Mulberry River Hwy 23 Bridge!!!!

[Half Ton]

Nice perspective, Dan. I agree.

It is odd that AHTD would get more Federal money for removing and replacing the bridge. Seems like preserving functional infrastructure and making dollars last longer should bring in more dollars as compared to being, hasty, wasteful, and wrong on so many levels.

My favorite mistrusth so far is that the current bridge gets "flooded" to often. Ha! Talk about nonsense.

[Canoe_Codger]

A virtual visit to the bridge?
http://bridgehunter.com/ar/franklin/mulberry-23/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[cpresoz]

The 10 mph switchbacks ascending Whiting Mountain north of Cass precludes the tractor trailer traffic that plays into establishing the bridge width standards that they are referencing to dismiss the existing bridge. The whole thing is not thought through adequately and makes you wonder if it isn't make work driving the thing. The money could be put to better use elsewhere.

[CAPTAIN ALEVE]

Whoa, whoa there now folks. I can assure you that upgrades to highways spend years and years in the prioritizing phase. Projects are undertaken only after a lot of consideration that includes costs and benefits comparisons. The federal highway administration has established what makes a road or bridge "functionally obsolete" and eligible for receiving money to fund upgrades. They provide most of the money (70%, 80%, 90%) that us used for highway projects in Arkansas. They don't give out that money without very detailed reports of need, need to bring roads up to safety specifications set by the feds or national organizations of highway designers. "We like what we got" is not a recognized safety standard. New structures can be built that are more attractive than the cheapest option, if a state or the feds are willing to spend the extra money to pretty up a project, but the traveling public's safety and efficiency are at the top of list of considerations.

You all know that the highway goes under water on the north side of the bridge during high flows and I'm sure you can visualize that if you raise the road, more water will back up and have to go under the bridge or maybe through the bridge steel and over Brad's property. If you need medical help when the highway is blocked by high water, you are out of luck. If you live or go to school on the other side of the river, you aren't going to get where you want, when you want, after a heavy rain that causes flooding over the highway. The bridge is old and probably needs some repairs on occasion; how long do you keep fixing an old car until you decide to get a new one? If your wife is driving the car, you will probably be trading before too long. The feds and the state treat motorists with the same consideration that you would give to your wife and family. I should point out that the present bridge, a steel truss system, is the type of bridge that is rarely built anymore, not only because it requires a lot of labor ($$$), but because it is what is called "non-redundant". If a single part of the truss is struck by a vehicle, the whole span can fall. You saw that with the recent bridge collapse in Oregon (?) where a truck hit the overhead bracing between the left hand and right hand steel trusses, causing the end steel member of one of the two trusses to bend out of line with the rest of the truss and the whole span fell in the river. That type of risk is being eliminated every time an upgrade is made to a highway. How many lives is it worth to retain a risky bridge, one that is so narrow that large trucks get VERY close to contacting those critical truss parts when they cross this rather narrow bridge? How many lives is it worth to retain a section of highway that floods regularly and stops firetrucks and ambulances and threatens to wash vehicles off the road? Put your body count on the forms you send in to the Highway Department with your comments. Tell them you don't mind your family driving across the bridge while meeting a log truck coming the other direction, too, just so they understand your point of view. Tell them you don't mind living with the possibility of one spilled cup of coffee causing a vehicle to hit one of the critical members on the bridge and dropping the whole thing in the river during canoe school.

Who's to say that relocating the highway away from the campground wouldn't be the best thing that ever happened to Turner Bend, providing more parking at the store for motorists, providing a reduced threat of a vehicle running through the campground, and providing a ground level access to the river that eliminates the need for a winch to get boats out of the water? And who hasn't turned off of the interstate to go to a Pilot station that is several hundred feet from the highway, and wouldn't that be just the type of situation we end up with if the road is moved to the farthest option from the present alignment?

Yes, I'm prejudiced by having worked for the AHTD, but I like to think I'm prejudiced by knowing the facts. Give your state agencies some credit for managing well the few tax dollars we have to spend to improve life for Arkansans.

Mike Coogan, alias Captain Aleve

[maggiepowell]

Is there anything we, as users of the bridge and Turner Bend, need to do apart from the comments to send to the HWY Dept. to get this noticed not only by the policy makers but by travelers/customers of Turner Bend? It may be too early in the process but gaining the public's support by hosting an event or even just putting up Save the Mulberry bridge banners and signs would create a large media story that might deter the highway department.

[Dan Daniel]

Mike, I'm prejudiced by the word from the property owner who has welcomed us and treated us like family the entire 20years I've been going down there.
And I think moving the road away from the campground could be great, but not at the cost of the campground and the business itself. I'm really put off by the whole "one wrong move or spilled coffee could drop the whole thing into the river during Canoe School" comment. Way to keep it classy.

