCEBitius" that is starting to take it's toll and make us a little terse and testy toward one another. I have managed to bite my tongue despite my detestation of these totally non-historic "cookie-cutter" spans.

That being said.....I would hope that all of us regulars on here would continue to post with courtesy and respect toward each other. Granted this is an open forum and we can't control the occasional garble that finds it's way on here.

In regards to photographs, anyone that posts pictures on here should do so knowing that it is open for anyone else to do the same. I personally enjoy looking at other peoples work and seeing the different perspectives and comparing them to my own. There are some bridges out there (and I bet we all have them!) that I just cannot seem to take a decent picture of. This site is all about sharing information, stories and photographs, and when it comes to bridges I am an open book!

Lastly, as far as the ill words spoken toward Nathan Holth go......All I can say is that you truly don't KNOW Nathan Holth. I have had the privilege of meeting Nathan and also have worked with him on bridge related projects. There is NOBODY out there that is more passionate about saving our rapidly disappearing historic bridges than him. He not only maintains his own site, but also contributes valuable information to the Bridgehunter site......and......Is ALWAYS willing to provide help at state and local levels to anyone who is trying to save a historic span from destruction. I know that in adding DOT photos he is providing an image for us to see, and not trying to "one-up" the guy that might take pictures of it the following week. There is no reason those pictures still can't be added here.....many of us would love to see them!

I took pictures of a nice Pratt pony truss this past July that previously had no photos on this site.......

http://bridgehunter.com/oh/preble/6838154/

Two months later this span was only a memory. I'm glad I was able to see it before the unthinkable happened, and am happy to be able to share them with the rest of you. You just never know what tomorrow will bring for one of these precious structures, so any kind of photo documentation is essential to have.

My warmest regards this holiday season to all my fellow Pontists out there!

Humptulips River Bridge
Posted December 15, 2010, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Folks, let's please watch the language. I have wanted to cuss on this site a few times myself - namely when a bridge is demolished, but let's try to keep Bridgehunter family friendly.

Humptulips River Bridge
Posted December 15, 2010, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

John, if you go to Nathan's Website www.historicbridges.org you will find that he has spent an incredible amount of time in the field. His research on historic bridges is extensive, so to call claim that he relies on the research of others is dishonest.

I enjoy photography as well - including photography of things other than bridges, but I have also added Street View images to bridge pages - even for bridges that I have photographed myself. I see no harm in adding updated images.

I very much understand the importance of photography and other activities as a therapeutic aid. Trust me, I have some very good friends (WWII Veterans) who have suffered from traumatic events, so I have seen the effects of PTSD. I wish you and others well in your battle against this, but I do not believe that any of us Bridgehunters own any regions of the USA.

Humptulips River Bridge
Posted December 15, 2010, by John is a retard

Wow John way to look like a real piece of shit. Not only was your rant over the top but Nethan already explained this. He posts his personal photos on his own site and add DOT and google map photos to give photos of bridges with no coverage on this site. All of which he just explained. So way to go Wildy you are a tool

Humptulips River Bridge
Posted December 15, 2010, by John Wilder

Photographers are a passionate bunch of individuals too, even the amateur ones. They find joy in capturing things others take for granted or do not get to see everyday. To step on someone's toes so to speak by adding substandard images taken from a DOT webcam or the Google Mobile is an insult to those actually in the field.

I have noticed that almost all your images, Nathan, on this site are DOT, Bing, Google, Wiki, or swiped from some other website photos. Clearly you are the Thomas Edison of bridge historians, relying on others contributions to enhance your own goals and motives.

I find it odd that you bemoan the lack of images and documentation of bridges that are not covered in say New England or the Great Lakes and then take it upon yourself to do the West Coast instead. Is that only because those areas do not have DOT webcams? Will you criticize Craig's work in California next? Marginalize Michael's efforts in Oregon because there is a blank spot called Wheeler County that he has failed to address?

I took up photography to ease the effects of PTSD. A better way to see the brighter side of things than to feel miserable or try to throw one self off a building. I also had a friend who was suicidal who began to come around and reconnect with photography. A widow who locked themselves up in their house after their spouse of 50 years passed on, started to live again by taking images with a simple point and shoot. You do not know why this individual chose to take up the cause to help out bridgehunter. Maybe they wanted to feel useful. Maybe it gave them a purpose.

Humptulips River Bridge
Posted December 15, 2010, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Most of my bridge photographs are from Kansas, with a few in Northeast Iowa/Southeast Minnesota. That being said, I do not "own" any of these areas. In fact, I would welcome any other contributors to visit these areas and photograph bridges.

I have lived most of my life in Eastern Kansas (though I am in Texas now), but other contributors have discovered bridges in my own backyard that somehow escaped my detection. I cheer everytime this happens. If Nathan et.al. at Historicbridges.org wants to make a trip to Kansas, that would be good news. The more folks we have documenting historic bridges the better!

Humptulips River Bridge
Posted December 15, 2010, by J.P.

Photos are photos, I have been to a lot of places, me, Anthony and a couple other bridge hunters over lap all the time as there is not enough of Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, Tennessee, and Kentucky to go around. LOL. And the more bridges added with photos means we have a chance to at least have some form of picture evidence of existence. And just to say i have driven all the way across the country to see a bridge that was not added on here, and was waiting to add it, and well after six months it got added 2 days before i got to see it. Was i sad that i didn't get to add such a wonderful find with its first photos, a little, but it happens and move on.

The bridge i reference is the Cameron Arizona Suspension bridge. So don't get mad about it, go and get more photos, He only posted street view photos which are just a reference for us to have and idea what we are looking at until someone gets time to get higher grade photos which could be you.

With Regards,

J.P.

Humptulips River Bridge
Posted December 15, 2010, by Nathan Holth (form3 [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

I'm sorry, I am not real sure what I said or did to offend K. A. Erickson, it certainly wasn't my intent to offend anyone at any point on this website.

If you read my recent Forum comment about the WSDOT "Street-View" images I added, I specifically said that while I thought they were nice additions to the website in some cases, I also commented that they are NOT meant to take the place of the higher quality and more complete photo set that would arise from an on-site visit by a bridgehunter/pontist to the bridge.

I encourage anyone who has photos of any bridge on BridgeHunter to add their photos, regardless of who or what's already on the page. Different people photograph different things and also often the weather conditions or season is different and so the additional photos are of great benefit.

Any photos I have added to this website are either photos from DOT agencies, which in some cases other people might not know how to access, or I sometimes add links or photos from Flickr or Panoramio for bridges without photos. Even though my name might appear on the update because I made the change, the photos are not really my photos. My personal photos reside at www.historicbridges.org.

I frequently use BridgeHunter for both research and also for helping me organize my own bridge trips, and to that end I simply like to see as many photos as possible for each bridge listed on this website. I thought everyone else here at BridgeHunter felt the same way.

Humptulips River Bridge
Posted December 14, 2010, by Eddie Douthitt (eddied62 [at] windstream [dot] net)

That isn't really a good way to look at it IMHO. All Nathan did was post a Google Street View, nothing more. All of us have a tendency to overlap each other in the coverage, but each of us brings something different to the table. It's a hobby to be enjoyed by all, nobody needs to get their feelings hurt over it. As far as Nathan, he is one of the most passionate bridge historians there is, and he has helped me several times on my listings as I have learned the the more obscure designs.