|
Key Facts |
Bridge Name |
Type | Road | Location | City | Crossing |
Card Road Bridge | Truss | Card Road | Macomb County, MI | Rural | Clinton River |
|
Technical Facts |
|
Construction Date |
Structure Length | Roadway Width |
| 1910 | 81 Feet | 16.4 Feet |
The Card Road Bridge is a warren pony truss. It retains original lattice guardrails. The deck is concrete on top of corrugated steel. The truss members appeared to be in decent condition, however some of the metal under the deck was quite deteriorated. A small portion of the deck is falling apart. The Michigan Historic Bridge Inventory gives a construction date of 1910. No plaques are on the bridge. The 81 foot listing from the National Bridge Inventory at www.nationalbridges.com differs from the 77 foot listing on the Historic Bridge Inventory. I am unsure which is correct, but the bridge is around 80 feet for sure!
When I first discovered this bridge, it had clearly been closed for at least a decade (The actual time is over 20 years). I figured that the bridge was probably not going to be restored, yet I figured I could enjoy the bridge in its current state for years to come. How silly of me to think that I could take a truss bridge for granted! Read this article that I found on the Internet from the Detroit News. Not only is this historic truss bridge doomed, they want to replace it with the highly overrated type of bridge known as a covered bridge. This is not going to be an old bridge moved here, it is going to be a non-historic, 21st century covered bridge. This is a pathetic idea that disgraces not only truss bridges, but covered bridges as well.
People like covered bridges because they look rural and old. In my opinion, an early 20th century truss bridge that could probably end up on the National Register should convey feelings of rural and old as well. Second, the article cites covered bridges as being an aesthetic structure. Although I can not understand what is aesthetic about a shed going over water a bridge type that totally restricts the view of the river) I certainly respect the fact that many people do like this type of bridge. And I also respect other people's opinion that the intricate, latticed design of a truss bridge are not aesthetic. However, I become angry when I feel my right to enjoy a pre-existing truss bridge is being violated by their desire for a new covered bridge at the location. Furthermore, it is a twisted logic to replace a genuine historic bridge with a new, non-historic mimicry of a different type of historic bridge.
In my dream world, I would forget having a vehicular bridge here and restore the truss bridge for pedestrian use. However, that is a bit unrealistic. So what follows is a solution that is not my first choice, but is what I feel would give everybody a little something. Obviously, if Macomb County has the extra money to build covered bridges instead of the usual concrete slabs, they certainly have enough money to bring this bridge back into service. Recognizing that this bridge's i-beams are in bad condition, and part of the deck is falling apart, I suggest a retrofit. If the i-beams on the truss bridge have gone too far, the pony trusses could be set upon a carefully designed beam bridge. If this was done right, as it has been in Pennsylvania, you can make this look very nice. You could go with a concrete deck like the bridge has now, or even put a wooden deck on. It would no longer be structurally or historically accurate, but it would retain the aesthetic integrity of the bridge. It would certainly be more historic than a 21st century covered bridge!
I have been told by Pennsylvania's DOT that they no longer build metal truss bridges because they are dangerous, since they rely on all members integrity to remain standing. Structurally, metal truss bridges are no different from covered bridges, except in material. They both have structural members set in a truss configuration. Apparently, they are not worried about this in Michigan. So why can't Macomb County also build new metal truss bridges? If they are going to build so-called aesthetic bridges, they need to please more than just the covered bridge crowd.
The news article mentioned that covered bridges last a long time. This is as true as it is for truss bridges. Both will last, but only if they are properly maintained. As I watch our road commissions let truss bridges and modern concrete slabs alike rot away due to a lack of maintenance, I wonder if Macomb County will maintain this covered bridge if they build it. I personally think they may in the beginning, but then as time goes by its maintenance will be ignored like all other bridges.
