[Wonder Warthog]

The headline is grossly misleading. All the article does is give a state-by-state listing of PERCENTAGES of bridges that are “structurally deficient”-—not an actual list of bridges (which would actually be useful).

[Abby4116]

If you follow the link, click on the map, you can find a total listing in each state by county.

[Captain Rhino]

Click on the desired state in the article, it will take you to a separate web page for that state.

Once there, scroll down and you find a county listing.

Click on the desired county and you jump to the structurally deficient bridges in that county.

I found out that I drive across two of them every work day. Swell.

[Right Wing Assault]

All the article does is give a state-by-state listing of PERCENTAGES of bridges that are “structurally deficient”-—not an actual list of bridges (which would actually be useful).

Look again. Click on a state. I did Ohio. At the bottom of the box that opens, it says, "Click here to see major state bridges on list."

[sodpoodle]

“””state-by-state listing of PERCENTAGES of bridges that are “structurally deficient”-—not an actual list of bridges (which would actually be useful).””

Try this link - you click on the state and then it gives a list of all bridges by county, road, status and ranking.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20093413/?GT1=10252

[Albion Wilde]

All the article does is give a state-by-state listing of PERCENTAGES of bridges that are “structurally deficient”-—not an actual list of bridges (which would actually be useful).

I went to the link and kept following links and found state-by-state lists, with exact addresses of bridges carrying more than their designed-for load. I have already emailed the state-by-state links to friends and family.