HistoricBridges.org Menu: HistoricBridges.org Menu:

We Recommend These Resources:
Bach Steel - Experts at historic truss bridge restoration.

HistoricBridges.org: Bridge Browser

Iron Bridge Road Bridge

SR 3007 Bridge

Iron Bridge Road Bridge

Primary Photographer(s): Nathan Holth and Rick McOmber

Bridge Documented: May 29, 2010

View Photos
and Videos
View Maps
and Links

Key Facts

Facility Carried / Feature Intersected
Iron Bridge Road (PA-3007) Over Middle Creek
Near Middleburg: Snyder County, Pennsylvania: United States
Construction Date and Builder / Engineer
1890 By Builder/Contractor: Variety Iron Works of Cleveland, Ohio

Technical Facts

Rehabilitation Date
Main Span Length
112 Feet (34.1 Meters)
Structure Length
115 Feet (35.1 Meters)
Roadway Width
14 Feet (4.27 Meters)
1 Main Span(s)
NBI Number

Historic Significance Rating (HSR)
View Information About HSR Ratings

Bridge Documentation

This bridge no longer exists!

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

This rare historic truss bridge was demolished and replaced by PennDOT June 20, 2012!

View The Historic Bridge Inspection File For This Historic Bridge

View The Determination of Effect Report For The Demolition and Replacement Project


PennDOT has proposed and supports a project to demolish and replace this historic bridge with a slab of pre-stressed concrete. It is well documented that despite having more and rarer examples of historic metal truss bridges, fewer historic metal truss bridges are preserved in Pennsylvania than most other states. HistoricBridges.org remains hopeful that PennDOT will have a change of heart and will join the neighboring states of New York, Maryland, and New Jersey and begin to rehabilitate and preserve significant quantities of its remaining historic metal truss bridges. HistoricBridges.org is ready to assist and support any PennDOT efforts to preserve this and other historic metal truss bridges.

In the case of the SR-3007 Bridge, HistoricBridges.org strongly believes that aside from being among the more important historic metal truss bridges in Pennsylvania, the SR-3007 Bridge has perhaps more factors that make preservation both feasible and prudent than perhaps any other bridge in the Commonwealth.

HistoricBridges.org has prepared a detailed narrative below intended to describe the significance and condition of the bridge, as well as the feasibility of the bridge's preservation. The narrative has been divided into sections and subsections in an attempt to organize the lengthy discussion.

The HistoricBridges.org team would be happy to discuss the preservation feasibility of the SR-3007 Bridge with anyone, whether they agree or disagree with the findings below. Feel free to contact us.

 Overview of the Bridge

This bridge carries SR-3007 (Iron Bridge Road) over Middle Creek on a quiet road just southwest of Middleburg. The bridge is located on SR-3007 at Segment 0010, Offset 0215 and is assigned the PennDOT BMS number 54 3007 0010 0215.

The bridge has a clear roadway width of 15 feet, 8 inches, although in the National Bridge Inventory the roadway width is 14.1 feet (4.3 meters). The height restriction is 11 feet 3 inches.

The exact construction date is not known for the bridge, but it is assumed the bridge was built in c. 1890. A small circular plaque on the end posts of the bridge identifies the bridge builder as Variety Ironworks of Cleveland, Ohio, but it does not list a date. The metal on the bridge has mill branding that reads C. R. M. Co. which presumably stands for Chicago Rolling Mill Company.

The bridge is a seven panel pin-connected Pratt through truss sitting on stone abutments that have been repaired with concrete caps. The truss is configured as follows (measurements accurate within .5 inches): End posts: Back-to-back channels with lattice on top and battens on the bottom, member dimensions approx. 7 inches by 9.5 inches. Top chord (all but center two panels): Back-to-back channels with lattice on top and battens on the bottom, member dimensions approx. 7 inches by 9.5 inches. Top chord (center two panels): Back-to-back channels with cover plate on top and battens on the bottom, member dimensions approx. 7 inches by 9.5 inches. Vertical members (all except hip verticals): Back-to-back channels with v-lacing on each side, member dimensions approx. 5 inches by 9.5 inches. Hip verticals: up-set eyebars. Diagonal members: up-set eyebars. Counters: loop-forged eyebars. Bottom chord: up-set eyebars. Portal bracing: composed of paired angles and lattice fill. Sway bracing/struts: pedimented strut design consisting of two angles riveted to triangular shaped plate, and simple angle knee bracing. Floorbeams: original floorbeams replaced with wide flange beams. Railing: Original pole railing removed, modern Armco guardrail added, mounted to deck stringers. Deck: open metal grate deck placed on steel deck stringers.

