DOCSLIB.ORG

N.C. 12 Pea Island Interim Bridge Phase IIA Record of Decision

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
N.C. 12 Pea Island Interim Bridge Phase IIA Record of Decision Record of Decision for NC 12 – Pea Island Long-Term Improvements Bonner Bridge Replacement Project Phase IIa Federal‐Aid No. BRNHF‐0012(55) NCDOT Project Definition: 32635 TIP Project No. B‐2500A Dare County, North Carolina Federal Highway Administration North Carolina Department of Transportation October 2013 Table of Contents 1.0 DECISION............................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 PROJECT HISTORY .......................................................................................................... 6 2.1 2010 Record of Decision .......................................................................................... 6 2.2 2013 Phase IIa Environmental Assessment ......................................................... 6 3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ................................................................................... 7 3.1 Phase IIa Alternatives Studies ............................................................................... 8 3.1.1 Parallel Bridge Corridor with NC 12 Transportation Management Plan Alternatives Considered ............................................ 8 3.1.2 Other Alternatives Considered .................................................................. 9 3.2 Phase IIa Basis for Selection of the Selected Alternative ............................... 13 3.3 Description of the Phase IIa Selected Alternative ........................................... 15 3.4 Cost Estimate for the Phase IIa Selected Alternative ...................................... 18 3.5 Summary of Impacts for the Phase IIa Selected Alternative ......................... 20 3.5.1 Phase IIa Selected Alternative Impacts ................................................... 20 3.5.2 Effect of Implementing Phase IIa Selected Alternative on the Impacts Associated with All Phases of the PBC/TMP Alternative ................................................................................ 28 3.6 Agency Coordination ............................................................................................ 30 3.6.1 January 30, 2013 Merger Team Meeting ................................................. 30 3.6.2 Endangered Species Consultation (Section 7) ........................................ 33 3.6.3 Essential Fish Habitat Coordination ....................................................... 34 3.6.4 Section 106 Coordination .......................................................................... 35 3.6.5 Other Agency Coordination ..................................................................... 35 4.0 SECTION 4(F) STATEMENT ......................................................................................... 35 5.0 MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM ............................................................................ 38 5.1 Project‐Specific Commitments ............................................................................ 39 5.2 Relocations .............................................................................................................. 39 5.3 Parks and Recreation Facilities ........................................................................... 39 5.4 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................. 39 5.5 Wetland Impacts .................................................................................................... 40 5.6 Protected Species Impacts .................................................................................... 41 5.7 Construction Impacts ............................................................................................ 42 Record of Decision iii NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500A Table of Contents (concluded) 5.8 Mitigation ................................................................................................................ 42 6.0 MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM ............................................... 43 7.0 CORRECTIONS TO THE 2013 PHASE IIA EA .......................................................... 43 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE 2013 PHASE IIA EA ................................. 44 9.0 SECTION 106 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT .................................................... 45 10.0 NEXT STEPS ...................................................................................................................... 46 10.1 Phase IIa ................................................................................................................... 46 10.2 Later Phases (NC 12 Transportation Management Plan) ................................ 46 10.3 Permits and Approvals ......................................................................................... 47 10.3.1 Phase IIa ...................................................................................................... 47 10.3.2 Later Phases (NC 12 Transportation Management Plan) ..................... 49 11.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 49 APPENDIX A PROJECT COMMITMENTS ................................................................. A‐1 APPENDIX B AGENCY, NON‐GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION, AND PUBLIC OFFICIAL COMMENT LETTERS ON THE PHASE IIA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ...................B‐1 APPENDIX C RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE PHASE IIA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ................................................... C‐1 APPENDIX D NEPA/404 CONCURRENCE FORMS, MERGER MINUTES, AND AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE ................................................ D‐1 APPENDIX E FIRST AMENDMENT TO SECTION 106 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ............................................................................................ E‐1 Record of Decision iv NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500A List of Tables Table 1. Revised Impacts to Biotic Communities in the Phase IIa Project Area .......... 24 Table 2. Project Mitigation Measures ................................................................................ 43 List of Figures Figure 1. Parallel Bridge Corridor with Transportation Management Plan Alternative ............................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Phase IIa Selected Alternative ................................................................................ 4 Figure 3. Phase IIa Bridge Typical Section ......................................................................... 17 Figure 4. New Inlet Boat Ramp Access Road ..................................................................... 18 Record of Decision v NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500A 1.0 Decision This document records the decision for the proposed NC 12—Pea Island Long‐Term Improvements (Bonner Bridge Replacement Project Phase IIa) in Dare County, North Carolina and re‐affirms the Selected Alternative (Parallel Bridge Corridor with Transportation Management Plan [PBC/TMP] Alternative) presented in the 2010 Record of Decision for the Bonner Bridge Replacement Project (B‐2500). Bonner Bridge Replacement Project Phases I, IIa, and IIb are included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation’s (NCDOT) approved 2012 to 2020 and the draft 2013‐ 2023 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) as Project Nos. B‐2500, B‐2500A, and B‐2500B. The project is broken into phases in the NCDOT’s 2013 to 2023 Draft STIP. The NC 12 – Pea Island Long‐Term Improvements recorded in this document are designated in the Draft STIP as segment A of project B‐2500 or B‐2500A. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the requirements set by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] 1505.2), this Record of Decision (ROD) for Phase IIa also summarizes the following: Alternatives considered for the proposed project by NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the basis for selection, description, cost estimates, and impacts of the Selected Alternative The Section 4(f) statement Measures adopted to avoid and minimize harm Monitoring and enforcement programs for the implementation of mitigation measures Public and agency comments on the February 2013 Phase IIa Environmental Assessment (EA) The replacement of Bonner Bridge over Oregon Inlet is Phase I of Project No. B‐2500. Bonner Bridge, built in 1962, is approaching the end of its reasonable service life. Bonner Bridge is a part of NC 12 and provides the only highway connection between Hatteras Island and Bodie Island. The replacement structure will serve the same function. The project also includes the NC 12 corridor between the community of Rodanthe and Oregon Inlet, a section of roadway that is at risk because of shoreline erosion (with potential for storm overwash and road loss), five locations considered geologically susceptible to breaching, and which has experienced extensive recent damage as a result of Hurricane Irene in 2011 and Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Phase IIa consists of long‐term improvements in the Pea Island inlet area. The entire Bonner Record of Decision 1 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500A Bridge Replacement Project (B‐2500), including Phase IIa as discussed in this Phase IIa ROD, will provide a long‐term approach to minimizing that risk through 2060. The Bonner Bridge Replacement Project (B‐2500) project area is in Dare County in eastern North Carolina, and encompasses northern Hatteras Island, the southern end of Bodie Island, and regions of the Pamlico Sound. As set forth in the 2010 ROD, the Selected Alternative for
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Look at Bridges: a Study of Types, Histories, and the Marriage of Engineering and Architecture Cody Chase Connecticut College
    Connecticut College Digital Commons @ Connecticut College Architectural Studies Integrative Projects Art History and Architectural Studies 2015 A Look at Bridges: A Study of Types, Histories, and the Marriage of Engineering and Architecture Cody Chase Connecticut College Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/archstudintproj Recommended Citation Chase, Cody, "A Look at Bridges: A Study of Types, Histories, and the Marriage of Engineering and Architecture" (2015). Architectural Studies Integrative Projects. Paper 73. http://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/archstudintproj/73 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Art History and Architectural Studies at Digital Commons @ Connecticut College. It has been accepted for inclusion in Architectural Studies Integrative Projects by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Connecticut College. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author. CODY CHASE SENIOR INTEGRATIVE PROJECT: INDEPENDENT STUDY ARCHITECTURAL STUDIES CONNECTICUT COLLEGE 2015 A"LOOK"INTO"BRIDGES" A"Study"of"Types,"Histories,"and"the"Marriage"of" Engineering"and"Architecture" " Cody"Chase"‘15" Architectural"Studies"Major,"Art"History"Minor" Senior"IntegraHve"Project" " Why Bridges? Where to begin? TYPES OTHER • Arch • Glossary • Beam/Girder/Stringer • Materials • Truss • History of Failures • Suspension • Models • Cable-Stayed • Moveable Span What makes a bridge stand up? FORCES ***Compression:
