Bridgehunter’s Chronicles Newsflyer: 10 May 2012

Posted on May 10, 2012 by Jason D. Smith

Greensburg Pike Bridge to be demolished this year. Photo taken in August 2010

 

May and June are perhaps one of the busiest months when it comes to historic preservation and bridges in general. A lot of important events are coming up that will provide people with a chance to either visit the historic bridge as part of their travel itinerary or take part in some contests and conferences. Here are some examples of upcoming events for you to keep in mind:
Photo Contests Commemorating National Historic Landmarks in the United States:
Once a year the National Park Service hosts a photo contest for photographers and historians alike, who want to showcase their talent to others and encourage others to take pride in the national landmarks in the US. Between now and 13 June, contestants can take advantage of the opportunity to “spice up” their digital photos for the right picture and submit them via flickr to the National Park Service. Please limit your entries to 10 photos per person but ONE photo per National Landmark. There are over 2,500 National Landmarks in the US but additional rules can be found here.  I’ve already chosen my pics to enter and I hope others will take part or at least encourage others to show their talent and their pride towards American history and enter. Good luck!

Historic Preservation and Downtown Conference in Vermont:
For those interested in historic preservation per se, or would like to know more on how to bridge the gap between historic preservation policy and practice (successes and shortcoming), there is the 18th annual Historic Preservation and Downtown Conference scheduled to take place on 8 June at Memorial Hall in Wilmington. Located in southern Vermont, the town was one of many that was devastated by Hurricane Irene in August of last year, but residents have been resilient in their successful attempts of restoring the historic town. This conference will feature many presentations including the importance of Main Street and recycling buildings. Tying education and preservation together is another topic that will be brought to the attention of the public through a presentation by Kaitlin O’shea-Healy of Preservation in Pink in the presentation entitled How Historic Preservation Involves YOU.  Cost are $35 for non-residents of Wilmington and accommodations are plenty. More information can be found here.

Historic Bridges in Erfurt in the Limelight:
There are over 25 historic bridges that exist in the capital of Thuringia, located in central Germany. Hans-Joerg Vockrodt and Dietrich Baumbach are the main source of authority when it comes to the history of bridges, some of which date back to the 12th century and have been since producing their own works in the 1990s and their first book on Erfurt’s bridges in 1994. Their second piece on the history of Erfurt’s bridges was released last year and on 23 May at 7:00pm at the Stapp book store in Erfurt, they will be presenting this topic to those interested in knowing about this topic. The cost for participating is three Euros. The Bridgehunter’s Chronicles will be there live and an interview with the authors will be in the works for the posting on Erfurt’s historic bridges and the book itself. Stay tuned.
German:  Es gibt über 25 Brücken in Erfurt, die Landeshauptstadt Thüringens, die im Mitteldeutschland liegt. Die Autoren, Hans-Jörg Vockrodt und Dietrich Baumbach sind die Hauptquellen für die Geschichte Erfurts Brücken, welche davon seit dem 12. Jahrhundert existiert haben, und sie haben seit der 90er Jahren über dieses Thema geschrieben, unter Anderem das erste Buch, das 1994 erschienen ist. Das zweite Buch über dieses Thema wurde im letzten Jahr veröffentlicht  und am 23. Mai um 19:00, findet ein Vortrag darüber in der Buchhandlung Stapp in Erfurt statt für diejenigen, die sich für dieses Thema interessieren. Die Eintrittkosten beträgt drei Euros. Die Bridgehunter’s Chronicles ist Live dabei und ein Artikel sowie ein Interview mit den Autoren werden geplant. 
Golden Gate Bridge to be 75 years old:
It took over 3 years, losing 21 people in the process, to achieve this feat. For 75 years, it has withstood the heavy currents of the Golden Gate as well as the earthquakes that shook the region, especially counting the 1989 earthquake. It has become a symbol for the city of San Francisco and the state of California, was used in many films, like Star Trek and Superman, and has been widely recognized by many who visit the USA from outside. This May, the Golden Gate Bridge will turn 75 years old and during the weekend of 27 May, a celebration marking its birthday will take place on the bridge. Information on the events can be found here.
Unfortunately though, the celebrations will take place without any survivors of the bridge construction. Jack Balestreri and Edward Ashoff, the last two surviving men who contributed to the building of the Golden Gate Bridge died recently due to old age and illness. An obituary of the two can be read here. These two plus a handful of others received the key to San Francisco by mayor Dianne Feinstein at the 50th anniversary celebration in 1987, it was put on display at the memorial services for Balestreri.
On a somber note, there are some bridges in the news that deserve to be mentioned as they have been a target of attempts to preserve them, most of which were to no avail due to either lack of funding or lack of interest in saving them. Here are some examples of bridges that are coming out soon:
Hulton Bridge in Pittsburgh (USA):

Built in 1909, the bridge was named after Jonathan Hulton, one of the first settlers of the Oakmont village located along the Allegheny River northeast of Pittsburgh. The bridge is famous for its long span- a 500-foot Pennsylvania petit main span with Parker truss approach spans, all colored in lavender. Sadly because of the high amount of cars crossing the bridge on a daily basis- over 25,000 a day to be exact- the bridge is scheduled to be replaced soon. Construction will start in 2013 at the latest and is expected to last two years at a cost of over $80 million. The future of the truss bridge is questionable for attempts by the students of the Carnegie Mellon University to convert the bridge into a pedestrian crossing has been ongoing. The bridge is in really good shape after being rehabilitated and painted in 1991 and has some historic significance, yet PennDOT officials elected to have a 4-lane structure to replace the vintage truss span.  The question is where to construct the bridge as both sides of the bridge are privately owned. At the time of this posting, an engineering firm has been hired to find the right place to build the new span. The Bridgehunter’s Chronicles will keep you posted on the latest there. For more information on how to contribute to saving the historic bridge, please contact Todd Wilson of Bridgemapper.com, whose contact information can be found via article on the bridge here.

 

Greensburg Pike Bridge in Pittsburgh (USA):

Work is well underway to replace the Greensburg Pike Bridge in Turtle Creek near Pittsburgh. The seven-span through truss bridge built in 1925 and featuring 45° skews at the portal bracing will remain open through September of this year, while a new bridge is being built downstream from the structure, which afterwards, the roadway will be realigned and the truss spans will be removed. As the bridge spans at least seven tracks of the Norfolk Southern Railroad, attempts will be made to minimize disruptions as the truss bridge will be dismantled. The new bridge is scheduled to be open to traffic by August 2013. More on the bridge replacement is here.

Railroad Underpass at Grevesmuehlen, Germany:

Located about 70 kilometers east of Luebeck in western Mecklenburg-Pommerania in northeastern Germany, the bridge carries a local street in the village of Grevesmuehlen spanning a two-track rail line. The bridge is a Bailey truss bridge, one of many that were built in the late 1940s to replace bridges either severely damaged or destroyed in World War II. Unfortunately, its days have been numbered as the structure has become obsolete and therefore will be replaced with a concrete bridge. Work started recently and the bridge is scheduled to be completed and open to traffic in August of this year. Rail line will not be disrupted but detours will be in place until the project is completed.

