They sure love "Waving the bloody shirt" of the I-35 bridge. No one points at concrete trucks and screams "Danger".
I think this may be continuous vs cantilevered. Its hard to see in the photos to confirm, but the reason is typically, aside from the usual presence of suspended span in a cantilever, a cantilever deck truss would typically not "bear" on the pier at the ends in the traditional sense of the word... what we typically see with a cantilever is that this area is in tension and the end is in fact anchored (often by eyebar chain embedded in the pier)... whereas I think this looks like its just a regular bearing sole plate/masonry plate... but again I can't actually see for sure. Here is an unusually obvious example of cantilever anchorage (Deception Pass Bridge) http://historicbridges.org/washington/deceptionpass/deceptio... although other bridges its not this obvious.
I agree with Robert. The clue is the end of the span. And while Jason took some good pictures, none are titled or commented so I'll refer to John Marvig's photos.
"Second pier from west" and "Span" clearly show the arc is not at the end. In other words, the high strength, wide part of the web is above the bents. This is a characteristic of a cantilvered truss.
So I'm changing the design field.
I would classify this one as a cantilver deck truss.
Sadly that seems to be a "bloody shirt" of choice even when the bridge they're concerned about is nothing like the I-35.
Here in Bay City, with two bascules sold to UBP (yes, *that* UBP) at the end of last year, the fear-urgency behind having a solution for some kind of repair/replacement work for them, at least on the Mayor's part, was a complete fear of having a collapse happen here.