Mulberry River Hwy 23 Bridge!!!!

[Canoe_Codger]

Some food for thought:

The Mulberry River Bridge was built in 1935, and is a great example of a Parker Pony truss. For this reason it is being nominated to the National Register of Historic Places with local significance under Criterion C; it is one of sixteen Parker pony truss spans left in Arkansas and one of only seven multi-span Parker pony truss spans left. The bridge has a total length of 446 feet, with three steel Parker pony truss spans each measuring 112 feet in length. The bridge is also being nominated under Criterion A for its role with the development of automobile travel in Franklin County. It is also being nominated under the multiple properties listing “Historic Bridges of Arkansas” and under the associated historic context “Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department Era: 1923-1939.”

The bridge is located to the northwest of Turner’s Bend along Highway 23. Turner’s Bend is located to the north of Paradise and these are all located in the Ozark National Forest. The crossing of the Mulberry River at Turner’s Bend has been an important crossing for many years, and the current bridge had replaced an old Pratt through truss bridge. The current bridge was built by McEachin and McEachin of Little Rock in conjunction with the Arkansas Highway Commission in 1935. It took 210 days to complete and cost $50,820.00.

Since the completion of the Mulberry River Bridge in 1935, no structural alterations have been made to the bridge to compromise its integrity. Today, AR 23 remains an important highway in that part of Arkansas, connecting U.S. 71 and I-40 with Eureka Springs, and the Mulberry River Bridge has been a vital crossing on the road for the residents in the area for approximately 80 years. The Mulberry River Bridge remains an important transportation link in the area and a good example of an early twentieth-century Parker pony truss.

SIGNIFICANCE
The Mulberry River Bridge along Arkansas 23, built in 1935, is being nominated to the National Register of Historic Places with local significance under Criterion C as a good example of a multi-span Parker pony truss, and also for Criterion A for its role in early vehicular transportation in Franklin County. It is also being nominated under the multiple properties listing “Historic Bridges of Arkansas” and under the associated historic context “Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department Era: 1923-1939.”

http://www.arkansaspreservation.com/his ... px?id=2297" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wonder if they will be represented at the meeting?

[Louiscov]

Hi gang:

There were between 30 - 40 that dropped by Cass between 4 and 5 o'clock when I left. There was no meeting or program of any kind, but the Highway Department had engineers present to receive questions one on one. Visitors were given a survey sheet to fill out there or mail to Little Rock within 15 days plus a color sheet with the three alternative routes. Two large posterboards also detailed the alternatives. Basically I was told the current bridge does not meet federal standards (width, height above water, construction method) but is safe. And there is no risk of loss of federal funds if no change is made. The engineer I talked to was polite but not thoroughly briefed on the genesis and progression that got us here. This is a planning stage.

Questions on the form included if we felt there is a need for the bridge replacement; which re-route alternative we considered to be preferred or was NO BUILD preferred; questions on history (as Dave mentioned above), landowner concerns, and if there was a need for a public access to the river at Hwy 23.

Glad I went, nice to see Brad. If needed when I get back to Louisiana Monday I can fax/scan the questions and re-route alternatives to someone who can make them available.

louis c

[GN YAKN]

I just fail to see how ruining the reason that you travel the road in the first place racks up as "improvement"?!?!

Dave

[Roger]

I'm with Dave on all his points. It's a scenic fiiiing highway. Never understood why any semi-truck and trailer would take that route considering how distribution works in today's world.

I call it make-busy work for a state agency that has a lot of contractors wanting work.

Call it what you will.

[okieboater]

Dave Robertson said it all in my opinion.

Turner Bend was one of my first river trips and camps when I moved out here from Georgia. I had Champ's phone number and would call him to check on river levels before leaving Tulsa.

One of Arkansas's jewels of places to visit and also to get good food and drink if you are in the area.

[Sky Heye]

The stuff Captain Alieve is telling us is as "first hand" as you are going to get it about how the "process" is done at AHTD.
THE MAN WAS A BRIDGE ENGINEER WITH AHTD FOR OVER 30 YEARS!

If you want to get your two cents in on this project, get to the public hearing when it's held!
If you can't attend, call the main office in Little Rock with in a few days of the hearing and find out how to submit input.

The AHTD does consider public input and does often change things after the Public Hearing.
How do I know this? I was a Design Engineer for over 30 years at AHTD..
I had to revise nearly every set of plans after public input, sometimes a lot.

So if you really want to keep things at Turner as they are or maybe even improve the conditions, pay attention to the Captain and keep an eye out for the public hearing.

[GN YAKN]

I'm aware of the Capn's credentials and am familiar with the public meeting and written comment process. Don't need to yell at me.

Just sharing some observations from a local point of view. :myday"

Will make my written comment when I have all the info I think I need and plan to share it with like minded folks in this forum and encourge them to submit written comments as well.