The Nussrain Bridge at Bensigheim, Germany:

Located about 80 kilometers south of Heilbronn on the Neckar Canal in Baden Wuerttemberg, the city of Bensigheim has not been too kind to its bridges, as a six-span double-barrel Whipple through truss bridge built in 1874 was replaced in 2006 with the majority of the structure being reduced to scrap metal (a small section was saved as a monument). Now it has problems maintaining its existing bridges. The Nussrain Bridge spanning the Neckar Canal between Bensigheim and Hessigheim is scheduled to be replaced, but in 2016. The reaction from the public has been anything but positive, as the structure, built sometime in the 1950s, is crumbling and it is considered obsolete for accommodating vehicular traffic, including cyclists and pedestrians. The reason for the delay is the bridge project is supposed to be tied together with improving the canal and the roadway that crosses the bridge and constructing the roundabout on the Bensigheim side of the bridge. Work is underway to push up the construction date.

Yet on a positive note, a couple of bridges are about to be rehabilitated as the demand for more stabile structures to accommodate pedestrians are needed. One of them is a covered bridge built 250 years ago located in Switzerland (near Zug).

Kleinodbruecke to be renovated:

Built 250 years ago, the covered bridge spans the Lorzel River between Baar and Menzingen in the Zug Canton and carries pedestrians and cyclists. The covered bridge is protected by Swiss law, but given the increasing amount of traffic, the covered bridge is about to receive a major facelift. New wood siding and approaches will be constructed to replace the ones that have corroded over the years, in addition to repairing some of the wooden truss parts that have dealt with weather extremities. The project has just started and will be completed in September. A substitute bridge is available for pedestrians to use during the time of the bridge work. More information on the bridge can be found here, and the construction project here.  The Bridgehunter’s Chronicles has a link to Switzerland’s covered bridges, which can be accessed here and in the links page in the lower window of the main page.

Posted in FYI Bridge Newsflash | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Help needed: Photos, postcards and stories about Iowa’s Bridges

Posted on May 9, 2012 by Jason D. Smith

Durrow Road Bridge in Linn County, Iowa Photo taken in August 2011

When looking at the Durrow Road Bridge, located east of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the first thing that comes to mind is that it is a typical through truss bridge built in the 1920s. Judging by its recent paint job, it has been maintained really well and on a regular basis. But while photographing the bridge, a resident on a farm place located just around the corner takes notice and decides to stop at the bridge to find out what I was doing (in reality, I was with another pontist who resides near Marion, located north of Cedar Rapids). It is from that point on, we have a nice long conversation about the history of the bridge and why it was named. The bridge was relocated here in 1949 from Cedar Rapids to replace a wooden trestle bridge and add a piece to the farmstead that is over a century old.

The main idea is the fact that each bridge has its own history and character that makes preserving it for future generations a must. Yet, bridges like this one are being replaced in favor of progress with the records on its history and its association with the local communities lost forever.  There are many books that have been written about these historic bridges. They include Dennis Gardner’s book on Minnesota’s historic bridges in 2008, using the materials of wood, stone, metal and concrete as the main pillars to the story of how the bridges were developed.  Another book on the bridges bridges in New Jersey, written by Steven Richman, portrays the existing bridges in New Jersey. And there are many books written about the covered bridges in the northeastern corner of the USA from Pennsylvania to Maine, many of them have contributed to the states taking pride on their covered bridges more than the other bridge types.

The truss bridges in Iowa, a project that has been launched, will be a book that will differ from all the books that have been written for two reasons: 1. Iowa’s bridges have been documented in books already but in bridge types only. This includes the Marsh Arch bridges, written by the late James E. Hippen in 1997 and the bowstring arch bridges, written by Michael Finn in 2004. Up until now, there are no sources that deal with truss bridges in the state with the exception of reports conducted by agencies, like the Iowa Department of Transportation, and other interested parties but are only limited in availability.  2. The focus of the book will be on the development of the truss bridges in Iowa beginning with the first crossings along the Mississippi River and in big cities, like Dubuque and Ottumwa and continuing on with the dominance of truss bridges over bowstring arch bridges, experiments with new bridge types, like the Thacher truss bridge, the role of the bridge builders, first from out of state and later from local Iowa bridge builders. It is then followed by the introduction of standardized truss bridges and how they waned in popularity in favor of concrete bridges. And finally the book will focus on the successes of identifying these bridges and preserving them for reuse. The book will feature truss bridges both past and present and their history and how they brought the communities together. This includes stories similar to the one of Durrow Road Bridge.

If you have any old photos and postcards of bridges (esp. those that no longer exist in Iowa), as well as any information and stories pertaining to the truss bridges in Iowa, please send them to Jason D. Smith via e-mail at flensburg.bridgehunter.av@googlemail.com. Mailing address is available upon request.

The book project will take approximately 5-10 years to complete pending on the amount of information that comes in. But quality will outweigh quantity and the goal is to bring the history of truss bridges in Iowa to light (going as deep into the research as possible) so that the readers can understand how they contributed to the development of the state’s infrastructure, let alone to the development of their communities and farmsteads.  So if you have any information that is useful to this book, I would love to hear or see it. Thank you very much for your help.

Ellsworth Ranch Bridge in Emmet County. This 1895 Thacher through truss bridge is NOT the first one that was built. There is one that was constructed earlier and somewhere in Iowa. Do you know when and where the first Thacher bridge was built? Photo taken in August 2011

 

Posted in Forum | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mystery Bridge 1: Horn’s Ferry Bridge in Marion County, Iowa

Posted on May 7, 2012 by Jason D. Smith

This and the following photos were taken by the author in August 2011

When it comes to mystery bridges, there are two types of mysteries that exist with regards to historic bridges: 1. A historic bridge that existed in the past but there is no information on its location, let alone when it was built (or rewording it, information from oral sources probably existed, but they have long since moved on), and 2. The bridge existed but in pieces that are visible today but with little or no information as to why it was reduced to a fragment of what it once looked like when in service.  The Horn’s Ferry Bridge in Marion County belongs to both categories as this article will explain further.

According to information found on the bridge via information plaque, the Horn’s Ferry Bridge was the first bridge to cross the Des Moines River in Marion County when it opened to traffic in 1881, replacing a ferry which had previously crossed the river since 1865. The structure featured the following bridge types going from west to east: six-Pratt pony truss spans (each being 100 feet), a 200-foot Camelback through truss span, a 140-foot riveted Pratt through truss span and lastly before reaching shore, a 90-foot Warren pony truss span.  The bridge was closed to traffic in 1982 when a new crossing at the Red Rock Dam (located 700 feet upstream) was built, but remained open to pedestrians until the night of 31 August 1992, when one of the stone piers collapsed, sending 300 feet of the bridge into the river in a slow, agonizing motion. For safety reasons, that section, plus three additional Pratt pony truss spans were removed, while at the same time, to assure there is a connection for cyclists and pedestrians, a mail-order Pratt pony truss bridge was constructed by the Continental Bridge Company of Alexandria, Minnesota, approximately 300 feet north of the original crossing.  Today, the remaining four spans of the Horn’s Ferry Bridge- two 100-foot Pratt pony truss spans on the west side at Ivan’s Campground and the Pratt through truss and Warren pony truss spans on the east end at Howell Station Campground remain in tact and function as observation decks overlook the opposite banks.