[GN YAKN]

Thanks for the break so we could go

Here is a link to the comment form:

http://www.arkansashighways.com/public_ ... 40621.aspx

I've visited with Brad and he's not sure what to do at this point. Lots of things to consider given all of the options.

It would be nice to know how each option will affect his business and his future but it's tough to know for sure.

We all should be especially thankful for the beautiful place that is Turner Bend and for the people that make it so special.

Dave

[CAPTAIN ALEVE]

I got a private message from Brad that makes me think he is undecided on what effect moving the highway would have. I suggest that his choice of new alignments would be what paddlers would want to advocate. I don't feel like any comments suggesting "do nothing" will receive much attention since the whole purpose of all highway departments is to make travelling safer and more efficient. During my 30 years in the Bridge Design Division of the AHTD, not a single bridge was kept due to public input to leave it as it was. In the past, letters to the Director of the Highway Department have been personally reviewed by him and action followed. When the Tanner Street Bridge in Malvern was up for replacement, the ACC sent a letter to the Director asking for a new access and for bridge supports wide enough to keep boats from wrapping on them. Both requests were granted. If the Director receives a lot of letters asking for the AHTD to choose a location for the new bridge and road that doesn't interfere with the campground and store, I think that option would be given a favorable look. Here is who to write to:

Director Scott Bennett
Arkansas Highway & Transportation Dept.
P.O. Box 2261
Little Rock, AR 72203-2261

Refer in your letter to:

Job 040621 Mulberry River Bridge Replacement
Franklin County
Route 23, Section 7

Just say in your own words that you want the campground and store preserved when the new bridge is built. Brad told me he wanted an access on the north side of the river; confirm that with him and put that in your letter if Brad agrees. Be sure to sign the letter and include your mailing address. It is very likely that Director Bennett has used the facilities at Turner Bend and will be sympathetic to keeping them intact.

Mike Coogan, alias Captain Aleve

[magicmike]

Thanks Captain- My letter will be in the mail tomorrow after I talk to Brad.-M-

[GN YAKN]

Or you can go to the website and download the form and send it to the address they asked for it to be sent to and make sure you note that the AHTD questionaire says, verbatim:

Which Alternative Alignment would you consider to be your preferred alternative for the proposed improvements of Highway 23?
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
NO BUILD Alternative
Why is that your preference?

Just saying!

Dave

[SteveGabbard]

What would Brad prefer? He is the one with the most at risk.

[CAPTAIN ALEVE]

Here's a link to the Highway Department website page that has links to the Project Map that names the alternatives and the Comment Form both of which are in pdf format:

http://www.arkansashighways.com/public_ ... 40621.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The instructions say you can send the form in via email, but I don't know how to fill out the form online; can anyone tell me how to do that?

Those completed forms go to the Environmental Division. The AHTD operates a lot like the military and you can probably equate the Environmental Division (and most Divisions) to Lieutenant Fuzz in the Beetle Bailey comic strip. His suggestions/presentations are pretty much automatically overridden by what the General wants done. So don't forget to send a letter to the Director of the AHTD. One note from him saying "avoid the campground" clipped on to one of those letters and forwarded to a design division means it's a done deal.

Mike Coogan, alias Captain Aleve

[Brad Wimberly]

All three of the proposed alternatives for relocating the Hwy 23 Bridge over the Mulberry River would have dramatic consequences for Turner Bend. Option 1 would build a much taller highway right beside the existing highway that would isolate the remaining campground and possibly result in the condemnation of the store. Option 2 would result in the condemnation of the campground and therefore the demise of the business as we know it. Option 3 would consume about half of the campsites and leave the store far removed from highway traffic. Moving the highway and bridge completely to the west of the campground would be something my neighbor would want to have a say in. This would likely be very expensive as this would require a much longer bridge that would be entirely in the heart of the flood plain and would pass over the man made dike on my neighbor’s property. Relocation of the campground, or perhaps the entire business to our Round The Bend property a half mile south of Turner Bend is a possibility, but is not economically feasible. No easy answers here. Captain Aleve is probably right in saying that this project is inevitable and that “No Build” is not a true option, at least not in the long term. Banning 18 wheelers from the highway is not politically an option either. If you comment to the AHTD I would ask that they keep in mind the 100+ year tradition at stake here and work with Turner Bend to find a way for Turner Bend to remain viable. Relocation of the Hwy 23 bridge should include a public Mulberry River access at Hwy 23 as Turner Bend obviously can not always be counted on to fill this need. Thank you for your support and concern. Brad Wimberly