AARoads Forum

National Boards => Bridges => Topic started by: kphoger on July 13, 2021, 03:46:25 PM

Title: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: kphoger on July 13, 2021, 03:46:25 PM
What bridges were built for reasons other than carrying traffic of any kind—not pedestrian, rail, vehicle, or otherwise?

I'm not sure if this counts as a bridge, but this in downtown Dallas (https://goo.gl/maps/Fc3Ny7WMix7J3nW57) was built for the sole purpose of carrying electrical conduit across the freeway.

And how common is it for a pipeline to get its own truss (https://goo.gl/maps/6puRLodpYA7XTpJ17)?
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: BrianP on July 13, 2021, 04:10:44 PM
I'm not exactly sure what this carries over I-95 in MD. (A conveyor?)  But it's not carrying any traffic.
https://goo.gl/maps/jDQWGzX7B41V5Ye89
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: kphoger on July 13, 2021, 04:27:33 PM
I'm not exactly sure what this carries over I-95 in MD. (A conveyor?)  But it's not carrying any traffic.
https://goo.gl/maps/jDQWGzX7B41V5Ye89

Yeah, that looks like a mining conveyor.
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: CtrlAltDel on July 13, 2021, 05:12:31 PM
I-40 at the Colorado River has a few pipeline bridges, if that's along the lines of what you're looking for:

(https://i.imgur.com/ozQSaFm.png) (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.717256,-114.4855538,3a,75y,200.78h,88.05t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxeC-N9eA4DPTy4gfV9RzGw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DxeC-N9eA4DPTy4gfV9RzGw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D80.83056%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 13, 2021, 05:20:52 PM
I-40 at the Colorado River has a few pipeline bridges, if that's along the lines of what you're looking for:

(https://i.imgur.com/ozQSaFm.png) (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.717256,-114.4855538,3a,75y,200.78h,88.05t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxeC-N9eA4DPTy4gfV9RzGw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DxeC-N9eA4DPTy4gfV9RzGw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D80.83056%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)

That’s former US 66, it was converted to pipeline usage.
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: CtrlAltDel on July 13, 2021, 05:29:57 PM
I-40 at the Colorado River has a few pipeline bridges, if that's along the lines of what you're looking for:

(https://i.imgur.com/ozQSaFm.png) (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.717256,-114.4855538,3a,75y,200.78h,88.05t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxeC-N9eA4DPTy4gfV9RzGw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DxeC-N9eA4DPTy4gfV9RzGw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D80.83056%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)

That’s former US 66, it was converted to pipeline usage.

Well, then it's been redesigned to carry no traffic.  :-D

More seriously, though, the image shows three pipeline bridgelike contraptions, and I don't think that all three were US-66. I admit, though, that I didn't look anything up here, and so I might very well be wrong.
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 13, 2021, 05:35:21 PM
I-40 at the Colorado River has a few pipeline bridges, if that's along the lines of what you're looking for:

(https://i.imgur.com/ozQSaFm.png) (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.717256,-114.4855538,3a,75y,200.78h,88.05t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxeC-N9eA4DPTy4gfV9RzGw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DxeC-N9eA4DPTy4gfV9RzGw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D80.83056%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)

That’s former US 66, it was converted to pipeline usage.

Well, then it's been redesigned to carry no traffic.  :-D

More seriously, though, the image shows three pipeline bridgelike contraptions, and I don't think that all three were US-66. I admit, though, that I didn't look anything up here, and so I might very well be wrong.