    [Show full text]
  • GETTING up to SPEED: a Conservationist's Guide to Wildlife
    DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE Defenders of Wildlife is a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities. Defenders launched the Habitat and Highways Campaign in 2000 to reduce the impacts of GETTING UP TO SPEED: surface transportation on our nation’s wildlife and natural resources. Author: Patricia A. White A Conservationist’s Guide Director, Habitat and Highways Campaign Research: Jesse Feinberg To Wildlife and Highways Technical Review: Alex Levy Editing: Krista Schlyer Design: 202design ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Defenders of Wildlife is grateful to the Surdna Foundation for their generous support of our Habitat and Highways Campaign and this publication. We also thank the following individuals for their assistance with this project: Ann Adler Kerri Gray Yates Opperman Steve Albert Chris Haney Terry Pelster Paul J. Baicich Jennifer Leigh Hopwood Jim Pissot Bill Branch Sandy Jacobson Robert Puentes Arnold Burnham Noah Kahn John Rowen Josh Burnim Julia Kintsch Bill Ruediger Carolyn Campbell Keith Knapp Inga Sedlovsky Barbara Charry Dianne Kresich Shari Shaftlein Gabriella Chavarria Michael Leahy Chris Slesar Patricia Cramer Alex Levy Richard Solomon Kim Davitt Laura Loomis Allison Srinivas Monique DiGiorgio Bonnie Harper Lore Graham Stroh Bridget Donaldson Laurie MacDonald Stephen Tonjes Bob Dreher Noah Matson Rodney Vaughn Gary Evink Kevin McCarty Marie Venner Emily Ferry Jim McElfish Paul Wagner Elizabeth Fleming Gary McVoy Jen Watkins Richard Forman Louisa Moore Mark Watson Kathy Fuller Jim Motavalli Jessica Wilkinson Chester Fung Carroll Muffett Kathleen Wolf Sean Furniss Siobhan Nordhaugen Paul Garrett Leni Oman © 2007 Defenders of Wildlife 1130 17th Street, N.W. | Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Written Testimony 31, Cortright 10-12-16
    October 12, 2016 TO: Salem Area Local Officials FROM: Robert Cortright, West Salem RE: PROPOSED UGB AMENDMENT FOR THE SALEM RIVER CROSSING I was a member of the Salem River Crossing Task Force. In addition, for 25 years, I served as the lead staff person for transportation planning issues at the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. I've spent much of the last three weeks reviewing the consultant reports and proposed findings. A careful review shows that the proposed UGB amendment does not – and almost certainly cannot - meet state or local planning requirements because improving the existing Marion and Center Street bridges (Alternative 2A) and other actions will reasonably meet our area's identified transportation needs. My detailed comments are attached. Improving the existing Marion and Center Street Bridges (Alternative 2A) in combination with other actions identified in Salem's Transportation Plan and bridge studies can reasonably meet the region's transportation needs for the following reasons: • It's reasonable because it meets the three factors that the region is required to address under land use rules. Land use rules require that you base your decision about whether an alternative solution is reasonable considering three factors: cost, economic dislocation and operational feasibility. Improving the existing bridges (Alternative 2A) meets each of these tests: it costs significantly less, it impacts fewer homes and businesses, and, it performs essentially as well in reducing traffic congestion. • It's reasonable because we can afford it and because we can't afford a new bridge. A new bridge would cost at least $425 million.
    [Show full text]
  • The Real Bridge to Nowhere
    The Real Bridge to Nowhere China’s Foiled North Korea Strategy C ARLA FREEMAN Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies DREW THOMPSON The Nixon Center April 22, 2009 www.usip.org UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE 1200 17th Street NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036-3011 © 2009 by the United States Institute of Peace. The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Institute of Peace, which does not advocate specific policy positions. The views of the authors are entirely their own and do not reflect the opinions of their respective organizations. This is a working draft. Comments, questions, and permission to cite should be directed to the authors, Carla Freeman ([email protected]) and Drew Thompson ([email protected]). ABOUT THIS REPORT This report examines the complexities of Chinese-North Korean relations, taking into account the perspective of China’s border areas, a vital aspect of China’s relationship with the Korean peninsula that is often overlooked. China is sensitive about the unique issues associated with managing its land border regions, with their ethnic composition, particular development challenges and special vulnerability to the ups and downs of relations between it and its international neighbors. China’s border with North Korea has proven more challenging and costly to manage over time than local Chinese authorities and Beijing had hoped, due in large part to North Korea’s failure to meet the economic needs of its people. China’s goals of deepening cross-border economic transactions through a more open border are challenged by the increased threats to local security presented by a porous border with a fragile state.