The bridge was first spotted via Google Map as I was planning my US trip in the spring of last year, but from the Red Rock Dam, where county highway T-17 crosses the Des Moines River, it is easy to see the crossing, let alone access it from the two campgrounds. Yet taking a closer look at the bridge, one can see there are some questions that are left open to be answered. Some of which can be seen in the photos below. First and foremost, the bridge was one of the longest wagon bridges to cross the Des Moines River in Iowa  at 1000 feet. (some other bridges, like the Wagon Wheel Bridge near Boone and the crossings in Van Buren County are either close to the bridge’s length or even longer). A wagon bridge means that the bridge was originally built for horse and buggy and later modified to accommodate cars and trucks.  Yet the information is lacking with regards to the bridge builder, let alone what the bridge originally looked like before the structure collapsed in 1992. Therefore the bridge was not listed on the National Register of Historic Places, nor did it appear on the Iowa Department of Transportation’s Historic Bridges website, which has been unavailable for some time. In the minds of many, the bridge was put to the backburner until my visit in August last year, when I photographed and posted photos of the bridge on James Baughn’s Bridgehunter website. Since then, calls have gotten louder from those interested to pursue the inquiry.  But…

Perhaps one can also help solve the clue to another mystery located next to the bridge. At the two ends of the now converted observation deck are wood pilings sticking up vertically from the river to make it look like piers used for another bridge crossing. Both of them appeared to have aged greatly as wood splits have appeared in the piers and are spalling. Could it be that a temporary bridge was built to assist construction crews in removing the wreckage from the 1992 disaster, or are these remnants of an even older span? It is possible that the pilings were also used to guide ferries across the river  prior to the bridge being built. In either case, the quest to solve these two burning questions remains open and will be the case until someone steps up to assist in the information.

Questions about the Mystery Bridge:

1. Who was the builder of the Horn’s Ferry Bridge and what did the bridge look like before 1992

2. What do the pilings next to the bridge tell us in regards to its history: Was there a bridge built beforehand and if so, what did it look like? Was it part of the ferry service that had existed before the bridge was built in 1881?

3. What was the cause of the bridge collapse on 31 August 1992?

Please send the answers directly via e-mail or to the The Bridgehunter’s Chronicles page on facebook and as soon as the respondents provide the clues, the answer will be posted. Photos (esp. of the bridge prior to 1992) are strongly encouraged as long as you provide the source so that I can note this when posting them. Thanks!

Enjoy the photos below:

West approach with the truss spans.

The west truss spans (now an observation deck)

The wood pilings: ferry remnants, a previous bridge, a temporary bridge used to dismantle the fallen span?

The eastern spans (also used as an observation deck)

Damage to the pier of the Pratt through truss span.

Oblique view of the east spans

The eastern approach with park banches and info plaques

The Red Rock Dam, where the route between the two campgrounds now runs across.

Interesting facts:

1. This year will mark the 30th anniversary of the bridge being converted to recreational use with the main highway being rerouted over the dam. Unfortunately it will also mark the 20th anniversary of the bridge’s (near-) tragedy for unknown reasons. It was really fortunate that the groups involved fought to keep the remaining spans standing to be used as observation decks, but it would be curious to know the causes of the bridge collapse.

2. While little known to the pontist community, some people have tried to keep the memory of the bridge alive through marketing, like this attempt to sell the Horn’s Ferry Bridge mousepad, for example. There is hope that someday, a history book on the bridge will be written, although it will be mentioned in a book I’m writing about Iowa’s truss bridges. More information to come in the next posting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Bridge Profile USA, Forum | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Bridgehunter’s Chronicles Rehabilitated!

Posted on May 4, 2012 by Jason D. Smith

Mill Creek Park Suspension Bridge in Youngstown, Ohio Photo taken in August 2010

Some changes in the online column to make it appear more attractive to the readers.

In the past couple weeks, some of you have been seeing some road work done to the Bridgehunter’s Chronicles and its sister column the Flensburg Files. This includes making some changes to the template as well as the categories featured. I’m now pleased to inform you that the Bridgehunter’s Chronicles has been completely renovated and now more accessible to the reader. Apart from the new images placed on the template (the template was kept because of its simplicity), here are some other changes to make you aware of:
New Categories:  Apart from keeping the bridge profiles, tour guides of areas with large population of bridges, and articles pertaining bridges, preservation, etc. as the main core, the Chronicles will dig deeper into topics on bridge preservation- laws and practice, while at the same time, bring more preservation efforts to the attention of the reader. Furthermore, beginning in June, the Bridgehunter’s Chronicles will have book of the month, featuring a book on (historic) bridges which will be reviewed by the author. In some cases, there will be an interview with the author(s).  And there will be a forum open to answer any questions or forward requests for information on bridges for any purpose (project).

Historic Bridge News Expanded: Apart from carrying the news from Historic Bridges.org, one can also view the news articles from James Baughn’s Historic Bridges of the US and Kaitlin O’shea-Healy’s Preservation In Pink, all available on the Pages bar (located at the top of the template. A news room on an international scale is available via Bridgehunter’s Chronicles  (under Jason D. Smith) page on Twitter, which will feature news stories of historic bridges mostly outside North America .

Links to other websites: Apart from Preservation in Pink, Historic Bridges.org  and the Historic Bridges of the US, at least 10 other websites from various countries are available via link in the bottom window to the left below the main window.  This includes Bridgemapper.com (out of Pittsburgh), The International Structure Database (out of Berlin, Germany) which is presented in three languages (EN, German, and French), and Highway.dk, a Danish website focusing on highways and bridges serving Denmark, just to name a few. Furthermore, the education page will be expanded to provide readers with more insight into historic bridges and ways to preserve them. The feature is in the same window but to the right of the recent column and most commented bridge columns.

New e-mail address in case of inquiries, suggestions, guest columns to be submitted, etc.  While it is available under About the Bridgehunter’s Chronicles in the upper bar, you can also click onto the e-mail address here should you need to contact me: flensburg.bridgehunter.av@googlemail.com. This is the e-mail address of the Bridgehunter’s Chronicles and the Flensburg Files, both part of areavoices.

The Chronicles Live: The Bridgehunter’s Chronicles is now live via Facebook, where you can like it to follow all the postings, additional links provided by the author and other members who are following, while at the same time, you can post your inquiries, etc. Before it was a private group under my Facebook profile Jason D. Smith, but after gaining an audience base and some success with regards to informing people on bridges that have been preserved or are targets of preservation efforts, it was time to move a step forward. The private group will remain for awhile but eventually, more articles will enter the new Facebook site.  In addition, you can also follow the Chronicles via Twitter, where postings and other articles will be featured there. To subscribe, please go to subscriptions on the right hand column.  It is also accessible via German social network XING, with possibly more to come.

The main goal of the upgrade is to make the Chronicles more accessible to the public, as it has been making strides since its inception in September 2010. Given the increasing interest in the topic of (historic) bridges, especially from those living in regions where the is a high density in the number of bridges, combined with the interest in knowing more about bridge preservation,   the Bridgehunter’s Chronicles’ main tasks are to better inform the public of the historic bridges that exist and should be visited, while at the same time bring the focus of historic bridge preservation their attention and involve the public more on bridge preservation projects that exist.  With this upgrade, there will be more people informed about historic bridges in the US, Europe and elsewhere, the places with a high concentration of historic bridges they should visit while touring the area, and efforts they can do to save historic bridges in danger of modernization.

Bridge of Friendship north of Flensburg, Germany at the German-Danish Border. Photo taken in April 2011

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Riverside Bridge update.