The bridge displays several noteworthy, distinctive, or uncommon, details, many of them associated with the Variety Ironworks. The pedimented design of the struts is present on all known through trusses built by the company, and the  design of the portal bracing is seen on nearly all of the known trusses built by the company. The use of lattice instead of cover plate, particularly on the top chord (except at the center two panels), is another design the company often used. This particular bridge also has lattice on the top of the endpost as well, which is an uncommon feature among highway truss bridges of this period in history. The hip verticals have up-set eyebars that have an uncommon shape (not circular) which is an unusual detail that has shown up on other Variety Ironworks spans.

The National Bridge Inventory lists a 1932 construction date for the bridge. Obviously this is not true, and the bridge was built in c. 1890. Sometimes these date discrepancies indicate a bridge which was relocated from elsewhere to the current location at the date given by the NBI. It may also indicate a year in which drastic repairs were made to the bridge. Finally, it may simply be a data entry error.

History of the Variety Ironworks

The Variety Ironworks was an aptly named company, since they built far more than just bridges, with a portfolio ranging from fire grates to observation towers. The Historic American Engineering Record presents a short history below.

The Variety Iron Works Company was first listed in the Cleveland city directory in I867. In 1872 the officers were C. F. Olds, F. L. Chamberlain, and Lucius M. Pitkin, who remained with the company for many years. The works was located on Scranton Road at the Brie Railway tracks on the west side of the Cuyahoga River in the industrial valley of Cleveland, where the company made boilers, tanks, heavy sheet-iron, fire grates, pulleys and hangers. By the 1890s, when it built the Gettysburg observation tower, a second works had been opened on the east side of Cleveland on the Pennsylvania Railroad, for the fabrication of bridges, roofs, iron and steel buildings, architectural work, and hoisting and conveying machinery. At that time Cleveland was the leading center in the country for the production of heavy machinery. The Hamilton Avenue buildings of Number 2 works are still partially intact. Before 1912 the company became the Variety Iron and Steel Works, J. H. Webster, president. The company remained active throughout the 1920s, but was apparently a victim of the Depression, since it does not appear in the city directory of 1934. Source: Historic American Engineering Record HAER: PA-1776

According to a forum post on Bridgehunter by Gerry McGuire, his grandfather, J.P. McGuire was a metallurgical engineer who was president of Variety Ironworks for a time. McGuire died in 1908 and the company was apparently bought by two gentlemen, one with the last name of Mathers and the other with the last name of Pitkin (likely former officer Lucius M. Pitkin). According to Gerry McGuire, the company eventually became Interlake Steel.

Historic Significance

Remaining Variety Ironworks Structures

Including the SR-3007 Bridge, there are currently only four other bridges known to remain in the country built by the Variety Ironworks. Aside from the SR-3007 Bridge, only one other is in Pennsylvania, the Red Mills Bridge. The other two known bridges are the Maple Rapids Road Bridge in Michigan and the Caldwell Road Bridge in Ohio. There is also an observation tower in Gettysburg National Park that they built.

Historic Integrity

The SR-3007 Bridge retains good historic integrity. The only major alteration to the bridge is the replacement of the original floorbeams. The bridge probably originally had built-up fishbelly style floorbeams, but these were replaced with wide flange beams during a rehabilitation project. Indeed, this does reduce the integrity of the bridge somewhat, however it is worth noting that the vast majority of preservation projects that rehabilitate historic (national register eligible) pin-connected truss bridges for continued vehicular use usually end up replacing the floorbeams anyway, so the missing floorbeams should not be considered with the evaluation of the bridge's national register eligibility. The Historic Bridge Inventory comments that the original hanging method was retained with the new floorbeams, which did maintain that aspect of the bridge's integrity. Aside from the floorbeams, the truss retains excellent overall integrity, with little to no alterations observed on the portal bracing, struts, members, and chords of the truss.


