This bridge is amazing at sunrise and in the winter!
This image uploaded by Kristen Westlake. Kristen is a professional nature and wildlife photographer.
This image may be found and ordered as a print:
This is the very reason I removed the build date--I agree with Robert and Nathan. As far as primary original dates, I think that in cases like this, a way to include both dates should be implemented, because both spans are highly significant. This is uncommon, so even if adding both dates is cumbersome, it wouldn't have to be done very often.
Thanks for the reply. I should add that I support adding the relocation date under history even if the bridge is completely disassembled for the move as opposed to being moved in one piece.
I strongly agree with Robert's comment. When a bridge is moved, if original bridge materials remain, it is not a "new bridge" it is merely an old bridge moved and repaired in a new location. 2006 would be a "rehabilitation/relocation date." I also agree that this bridge is an unusual circumstance... should the primary date refer to the oldest truss, or the largest (main) span of the conglomeration?
I must respectfully disagree. I prefer to keep the original build date, but add the relocation date under "History". With this bridge, that is admittedly a bit cumbersome as the spans were built different years, but with most bridges this is a straightforward means of keeping the dates separate.
I am always glad to see a bridge preserved, but the relocation date is just secondary information IMHO.
Of course, an alternative is to add a bridge twice - once for each location, but that would obviously confuse those who are unfamiliar with a particular bridge.
2006 is a proper built date as that's when the current structure was constructed/built, ergo 2006 IS the build date.
It scares me when I see BOOM next to a newspaper story about a bridge.
Instead say Voilą or something. Too many BOOMs in my state.
That's what I was thinking, too. This clearly isn't the original location for either span, and they are of completely different design. It was my thought as well that they were brought here for preservation.
I could not find any markers, plaques or anything else concerning history, build date, builder, etc. at the physical site. I suppose there might be some local newspaper articles on line, but I haven't had a chance to look. It's not likely I'll have time; still working 50 hour weeks.
Interesting find. It looks like it is two different bridges put together. A traditional HWY thru truss at one end and at the other a pony truss that looks like a railroad-built highway over railroad overpass.