You are correct, there is two standalone pipeline bridge structures that was designed from the onset as such.  I only know the Colorado Arch Bridge so well because it is a rare example of a classic piece of highway not being demolished or left to rot out in the Mojave:

https://flic.kr/p/RVAj7V

https://flic.kr/p/RVAiLK
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 13, 2021, 05:35:44 PM
Makes me think of this (https://goo.gl/maps/jtsEQHbCoYp91Srq7) or this. (https://goo.gl/maps/4DAtAnGkzroqHuHc9)
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: Big John on July 13, 2021, 06:35:51 PM
I-376 in Pittsburgh has a bridge over it whose purpose is to collect falling concrete from the crumbling arch bridge above it.
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: kphoger on July 13, 2021, 06:37:23 PM
Makes me think of this (https://goo.gl/maps/jtsEQHbCoYp91Srq7) or this. (https://goo.gl/maps/4DAtAnGkzroqHuHc9)

Crazy that the first link points to a suspension, whereas the second points straight down at the pavement.
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: US 89 on July 13, 2021, 06:55:09 PM
There is a small suspension bridge carrying a couple pipelines across the Malad River (https://goo.gl/maps/DPWCo1uq7FsjvLZV7) east of Garland, Utah.

I-215 in Salt Lake City has several pipeline bridges (https://goo.gl/maps/rbPyhcUvBtj4YDzx7) in the sunken freeway section, along with a couple carrying some more substantial water courses. This one, for example, carries Little Cottonwood Creek (https://goo.gl/maps/yufAT5VKgA8MKvwS9).

There are also a couple bridges carrying mining conveyor belts/pipelines near the Kennecott copper mine on the west side of the valley. Here's one on SR 209 in Copperton (https://goo.gl/maps/ya7KuMLMR1kReZAv5) and another substantial one across SR 201 west of Magna (https://goo.gl/maps/8VGefZAgkyCJr39NA).
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: kphoger on July 13, 2021, 07:08:00 PM
This one, for example, carries Little Cottonwood Creek (https://goo.gl/maps/yufAT5VKgA8MKvwS9).

Now, that's awesome!
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: lepidopteran on July 13, 2021, 07:16:05 PM
On I-285 in Atlanta, I think there was a temporary bridge conveyor for carrying fill dirt and/or aggregate over the highway.  This was for construction of the fifth runway at ATL airport.

Honorable mention goes to this sinuous, enclosed viaduct (https://goo.gl/maps/VePAK5CG1U4Y5d6s9) that runs under I-670 in Columbus, OH.  It connects two pharmaceutical facilities, but I'm not sure if it's a conveyor or just a walkway (or both).

Don't forget the wildlife crossings, one of which is on I-78 in Union County, NJ.  These are starting to appear out west and elsewhere around the world.

I'm not sure, but are there any freeways near airports with bridges whose sole purpose is to stage runway approach lights?
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: SkyPesos on July 13, 2021, 07:24:47 PM
Ancient Roman aqueducts
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: NE2 on July 13, 2021, 07:43:59 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Tower_Pipeline_Bridge

I'm not sure, but are there any freeways near airports with bridges whose sole purpose is to stage runway approach lights?
http://www.google.com/maps/@27.9588363,-82.5421096,3a,75y,274.92h,92.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQaBF2R-Ia-WlEASwk4-EIA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: US 89 on July 13, 2021, 08:37:41 PM
I'm not sure, but are there any freeways near airports with bridges whose sole purpose is to stage runway approach lights?

Atlanta has an example of that (https://goo.gl/maps/69D5kAH1DQPDqEZE7) as well.
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: Big John on July 13, 2021, 08:46:21 PM
The overhead gantries are called sign bridges.
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: index on July 13, 2021, 11:39:22 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@64.1564823,-145.8508885,3a,60y,8.64h,91.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZEz94DpsmDPtQl3laNNXEw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

There's the bridge that carries the Alaska Pipeline across the Tanana River, near Big Delta.
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: Rothman on July 13, 2021, 11:39:36 PM
The Martin Tipple (at least that's what my relatives called it...wasn't really in Martin), now defunct and mostly demolished, had coal chutes over KY 122.  You could hear coal going through them when driving underneath.
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: kphoger on July 14, 2021, 09:22:59 AM
Some of these (in my own OP as well) are really more just suspensions than actual bridges.