In summary, the SR-3007 Bridge retains unique and distinctive details that associate it with its builder. As such, the bridge is an extremely rare and significant example of a bridge built by the Variety Ironworks, a company for which extremely few examples remain both in Pennsylvania and nationwide.

As luck would have it, the Historic Bridge Inventory did find the bridge eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

Bridge Condition in 2010

The bridge was rehabilitated in 1961 and 1995-1996. In 2008, the weight limit was reduced from 12 tons to 9 tons.

HistoricBridges.org Observations

HistoricBridges.org examined the bridge on-site and observed the condition of the bridge. The overall bridge appears to be in decent shape although it is clear a rehabilitation is needed.

The paint on the bridge is failing in a manner that is somewhat unusual. The overall paint condition is fair to good, but in many areas, particularly the traditional trouble areas (splash zone / region at and below car level) the paint is peeling away revealing rust underneath. In many cases, the rust appears to be forming underneath the paint. Regardless of the cause and condition, it is clear that part or all of the bridge should be repainted.

There is minor section loss present on many portions of the members, and severe section loss in isolated portions of the bridge. However as is often the case, most of the section loss is present on the lower half of the truss. In some cases, the section loss was arrested or repaired as part of previous rehabilitation projects. Some of the worst section loss appeared to be at the bottom ends of the vertical members, on the channels. Pack rust on the bridge is isolated. The use of lattice instead of cover plate on the top chord and end post means that the most common location of pack rust on a truss bridge doesn't even exist on this bridge, except for the center two panels where cover plate was used on the top chord. There is minor pack rust present there, but this is easily fixed using restoration techniques.

One of the traditional trouble areas on a truss bridge, the deck and floorbeams, appears to be in good shape on this bridge because they were replaced in the previous rehabilitation.

National Bridge Inventory Ratings

The 2009 National Bridge Inventory Inspection made the following findings:

2009 National Bridge Inventory Inspection Findings 

Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 235

Superstructure: Poor (4/10)

Substructure: Satisfactory (6/10)

Deck: Satisfactory (6/10)

These NBI superstructure, substructure, and deck evaluations are strongly indicative of a bridge for which rehabilitation is needed, but do not indicate a bridge for which demolition and replacement is needed. Indeed, bridges with far worse structural evaluations have been restored to like-new condition and without loss of historic integrity either. Further, the 9 ton weight limit also suggests this is a bridge in need of rehabilitation, not replacement. The lowest weight limit a bridge can have before it is closed is generally three tons. The SR-3007 Bridge has three times that weight limit, suggesting that perhaps this is not a bridge on the verge of being closed to traffic.

The 2009 the ADT was listed in the National Bridge Inventory as 235 for the bridge. The National Bridge Inventory also listed a predicted Future ADT as being 362 in the year 2030. The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) defines "Very Low-Volume Local Roads" as those roads having an ADT equal to or less than 400. With an ADT of 235, SR-3007 is an extremely low volume roadway.  Sometime during the project however, PennDOT suddenly reported that they had recounted the traffic on the road and that the new ADT of the bridge was 412, a mere 12 cars above the 400 ADT Very Low-Volume Local Roads rating. Because of these few cars, PennDOT suddenly was able to declare that the road was not a Very Low-Volume Local Road. What does this mean? Although AASHTO guidelines are guidelines, and not laws, so this did not mean that any rehabilitation plan had to be thrown out on that basis, DOTs like to adhere to AASHTO guidelines because the guidelines are intended to maintain a consistent and safe roadway. Indeed, in many cases, AASHTO guidelines are important and beneficial. But in a case where the ADT is a mere 12 cars above the Very Low-Volume Local Roads, it seems an exception to these guidelines is prudent, especially given the benefits of rehabilitating the historic bridge.

