DOCSLIB.ORG

Arizona Historic Bridge Inventory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arizona Historic Bridge Inventory McPhaul Suspension Bridge - Yuma County B R I D G E S A R I Z O N A H I S T O R I C B R I D G E I N V E N T O R Y submitted to: Arizona Department of Transportation th 205 South 17 Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007 produced by: in association with: FRASERdesign EcoPlan Associates, Inc. 420 South County Road 23E 701 West Southern Avenue Suite 203 Loveland, Colorado 80537 Mesa, Arizona 85210 January 2008 NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 10024-0018 (Revised March 1992) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form This form is for use in documenting multiple property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in How to Complete the Multiple Property Documentation Form (National Register Bulletin 16B). Complete each item by entering the requested information. For additional space, use continuation sheets (Form 10-900-a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer to complete all items. ____ New Submission ____ x Amended Submission A. Name of Multiple Property Listing Vehicular Bridges in Arizona 1880 - 1964 B. Associated Historic Contexts Vehicular Bridges in Arizona 1860 - 1964 C. Form Prepared By Clayton B. Fraser, Principal name/title FRASER design 15 January 2008 organization date 5700 Jackdaw Drive 970.669.7969 street & number telephone Loveland Colorado 80537 city or town state zip code D. Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this documentation form meets the National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the listing of related properties consistent with the National Register criteria. This submission meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60 and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archeology and Historic Preservation. ( See continuation sheet for additional comments.) Signature of certifying official date State or Federal agency or bureau I, hereby, certify that this multiple property documentation form has been approved by the National Register as a basis for evaluating related properties for listing in the National Register. Signature of commenting or other official date ___________________________________________________________________________________Vehicular Bridges in Arizona 1880 - 1964 ___________________ Arizona Name of Multiple Property Listing State Table of Contents Provide the following information on continuation sheets. Cite the letter and the title before each section of the narrative. Assign page numbers according to the instructions for continuation sheets in How to Complete the Multiple Property Documentation Form (National Register Bulletin 16B). Fill in page numbers for each section in the space below. Section Page number E. Statement of Historic Contexts 1. Introduction 1 2. Bridge Development in America 2 3. Territorial Road and Bridge Construction in Arizona: 1880-1912 8 Figure 1. Solomonville Road Overpass 11 Figure 2. Alchesay Canyon Bridge 13 Figure 3. Black River Bridge 16 Figure 4. Tempe Bridge 17 4. Early State Bridge Construction and Transcontinental Highways: 1912-1920 17 Figure 5. Map of proposed highway system of Arizona, 1912 19 Figure 6. Map of proposed state highways of Arizona, 1916 21 Figure 7. Antelope Hill Bridge 22 Figure 8. Santa Cruz River Bridge 24 Figure 9. Clason’s Guide Map of Arizona, 1918 29 Figure 10. Map of proposed Phoenix-Yuma Highway, 1920 31 Figure 11. Truck pulling train of cars across Gillespie Dam apron, circa 1926 33 Figure 12. Chevelon Creek Bridge 34 Figure 13. Jacks Canyon Bridge 35 Figure 14. Letterhead of Omaha Structural Steel Bridge Company, 1919 37 Figure 15. Canyon Padre Bridge 38 Figure 16. Gila River Bridge 39 Figure 17. Kelvin Bridge 40 Figure 18. Black Gap Bridge 41 Figure 19. Broadway Bridge 42 Figure 20. Cameron Suspension Bridge 43 Figure 21. Yuma Bridge 46 Figure 22. Topock Bridge 47 5. Federal Aid and the Arizona Highway Department in the 1910s and 1920s 47 Figure 23. Old Trails Wash Bridge 50 Figure 24. Granite Creek Bridge 52 Figure 25. Map of state highway system of Arizona, 1920 53 Figure 26. Concho Bridge 54 Figure 27. Cienega Bridge 55 Figure 28. Map