Posted on May 1, 2012 by Jason D. Smith

Photo taken in August 2011

 

Last August, the Bridgehunter’s Chronicles did a tour of the bridges of Missouri as part of the 2011 Historic Bridge Conference, which included tours of the bridges of St. Louis, Kansas City and some in central and western parts of the state. Among the stops was Ozark in Christian County, where a two-span Pratt through truss bridge, the Riverside Bridge, built in 1909 by the Canton Bridge Company, was the focus of preservation efforts by a local group headed by Kris Dyer to save the structure. A fundraising event took place during the Conference, where over 80 people attended the event.

Almost a year later, changes have taken place and still there is no end in sight regarding the bridge and its future. Why is that?  Ms. Dyer was grateful enough to keep all those interested informed on the latest on this bridge and here is the update as seen right now:

Change in Contractors:

The most glaring change was the fact that Matthews and Associates, which was contracted by the county to submit a plan to replace the Riverside Bridge, was let go in March as the project came to a standstill due to lack of funding. The county had approved spending of up to $500,000 in fixing nine bridges but sadly, did not have enough funds from the federal government as both the Republicans and the Democrats in Washington were deadlocked on a bill that would authorize spending on the next five years. Even if the bill was passed, it is unclear how much the state would receive, let alone Christian County. Currently, a stop-gap bill was passed at the end of March by the House to allow construction projects to proceed while the bill is being amended according to recent news. Nevertheless, the process of letting out the contract has started over again which leads to the question of the fate of the Riverside Bridge.

Cannot be fixed; cannot be moved; cannot be demolished:

The cost for replacing the Riverside Bridge will be between $2 and 3 million, regardless of who will build it and where it will be built. Building it on alignments would cut into ownership land on the southeast end of the bridge and land purchased by FEMA (Federal Emergancy Management Agency) at the site of the former Riverside Restaurant. Yet as the bridge is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, demolition is not an option either. Yet the county and the organization vying to save the Riverside Bridge have their backs to the wall due to funding issues combined with legal issues, including liability. To repair the bridge and reopen it to traffic would not be feasible, according to the Missouri Department of Transportation, as the substructure has been worn out beyond repair. Furthermore, the county would have to pay back up to $100,000 to the federal government’s Bridge Replacement Offset Fund, the money that was spent on Matthews and Associate to date.  Should the next contractor be hired to take over, the risk is great that a bridge would have to be built at or right next to the site, as there would be some legal wrangling with FEMA with regards to building on their property, while at the same time, there would have to be some approval from nearby property owners to build a bridge on their property.  Talks of moving the truss bridge onto a neutral site were also considered, but questions remain of where to relocate the bridge and there were some reservations about this plan. To tear it down would not be feasible for the Section 106 Process (assessing the environmental and cultural impact of altering or replacing a historic place) would have to be carried out before funding on the state and federal levels could be approved. And even then, support for saving the Riverside Bridge has increased since the Historic Bridge Conference in August 2011 as thousands have donated their time and (financial) resources to this project and would like to finally see results- meaning the return of the Riverside Bridge to cycle and pedestrian traffic and incorporating it into the local bike trails that are being built in and around Ozark.

Transparency needed:

What has made the situation more frustrating is the lack of transparency between the county and the public on this issue. As of right now, there have not been any public meetings on the project and its progress, and tensions grew to a boil at the last meeting on March 15th when county commissioner Lou Lapaglia announced the plan to terminate the contract with Matthews and Associate and not return the money spent to the federal government. Many people believed that much of the action between the county, the state and the contractor were behind closed doors with little or no public input. The people believe that the only legal and moral way to solving this problem is to return the money and find ways to fixing the bridge so it can be used again. There is hope that with the increase in support for the bridge combined with the results of the meeting on the 15th, that there will be more transparency and public involvement in the future, especially once a new contractor has been announced.

Prognosis:

As a general rule, attempts to successfully replace a historic bridge usually run behind closed doors and without the public being notified. Speculation is that the county is trying to do that to save money and throw history by the wayside. The problem is however universal, as much of the US has seen much of its infrastructure crumble and there is no money to fix it.  Yet there seems to be a glitter of hope for the Riverside Bridge. It is unknown how the next contractor will act regarding this bridge. It is possible that some agreements can be made to use private lands for a new bridge while at the same time rehabilitate the bridge for reuse as a recreational infrastructure. Yet should that fail and the only viable option is to replace the bridge on site, then taking the bridge off the foundations and setting them on land may be a win-win situation as some parts of the bridge may have to be fixed or replaced before putting it back on. It is clear that should the bridge remain standing, the piers supporting the two through truss spans will have to be repaired or replaced due to cracks that were noticed during the inspections and in my visit in August. The truss bridge itself is in good shape and it would be a shame that it was demolished because of the inability to look at options of fixing it ans reopening again. In fact, such a plan would be met with opposition and shot down through the voting process.  It is  likely that the Riverside Bridge will be saved and reused again in the near future; especially after all the funding and efforts made towards the bridge. It is more of a question of whether a new bridge can be built on alignment and the old one can be fixed and reused again or whether the truss bridge can be relocated if a new bridge at its original location is necessary. Only the people of Christian County (not just the government) can decide that.

 

To be continued…..

 

 

Posted in Bridge Profile USA, News | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Oakland Mills Bridge to Close because of Neglect: A wake-up call to better protect historic bridges?

Posted on April 21, 2012 by Jason D. Smith

Oblique view of the bridge from the south bank of the river

Vandalism: a way to express oneself or a way to show a towards the places we have? Vandalism, regardless of form- spray-painting, breaking windows of buildings, intentionally crashing into historic buildings, stealing artifacts from historic monuments- has taken new forms over the past five years, as many people- frustrated by the circumstances that have put them at a disadvantage- are venting out their anger in the newest but ugliest form. In the case of historic bridges, this includes some of the wildest and yet most creative stories ever imagined, from vandalizing a bridge in order for it to be eligible for replacement funds (as was the case with the Little River Truss Bridge in Seminole County, Oklahoma) to a group of people stealing a 50 foot steel bridge near New Castle, Pennsylvania, and selling it for scrap metal. Even an ignorant person crossing a bridge despite weight and height restrictions and causing damage or forcing its collapse into the river counts as defacing property. Unfortunately, the rage caused by hatred, anger over a topic, ignorance, or simple stupidity always comes at a price, as historic bridges, damaged by vandalism are closed to traffic, denying the passers-by with an opportunity to see the structure up close and personal. In the worst-case scenario, these bridges are replaced with modern structures, costing tax-payers hundreds of thousands of dollars, which they do not even have, given the economic situation the US (and other countries) are still facing. Unfortunately, with law enforcement at an all-time low because of budget cuts, more and more people are trying their best to inflict damage wherever possible and get away with it, even though if caught, they are obliged to pay for damages or face jail time.

Close-up of the original portal bracing

The Oakland Mills Bridge near Mount Pleasant in Henry County, Iowa, is a classic example of a bridge that has been a target of vandalism and disrepair for the longest time- to a point where local authorities are considering closing the bridge over Skunk River at the earliest possible convenience. Built in 1876 by the Missouri Valley Bridge and Iron Company of Leavenworth, Kansas under the supervision of John Schreiner, this multiple span crossing was unique because of its design and history, making it part of the National Register of Historic Places. The 358 foot long bridge comprises of two spans of Pratt through truss bridges (each being 7 panels), two Howe pony truss spans (one on each end of the bridge) and wooden trestles connecting the through truss spans and the northern pony truss span. The portal bracings have a unique ornamental design featuring a curved heel bracing with a circular design in the inside, supported by rain-drop-like curves, with a series of ornamental curves on the inside of the circular design. Sadly, the southernmost portal bracing is the only one that features that unique design, while the others feature dull 45° heel portals that were replaced in the last 30 years (at least).