(Also, I'd call wildlife crossings "traffic".)
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: Georgia on July 14, 2021, 09:38:57 AM
Atlanta airport used to have a 2nd approach light bridge over 285 and its C/D lanes, but took it down about 7 years ago. 
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: Bitmapped on July 14, 2021, 09:44:17 AM
Bridges for mine conveyance are pretty common in mining areas. This conveyor near Bobtown, PA has been removed since this GMSV image: https://goo.gl/maps/DoxHUrmp7P72DVXw9

There is (was?) a large suspension bridge carrying coal over WV 103 to a prep plant near Gary, WV: https://goo.gl/maps/jZM18tiXRGo8Nqui7

In Canton, OH, there is a bridge for a water or sewer line over US 30/US 62: https://goo.gl/maps/yGzfd3x7EM8VdcUi7 I presume the lines predates the freeway when there used to be a street on the path of the pipe.

Yeager Airport in Charleston, WV has a large bridge over a ravine carrying approach lighting: https://goo.gl/maps/5Us2vY95pqK1MNJ6A

Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 14, 2021, 10:40:05 AM
I'm not sure, but are there any freeways near airports with bridges whose sole purpose is to stage runway approach lights?

Atlanta has an example of that (https://goo.gl/maps/69D5kAH1DQPDqEZE7) as well.

San Antonio. (https://goo.gl/maps/PcFD8v2bfHEy1n6u7)
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: roadman65 on July 14, 2021, 11:03:42 AM
In Portland, OR there is a cable stay bridge built across the River in Downtown only to carry light rail.
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: kphoger on July 14, 2021, 11:05:57 AM
... not pedestrian, rail, vehicle, or otherwise?

In Portland, OR there is a cable stay bridge built across the River in Downtown only to carry light rail.

 :hmmm:
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: roadman65 on July 14, 2021, 11:20:46 AM
Thought you meant auto.  Well High Bridge in NYC was built to carry water before it opened to pedestrians.
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: JayhawkCO on July 14, 2021, 12:21:00 PM
I get it's still traffic of a kind, but I-70 use to have one of Stapleton's runways over the top of it here in Denver.

Chris
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: kphoger on July 14, 2021, 12:28:31 PM
I get it's still traffic of a kind, but I-70 use to have one of Stapleton's runways over the top of it here in Denver.

I remember that, I think.  I-190 at O'Hare (https://goo.gl/maps/totizeuJ95byshg69) as well.  There's a runway across Central Avenue (https://goo.gl/maps/1X8oUbzf4Bdvxe8y6) here in Wichita.  But yes, those are bridges designed to carry traffic.
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: jakeroot on July 14, 2021, 12:41:35 PM
Truss structure carrying two pipelines over the Puyallup River, near Orting, Washington (about an hour south of Seattle):

https://goo.gl/maps/J9pet4en8vknXQGJ9

I think it was built in the 1930s. It was originally adjacent to the first McCutcheon bridge, before that bridge was rebuilt in the 1990s.
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 14, 2021, 02:07:49 PM
I get it's still traffic of a kind, but I-70 use to have one of Stapleton's runways over the top of it here in Denver.

I remember that, I think.  I-190 at O'Hare (https://goo.gl/maps/totizeuJ95byshg69) as well.  There's a runway across Central Avenue (https://goo.gl/maps/1X8oUbzf4Bdvxe8y6) here in Wichita.  But yes, those are bridges designed to carry traffic.

Sepulveda (https://goo.gl/maps/ZLgaYT1aHr7YVL9i9)
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: jakeroot on July 14, 2021, 04:07:56 PM
There are some dramatically large bridge structures to hold runway approach lighting at Seatac Airport, in Seattle:

https://goo.gl/maps/sSdejUxotB1hghqa8

They pass over the valleys north of the airport, as well as the WA-518 freeway.
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: Dirt Roads on July 14, 2021, 09:08:03 PM
I get it's still traffic of a kind, but I-70 use to have one of Stapleton's runways over the top of it here in Denver.