Alternative Routes For Heavy and Emergency Traffic

The SR-3007 Bridge does not appear to be a bridge for which having an unrestricted bridge is essential. Indeed, it would appear that having a bridge that only carries light, local residential traffic would be quite appropriate for the road. Several detours for heavy traffic exist, and an unrestricted bridge is not needed by emergency services vehicles. When planning for a bridge replacement project takes place, the agency is required to consider the Project Need. In the case of the SR-3007 Bridge, it is not apparent that there is a definite need for a replacement bridge. There may be a Project Want on the part of some residents and perhaps PennDOT as well. However, it is the view of HistoricBridges.org that the rehabilitation of the SR-3007 Bridge would meet the Project Need.

Two alternative routes are readily available for vehicles which do not meet the weight, height, or width restrictions present on the SR-3007 Bridge. The essential purpose of SR-3007 is to connect US-522 to SR-3008 (Paxtonville Road) which run parallel to each other. Roughly a mile and a half west of the SR-3007 Bridge, SR-3009 (Paxton Street) provides the same function as SR-3007 on a similar roadway, although this road is more straight. The SR-3009 Bridge is a non-historic 1932 stringer bridge that is also one lane. However, this bridge is apparently being replaced in 2010, and thus SR-3009 (Paxton Street) will then be able to provide an unrestricted detour for vehicles. Similarly, a mile east of SR-3007, SR-104, a major highway which goes through Middleburg provides the same function as SR-3007 by connecting US-522 to SR-3008 (Paxtonville Road). The bridge in Middleburg is unrestricted and was built in 2002. Finally, it is worth noting that SR-3008 (Paxtonville Road) eventually joins with US-522 to the west, providing a third connection for traffic attempting to reach US-522.

 The SR-3007 Bridge as it exists is sufficient for local emergency and school services. In fact, emergency and school services said that even the complete removal of the bridge without replacement would not be a problem for them. According to PennDOT, "Discussions with school district and emergency services providers indicated that the weight restriction has not been a burden for them."

Misleading Replacement Plans

In the process of planning for the bridge project, PennDOT was required to consider a variety of project alternatives. Among these were do nothing, rehabilitate the historic bridge, and replace the historic bridge. The idea is to research and study the alternatives, weigh all the factors, involve the public, and finally decide which one is the most feasible and prudent given all the conditions and needs at the crossing.

There has been a serious problem with this process as it relates to the SR-3007 Bridge. The rehabilitation alternative that PennDOT came up with appears to be a rehabilitation project that is very poorly designed and costs far more money while providing less benefits than one would expect from a well-planned truss bridge rehabilitation. It is unclear why PennDOT allowed such a project to be the benchmark for determining the feasibility of rehabilitation, but the result has been that it makes rehabilitation seem to be a waste of money also makes the proposal to replace the historic bridge with a new bridge to be a better choice than it may really be.

PennDOT's rehabilitation proposal would destroy much of the original bridge material and reduce the historic integrity of the bridge, would cost only $200,000 less than the $1.2 million replacement proposal, and would only increase the weight limit from 9 tons to 12 tons. Given the condition of the bridge and comparing other preservation projects elsewhere, this seems completely off-target. A rehabilitation of the truss which would include repainting and a post-tensioning of the trusses with cables should raise the weight limit to 20 tons or more and provide a bridge life and maintenance requirements similar to a new bridge, and should have a cost that is similar or less than the cost of replacement.

