HistoricBridges.org Menu: HistoricBridges.org Menu:

Divider

HistoricBridges.org: Bridge Browser

Advertisements:
Bach Steel - Experts at historic truss bridge restoration.

Divider

Center Road Bridge

   


Center Road Bridge

Primary Photographer(s): Nathan Holth and Rick McOmber

Bridge Documented: August 2007
View Photos
and Videos
View Maps
and Links

Key Facts

Facility Carried / Feature Intersected
Center Road Over Conneaut Creek
Location
Rural: Ashtabula County, Ohio
Structure Type
Concrete Rainbow Through Arch, Fixed
Construction Date and Builder / Engineer
1925 By Builder/Contractor: Unknown

Technical Facts

Rehabilitation Date
Not Available or Not Applicable
Main Span Length
150 Feet (45.7 Meters)
Structure Length
154 Feet (46.9 Meters)
Roadway Width
23.3 Feet (7.1 Meters)
Spans
1 Main Span(s)
NBI Number
432156

Historic Significance Rating (HSR)

Bridge Documentation

View Archived National Bridge Inventory Report - Has Additional Details and Evaluation

This graceful structure is perhaps among the most beautiful bridges in Ohio. The bridge is a reinforced concrete through arch bridge, an uncommon bridge type often called a rainbow arch bridge. Among rainbow arch bridges, this structure is a very long example, a trait that makes it both historically significant and impressive to look at. The bridge is large enough that it includes overhead bracing, which adds to the visual experience as one crosses the bridge. The bridge is also located in a scenic location. A walk down the river bank offers beautiful views of the bridge. The Center Road Bridge is a great example of how engineers were able to design a bridge that really showed how concrete can be used to create a functional yet also visually stunning crossing.

This bridge is one of two similar bridges in the county, the other being the Mill Road Bridge. The Center Road Bridge differs from the Mill Road Bridge in that it has been rehabilitated. The rehabilitation of one of the two structures is excellent. The rehabilitation appears to have been well-executed. The original concrete has been retained. The railings have been replaced using a heavier, but in-kind design. The deck has been replaced, but the floor beams are original. The repairs have maintained the integrity of the most important parts of the structure, and should also keep the structure functional for decades to come. It would be nice to see the Mill Road Bridge rehabilitated as well, as the Mill Road Bridge is a magnificent structure as well. Ashtabula County is just lucky to happen to have two of these extremely rare, large, and significant examples of a beautiful structure type.

Information and Findings From Ohio's Historic Bridge Inventory

Setting/Context

The bridge carries a 2 lane road over a stream in a rural setting with scattered 20th century residences.

Physical Description

The 1 span, 154'-long, reinforced-concrete thru arch has paneled upper lateral struts and is finished with concrete balustrades. The approach spans appear to be slabs or T beams.

Integrity

Rehabilitated in 1999.

Summary of Significance

The 1925 rainbow arch is a complete example of a rare bridge type/design in Ohio. It was sensitively rehabilitated in 1999. The inventory has identified seven surviving examples dating from 1909 to 1930 (Phase 1A Update, 2008). The eligible recommendation of the prior inventory remains appropriate.

The rainbow arch in the U.S. developed in the late 1900s and early 1910s, with its best known variation the 1912 patented design of James B. Marsh of Iowa, (which is debatably a steel arch encased in concrete). In the basic design the deck is supported by vertical hangers between the arch ribs and the floorbeams. The arch ribs, like Marsh's can have patented steel systems within them, or they can be un-patented systems of conventional reinforced concrete. The bridge type/design is known to be aesthetically pleasing and came to be popularly known as "rainbow" arches in some parts of the country, including Ohio, although technically they are perhaps best described as thru arches. The bridge type was always more numerous in the Midwest than other parts of the U.S., probably because of the influence of Marsh. The 1909 and 1911 thru arches designed by E. A. Gast in Hamilton County (3137600 & 3130622) are Ohio's oldest examples and very technologically significant as they predate the Marsh patent and are believed to have been developed independently. Later examples in Ohio are most often the design of the state bridge bureau, which developed its own standard rainbow arch by 1923.

Justification

The bridge is one of 5 remaining examples of the type that was once not uncommon in Ohio. It offered an aesthetic treatment preferred in urban and picturesque settings. The 6 examples date from 1909 to 1930, and each is of high significance given their limited numbers and importance within the context as the aesthetic alternative to the thru truss bridge.

Bridge Considered Historic By Survey: Yes

Divider

Photos and Videos: Center Road Bridge

Available Photo Galleries and Videos

Click on a thumbnail or gallery name below to visit that particular photo gallery. If videos are available, click on a video name to view and/or download that particular video.

 
View Photo Gallery
Bridge Photo-Documentation
A collection of overview and detail photos. This photo gallery contains a combination of Original / Full Sized photos and Mobile/Smartphone Optimized (Reduced Size) photos. Alternatively, view this photo gallery using a popup slideshow viewer by clicking the link below.
Browse Gallery With Popup Viewer

View Maps
and Links

Divider
 
Home Top

Divider

About - Contact

© Copyright 2003-2017, HistoricBridges.org. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer: HistoricBridges.org is a volunteer group of private citizens. HistoricBridges.org is NOT a government agency, does not represent or work with any governmental agencies, nor is it in any way associated with any government agency or any non-profit organization. While we strive for accuracy in our factual content, HistoricBridges.org offers no guarantee of accuracy. Information is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. Information could include technical inaccuracies or errors of omission. Opinions and commentary are the opinions of the respective HistoricBridges.org member who made them and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone else, including any outside photographers whose images may appear on the page in which the commentary appears. HistoricBridges.org does not bear any responsibility for any consequences resulting from the use of this or any other HistoricBridges.org information. Owners and users of bridges have the responsibility of correctly following all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, regardless of any HistoricBridges.org information.