Make-shift portal bracings

The Oakland Mills Bridge was one of the first bridges to be built in Iowa, using a Pratt through truss design that superseded the bowstring arch bridge beginning in the 1880s. The bowstring arch bridge was common for bridge building in the 1870s and 80s, but they had one flaw, which was the fact that disassembling, transporting and reassembling the structure was difficult because of the upper chord being an arch design. With Pratt trusses, and in particular, pin-connected trusses, the bridge can be taken apart, piece by piece, before being transported from one place to another and being reassembled again. Pin-connected trusses were later replaced with those with riveted connections- meaning the parts are supported by gusset plates- as they were sturdier and more weather-resistant. The bridge builder, the Missouri Valley Bridge and Iron Works Company, dominated the southern part of Iowa with bridges, before the turn of the century when bridge builders in Iowa, like the Clinton Bridge and Iron Works Company and George King took over the scene in bridge building.


Upon visiting the bridge during my trip through Iowa and Missouri in 2011, I saw that the bridge was in dire need of a face-lift. Since its conversion into pedestrian use and its incorporation into the Oakland Mills State Park in the 1970s, the structural integrity and stability of the bridge has fallen into a steady decline. Here are some examples of the dire state of the historic bridge from the photographer/columnist’s point of view:

Make-shift railings that were built towards the center of the bridge to protect the original railings from vandalism. If the original railings were still in place, they were victim of neglect and vandalism. Some of the railings that replaced the original railings about three decades ago have already seen signs of wood decay and and dry rot. With the make-shift railings in place, the width of the bridge decreased by 1/3 from 18 feet to 12 feet, making passage on the bridge only possible through foot.

Deck view with the make-shift and some outer fencing

The decking of the bridge is poor and should be replaced in its entirety. Regardless of age, the flooring has taken quite a beating due to floods, weather extremities and some attempts of vandalism. If the decking was put into place 30 years ago, they resemble a decking that was on the bridge at the time of its completion, and no wood can last that long without having some protection on it (like varnish)

Make-shift lean-to shelters on the through truss spans

The picnic area is laughable in comparison to even some of the historic bridges with better picnic areas. In a photo taken for a magazine in the early 1980s, the Oakland Mills area had two picnic areas on the through truss spans- one per span- that each had a parasol, used to keep out the sun and the rain. Sadly these disappeared in favor of make-shift lean-tos that are tied to the vertical beams of the truss span. It is unknown how long they have been there, but this primitive contraption is an eyesore to people crossing the bridge and since they are tied to the truss structure, they are not doing the superstructure any favors regarding the tension applied to the vertical beams.

Pin-connections with signs of discoloration on the truss itself

Apart from the missing portal bracings, which matches the damage done to the portal bracings of the Mead Avenue Bridge in Pennsylvania (which is closed to traffic and in imminent danger of being removed if no one comes to its rescue), much of the truss structure is rusted with some parts in need of replacement. While preserving the bridge in its place is of utmost importance, which the county did a good job of doing, maintaining the superstructure using paint and other rust protectant is just as important.

North approach with trestle spans and northernmost pony truss span

While I did not see this on my visit, reports from the local newspaper indicated that the trestle span portion of the bridge was decaying because of rotting wood on the columns. While it appeared that there was no sagging or swaying, in the long term, it could potentially undermine the portion of the span. Interesting enough, this portion of the span was introduced as a replacement to the third (and longest) through truss span destroyed in an accident in the 1940s.
Lighting is lacking for the structure. While the truss spans are lighted with LED, it is not enough to light up the structure in its entirety, thus leading to safety hazards and potential liability issues.

Keeping these facts in mind, what is there to do with the bridge? As a general reaction among the owners of a historic bridge, the first priority is to demolish the bridge and replace it with a mail-order-bridge, consisting of welded trusses that represent little or no aesthetic value. Yet given the fact that the bridge is one of the oldest remaining structures of its type left in Iowa, and its history and design makes it part of the National Park Service through the National Register of Historic Places, there are ways to rehabilitate the bridge and reuse it again for recreational purposes. If asked how to rehabilitate the bridge, the following suggestions would be made:

1. The whole super structure needs to be rehabilitated, but in certain sections. That means the two through truss spans would represent one section and the pony trusses as another section. These sections would have to be taken apart by spans and relocated to neutral sites so that they can be rehabilitated individually.
2. The through truss spans will have to be disassembled with parts being sandblasted and replaced. This has been accomplished with many through truss bridges in the United States; most notably the truss bridges at Historic Bridge Park in Michigan, the Zoarville Station Bridge in Ohio, and the latest example, the Piano Bridge in Texas. However, the make-shift portal bracings need to be replaced with the original portal bracing that is remaining on the southern span of the through truss bridge. Making replicas of them is time and money-consuming but doable.
3. The trestle spans will have to be replaced in its entirety with those replicating the original span but made of treated wood. An alternative to that would be to include more pony truss spans imported from outside Mt. Pleasant, but that may compromise the historic integrity of the bridge. Regardless of the guidelines set out by the National Register of Historic Places, adding these truss spans may present a better appearance to the bridge as a whole in comparison with what the bridge features right now.
4. The piers supporting the two truss spans will need to be rehabilitated. Age and weather has taken its toll on the stone piers as cracks are starting to appear and spall, and moss is growing on them, which has the potential to weaken the piers even further.
5. More lighting is needed on the bridge. While LEDs presents a makeshift appearance to the bridge, better is to install street lamps on the bridge, and even further, have lighting from the shore shine onto the structure at night to make it more attractive.
6. The entire trusses will need to be painted to protect the trusses from further rust and corrosion caused by weather extremities and flooding. This will need to be done through sandblasting the old paint off the affected truss parts and painting it with a color that would fit the environmental surroundings. In my opinion, a mahogany or dark red color will suffice.
7. New decking is needed for the entire truss span. This can be done by using treated timber or concrete, as long as the rehabilitated bridge can hold it. In addition, as cyclists use the bridge frequently, the decking should be divided up into two lanes- one for bikes and one for pedestrians and benches. Another option would be to reintroduce the picnic areas on the through truss spans (meaning shelters with parasols and picnic tables), but the cyclists would be required to walk their bikes across the river for safety purposes.
8. Finally, video surveillance and police patrols will be needed on the bridge to ensure that vandalism is avoided. Should a vandal be caught, fines and possible imprisonment should be enforced to set an example for others considering doing damage to the bridge.

The cost for such a project will be big- ca. $1-2 million for the entire rehabilitation alone and another $500,000 for the extra features. However, these costs are nothing in comparison to replacing a bridge with a new structure, which is an average of $4-6 million. Even removing the entire structure alone is more expensive than rehabilitation. But the actual costs will be evaluated in the near future, as a couple interested groups are inquiring about the bridge and are planning to do a cost estimation for bridge rehabilitation and later designating places to disassemble and work on the bridge, before the project can actually begin. Whether these aforementioned suggestions will be considered depends on the opinions of the other parties interested in the bridge. The Bridgehunter’s Chronicles will keep you posted on the developments on this situation and the plans for the Oakland Mills Bridge.