Example Rehabilitation: Maple Road Bridge

The engineering firm Transystems, which frequently does work in Pennsylvania and has proven experience with historic bridges, is an example firm which is qualified to design such a rehabilitation project. They were not consulted as part of PennDOT's SR-3007 Bridge Stufy.  In the state of Michigan, Lichtenstein Engineering (which was bought by Transystems), designed a high quality rehabilitation of the Maple Road Bridge. The Maple Road Bridge is of similar dimensions and design as the SR-3007 Bridge, with a 120 foot span, 16 foot roadway, and it is also a pin-connected through truss, and is likely about 10 years older than the SR-3007 Bridge. Prior to rehabilitation, the Maple Road Bridge was posted for a six ton weight limit, lower than the current nine ton posting for the SR-3007 Bridge. Also, the Maple Road Bridge carries far more traffic, with a reported ADT of 1963. With these conditions, the Maple Road bridge was rehabilitated to carry a posted 20 tons (this posting was actually considerably lower than what it could have been, but was done to control traffic), and this was done with very little loss of original bridge material. One of the key elements of the rehab was the use of post-tensioning cables, which strengthened the bridge without requiring removal of the original truss members and chords. According to Washtenaw County Road Commission, the bridge is expected to have up to a 100 year bridge life and beyond, which is actually twice the length of what PennDOT advertised with its proposed replacement pre-stressed concrete bridge. Read this pamphlet which was distributed by Washtenaw County when the bridge was rehabilitated and describes the details of the project.

The fact that the new lower weight limit of nine tons on the SR-3007 bridge is still three tons higher than what the Maple Road Bridge was posted for prior to rehabilitation leads HistoricBridges.org to believe that the SR-3007 Bridge is in equal or better condition than the Maple Road Bridge. This, along with similar dimensions (the Maple Road Bridge even being slightly larger in fact) leads HistoricBridges.org to believe that the rehabilitation of the SR-3007 bridge would have a similar cost. Therefore, logic would seem to suggest that a quality rehabilitation of the SR-3007 Bridge to support a posted 20 ton weight limit could be designed for up to half the cost of replacing the bridge.

It is clear that a 20 ton weight limit (8 tons more than the 12 ton posted weight limit prior to the most recent reduction) as well as a continuation of the existing height and width restrictions is not a concern. The fact that removal of the bridge without replacement was considered, as well as the admission from Emergency Services Providers and area schools that the current bridge restrictions have not caused them problems confirms this assessment. Further, it appears that passenger vehicles are the primary users of the bridge, and the ADT of 235 is very small, and the detour for any trucks and other heavy traffic is only three or four miles. Finally, because this would be a comprehensive rehabilitation rather than a patchwork repair job, the maintenance costs should not be prohibitive moving forward and should be similar to a new bridge.

Additional Examples: New Jersey and Maryland

Additional examples of rehabilitated metal truss bridges are present in high numbers in the neighboring states of Maryland and New Jersey. In particular, Frederick County, MD and Hunterdon County, NJ together provide dozens of rehabilitated metal truss bridges.

A Bad Rehabilitation Plan Leads To A Misled Public

During a public meeting, community citizens voiced support for replacing this bridge with a new bridge. However HistoricBridges.org believes this opinion has been voiced only because the public was not aware of a less expensive rehabilitation option. PennDOT held a public input meeting to decide which alternative was best for the bridge. The information that was provided to citizens was that replacing the bridge with a new, wider bridge with no restrictions would only cost $200,000 more than the cost of rehabilitating the bridge. Further, you told these citizens that "Very little of the bridge would remain if it were rehabilitated to useful standards, making it an impractical and imprudent solution." They were also told that the maintenance costs would be high and that the weight limit would only be increased slightly. Likely unaware of preservation projects in other states, the attending citizens took this assessment as the only option for rehabilitation. As such, it is unsurprising that they voiced support for a new bridge. It would be hard to argue against rehabilitating the bridge for continued vehicular use with statements like that. However, because there are likely less costly methods of rehabilitating the bridge (that also provide greater benefit) that were not conveyed to the citizenry at the meeting, HistoricBridges.org believes that their support of a new bridge should not be taken as the official position of the community until they can be informed of alternative rehabilitation options.

Another problem is that PennDOT suggested that a rehabilitated historic SR-3007 Bridge would have high maintenance costs while creating the impression that a replacement modern bridge will last 50-100 years and not have hardly any maintenance costs using phrases like "minimal maintenance costs" when a phrase like "average maintenance costs" would more accurately convey the truth and prevent the general public from being misled.

