Rating:
3 votes

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge

Photos 

Overview

Photo taken by Mark Gish

BH Photo #102856

Map 

Street View 

Facts 

Overview
Lost through truss bridge over Sand Creek on IN 3
Location
Jennings County, Indiana
Future prospects
Slated for demolition and replacement. Anticipated contract let date: 3/9/2011
History
Built 1935; rehabilitated 1982
Builders
- Brookville Bridge Co. of Brookville, Ohio (fabricator)
- Indiana State Highway Commission (design)
Design
Riveted, 11-panel Parker through truss
Dimensions
Length of largest span: 197.8 ft.
Total length: 200.7 ft.
Deck width: 23.9 ft.
Vertical clearance above deck: 14.6 ft.
Approximate latitude, longitude
+39.08033, -85.64257   (decimal degrees)
39°04'49" N, 85°38'33" W   (degrees°minutes'seconds")
Approximate UTM coordinates
16/617411/4326567 (zone/easting/northing)
Quadrangle map:
North Vernon
Average daily traffic (as of 2004)
3,899
Inventory numbers
INNBI 000770 (Indiana bridge number on the National Bridge Inventory)
BH 16420 (Bridgehunter.com ID)
Inspection report (as of July 2008)
Overall condition: Poor
Superstructure condition rating: Serious (3 out of 9)
Substructure condition rating: Fair (5 out of 9)
Deck condition rating: Poor (4 out of 9)
Sufficiency rating: 27.7 (out of 100)
View more at BridgeReports.com

Update Log 

  • November 30, 2011: Updated by Tony Dillon: Bridge is being replaced
  • February 8, 2011: Updated by Nathan Holth: This bridge is now doomed.
  • April 15, 2010: New Street View added by J.P.
  • February 21, 2010: Updated by Anthony Dillon: Added builder and designer
  • February 19, 2010: New photos from Anthony Dillon
  • December 18, 2006: Posted photos from Mark Gish

Sources 

Comments 

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted December 4, 2011, by Richard Tekulve (canoeindiana [at] yahoo [dot] com)

I heard through the "grapevine" that the US 31 two-span Truss Bridge over Sand Creek on the Bartholomew/Jackson county line was up for demolition/replacement. Haven't heard or read anything else recently but will stay tuned.

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted December 4, 2011, by Richard Tekulve (canoeindiana [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Well, through all of this discussion the new S.R. 3 Sand Creek Bridge opened on Thursday Dec. 1. The UCEB has had its share of controversy in Jennings County also. In April many people took a ''short cut'' west to cross the old single-span Geneva Ford Bridge forcing the county commissioners to close this bridge for a period of time. A bar was then placed across this crossing hoping to prevent any large trucks from destroying one of the county's last remaining old iron truss bridges. Another detour went to the east through Brewersville for eight months causing major road and personal property damages that struck another sour note with the commissioners as of today. They are requesting payment from the state to reimburse their costs for road and property repairs. And finally, exactly one week before its opening an accident claimed one life and injured three others on a peak of a narrow road hill just west of the detour. The total bill for all this was 2.07 million dollars for a plain, generic looking UCEB. Well at least the old SR #3 Bridge located 500 ft. upstream and the Geneva Ford Bridge located 2 miles downstream still remain if that is any comfort.

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted December 1, 2011, by J.P.

This one now, I bet Silver Creeks version on 403 is next. Sad times, and with the canal in jeff being held up by newly elected mayor, not sure if the bridge can find a home.

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted April 22, 2011, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

We are all definitely in agreement that these bridges NEED to be preserved...... And that is the most important thing to remember here! :)

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted April 22, 2011, by Matt Lohry

Brad,

As indicated in my previous post, I mentioned that it would be better to demolish the original and replace with a new TRUSS (a.k.a. "big bridge", made of steel, similar to the old, all of the attributes you're looking for) than perform an invasive, destructive procedure like this. I never mentioned anything about replacing the historic truss with a UCEB. Keeping the original, unmodified, and completely restored is the best option, but I would much rather see a new truss bridge than a UCEB. If a new truss bridge were built, your wishes would be satisfied. You would still have a "big bridge" to cross, and it would be FAR better than a UCEB, which I totally agree with. The historic integrity of an original historic structure should not be compromised under any circumstances, IMHO. The original should be relocated and reused if this type of upgrade is necessary, and a new truss bridge should be built to handle more traffic, if that's what it comes down to. I am personally in favor of leaving the historic bridge as is, converting it to one-way traffic, and building a new bridge beside it to handle the opposite direction.