    [Show full text]
  • $315 Million Bridge to Nowhere Rep. Don Young (R-AK) Is Trying to Sell
    $315 Million Bridge to Nowhere February 9, 2005 Rep. Don Young (R-AK) is trying to sell America’s taxpayers a $315 million “bridge to nowhere” in rural Alaska. As Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, he is in a very good position to get his way. But Rep. Young should be stopped from using his political clout to force federal taxpayers to pay for a bridge that is ridiculous in its scope, unjustified on its merits, and far too expensive for taxpayers to swallow at a time of record federal deficits. If Rep. Young succeeds, tiny Ketchikan, Alaska, a town with less than 8,000 residents (about 13,000 if the entire county is included) will receive hundreds of millions of federal dollars to build a bridge to Gravina Island (population: 50). This bridge will be nearly as long as the Golden Gate Bridge and taller than the Brooklyn Bridge. The Gravina Bridge would replace a 7-minute ferry ride from Ketchikan to Ketchikan Airport on Gravina Island. Project proponents tell the public that the bridge is a transportation necessity, though the ferry system adequately handles passenger traffic between the islands, including traffic to and from the airport.1 Some herald the project as the savior of Ketchikan because it will open up land on Pennock Island to residential development, despite the fact that Gravina’s population has been shrinking. 1 Alaska Airlines, the only commercial passenger airline that flies to Ketchikan, runs seven daily flight routes in the summer and six in the winter. Two ferries, which run every 15 minutes in the summer and every 30 minutes in the winter, provide transportation to and from the airport.
    [Show full text]
  • July 2004 Kenner Star
    C EL Kenner Star EB RA see storyTE page 9 S 1 6th YE AR VOL. 17, NO. 7 KENNER’S COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER SINCE 1991 JULY 2008 Scotty’s Tire and Automotive Mayor Muniz: I’ve loved the first two years in office By ALLAN KATZ become good friends and political has set a high standard for allies with Police Chief Steve Kenner during the last decade Mayor Ed Muniz is extremely proud Caraway. While he hasn’t discussed of his administration’s successes and the idea with Caraway, Muniz thinks By ALLAN KATZ says that being the mayor of Kenner that if the police chief was agreeable, a has been a wonderful experience. Muniz-Caraway ticket would be pretty When Scott Zimmerman opened his business in As he contemplates the first two formidable. Kenner 10 years ago, it was the result of careful thought years in the mayor’s office, Muniz is Muniz is very excited about the mil- and planning. constantly being encouraged to run for lions of dollars in what he believes “It was obvious to me that the Kenner economy was a second term. But he says, “I’m 70 was wasteful and excess spending that going to grow,” said Zimmerman, who has been in the BARRY SPRAGUE BARRY years old and at that age you don’t his administration has carved from the tires and automotive business for 30 years. “And I really Mayor Ed Muniz addresses Kenner budget. The mayor says his liked the way that although Kenner has a population of make any plans for two years from administration carved out savings of 70,000, there is a small-town feel to the community.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Mangaehu Road, Aotuhia 1937