of Arizona’s 7 percent system, 1922 57 Figure 29. Map of Arizona highway system, 1932 60 Figure 30. Dead Indian Canyon Bridge 61 Figure 31. Midgley Bridge 62 Figure 32. Mormon Flat Bridge 63 Figure 33. Verde River Bridge 64 Figure 34. Pine Creek Bridge 65 Figure 35. Gillespie Dam Bridge 68 Figure 36. Navajo Bridge 70 Figure 37. Dome (McPhaul) Bridge 71 Figure 38. Mill Avenue Bridge 72 x see continuation sheet ___________________________________________________________________________________Vehicular Bridges in Arizona 1880 - 1964 ___________________ Arizona Name of Multiple Property Listing State Section Page number 6. Depression and World War II Bridge Construction: 1933-1945 73 Figure 39. Map of state highway system of Arizona, 1933 75 Figure 40. Salt River Canyon Bridge 76 Figure 41. Winslow Underpass 77 Figure 42. Peoria Underpass 78 Figure 43. Rattlesnake Canyon Bridge 79 Figure 44. Willis Street Bridge 82 Figure 45. Map of state highway system, 1939 84 7. Post-War Construction and the Interstate Highway System: 1945-1964 86 Figure 46. Pinto Creek Bridge 90 Figure 47. Guthrie Bridge 91 Figure 48. Clear Creek Bridge 92 F. Associated Property Types 1. Concrete Arch Bridges 93 Figure 49. Concrete arch bridge diagram 94 Figure 50. Queen Creek Bridge 98 Figure 51. Holbrook Bridge 99 Figure 52. Queen Creek Bridge 100 Figure 53. Fossil Creek Bridge 101 2. Concrete Box Culverts and Slab and Girder Bridges 104 Figure 54. Concrete girder bridge diagram 104 Figure 55. Broadway Bridge 106 Figure 56. Pinal Creek Bridge 107 Figure 57. Tanner Wash Bridge 108 3. Concrete Rigid Frame Bridges 112 Figure 58. Benson Underpass 113 Figure 59. 17th Avenue Underpass 114 4 Steel Stringer and Girder Bridges 117 Figure 60. Steel I-beam stringer bridge diagram 118 Figure 61. Dry Wash Bridge 119 Figure 62. Wash Bridge 120 Figure 63. Wickenberg Bridge 121 Figure 64. Benson Bridge 122 5. Steel Truss Bridges 125 Figure 65. Steel truss bridge diagram 126 Figure 66. Truss bridge types 127 Figure 67. Truss bridge types 128 Figure 68. White River Bridge 129 Figure 69. Walnut Canyon Bridge 130 Figure 70. Sanders Bridge 131 Figure 71. Allentown Bridge 132 Figure 72. Park Avenue Bridge 133 Figure 73. Woodruff Bridge 134 Figure 74. Querino Canyon Bridge 135 Figure 75. Cameron Truss Bridge 137 x see continuation sheet ___________________________________________________________________________________Vehicular Bridges in Arizona 1880 - 1964 ___________________ Arizona Name of Multiple Property Listing State Section Page number 6. Long-span Steel Arch and Suspension Bridges 139 Figure 76. Steel suspension bridge diagram 139 Figure 77. Topock Bridge 141 Figure 78. Navajo Bridge 142 Figure 79. Cedar Canyon and Corduroy Creek Bridges 143 Figure 80. Cameron Suspension Bridge 144 Figure 81. McPhaul Bridge 145 7. Timber Stringer Bridges 148 Figure 82. Timber stringer bridge diagram 148 Figure 83. Packer Wash Bridge 149 Figure 84. Carrizo Bridge 150 8. Glossary 153 G. Geographical Data 156 H. Summary of Identification and Evaluation Methods 156 (Discuss the methods used in developing the multiple property listing) I. Major Bibliographical References 220 (List major written works and primary location of additional information: State Historic Preservation Office, other state agency, federal agency, local government, university, or other, specifying repository.) Primary Location of Additional Data State Historic Preservation Office x Other state agency (Arizona Department of Transportation) Federal agency University Other Inventory Forms 235 Apache County Allentown Bridge (ADOT Structure No. 3073) 236 Sanders Bridge (ADOT Structure No. 3074) 240 Querino Canyon Bridge (ADOT Structure No. 8071) 244 Concho Bridge (ADOT Structure No. 8480) 248 Cochise County Lowell Arch Bridge (ADOT Structure No. 0130) 252 Benson Highway Underpass (ADOT Structure No. 0262) 256 Benson Railroad Underpass (ADOT Structure No. 0264) 260 Benson Bridge (ADOT Structure No. 0350) 264 Leslie Creek Bridge (ADOT Structure No. 8115) 268 Hereford Bridge (ADOT Structure No. 9214) 272 Coconino County Dead Indian Canyon Bridge (ADOT Structure No. 0032) 276 Navajo Bridge (ADOT Structure No. 0051) 280 Pumphouse Wash Bridge (ADOT Structure No. 0079) 284 x see continuation sheet ___________________________________________________________________________________Vehicular Bridges in Arizona 1880 - 1964 ___________________ Arizona Name of Multiple Property Listing State Section Page number Coconino County (cont.) Midgley Bridge (ADOT Structure No. 0232) 288 Water Holes Canyon Bridge (ADOT Structure No. 0508) 292 Cameron Truss Bridge (ADOT Structure No. 0532) 296 Glen Canyon Bridge (ADOT Structure No. 0537) 300 Walnut Canyon Bridge (ADOT Structure No. 9225) 304 Cameron Suspension Bridge 308 Canyon Padre Bridge 312 Canyon Diablo Bridge 316 Gila County Salt River Bridge (ADOT Structure No. 0037) 320 Salt River Canyon Bridge (ADOT Structure No. 0129) 324 Pinto Creek Bridge (ADOT Structure No. 0351) 328 Black River Bridge (ADOT Structure No. 3128) 332 White River Bridge (ADOT Structure No. 3129) 336 Fossil Creek Bridge (ADOT Structure No. 3215) 340 Reppy Avenue Bridge (ADOT Structure No. 8585) 344 Cordova Avenue Bridge (ADOT Structure No. 8586) 348 Inspiration Avenue Bridge (ADOT Structure No. 8587) 352 Keystone Avenue
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Côte D'ivoire
    AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK GROUP ABIDJAN URBAN TRANSPORT PROJECT Public Disclosure Authorized Authorized Public Disclosure COUNTRY : CÔTE D’IVOIRE PROJECT APPRAISAL REPORT Authorized Authoriezd Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure OITC DEPARTMENT December 2016 Translated Document TABLE OF CONTENTS I – STRATEGIC THRUST AND RATIONALE ..................................................................... 1 1.1 Key Development Issues…………………………………………………………… ........ 1 1.2 Project Linkages with Country Strategy and Objectives .................................................... 1 1.3 Rationale for Bank Involvement ......................................................................................... 2 1.4 Aid Coordination ................................................................................................................ 3 II – PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 3 2.1 Project Components ............................................................................................................ 3 2.2 Technical Solutions Adopted and Alternatives Explored ................................................... 5 2.3 Project Type ........................................................................................................................ 5 2.4 Project Cost and Financing Arrangements ......................................................................... 6 2.5 Project Target Area and Beneficiaries ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Great Bend of the Gila?
    GreatWhat Is the Bend of the Gila? The Great Bend of the Gila is a fragile stretch of river valley and surrounding lands in the Sonoran Desert of southwestern Arizona. This rural landscape is nestled between the cities of Phoenix and Yuma. The Gila River flows through a series of pronounced “bends” here, past jagged mountains and extinct lava flows. It joins the Colorado River just north of the Sea of Cortez. For millennia, communities flourished along the Great Bend. People from many different walks of life created a cultural landscape that merges archaeo- logical and historical wonders in a remarkable natural setting. What Is Special about the Great Bend of the Gila? The Great Bend has long been a The valley later served as an over- crossroads where people of different land route between Spanish settle- backgrounds came together in inter- ments in Sonora and missions along esting and inspiring ways. This legacy the California coast. Father Eusebio of cultural diversity is literally written Kino blazed this trail in 1699, and on the landscape in the form of tens Juan Bautista de Anza formalized it of thousands of petroglyphs authored in 1775. It served as the foundation by Native Americans, with later for many subsequent transconti- additions by Spaniards, Mexicans, and nental trails and roads, including Euro-Americans. Kearny’s trail for the Army of the For more than 1,000 years, fam- West, Cooke's Wagon Road for the ilies lived in villages along the lower Mormon Battalion, and the Butterfield Gila River and cultivated ancestral Overland Stage Line.