Another observation is that there are other features within a couple of miles of the bridge that are more of an issue than the bridge. The sets of switchbacks to the north and to the south of Turner Bend slow traffic and are narrow and dangerous. So, even if you four-laned the bridge you still have features that aren't going away that will slow traffic and make the road impractical for heavy use.

I hope folks will encourage the AHTD to rethink the purpose and use of the road. Maybe they should make a plan to replace the existing bridge if/when it gets taken out by a flood!!!

Think I'll load my boat and go do some more research!

Dave

[CAPTAIN ALEVE]

I vote to leave the bridge as is, put concrete barriers along both sides of the road to keep crashing vehicles from plunging into the campground, build a pedestrian overpass with escalators at each end, and put in a gigantic hot water heater for the showers. Pay for it all with federal funds, preferably gas taxes collected in some other state. The ACC could inspect the bridge every time it rains and save that annual cost.

Mike Coogan, alias Captain Aleve

[Clif]

or maybe a pedestrian tunnel??? cut out the hill climb.. but escalators... well


Sad on the one hand to see MANY wonderful old bridges fall to "progress".. but then i don't drive over the one lane wonders everyday. I've only been up here since 1995

[GN YAKN]

Win WIn! Hitting Like Button!

[CAPTAIN ALEVE]

Here is all that has been done on this project so far (with my notes on the photo):


Mulberry bridge route choices by CaptainAleve, alias Mike Coogan, on Flickr

The photo shows that all three options for relocating the highway being considered at this VERY PRELIMINARY stage are downstream of the present bridge - my interpretation of the newspaper article was wrong in saying that one option was upstream of the present bridge. Highways are usually relocated off to the side enough to allow the existing bridge to be used during the construction of the new bridge. The closest option is the red line which falls in the campground on the west side of the highway; the green and orange options move progressively west, sparing much of the campground with the green and totally missing the campground with the orange. This project is nowhere near being actually considered for construction, years and years off in the future.

Mike Coogan, alias Captain Aleve

[Hcarr999]

Did anyone make it to the meeting?

[prophet]

pretty sure the green goes right thru the middle of the campground and the orange is on the back fenceline area. as currently proposed a pretty long section of any route would be on a raised berm and with the new bridge being higher than the current roadway, the sideslope would cover a wide area. all the camps in the back left area would be impacted

[Dan Daniel]

I was at the meeting, and the footprint for the red and green option would eliminate the campground, with the red option possibly effecting the store itself. The yellow line's footprint would cut off a large enough portion of the campground that larger gatherings would no longer be possible, and the yellow would require some sort of access to the store, so the yellow is the most expensive option of the bunch. The lines you see represent the actual road and none of the slopes and ballast any bridge built up to "standards" would require. The idea floated about another bridge built to the same specs as the ode, and simply splitting traffic isn't possible, because you must build new things up to the "standards" of today. Also, the amount of time it would take to build any of the three would disrupt business. Think of 18months -2yrs of major construction going on there.
There was a forth option, the NO BUILD option. The bridge is already on the historical register, and the Turner Bend Store has been there longer than the bridge. Look at all the pictures on the walls if you don't think this place doesn't have a cultural significance to more people who will ever read these posts.
Now, the ATHD is chasing federal dollars connected to this deal, and this is not the first that we have heard of this, and that is what has so many people worried. I It's been said that once the ATHD draws a line on a map, that line never gets erased, and there is a lot of anecdotal evidence out there to prove it. What we all need to do is get on the same page with this.
What is in the best interest of the place. To find that out, I'd ask Brad. It's his hard work and vision that has made the place what it is today, and it's his business and life that will be effected most. Once we find out the answer to that question, we should all stand solidly together with him.
I've been all over North America, and I've seen some places that will absolutely take your breath away, but honestly those kinds of places are easier to find that you may think. Of all the places I've been, the Mulberry River Valley and the Richland Creek Watershed are the only two places I've found that GIVE me breath. Turner Bend has been there EVERY time I have.

[Richard]

Assuming the count is 1000 vehicles per day in 2013, that makes 365,000 travelers who would benefit from an improved highway in one year.

The "Pig Trail", is a scenic byway not a super highway. The word is trail, not expressway. 365,000 travelers would lose the scenic and historic benefit of the "trail". The purpose should be scenic, not speed or freight.
Remember when they closed down Hwy 23 during Canoe School so President Clinton could go up the "Pig Trail". He chose to go that way because of it's scenic and sentimental value.
I question how 365,000 travelers are going to benefit. I question how spending of any kind to build a modern bridge is going to benefit given the adverse cultural impact it will have. Let the traffic flow as it has in the past. Preserve the historic, sentimental and scenic benefit.

If Thomas Hart Benton was alive today, I am quite sure he would say . . .
LET THE BRIDGE BE