    Upper Mangaehu Road, Aotuhia 1937 Use: Road Bridge Historic Value: 3 out of 5 Materials: Concrete Architectural Value: 2 out of 4 NZHPT Registered: Not registered Technical Value: 2 out of 2 Legal Description: Secs 1 & 2 SO13241 Pt Sec 1 SC Symbolic Value: 1 out of 3 13244 Secs 1-6 SO13245 Rarity Value: 1 out of 2 Townscape Value: 2 out of 2 Group Value: - out of 2 Bridge To Somewhere Overall Heritage Value: 11 out of 20 Upper Mangaehu Rd The now isolated valley of Aotuhia was once a thriving community. It was settled in the early 1900’s with the only access being by pack tracks and the Lower Whangamomona River. All supplies needed to establish the settlement were brought in by these means, and eventually there was a school, sports ground, timber mill, telephone/post office and other amenities. The impact of isolation and harder times took its toll in the 1920s and 1930s however. Farmers began to walk off their land as the effect of the depression was felt on the nonviable sections. Notwithstanding this, a road into the settlement was built and the Government of the day had plans to build a highway west to Whangamomona to open the country up. They authorised the building of the Aotuhia Bridge in February 1936 and it was completed in May 1937 by the Peacock Construction Company of Patea for £1,800. This construction replaced the old swing bridge that had fallen into a state of disrepair, but occurred after the community of Aotuhia had been largely abandoned.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Bridges Multiple Property Documentation Form
    NPS Form 10-900-b OMB No. 1024-0018 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form This form is used for documenting property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin How to Complete the Multiple Property Documentation Form (formerly 16B). Complete each item by entering the requested information. _______ New Submission ____X____ Amended Submission A. Name of Multiple Property Listing Metal Truss, Masonry and Concrete Bridges of Vermont, 1820-1978 B. Associated Historic Contexts (Name each associated historic context, identifying theme, geographical area, and chronological period for each.) I. Metal Truss, Masonry, and Concrete Bridges in Vermont: 1820-1940 (Rudge 1989) II. Bridge Construction in Vermont: 1940-1978 III. Vermont Bridge Engineers C. Form Prepared by: 1990 Document: name/title: Heather Rudge organization: Vermont Division for Historic Preservation street & number c/o Pavilion Office Building Post Office city or town Montpelier state Vermont zip code 05602 e-mail n/a telephone 802-828-3226 date: December 15, 1989 2018 Document: name/title Steven Bedford, Camilla Deiber, and Lauren Hoopes organization Louis Berger U.S., Inc. street & number 20 Corporate Woods Boulevard city or town Albany state New York zip code 12211 e-mail [email protected] telephone 518.514.9312 date April 9, 2018 D. Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Mangapurua and Kaiwhakauka Tracks
    Know before you go Mangapurua and Kaiwhakauka tracks Multi-use track: The Mangapurua/Kaiwhakauka tracks are These 35.5 km and 40 km tramping tracks/grade 4 cycle trails shared by trampers, mountain bikers, and hunters (often with take 2–3 days to walk or 1 day to cycle. The tracks are two dogs) using quad bikes to access the upper Mangapurua sections of the Mountains to Sea – Ngā Ara Tūhono valley from Ruatītī Road to Bartrum’s swing bridge. Take care Cycle Trail (part of the Ngā Haerenga/New Zealand Cycle on downhill sections. Look out for others and share the track. Trail) and are also part of Te Araroa, the walking trail from Cape Reinga to Bluff. Hunting: Hunting (with a permit) is allowed in most places throughout the year. Check the DOC website for The tracks follow two different valleys – the Mangapurua, exclusion zones and dates, and special conditions for hunting with its many open flats, and the narrower Kaiwhakauka, dogs. Hunting permits are available from the DOC website which has many patches of relatively undisturbed native or from the DOC Whanganui Office. You must carry your forest. The tracks follow old road lines with a good gradient printed permit with you. and make for relatively easy walking or biking. They can be walked or biked in either direction and, when combined Plough. Photo: Ridgway Lythgoe Camping: Apart from the 10-bunk bunkroom at with a jet boat ride on the Whanganui River, create a unique Whakahoro Campsite, there are no huts along the track. tramping or biking and boating circuit.