Reflections of the bridge at dusk with LED lighting seen on the northern through truss span

To close this column, there is a word of advice to be given to people who are working to save historic bridges, based on experience seen with these structures in the past. Some parties have fought to save a historic bridge just by leaving it open for pedestrians and cyclists only for as long as possible and hope that the issue is tabled. This is not enough, as maintaining the historic bridge takes on just as big of importance as converting the bridge into pedestrian use. In many cases, historic bridge rehabilitation is needed to ensure that the structure can support pedestrians and cyclists as long as it did, when automobiles used the bridge- meaning in the case of bridges like the Oakland Mills Bridge, 100-130 years. Some groups leave the bridge in place in order to pursue funding options, as is the case with the Riverside Bridge in Missouri. But for liability reasons, they are closed to traffic and fenced off. In either case, bridges left neglected and prone to vandalism can collapse under their own weight in the long run. This happened recently with the Columbia and Schell City Bridges in Missouri- the former collapsing because of flooding and the latter collapsing under its own weight.  If there is a historic bridge that is targeted for replacement and a party is interested in preserving it, that party must consider the state of the bridge and look at the options for bridge rehabilitation and converting it into recreational use both for safety and liability purposes, as well as for the interest of the tourists interested in the bridges. Leaving a historic bridge open and giving it a “window dressing” as it was the case with the Oakland Mills Bridge, without considering the option of rehabilitation, just does not cut it, for in the long term, weather extremities, flooding and potential vandalism will make the bridge more dangerous to cross, forcing authorities to close and later remove the structure. Rehabilitating the structure and remodeling it to make it appearance for passers-by has become the most viable choice for preserving the historic bridge. Maintaining the historic bridge is just as important to ensure that the structure fulfills its purpose as a recreational bridge that is appealing to everyone.

The Oakland Mills Bridge represent a classic example of a bridge whose neglect and vandalism has put it in danger of being closed and possibly removed, despite its listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Perhaps this bridge will represent a warning signal for other historic bridges, implicating that in order to save a bridge, it has to be remodeled for recreational purposes and maintained for safety purposes in order to prevent it from being degraded.
A couple Iowa historic bridges that are closed to traffic, the Cascade Bridge in Burlington and the Wagon Wheel Bridge west of Boone, are currently targets of debates between replacing them with modern slab bridges and rehabilitating them for recreational reuse. Both are listed on the National Register and have been documented by the Historic American Engineering Record. Perhaps the proponents and opponents of historic bridge preservation should consider the pros and cons to bridge preservation in comparison to bridge replacement before any decision is made on their future as well.  This applies to other historic bridges in the United States as well…

Note: The Columbia Bridge in Franklin County, built by the Columbia Bridge Works of Dayton, Ohio in 1880, was closed to traffic in 1980 and was left abandoned until it collapsed in early 2010. The truss was sold for scrap. The Schell City Bridge in Vernon County, built in 1900 by the Canton Bridge Company,  was closed to traffic a few years ago despite attempts to shore the abutments with parts from an old truss bridge. The pony truss span collapsed in 2010. The Parker through truss span followed in February of this year.

Posted in Bridge Preservation, Bridge Profile USA, News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Piano Bridge Reopened!

Posted on April 3, 2012 by Jason D. Smith

Photo taken by Edwin Peters

Over a month ago, we had an opportunity to take a look at the restoration of the Piano Bridge, located over the East Navidad River near Dublina in Fayette County, Texas, with Julie Bowers, who was at the scene of the whole process, which started in the middle of November.

On Monday, the bridge was reopened to traffic for the first time since it was closed in 2010. After taking the superstructure apart, doing some sandblasting on some parts, replacing some joints, and finally painted the entire structure, the bridge was reassembled, placed onto new foundations and was given a new decking to allow cars weighing up to eight tons to cross the bridge.  Looking at the bridge after its complete refurbishing job, its appearance is similar to the bridge when it was first open to traffic in 1885, especially with the new railings and the new foundations it is sitting on.  Over 60 people attended the dedication ceremony, marked by a Ford Model T crossing the structure with other cars later following.

The reopening ceremony. Photo taken by Edwin Peters

Julie Bowers is currently working on a movie, documenting the whole reconstruction process, which will be used for other bridge projects that are in the making. Among them is the Cascade Bridge in Burlington, Iowa, which is a target of preservation efforts by the locals with help from the Iowa Department of Transportation.  More on the bridge and the movie will come in separate entries of the Chronicles as soon as information is available.

In the meantime, the state of Texas now has another (fully restored) historic bridge to take pride in, after months of hard work. There is hope that other groups, whose bridges are threatened with replacement, will look at this King Bridge structure and the documentary and photos of the whole project and use this as a frame of reference to restore their own structure; especially as it is much more affordable than replacing the structure outright and throwing away its history in the process.

Photo taken by Edwin Peters

Posted in FYI Bridge Newsflash, News | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Officials in Chatham County, North Carolina, Promote Historic Bridge”

Posted on April 2, 2012 by Jason D. Smith

Forward by the author: 

When visiting the US from an outsider’s point of view, if there are two types of bridges tourists would like to see, they would be cable-stayed suspension bridges and these bridges, as shown in the picture above: the covered bridge. Even though American covered bridges go as far back as 300 years ago, we are seeing a trend of covered bridges being repopulated in places, like North Carolina, as they serve as an excellent source of revenue for the tourism industry. And one county in particular, Chatham County is going an extra step further, by bringing the importance of covered bridges to the attention of one of the five websites that is devoted to historic bridges, Historic Bridges.org. Why this website and not the other four, like the Historic Bridges of the US, Bridgemapper, Structurae.net, or even this website, the Chronicles?

This article came to my attention and therefore, I am providing you readers with an explanation of Chatham County’s quest for more tourism in the form of covered bridges….

Chatham County, North Carolina, is not know for its historic bridges, laments Sarah Burnnet, the Director of the Parks and Recreation Department for the county.  ”New covered bridges are popping up all over the state, drawing throngs of tourists to visit them.  In Chatham County over the Rocky River, we have one of the oldest covered bridges in the state, built in 1983.”  Based on a list compiled by Dale Travis, at least 35 newer covered bridges have since been built in the state.
Members of the Parks and Recreation Department feel that the reason more tourists are not drawn to their covered bridge over the Rocky River is because it is not listed on most major historic bridge publications, since those only list bridges built before 1950.  Chatham County is in the tech savvy Research Triangle area of North Carolina, just south of the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.  Burnnet laments, “If you do a Google search for historic bridges, the number one website is www.historicbridges.org.  This site does not have a single bridge in North Carolina!  We want to change that.  We want the site to just have one bridge.  Our bridge!”
As a result, Earl Betts, a maintenance manager for the county, created special signs on the bridge.  These signs simply read, “www.historicbridges.org.”  They are mounted above the historic signs reading “Five dollars fine for driving more than twelve horses mules or cattle at any one time or for leading any beast faster than a walk on across this bridge.”  The county believes that when people see the new signs on the bridge, they will be inspired to submit photos to historicbridges.org, encouraging the organization to place the bridge on the site.
Once the beautiful photos start popping up throughout the internet, people will realize how important the bridge is.  Then tourists will flock to the area.  The county’s hope is to eventually have enough tourists to open up a gift shop and cafe at the end of the bridge.  ”Maybe we can have tours someday to show the public how covered bridges were built 30 years ago.”
Chatham County also hopes to generate support for replacing the existing Chatham Church Road Bridge with a new covered bridge.  The Chatham Church Road Bridge is an old one-lane metal truss bridge from 1921.  “A bridge as old of that is clearly not safe to carry traffic.  It is our hope that once tourists start flooding to the area to see one covered bridge, we can build a second covered bridge on Chatham Church Road,” reports county engineer Phillip Earlray.  With two covered bridges close to each other and photos on the internet, Chatham County is confident that they can become the historic bridge center of North Carolina.
The Bridgehunter’s Chronicles would like to wish the county officials the best of luck in their quest to make covered bridges popular again and may other counties and states consider covered bridges as an alternative form of bridge construction and a source of revenue for tourism in the future…..
;-)
Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Un-Covered Bridge in Vermont