I remember that, I think.  I-190 at O'Hare (https://goo.gl/maps/totizeuJ95byshg69) as well.  There's a runway across Central Avenue (https://goo.gl/maps/1X8oUbzf4Bdvxe8y6) here in Wichita.  But yes, those are bridges designed to carry traffic.

Sepulveda (https://goo.gl/maps/ZLgaYT1aHr7YVL9i9)

Schiphol Airport near Amsterdam has two of these over the A4 freeway (Euroroute E19).  The southern taxiway has a bridge over A4, then the A4 tunnels under the main east-west runway and associated taxiways.  In this case, the reason this is unusual is that all of Schiphol is some 13 feet below sea level.  The name Schiphol means the same in English, "ship hole" (essentially a turning basin for the old long-abandoned inland seaport).
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: Mr. Matté on July 19, 2021, 12:22:08 PM
I-376 in Pittsburgh has a bridge over it whose purpose is to collect falling concrete from the crumbling arch bridge above it.

That one has since been removed (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4286325,-79.9375049,3a,90y,273.98h,101.07t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sn2WnRdH9QRolPxPEoBjfGQ!2e0!5s20151201T000000!7i13312!8i6656) with the complete replacement of the upper bridge. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenfield_Bridge)
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on July 22, 2021, 05:36:16 AM
At one point one such bridge, the Hegigio Gorge Pipeline Bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegigio_Gorge_Pipeline_Bridge) in Papua New Guinea, held the World's highest bridge title. It has been since surpassed by no less than 6 Chinese expressway bridges. In fact it is still the only one of the top 10 highest bridges not to carry a freeway, and one of only 2 outside China (the other is in Mexico).
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: kphoger on July 22, 2021, 09:48:20 AM
At one point one such bridge, the Hegigio Gorge Pipeline Bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegigio_Gorge_Pipeline_Bridge) in Papua New Guinea, held the World's highest bridge title. It has been since surpassed by no less than 6 Chinese expressway bridges. In fact it is still the only one of the top 10 highest bridges not to carry a freeway, and one of only 2 outside China (the other is in Mexico).

What is the one in Mexico?  I ask because Puente Baluarte carries a freeway—it just happens to be a two-lane freeway.
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on July 28, 2021, 07:01:41 AM
Well, I meant it is one of the only two of the 10 highest bridges overall (i.e. carrying anything) to be outside China, the other, as you said, is the Baluarte bridge.
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: Flint1979 on July 28, 2021, 09:09:26 AM
I-376 in Pittsburgh has a bridge over it whose purpose is to collect falling concrete from the crumbling arch bridge above it.
That bridge has been removed and a new bridge has been built in the same spot. The new bridge is about 4 years old now.
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: kphoger on July 28, 2021, 10:14:22 AM

I-376 in Pittsburgh has a bridge over it whose purpose is to collect falling concrete from the crumbling arch bridge above it.

That one has since been removed (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4286325,-79.9375049,3a,90y,273.98h,101.07t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sn2WnRdH9QRolPxPEoBjfGQ!2e0!5s20151201T000000!7i13312!8i6656) with the complete replacement of the upper bridge. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenfield_Bridge)


I-376 in Pittsburgh has a bridge over it whose purpose is to collect falling concrete from the crumbling arch bridge above it.

That bridge has been removed and a new bridge has been built in the same spot. The new bridge is about 4 years old now.

Is that one still there?  I've heard it was removed.
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: sbeaver44 on July 28, 2021, 08:57:11 PM
The Watchung Reserve in NJ has wildlife bridges over I-78.

Hagerstown Airport runway goes over US 11 but not sure that counts?

SM-T290

Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: kphoger on July 29, 2021, 10:30:44 AM
The Watchung Reserve in NJ has wildlife bridges over I-78.