    [Show full text]
  • German International DVF-Photocup 2017
    German International DVF-Photocup 2017 Auf ein Wort On my mind Der German International DVF – Photocup (GIP) 2017 wurde mit den Sparten PID-Mo- The German International DVF – Photocup no und Photo Travel (PT) erweitert. Daraus (GIP) 2017 was extended with 2 sections resultiert eine größere Anzahl an Bildern die (PID-M and PT) what result in the increasing juriert werden musste. Mit mehr als 14500 number of images to be judged, with more Bildern bei 1342 Einsendern wurde der GIP than 14500 images and 1342 participants zu einem der erfolgreichsten Circuits in der GIP became one of the most successful cir- Welt. cuit in the world. Eine große Anzahl der Einsendungen kam aus A great number of entrees came from China China und auch eine beachtliche Anzahl von and also an important number of entrees Jugendlichen aus aller Welt nahm daran teil. from the youth all around the world. GIP al- Der GIP legte schon immer Wert auf die Ju- ways take care of the youth and include them gend und hat sie im Wettbewerb integriert. in the competition. Ich muß sagen, die große Anzahl an Bildern I must say that judging so great amount of zu jurieren ist eine Herausforderung für die images is a challenge for the jury, but at the Jury. Aber am Ende waren wir erfolgreich und end we succeed and we grant a very beau- zeichneten ein hervorragendes Bild mit dem tiful picture the Bernd Mai Award, the most Bernd Mai Award aus. Die höchste Auszeich- highest recognition for a photographer in this nung für einen Fotografen in diesem Wettbe- competition.
    [Show full text]
  • Build a Bridge out of Her Lisa M
    Rollins College Rollins Scholarship Online Faculty Publications 2015 Build a Bridge Out of Her Lisa M. Tillmann Ph.D. Rollins College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.rollins.edu/as_facpub Part of the Creative Writing Commons, and the Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Commons Published In Tillmann, L.M. (2015). Build a bridge out of her. In L.M. Tillmann (Ed.), In Solidarity: Friendship, Family, and Activism Beyond Gay and Straight. New York: Routledge. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Rollins Scholarship Online. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Rollins Scholarship Online. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 Build a Bridge Out of Her1 Lisa M. Tillmann Rollins College Box 2723 Winter Park, FL 32789 [email protected] 407-646-1586 In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, when Sir Bedevere, suspecting a witch in his midst, asks, “Why do witches burn?” Peasant Three infers, “Because they’re made of wood?” “So how do you tell,” lobs Bedevere, “whether she’s made of wood?” Clever Peasant One conjectures, “Build a bridge out of her.” Build a bridge out of her. As I survey the shellacked November landscape,2 I say let us all build a bridge out of her. What sort of bridge? Sus pen s ion? Suspended between war-----and the promise of peace. A Golden Gate from “Mission Accomplished”3 to the audacity of hope.4 Guantanamo remains open, but so do I. I Still Hope.
    [Show full text]
  • Bringing Back the Big Four Bridge
    An unused railroad truss bridge is reinvented as a new pedestrian gateway over the Ohio River. Bringing Back the Big Four BY BURLEIGH LAW, P.E. BRIDGE PHOTOS BY HNTB THE BIG FOUR BRIDGE had a big name to live up to. Burleigh Law Built in 1885 and replaced in 1929, the 2,525-ft-long six-span railroad ([email protected]) truss bridge was named for the now defunct Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago is a senior project and St. Louis Railway—also known as the Big Four Railroad—and carried a engineer with single track over the Ohio River between Louisville, Ky., and Jeffersonville, HNTB Corporation. Ind. The replacement bridge operated for four decades before falling into disrepair and was eventually deemed a safety hazard. Rail operations ceased in 1969, when rail traffic was rerouted to another bridge, and the approach spans were removed and sold for scrap. For decades, the bridge was unused, with no access to the main span sit- ting atop piers that rose 50 ft in the air, earning the bridge the unfortunate nickname of “the bridge to nowhere.” The Louisville Waterfront Develop- ment Corporation acquired the bridge in 2005 with the goal of converting it JULY 2015 ➤ ➤ ➤ While steel box girders are often used on curved long-span highway bridges for stability and structural efficiency, they are not generally used on pedestrian bridges. However, this girder type was chosen for the Jeffersonville approach because the girder fascia and bottom soffit create a streamlined look through the S-curve span and the sharp 90° curve at the end of the bridge.
    [Show full text]