Posted on March 26, 2012 by Jason D. Smith

Forward by the author:

Imagine this scenario with a historic bridge in general. You have a multi-span structure spanning a ravine for more than 150 years. In European standards it would be common as we have various covered and arch bridges that date as far back as the 1700s (and even further). In American standards, it is rare to find these relicts anywhere with the exception of the areas along the East Coast in the form of covered and arch bridges, namely because that area was occupied by the settlers first before the westward expansion started. Anyway, this 150 year old historic bridge is a covered bridge resembling something like this one below:

Historic American Engineer's Record

Yet a major storm destroys half the structure and you are left with the task of rebuilding that half of the bridge, realizing that: 1. the structure will not look the same as before, and 2. there is a possibility that another bridge type would take its place instead of having the covered span, like this one:

Photo taken by Kaitlin O'shea, used with permission

There are many examples of bridges that fall into one category or the other, with a couple more set to follow in the coming year. This includes the reconstruction of the Sutliff Bridge in Iowa, where the eastern most span, which was destroyed by flooding in 2008- will be rebuilt but usingriveted connections instead of pinned connections, like the other two spans.

But suppose, by looking at the picture above that one half of the span was not destroyed but instead was in the midst of being reconstructed, and therefore receiving the nickname, the un-covered bridge because of the arches that were supposed to support the trusses but instead is just sitting there with its future on the line….

There is an explanation to this rather unique appearance, which can only be given by the person who has been there to see the bridge. Kaitlin O’shea of Preservation in Pink, a website devoted to the preservation of historic places in her home state of Vermont and elsewhere, wrote a short article about this bridge awhile back and has taken up the offer to explain about the Un-covered Bridge as a guest columnist for the Bridgehunter’s Chronicles. Here is her story on this bridge, where it is located and what the plans are for restoring it for future use….

 

The Un-Covered Bridge
By Kaitlin O’Shea
The Taftsville Covered Bridge spans the Ottaquechee River in Taftsville (Woodstock), Vermont. Designed and constructed in 1836 by Solomon Emmons III, this two-span, modified multiple kingpost truss with semi-independent arch is a rare example of early craftsman tradition; it does not reflect influences from any of the bridge patent patterns available at the time. Its design is considered somewhat unorthodox for American construction, though possibly influenced by Swiss designs. HAER documentation identifies the current covered bridge as the fourth Taftsville bridge in this location.  The original bridge was built in the late 18th century in order to serve the thriving settlements on both banks of the Ottaquechee, including a power plant, gristmill, chair factory, brickyard, blacksmith, tannery and slaughterhouse. After floods washed out the first bridges, the town likely needed a stronger bridge, which led to Emmons’ design and construction.

Entrance to the bridge. Historic American Engineer's Record

Since its construction there have been repairs and alterations, such as the arches, which were added in the early 20th century; exact reasons remain unknown. Substantial rehabilitation occurred in the early 1950s.  A multi-million dollar restoration project for the Taftsville Covered Bridge was programmed into the Vermont Agency of Transportation’s project schedule and on track to begin in 2012. However, the August 28, 2011 flooding caused by Tropical Storm Irene that hammered much of the State of Vermont changed project plans.
Windsor County, where Taftsville is located, was one of the five hardest hit counties in Vermont (which has 14 counties). While the Taftsville Covered Bridge did not suffer the fate of the Bartonsville Covered Bridge, which was destroyed when it was washed off its abutments, it still saw incredible damage.
Following the flooding, the bridge was closed to pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Inspections in the upcoming weeks revealed a failing western abutment (Route 4 side of the bridge), to the extent that it threatened the stability of the bridge. The stone abutment faced an unsecure earthen riverbank, and material had washed downstream with the floodwaters. As a result the timber arch slipped and threatened to be unable to support the bridge until restoration. In addition, the central pier was damaged during the flood.

Close-up of the damaged piers and the undermining of the arches. Photo taken by Kaitlin O'shea, used with permission

In order to stabilize the bridge before winter began (even though winter barely showed in Vermont this year), the Vermont Agency of Transportation carried out a strengthening and lightening plan. In other words: strengthen the arches with tension rods, and remove the dead load: the siding, deck, and distribution beams – essentially, everything except the arches.  The abutment that remains and the central pier are strong enough to support one full span and one light span. The benefit to this method is that the entire bridge does not have to be removed, which saves additional work and keeps the bridge in everyone’s sights. A creative stabilization plan was necessary at this location due to several obstacles including an adjacent power plant and low power lines, which would inhibit the entrance of construction equipment and vehicles.
And that is how Taftsville became the Un-Covered Bridge. A restoration plan is still on track for the Taftsville Covered Bridge, though it may be a total of two years before the bridge is open to traffic.

West abutment, arch, and the rest of the bridge. Photo taken by Kaitlin O'shea, used with permission

 

Note about the guest columnist:

Kaitlin O’Shea is a historic preservationist by education, profession and avocation. She is currently a Historic Preservation Specialist with the State of Vermont, and previously an oral history project manager in North Carolina. Kaitlin has been writing Preservation in Pink since 2007, when she realized just how much she missed the caffeinated conversations and company of her preservation colleagues. What began as a preservation newsletter evolved to the daily blog that discusses historic preservation on all fronts, aiming to present subjects as approachable and applicable to everyone, no matter what his/her background.

The author would like to thank her for the use of her photos. They were taken in September 2011 and March 2012 respectively with her iPhone, and contrary to her opinion about the photos, they came out well on this column.

 

 

Posted in Bridge Preservation, Bridge Profile USA, News, Practices | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ambridge-Woodlawn Bridge to be rehabbed. A step in the right direction for preserving Pennsylvania’s (remaining) historic bridges?

Posted on March 17, 2012 by Jason D. Smith

There is an old saying that was mentioned many years ago by British author Kazuo Ishiguro which stated that in order to be successful, one has to work within his own boundaries and with the resources that he has at his disposal. Some of the themes used in his novels- the most popular was of course “The Remains of the Day” (published in 1989)- have something to do with trying to go beyond one’s own limits only to meet failure and later regret some years later and eventually, these self-made tragedies are usually served as a lesson for future generations and those who have yet to experience life and know that there are limits to what one is doing.

I wish I can say the same for the governmental agencies and their dealings with historic bridges, for up to now, whenever a historic bridge that has a unique appearance which people can relate to is considered obsolete, they would successfully find ways to destroy them in favor of modernized structures with a very bland feature. We have already seen the demise of the Bridgeport and Fort Steuben Bridges in the Wheeling (West Virginia) area within the last nine months. The Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad Bridge over the Minnesota River in the village of Carver, located southwest of Chaska, was removed upon orders of the Union Pacific Railroad in October 2011 despite pleas from the villagers and those interested in preserving a bridge. And perhaps the latest act of stupidity among the agency is replacing the Dolles Mill Bridge in Bollinger County (Missouri) with a concrete slab bridge that is narrower than the Parker through truss bridge built in 1913.