Hagerstown Airport runway goes over US 11 but not sure that counts?

As I am the OP, I'll say that animals and airplanes both count as "traffic".
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: wriddle082 on July 29, 2021, 05:29:51 PM
Near Franklin Furnace, OH, there is a cable suspension pipeline bridge over the Ohio River, maybe a mile or so downstream from the Greenup Locks and Dam.  It can be seen from US 52 here https://goo.gl/maps/pZj4wqNanJ7ap6XH8 and can also be seen from KY 3116 (Old US 23) (no GSV).  I want to say it’s a natural gas pipeline but it could be petroleum.  Been around for as long as I can remember.
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: Big John on July 29, 2021, 06:54:25 PM
Since my previous example has been demolished, I'll come up with a coal-carrying viaduct over US 83 near Flkirk ND.
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: sbeaver44 on July 30, 2021, 11:49:45 AM
Since my previous example has been demolished, I'll come up with a coal-carrying viaduct over US 83 near Flkirk ND.
I believe it has also been demolished but there was a coal bridge over PA 88 and the Mon River near Fredericktown
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: DandyDan on July 31, 2021, 05:45:44 AM
In Plattsmouth, Nebraska north of the toll bridge and the BNSF bridge is a pipeline suspension bridge at the Missouri River.
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 31, 2021, 10:14:41 AM
Wastewater pipeline bridge across Sam Houston Tollway. (https://goo.gl/maps/irUtWTGXrRUXp6VBA)
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2021, 11:44:55 AM
What bridges were built for reasons other than carrying traffic of any kind—not pedestrian, rail, vehicle, or otherwise?

Years ago, there was a coal conveyor system that crossed WV-93 in Bismarck that carried coal from the mine located north of WV-93 to Dominion Virginia Power's large coal-fired Mount Storm Generating Station.  I presume that the supply of coal that could be recovered from the mine at the other end of the conveyor ran out, and so the conveyor was shut-down and dismantled (this was years before ADHS Corridor H was constructed in this area).
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: US 89 on August 04, 2021, 09:50:38 AM
There is a coal conveyor system in Utah’s Wasatch Plateau that begins at the Skyline Mine and crosses SR 264 and SR 96 on its way to a railroad terminal just north of Clear Creek.

(https://i.imgur.com/vY68R3P.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/IwTmWe1.jpg)
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: tolbs17 on December 22, 2021, 12:30:15 PM
This can be one of them since it's cut off and a bridge replacement here would be a waste.

1819 I-42
https://maps.app.goo.gl/TGHrncUzqu3Xo2RK8
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: dlsterner on December 22, 2021, 07:14:18 PM
This can be one of them since it's cut off and a bridge replacement here would be a waste.

1819 I-42
https://maps.app.goo.gl/TGHrncUzqu3Xo2RK8

Google Street View from one of the (now cut off) side roads seems to imply that the former crossing was at-grade, and there was never a bridge there in the first place.

https://goo.gl/maps/hhctCm2KgtGmTUL28 (https://goo.gl/maps/hhctCm2KgtGmTUL28)
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: tolbs17 on December 22, 2021, 07:48:52 PM
This can be one of them since it's cut off and a bridge replacement here would be a waste.

1819 I-42
https://maps.app.goo.gl/TGHrncUzqu3Xo2RK8

Google Street View from one of the (now cut off) side roads seems to imply that the former crossing was at-grade, and there was never a bridge there in the first place.

