http://www.kmaland.com/news/article_fe0bdcbc-148b-11e3-ad68-001a4bcf6878.html A nice picture of the old bridge in this article.
So the old one is on NRHP and they're still demolishing it?
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 04, 2013, 03:45:37 PM
So the old one is on NRHP and they're still demolishing it?
It wouldn't be the first time NDOR did that, as they demolished the old South Omaha bridge. It's not like NDOR is the Nebraska Historical Preservation Society or something.
A little Historical background, courtesy of the Lawrence Journal-World microfilm archives on Google.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=qlReAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ImENAAAAIBAJ&pg=6078,5851&hl=en
10 May 1938: the Kansas and National Highway 59 associations met in Lawrence. The Kansas Association submitted a resolution lobbying for, among other things, the "laying of preliminary plans for a new bridge over the Missouri river at Rulo, Neb."
159 would have made for a shorter alignment of 59.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 04, 2013, 03:45:37 PM
So the old one is on NRHP and they're still demolishing it?
It can be listed but still demolished, as long as Section 106 of the NHPA was abided by (http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/nhpa1966.htm).
"The head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking in any State and the head of any Federal department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The head of any such Federal agency shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation established under Title II of this Act a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertaking."
A Section 106 Review considers the effects on historic properties, and seeks methods to avoid/minimize/mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties. The Review includes,
1. Initiation,
2. Identification,
3. Assessment of adverse effects,
4. Resolution of adverse effects.
INDoT has a good flowchart of the Review process: http://www.in.gov/indot/div/projects/pubs/Section106.pdf
Seems like it would be fairly trivial to "avoid adverse effects" on the historic property by closing it to vehicular traffic and leaving it up for bicyclists and pedestrians. Is there some specific hazard where it must come down?
Maintenance of the South Omaha Bridge had really fallen off during it's final years in anticipation of it's replacement.
It had (IIRC) a 6 ton weight limit and had been affixed with height barriers at each end to keep trucks off it.
As for repurposing, the John Kerry pedestrian bridge a few miles north must not be eclipsed by local rivals.
Quote from: NE2 on September 06, 2013, 10:20:58 PM
159 would have made for a shorter alignment of 59.
So would US 259 or even AR 41/TX 8.
Quote from: Jardine on November 06, 2013, 11:04:03 AM
As for repurposing, the John Kerry pedestrian bridge a few miles north must not be eclipsed by local rivals.
I wish not to embarrass you in public, but that's the
Bob Kerrey bridge. They wouldn't name anything for John Kerry in Omaha.
Quote from: bugo on November 07, 2013, 03:42:04 AM
Quote from: NE2 on September 06, 2013, 10:20:58 PM
159 would have made for a shorter alignment of 59.
So would US 259 or even AR 41/TX 8.
Yep. http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/us/us0059.htm
QuoteIt is understood that the location of US 59 between Page, Oklahoma, and Maud, Texas, as given in this description, is temporary awaiting a more direct route between these points so that it will not be necessary to have US 59 and US 71 traverse the same territory, which will greatly shorten the distance for US 59 between these points.