    [Show full text]
  • Once-Rugged Old Spanish Trail Celebrates 90Th Year Yuma
    Local News Once-rugged Old Spanish Trail celebrates 90th year BY PAM M. SMITH, SUN STAFF WRITER Dec 9, 2005 Today is the 90th birthday of the Old Spanish Trail, a route that opened the way for cross-country vehicular traffic — with some help from Yuma's Ocean-to-Ocean Bridge. The Old Spanish Trail started in Mobile, Ala., Dec. 10, 1915, as the shortest vehicle route between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, said John W. Murphey, a historian with the New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs Historic Preservation Division, in a telephone interview with The Sun. "Its route wound through several states, a path for the old Highway 80 — today's Interstates 8 and 10," Murphey said. The Ocean-to-Ocean Bridge, crossing from Arizona into California, was the last bridge on the southern Old Spanish Trail route. It was dedicated in 1915, a few months prior to the beginning of the trail itself. The 20th century automobile route was actually the second of two Old Spanish Trails. The first, dating back to the early 1800s, started in Santa Fe, N.M., and went north into Colorado, west through Utah, then southwest in Nevada, through the Mojave desert and into Los Angeles. The original Old Spanish Trail had been used by Native Americans and various explorers and traders before the modern highway route was opened. That highway route — the one celebrating its birthday today — was envisioned as a means for tourists to see Florida towns, go through Mobile and continue on their way west. During a convention in Mobile, 419 delegates from Alabama, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona created the future highway.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Atlanta 2016-2020 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Community Work Program (CWP)
    City of Atlanta 2016-2020 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Community Work Program (CWP) Prepared By: Department of Planning and Community Development 55 Trinity Avenue Atlanta, Georgia 30303 www.atlantaga.gov DRAFT JUNE 2015 Page is left blank intentionally for document formatting City of Atlanta 2016‐2020 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and Community Work Program (CWP) June 2015 City of Atlanta Department of Planning and Community Development Office of Planning 55 Trinity Avenue Suite 3350 Atlanta, GA 30303 http://www.atlantaga.gov/indeex.aspx?page=391 Online City Projects Database: http:gis.atlantaga.gov/apps/cityprojects/ Mayor The Honorable M. Kasim Reed City Council Ceasar C. Mitchell, Council President Carla Smith Kwanza Hall Ivory Lee Young, Jr. Council District 1 Council District 2 Council District 3 Cleta Winslow Natalyn Mosby Archibong Alex Wan Council District 4 Council District 5 Council District 6 Howard Shook Yolanda Adreaan Felicia A. Moore Council District 7 Council District 8 Council District 9 C.T. Martin Keisha Bottoms Joyce Sheperd Council District 10 Council District 11 Council District 12 Michael Julian Bond Mary Norwood Andre Dickens Post 1 At Large Post 2 At Large Post 3 At Large Department of Planning and Community Development Terri M. Lee, Deputy Commissioner Charletta Wilson Jacks, Director, Office of Planning Project Staff Jessica Lavandier, Assistant Director, Strategic Planning Rodney Milton, Principal Planner Lenise Lyons, Urban Planner Capital Improvements Program Sub‐Cabinet Members Atlanta BeltLine,
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Historic Bridge Inventory | Pages 164-191
    NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet section number G, H page 156 V E H I C U L A R B R I D G E S I N A R I Z O N A Geographic Data: State of Arizona Summary of Identification and Evaluation Methods The Arizona Historic Bridge Inventory, which forms the basis for this Multiple Property Documentation Form [MPDF], is a sequel to an earlier study completed in 1987. The original study employed 1945 as a cut-off date. This study inventories and evaluates all of the pre-1964 vehicular bridges and grade separations currently maintained in ADOT’s Structure Inventory and Appraisal [SI&A] listing. It includes all structures of all struc- tural types in current use on the state, county and city road systems. Additionally it includes bridges on selected federal lands (e.g., National Forests, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base) that have been included in the SI&A list. Generally not included are railroad bridges other than highway underpasses; structures maintained by federal agencies (e.g., National Park Service) other than those included in the SI&A; structures in private ownership; and structures that have been dismantled or permanently closed to vehicular traffic. There are exceptions to this, however, and several abandoned and/or privately owned structures of particular impor- tance have been included at the discretion of the consultant. The bridges included in this Inventory have not been evaluated as parts of larger road structures or historic highway districts, although they are clearly integral parts of larger highway resources.