The truth is that the pre-stressed concrete used in modern bridges will require very careful and consistent maintenance in order to achieve the 50-100 year life span advertised by PennDOT. Over the life of the bridge, it will be absolutely essential to ensure that no moisture enters the pre-stressed concrete and no cracks develop that reach the tensioned "tendons" that give pre-stressed concrete its strength. Compared to reinforcing rods (rebar) used in traditional reinforced concrete, the tensioned tendons of pre-stressed concrete tend to weaken very quickly and can even fray or tear apart once moisture reaches them and begins to cause corrosion and rust. Think of cutting a string with scissors. Its much easier to cut it when you pull it taut. This is why tendons break down more quickly than traditional rebar. This does not mean that pre-stressed concrete is useless. However, to suggest that it is a more long-lived material than durable, corrosion-resistant wrought iron and pure, virgin steel (no scrap material) that truss bridges from the late 1800s are made of is somewhat unwise. This is especially true since the first pre-stressed concrete bridges ever built in the United States are only now beginning to turn 50 years old. There really is no proof that pre-stressed concrete will last 100 years yet. Bridges like the historic SR-3007 Bridge could potentially give 200 years of life if maintained and rehabilitated as needed.

Information and Findings From Pennsylvania's Historic Bridge Inventory

Discussion of Bridge: Summary

The 1 span, 115'-long, pin-connected Pratt thru truss bridge built ca. 1890 is supported on stone abutments with concrete bridge seats added (1995). The lightly built trusses have lower chords and diagonals of eye bars, and upper chords, end posts, and verticals of channels with lacing. The bridge has lattice portal bracing and built-up upper laterals with an inverted fishbelly shape. The floorbeams, stringers and deck were replaced in 1995, but the floorbeams were reconnected to the trusses in the original manner with U-shaped hangers from the lower chord pins. The end panel lower chord members were post tensioned with rods placed to the inside of the eye bars. The bridge is among the early examples of its type/design in the region. The 1995 deck replacement was sensitive to the original fabric/appearance. The Variety Iron Works, a Cleveland, Ohio, fabricator, built bridges from ca. 1888-1907, but was most active in the 1890s. The bridge's date of construction is undocumented by available records but ca. 1890 is appropriate based on company history and style. The bridge is a historically and technologically significant example of its type/design with distinctive details like the lattice web end posts and the fact that is a rare instate example of the fabricator.

Physical Description

The 1 span, 115'-long, pin-connected Pratt thru truss bridge is supported on fieldstone abutments with concrete bridge seats added (1995), The bearings were also rehabilitated at that time. The lightly built trusses have lower chords and diagonals of eye bars, and upper chords, end posts, and verticals of channels with lacing or lattice. The bridge has lattice portal bracing and built-up upper laterals with an inverted fishbelly shape. The floorbeams, stringers and deck were replaced in 1995, but the floorbeams were reconnected to the trusses in the original manner with U-shaped hangers from the lower chord pins. The end panel lower chord members were post tensioned with rods placed to the inside of the eye bars. Earlier railings have been replaced by W-beam guide rail railings set to the inside of the trusses 11995). Stone parapets are set atop the flared wingwalls. A plaque indicates the fabricator, "Variety Iron Works, Bridge Builders, Cleveland, Ohio," but does not provide a date of construction.

Historical and Technological Significance

The ca. 1890 pin-connected Pratt thru truss bridge is historically and technologically significant as among the early surviving examples of its type/design with distinctive details in the region by a fabricator that is not heavily represented by other extant examples in Pennsylvania (criterion C)' The lattice web detail of the end posts is not common. It is an early detail. The 1995 deck replacement was sensitive to the original fabric/appearance. The bridge's date of construction is undocumented by available records but ca. 1890 is appropriate based on company history and style. The Variety Iron Works of Cleveland, Ohio, was established ca. 1867 as a manufacturer of boilers, and plate and sheet iron. The firm branched off into metal truss bridges ca. 1888 when it added a bridge fabrication shop to its works. Most identified surviving examples of the company's work in Ohio are from the early 1890s. Variety Iron Works was a relatively minor fabricator in comparison to larger competitors based in Ohio but it did carve out a regional niche in the highway bridge market operating into at least the first decade of the 20th century. This example of the firm's work has mostly standard period details, although it is lightly built and the inverted fishbelly shape upper laterals are not common.