So it definitely came to a surprise that the Ambridge-Woodlawn Bridge, located over the Ohio River near Ambridge would actually be spared demolition despite being 85 years old and quite a narrow bridge fitting today’s standards. Built in 1927 by the American Bridge Company, the bridge is located in Beaver County, approximately 80 kilometers south-southwest of Pittsburgh, but still deep in the territory of western Pennsylvania.  Up to now, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation played a role of the wrecking ball in influencing decisions to demolish these bridges, destroying as much as 60% of its bridges within the past decade. This included the Foxburg, West Hickory, Venango and East Brady Bridges. Yet despite its bad track record, plus further plans to replace more historic bridges in and around the Pittsburgh area this year, there seems to be a change of heart, or so it seems, with this bridge.

I had a chance to visit this bridge during my tour of the region in 2010 and was quite impressed with its history and appearance. The bridge is a cantilever truss bridge using a Pratt design, and it was built using pinned connections, meaning the parts are put together via bolts and eyelets. The bridge features Howe lattice portal and strut bracings and finials on each of the four cantilever towers of the bridge, all shaped in a form of a curved pyramid.  The bridge’s east approach spans the Ohio River Boulevard and a couple abandoned rail lines before making its was across the Ohio River. After reaching the bank, the two Warren pony truss spans crosses the Norfolk Southern Railway before the road terminates at Constitution Boulevard on the west end of the river.  Its aqua green color gives the bridge an impressive look, and the people of Ambridge have used the bridge as part of their marketing strategy to bring more people and business to the community of 7,800 inhabitants. Interesting enough, Ambridge was incorporated by the American Bridge Company in 1905, by converging neighboring Legionville with the remnants of the village of Economy, which was founded in 1824 by the Harmony Society. The bridge building company was located here and was the main anchor of business in the city as steel mills drew in thousands of residents, looking for work and a place to start their lives. By 1940, the population had reached 18,968 before the steel mills shut down and many people left the community.  While the steel mills no longer exist, the city has preserved much of its business district and is now a main source of tourism. There is hope that the bridge will become part of that heritage once the rehabilitation work is completed.

Example of a finial on the top of one of the towers

I spent over an hour at the bridge and saw some bridge inspectors there, looking at the state of the bridge and making some notes and perhaps some recommendations. Judging by the appearance of the bridge, it was on the borderline between saving it and scrapping it. As draconian as PennDOT has been to the historic bridges, I would not have been surprised had the decision for the latter choice been taken. But much to my surprise after talking with the inspectors, my assumptions were wrong. From their point of view, it would be possible if the bridge would last another 25-30 years if some repairs are made.  It was a rather optimistic prediction given the sorry state of the bridges in the US in general.  As a whole, America’s bridges were graded C on a scale from A (excellent) to F (fail) by the American Society of Civil Engineers in 2009. That means that despite progress in repairing/ rehabilitating as well as replacing bridges deemed structurally obsolete to today’s standards, there is still more work to be done. Yet in terms of preserving historic bridges in general, my grade would be in the D range, and in the case of Pennsylvania, a walloping F.  That means that historic bridges most of the time are minimally maintained, causing them to deteriorate to a point where replacement is warranted. And that could be expensive, as a new bridge is four times as expensive as updating the bridge to meet current traffic standards. There were many examples of historic bridges I visited in western Pennsylvania that fell victim to neglect because of incremental ways to save money for maintenance- even for a good coat of paint if it is needed. As of this entry, a couple have since been removed and replaced and a few more are slated to come out soon.

Despite its top three ranking for the worst infrastructure in the country, Pennsylvania has been trying to catch up on bridge work through its massive bridge replacement program, regardless of where the funding comes from- from the state, federal government or even the private sector. Yet given the dire straits of the US economy and the political stalemate that has been going on in Washington- especially in light of this year’s presidential elections, it seems that the funding is being dried up faster than there are plans for replacing bridges in the next five years. Henceforth, the only viable option for PennDOT is to heed to the demands of the experts in bridge rehabilitation and preservation, listen to the public and rehabilitate the bridge from top to bottom so that the structure can continue serving traffic for more than 30 years and still be part of the legacy that Ambridge still prides itself in.

West approach. Note that the bottom part of the deck is very rusty.

The plan calls for a complete closure of the bridge between now and the end of November of this year and will include the repair and partial replacement of the bridge deck, replacement of the sidewalk and railings, repairs on the steel superstructure, new roadway, and a new paint job, just to name a few features of the project. What will produce a mixture of reactions from the public and those interested in the bridge is the change in paint color from aqua green to grey. While grey is commonly used on many truss bridges, it is highly questionable on this bridge, given its conformity to the surroundings. Yet there are some bright sides to the use of grey on the bridge, which includes it being brighter for cars at night and more noticeable for navigation on the Ohio River. What the bridge will look like once the rehabilitation is completed remains to be seen, but it appears that if the rehabilitation project is successful, it could spell a chance for PennDOT to look for ways to rehabilitate other historic bridges in the area. It does not necessarily have to be the main links, like the Ambridge-Woodlawn Bridge. It could also be some historic bridges, like the Carlton Bridge in Mercer County, which only takes an average of 10 vehicles a day. Rehabilitation can be a win-win situation for all parties involved. It saves money, prolongs the bridge’s life and maximizes its usage and especially, it preserves the historic significance of the bridge and its affiliation with the community and the people connected with it. The Ambridge-Woodlawn Bridge may help PennDOT to finally turn the curve in terms of its stance on historic bridges.

Example of work needed on the sidewalk and steel beams.

Links:

http://www.bridgehunter.com/pa/beaver/ambridge/

http://www.historicbridges.org/bridges/browser/?bridgebrowser=pennsylvania/ambridge/

http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/local/ambridge-aliquippa-bridge-closed-through-november-/nLKm5/

 

 

Bridgehunter Fast Fact:

Minus the greater Pittsburgh and Wheeling areas, Beaver County ranks in the top five of the highest number of truss bridges in western Pennsylvania, as many simple and cantilever truss bridges can be found within a 5-6 kilometer radius of each other on average. One of the reasons for this is the policy of rehabilitating and preserving pre-1965 spans with a potential of being reused again, despite the historic significance. A couple noteworthy examples include the Fallston Bridge (below). Built by the Penn Bridge Company in 1884, this two-span Whipple truss bridge was rehabilitated in 2005 and still serves traffic to this day. The bridge is located over the Beaver River near the Beaver Valley Golf Course in Fallston.

Photo taken by James Baughn in 2009

The other example is the rehabilitation going on at the Beaver Expressway Bridge (middle bridge in the photo below). Built in 1963, the bridge serves freeway traffic and was undergoing extensive rehabilitation of the deck truss span during the visit. The cities of Rochester and Beaver had already renovated a neighboring bridge to the north of the structure.

Photo taken by James Baughn in 2009

 

Author’s note: Unless noted, photos were taken during a tour in western Pennsylvania, West Virginia and along the Ohio River in August 2010

Posted in Bridge Preservation, Bridge Profile USA, News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments