Good example of accessible trail bridge meeting natural surface trail, where both bridge is actually a little below the trail grade, so trail material does not wash away from the bridge; photo on Barclay Farm National Recreation Trail, from Cherry Hill Township, NJ
The classic problem on dirt trails, where the bridge itself is above the trail grade and the surfacing material wears away, leaving a step; Woodpecker Loop Trail in Finley National Wildlife Refuge, OR, photo by Stuart Macdonald, 15 Sept 2009
A heavy timber extends along the bridge approach to retain the trail surfacing material (crushed concrete), Easter Seals Handicamp, Empire, Colorado; photo by Stuart Macdonald, June 2008
Retaining timber is higher than the bridge deck, keeping the trail surfacing material even with the bridge, Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge, CO; photo by Stuart Macdonald, 7 Nov 2009
Rock retaining wall holds trail surfacing material at wood bridge approach on Emerald Bay Trail at Lake Tahoe, CA; photo by Stuart Macdonald, 20 Sept 2007
Concrete retains trail material and forms a landing for the bridge approach in Bible Park, Denver, CO; photo by Stuart Macdonald 4 Dec 2009
Another view of the concrete bridge approach; soil still tends to wash away or compact, requiring occasional maintenance; Bible Park, Denver, CO
Asphalt trail meets boardwalk; both surfaces are level, at Trail of the Sentinels National Recreation Trail, WA; photo by Stuart Macdonald, 12 Oct 2006
Concrete trail makes a good connection to wood boardwalk, Finley National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon; photo by Stuart Macdonald, 29 Aug 2008
Concrete trail meets grade of concrete bridge with expansion joint in San Diego's Balboa Park at Park Blvd. overpass; photo by Stuart Macdonald, 5 Sept 2009
At the other end of same concrete bridge, the trail doesn't quite meet grade, requiring an asphalt patch to avoid abrupt vertical obstruction; Balboa Park, San Diego; photo by Stuart Macdonald, 5 Sept 2009
Another example of asphalt patch; in this case the obstruction is at the concrete sill which the bridge abuts against; Little Dry Creek Trail, Arvada, CO; photo by Stuart Macdonald, August 2007
Steel plate fills the vertical gap between sections, Seattle, WA; photo by Stuart Macdonald, Sept 2008
Trail has to make abrupt right angle turn to cross stream, as well as climb to bridge height, Buena Vista, Colorado; photo by Stuart Macdonald, 1 July 2008
Concrete sill doesn't solve the problem of keeping trail material up to bridge grade, Buena Vista, Colorado; photo by Stuart Macdonald, 1 July 2008
Floating bridge with multiple joints is a problem with no easy solution, Arboretum Waterfront Trail, Seattle; photo by Stuart Macdonald, Sept 2008
Steel deck to concrete with wood transition, but bridge sections are obtacle-free, Arboretum Waterfront Trail, Seattle; photo by Stuart Macdonald, Sept 2008
Otherwise accessible trail is compromised by steps at transition from one bridge section to another, Arboretum Waterfront Trail, Seattle; photo by Stuart Macdonald, Sept 2008
Worst choice: wood chips to fill in corner between sections of floating bridge, Arboretum Waterfront Trail, Seattle; photo by Stuart Macdonald, Sept 2008
Transition from steel deck to trail; wood chips tend to compact leaving a joint no matter how often they are topped up, Arboretum Waterfront Trail, Seattle; photo by Stuart Macdonald, Sept 2008