Pin-connected metal truss bridges were developed and extensively used by the railroads beginning about 1850. By the mid 1870s, a variety of cast and wrought iron truss bridges developed by the railroads were being marketed for highway applications, but by 1890, the Pratt truss emerged as the most popular of the pin connected designs because of its simplicity of design and economy of fabrication and erection, especially the use of eye bars to facilitate field connections. The design was patented in 1844 and it has vertical members, originally composed of wood, in compression and diagonal members in tension. Later examples are composed of members made up of standard shapes like rolled plate, angle, or channels and did not require expensive custom castings for the connection nodes of the earliest examples. Most highway metal truss bridges built before 1895 were the Pratt or variations of the Pratt design. Advances in metallurgy and improvements in field pneumatic riveting led to the transition from pinned to riveted (rigid) connections by the late 1890s. Riveted connection Pratt truss bridges were built into the 20th century. There are over 375 Pratt truss bridges in the state dating from 1870 through 1955.

Boundary Description and Justification

The bridge is evaluated individually significant. The boundary is limited to the superstructure and substructure of the bridge.

Discussion of Surrounding Area

The bridge carries 1 lane of a 2 lane road over a stream in rural setting with active farms and scattered modern houses. At the SE quadrant is an altered mid-20th century house. The other immediate quadrants are woods or fields. The setting does not appear to have the cohesiveness or integrity of a historic district.

Bridge Considered Historic By Survey: Yes


Photo Galleries and Videos: Iron Bridge Road Bridge

View Photo Gallery
Structure Overview
Original / Full Size Photos
A collection of overview photos that show the bridge as a whole and general areas of the bridge. This gallery offers photos in the highest available resolution and file size in a touch-friendly popup viewer. Alternatively, Browse Without Using Viewer
View Photo Gallery
Structure Details
Original / Full Size Photos
A collection of detail photos that document the parts, construction, and condition of the bridge. This gallery offers photos in the highest available resolution and file size in a touch-friendly popup viewer. Alternatively, Browse Without Using Viewer
View Photo Gallery
Structure Overview
Mobile Optimized Photos
A collection of overview photos that show the bridge as a whole and general areas of the bridge. This gallery features data-friendly, fast-loading photos in a touch-friendly popup viewer. Alternatively, Browse Without Using Viewer
View Photo Gallery
Structure Details
Mobile Optimized Photos
A collection of overview photos that show the bridge as a whole and general areas of the bridge. This gallery features data-friendly, fast-loading photos in a touch-friendly popup viewer. Alternatively, Browse Without Using Viewer
View Video
Southbound Crossing of the Bridge
Full Motion Video
Streaming video of the bridge. Also includes a higher quality downloadable video for greater clarity or offline viewing.
View Video
Northbound Crossing of the Bridge
Full Motion Video
Streaming video of the bridge. Also includes a higher quality downloadable video for greater clarity or offline viewing.


Maps and Links: Iron Bridge Road Bridge

This historic bridge has been demolished. This map is shown for reference purposes only.

Coordinates (Latitude, Longitude):

View Bridge Location In:

Bridgehunter.com: View listed bridges within a half mile of this bridge.

Bridgehunter.com: View listed bridges within 10 miles of this bridge.

Google Maps

Google Streetview (If Available)

Bing Maps


Apple Maps (Via DuckDuckGo Search)

Apple Maps (Apple devices only)


HERE We Go Maps

ACME Mapper

Waze Map

Android: Open Location In Your Map or GPS App

Flickr Gallery (Find Nearby Photos)

Wikimedia Commons (Find Nearby Photos)

Directions Via Sygic For Android

Directions Via Sygic For iOS and Android Dolphin Browser

USGS National Map (United States Only)

Historical USGS Topo Maps (United States Only)

CalTopo Maps (United States Only)

Home Top


About - Contact

© Copyright 2003-2021, 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.

Admin Login