https://goo.gl/maps/hhctCm2KgtGmTUL28 (https://goo.gl/maps/hhctCm2KgtGmTUL28)
There is a bridge at that crossing. It goes over a creek. Thought I put the right coordinates, but it's this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5007129,-78.2799925,3a,15.4y,49.33h,88.7t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVGESF6_Rvf979j6wWask5A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DVGESF6_Rvf979j6wWask5A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D64.138985%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192).
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: CoreySamson on December 22, 2021, 07:53:02 PM
There is a bridge at that crossing. It goes over a creek.
But that bridge was initially designed for traffic, therefore it doesn't qualify for this thread. If not, then any abandoned bridge could qualify.
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: MCRoads on December 24, 2021, 06:51:34 PM
Bourbon Barrel bridge! (https://goo.gl/maps/CZao28K3QwcUs1gH6)
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: tolbs17 on December 24, 2021, 07:46:50 PM
There is a bridge at that crossing. It goes over a creek.
But that bridge was initially designed for traffic, therefore it doesn't qualify for this thread. If not, then any abandoned bridge could qualify.
Alright, the Bridge Tar River Trail (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9544991,-77.7873994,3a,30.8y,310.25h,88.16t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szbZXpxFd7DHm1Dvn5bAHOw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DzbZXpxFd7DHm1Dvn5bAHOw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D203.10794%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) qualifies.
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: jakeroot on December 26, 2021, 08:26:00 PM
There is a bridge at that crossing. It goes over a creek.
But that bridge was initially designed for traffic, therefore it doesn't qualify for this thread. If not, then any abandoned bridge could qualify.
Alright, the Bridge Tar River Trail (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9544991,-77.7873994,3a,30.8y,310.25h,88.16t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szbZXpxFd7DHm1Dvn5bAHOw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DzbZXpxFd7DHm1Dvn5bAHOw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D203.10794%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) qualifies.

That one carries pedestrian traffic. This thread is about bridges that carry non-mammal "things" (like barrels (above) or water).
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: ErmineNotyours on December 27, 2021, 09:02:59 PM
Irrigation canal over I-82 in Kennewick, WA.  Presumably the canal was there before the freeway.

https://goo.gl/maps/pnd3vAwwusLxWNLq7
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: Scott5114 on December 28, 2021, 06:21:20 AM
Natural gas line over I-35 in OKC (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4351854,-97.4857682,3a,15y,265.16h,87.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sRM54TOHkJtLr82Be6mhz-w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DRM54TOHkJtLr82Be6mhz-w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D256.7999%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: catch22 on December 28, 2021, 03:37:02 PM
Pipeline bridge spanning the Ohio Turnpike.

https://goo.gl/maps/rgMVnycoBFWEYEMK6
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: Bitmapped on December 28, 2021, 06:18:46 PM
Smith Dairy has a pipeline structure that carries ice cream mix between its milk and ice cream plants in Orrvillle, Ohio. It crosses over the intersection of Vine Street and Church Street, and even has a mount for a 4-way beacon attached to the side although I've never seen a signal mounted off it.

GMSV: https://goo.gl/maps/6X5jGGvRBUYzm4KV7
Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: skluth on December 29, 2021, 05:06:47 PM
There's this pipeline suspension bridge over the Mississippi (https://www.bridgemeister.com/pic.php?pid=1238)
Many log flumes (https://www.amusingplanet.com/2018/06/americas-last-log-flume.html) are bridges
It's not really traffic if it's animals (https://y2y.net/blog/how-do-wildlife-know-to-use-animal-bridges/), is it?

Title: Re: Bridges that were designed to carry no traffic
Post by: MCRoads on January 01, 2022, 01:39:45 PM
There's this pipeline suspension bridge over the Mississippi (https://www.bridgemeister.com/pic.php?pid=1238)
Many log flumes (https://www.amusingplanet.com/2018/06/americas-last-log-flume.html) are bridges
It's not really traffic if it's animals (https://y2y.net/blog/how-do-wildlife-know-to-use-animal-bridges/), is it?

That log flume comment actually reminds something. Erie, PA has a roller coaster that crosses a road! This might be in a weird category of technically having traffic, but the traffic is a roller coaster, so I’ll put it here in case anyone finds it interesting.
https://goo.gl/maps/kRQwhAc2mLrdN9Hd9