|
 |
|
| Key Facts |
| Bridge Name | Facility Carried / Feature Intersected | Location | Structure Type | Construction Date and Builder/Engineer | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Pine Island Drive Bridge
| Pine Island Drive Over Rogue River | Rural: Kent County, Michigan | Concrete Curved Chord Through Girder, Fixed | 1924 By Builder/Contractor: Peter Brill |
| Technical Facts |
| Main Span Length | Structure Length | Roadway Width | Main Spans | NBI Number |
| 93 Feet (28.3 Meters) | 99.7 Feet (30.4 Meters) | 20 Feet (6.1 Meters) | 1 | 41200081000B010 |
Excellent news! Tom Byle, Assistant Director of Engineering of the Kent County Road Commission reports that Kent County plans to restore this bridge, and to increase safety, turn the crossing into a one-way couplet, an option this website has suggested with so many of those narrow concrete bridges on this website. Kent County deserves a big thank you for choosing to preserve this unique bridge which is unlike anything else in the state! The planned preservation of this structure will be a role model for the rest of the state.
This is a one-of-a-kind example of a bridge that has been described as a through arch bridge and alternatively as a curved chord through girder. The bridge is also noted for its overhead bracing. This bridge has the same cool tunnel feeling you get when you cross a through truss bridge. Some sources call this bridge a through arch bridge which is commonly called a rainbow arch bridge. However it does not look like the average rainbow arch, which is like city-engineer designed Merrick Street Bridge. Rather, it really has more architectural (and perhaps structural) details that relate to to Michigan's unique curved-chord through girder bridges, a.k.a. concrete camelback bridges. This inset arch design (and the solid concrete wall forming it), the pierced openings, and general shape of the arch/girder contribute to this concrete camelback appearance. Beyond these similarities, this bridge was really spruced up with architectural details. One could almost call the bridge ornate. The pierced openings are not just simple holes, they have a keyhole-like shape to them. Inset, but not pierced, designs identical to accent the piercing below. End posts on the bridge have inset rectangular designs and such. The overhead bracing has been shaped to give the appearance that it sits on brackets. Looking up at this bracing on the bridge, you can see that the bracing has had its interior corners rounded to give it a window-like appearance. The unique design and excellent historic integrity (no alterations) of this bridge makes it one of the most historically significant concrete bridges in Michigan. No structures of similar appearance are known to exist either in Michigan or nationwide.
The unusual design at this location came because the county was not interested in a metal truss design, which had originally been proposed for the crossing.
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.
|
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 |
© Copyright 2003-2013, 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 of bridges have the responsibility of correctly following all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, regardless of any HistoricBridges.org information.