    [Show full text]
  • YUMA COUNTY MULTI- JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN March 2019
    YUMA COUNTY MULTI- JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN March 2019 YUMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1: JURISDICTIONAL ADOPTION AND FEMA APPROVAL...................................................... 6 1.1 DMA 2000 Requirements ............................................................................................................................ 6 1.1.1 General Requirements............................................................................................................................. 6 1.1.2 Tribal Government Assurances ............................................................................................................. 6 1.2 Official Record of Adoption........................................................................................................................ 6 SECTION 2: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 8 2.1 Plan History..................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Plan Purpose and Authority ....................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 General Plan Description............................................................................................................................. 8 SECTION 3: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Innovation and Creativity in the Great Recession
    Y RK UMA QU C PA ART RI ERM STO A I S T H E E R T A D T E S P O IO T ID S S T A E T R P E H C I A S B T O U T R I C P A R K Y U M A T E R R I K T O R A R P I A E L T P A T R S I S I ’ O V N O L S T O A T M E O H H I S T O R I C P A R K F O R T VER PARK DE STATE HISTORIC ARIZONA’S STATE CULTURAL PARKS: Innovation and Creativity in the Great Recession Governor’s Archaeology Advisory Commission ARIZONA’S STATE CULTURAL PARKS: Innovation and Creativity in the Great Recession Governor’s Archaeology Advisory Commission October 2014 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND The Governor’s Archaeology Advisory Commission has prepared this report to examine and celebrate the community partnerships that sustained Arizona’s archaeological and historic parks when state funding was cut in the wake of the nationwide economic crisis that began in 2008- 2009 and is known as the “Great Recession.” Through their efforts to avert park closures, while supporting programs and facilities that benefit local communities and Indian tribes, such partnerships represent excellent examples of “public archaeology.” The Commission is a statutory body charged with advising the Governor and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on: • the protection of Arizona’s archaeological heritage • public education • related issues and activities As the SHPO is housed within Arizona State Parks, the Commission has a great interest in supporting resource protection, educational programs, and heritage tourism within the parks whose primary purpose is the preservation of prehistoric and historic sites.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Submission Listings Arizona
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES MULTIPLE PROPERTY SUBMISSION LISTINGS ARIZONA Grace Lutheran Church, Maricopa, Arizona, 93000835 FINDING AID Prepared by National Park Service - Intermountain Region Museum Services Program Tucson, Arizona August 2017 National Register of Historic Places – Multiple Property Submission Listings –Arizona 2 National Register of Historic Places – Multiple Property Submission Listings – Arizona Scope and Content Note: The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the official list of the Nation's historic places worthy of preservation. Authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Park Service's National Register of Historic Places is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect America's historic and archeological resources. - From the National Register of Historic Places site: http://www.nps.gov/nr/about.htm The Multiple Property Submission (MPS) listings records are unique in that they capture historic properties that are related by theme, general geographic area, and/or period of time. The MPS is the current terminology for submissions of this kind; past iterations include Thematic Resource (TR) and Multiple Resource Area (MRA). Historic properties nominated under the MPS rubric will contain individualized nomination forms and will be linked by a Cover Sheet for the overall group. Historic properties nominated under the TR and MRA rubric are nominated
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Properties Treatment Plan for Monitoring and Phased Data
    Historic Properties Treatment Plan for Monitoring and Phased Data Recovery at AZ U:9:165(ASM) for the 8th Street Multi-use Path and Streetscape Improvements (Rural Road to McClintock Drive), Tempe, Maricopa County, Arizona Prepared for: City of Tempe Prepared by: Sara C. Ferland Submitted by: Mark Hackbarth, M.A., RPA 51 West Third Street, Suite 450 Tempe, AZ 85281 April 2018 (Submittal 2) Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 175186b ABSTRACT AND MANAGEMENT SUMMARY Report Title Historic Properties Treatment Plan for Monitoring and Phased Data Recovery at AZ U:9:165(ASM) for the 8th Street Multi-use Path and Streetscape Improvements (Rural Road to McClintock Drive), Tempe, Maricopa County, Arizona Report Date April 4, 2018 (Submittal 2) Agencies Involved Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Arizona State Museum (ASM), City of Tempe (COT) Land Ownership COT Funding Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program though the FHWA ASM Permits Arizona Antiquities Act project-specific permit (to be obtained) Burial Agreement, in accordance with A.R.S. §41-844 (to be obtained) Repository A Curation Agreement will be obtained from the Tempe History Museum Logan Simpson 175186 Project No. Project Description The COT, in conjunction with the ADOT and FHWA, is planning to construct a multi-use path (MUP) and streetscape improvement project along 8th Street between Rural Road and McClintock Drive in Tempe. The area of potential effects (APE) consists of approximately one mile of the existing 73.0 ft to 90.5 ft. This includes the COT-owned property on the north side of 8th Street from Rural Road to Dorsey Lane (a former railroad ROW measuring 33 feet wide by 2,640 feet long), and a Salt River Project easement at the southeast corner of 8th Street and Rural Road.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded and Reviewed on the State Parks’ Webpage Or Those Interested Could Request a Hard Copy
    Governor of Arizona Janet Napolitano Arizona State Parks Board William Cordasco, Chair ting 50 ting 50 ra Y Arlan Colton ra Y b e b e a William C. Porter a le le r r e e s s William C. Scalzo C C Tracey Westerhausen Mark Winkleman 1957 - 2007 Reese Woodling 1957 - 2007 Elizabeth Stewart (2006) Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission Jeffrey Bell, Chair Mary Ellen Bittorf Garry Hays Rafael Payan William Schwind Duane Shroufe Kenneth E. Travous This publication was prepared under the authority of the Arizona State Parks Board. Prepared by the Statewide Planning Unit Resources Management Section Arizona State Parks 1300 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-4174 Fax: (602) 542-4180 www.azstateparks.com The preparation of this report was under the guidance from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, under the provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (Public Law 88-578, as amended). The Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, age or disability. For additional information or to file a discrimination complaint, contact Director, Office of Equal Opportunity, Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. 20240. September 2007 ARIZONA 2008 SCORP ARIZONA 2008 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) Arizona State Parks September 2007 iii ARIZONA 2008 SCORP ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The 2008 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) for Arizona was prepared by the Planning Unit, Resources Management
    [Show full text]
  • History of ALDOT
    Module 1 Read Ahead History of ALDOT Module 1: History of ALDOT Objectives After attending the training in Module 1, participants will be able to: • understand the history of ALDOT from birth out of corrections in 1911 until today. • identify the many changes that have occurred throughout the history of ALDOT. • understand the many reorganizations of areas, regions, divisions, and bureaus. Early History of ALDOT In 1911, the State Highway Commission was created under Governor Emmet O’Neal’s Administration (1911-1915). The State Highway Commission consisted of five commissioners and three regular employees. The State Highway Commission was organized along with an Oyster Commission and was initially housed in the cloak room of the Senate Chamber in the Alabma State Capitol. The first five Alabama State Highway Commission Members were Robert E. Spragins, Chairman, of Huntsville; John Craft of Mobile who later became Chairman of the 2nd Commission; V. B. Atkins of Selma; G.N. Mitcham, Professor of Civil Engineering at Auburn University; and Eugene A. Smith, State Geologist at the University of Alabama. Regular Members of the Commission were W.S. Keller, State Highway Engineer who had experience at the County Engineer level; Robert P. Boyd, Assistant State Highway Engineer who had experience at the County Engineer level; and C.L. Rabb, Clerk. Earliest Years Early highway executives in 1911 shared some of the same financial woes as their current counterparts. The Financial Act of 1911 appropriated $154,000 from the State Convict Fund. The Act allowed the funds to be used for construction of roads and for the overhead expenses of the state executives.
    [Show full text]
  • AR-20 St. Francis River Bridge
    HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD ST. FRANCIS RIVER BRIDGE (Madison Bridge) HAER NO. AR-20 LOCATION: US Highway 70, spanning St. Francis River, near Madison, St. Francis County, Arkansas. UTM: 15/3879260/708740 Quad: Madison, Arkansas DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: 1933 ENGINEER: Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. BUILDER: Wisconsin Bridge and Iron Company, Milwaukee,Wisconsin. F PRESENT OWNER: Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. PRESENT USE: Vehicular traffic SIGNIFICANCE: The bridge over the St. Francis River on U.S. 70, constructed by the Wisconsin Bridge and Iron Company, was part of a 1930s highway and development project. Comparable with the Black River Bridge at Pocahontas (HAER NO. AR-8) the St. Francis River Bridge differs in its historical context and in its structural details. It is, with the bridge at Pocahontas, one of three swinging road bridges in the state. HISTORIAN: Sean O'Reilly DESCRIPTION: Corinne Smith Arkansas Historic Bridge Recording Project, 1988 ST. FRANCIS RIVER BRIDGE (MADISON BRIDGE) HAER NO. AR-20 PAGE 2 MEMPHIS TO LITTLE ROCK The first mail route established between Little Rock and Memphis commenced operation in 1824 over practically the exact route of the present (1936) U. S. Highway 70. This route known as the "Trail of Tears" is the route used in moving the Cherokee Indians from their lands east of the Mississippi to those in the west" (1) U.S. Highway No. 70, part of which formed the historic link between Memphis, Tennessee and Little Rock, Arkansas, was developed in the early decades of this century as one of the most important routes in the State of Arkansas.(%) Its informal title, "The Broadway of America" registered its national importance.
    [Show full text]