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted April 22, 2011, by Brad Lain

I just don't understand why anyone would have a problem with the County or State or U.S. widening a Steel and Iron Bridge in order to make it so more people can cross these Beautiful Big Bridges at a given time without feeling so crowded while crossing the Big Bridge or having to wait as much at the Big Bridge if they are by a Stoplight like the one was across Clity Creek and HWY 31 in Columbus IN in Bartholomew County . ( Please keep and preserve the Iron and Steel and Covered Bridges )

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted April 22, 2011, by Brad Lain

You don't understand Matt. The design of the Big Bridge will no longer be there / gone if they replace the Big Bridge with an Eyesore Concrete Bridge and i want the Design of the Big Bridge to stay in its place and and that is why i want to see the Big Bridges widened. I want to see people ( Highway Deartment ) fix the Big Bridge, what i call a Big Bridge is any bridge that is taller than a car. and is made of Iron / Steel / or a Covered Bridge and make them last and dont tear them down unless there is going to be another one identical to it But Quad Lanes - But i always think ( why totally tear down the Big Bridge instead of Cutting the Big Bridge in 1 / 2 and then hauling in more steel and then welding the brought tin steel to the open area on the Big Bridge and then re - open it as a quad lane Big Bridge because if some1 were to start form the very beginning , the construction workers / HWY department workers would have twice as much work to do , but if they cut the Big Bridge in 1 / 2 and then weld the brought in Steel then it would take 1/2 of the time Because they wouldn't have to build a whole new Bridge because 1 / 2 of the Bridge is already there for the HWY department to Build on to. So Save the Steel Big Bridge and make it more wider ( i cannot put enough emphasis in this that these need preserved and cared for not torn down ) the only reason why i would thing a person or HWY Department or County Road Department would want to tear town any of the 3 types of Big Bridges ( Iron / Steel / Covered ) bridges is because they are ( not ) wide enough and so therefore when it would be Widened then it will no longer need to be torn down. the Big Bridges would be Quad Lanes on a HWY just like the John F Kennedy Big Bridge across the Ohio River going from Clarksville IN to Louisville KY where it is a Quad Lane Big Bridge but the only difference is that the Big Bridge on Sand Creek on HWY 3 will not be Nearly as long but it would go from Double to Quad Lanes, But Please keep the design and fanciness of the Big Bridge , that is why i would much rather see / have the Big Bridge widened if the HWY Department were to do something to it ( i am always hoping that the HWY Department and County Road Employees will read this and think ( uh oh, Maybe we had better think twice about tearing down these Beautiful Big Bridges that is getting torn Down at an unbelievable rate of speed and not getting replaced with another one like it and instead restore it instead of tearing it down and making it so no one can enjoy the beautifulness of it anymore when it can be preserved and saved and either taken out of there where the Big Bridge is currently at and move it to another location or widen and keep it where it is at. But i get such a thrill and excited i get a tingling feeling in my face when a Big Bridge goes over and beside me when i am traveling somewhere. it is the same feeling some1 feels like when they won 1,000,000. And i would think that someone is very wrong to even think of totally replacing a Big Bridge with 1 of those eyesore concrete Bridges where some one who is riding in a motorized cannot see the creek / river because the concrete on the side of the Concrete Bridge blocks the scenic view because the Concrete is too tall ( who wants to see more and more of those eyesore Concrete bridges? ) i know i don't want to see those Concrete Bridges the only reason i can see why some1 would tear down a Big Bridge is because it is too Narrow and the answer is to make not Narrow which is equal to Widening it and save the Steel / Iron and Covered Bridges

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted April 22, 2011, by Matt Lohry

I understand the desire to preserve our truss bridges, Brad, but once you severely alter a truss bridge by cutting it in half and making it something that it originally was not, it's worthless. It is better to just replace it with a new truss that will one day be historic--a modified bridge is no longer historic, and it never will be. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted April 22, 2011, by Brad Lain

( Missing the point here ) uh - no i am getting the point - the point i am trying to make here is to preserve these Big Bridges ( not destroy them ) and the best way to preserve these Big Bridges is to widen them and make it so they can carry more Traffic instead of putting one of those eyesore Concrete Bridges in, If someone were to Widen these Big Bridges 1 / 2 of the work is already there for the HWY department to work on because if they were double the size of the Big Bridge then half of it would already be there because it is a Double Lane Big Bridge and it needs to be a Quad Lane Big Bridge to carry more Traffic. When i see that someone has torn town a Big Bridge , i think to myself ( what were the County State or U.S HWY Road Department thinking when they tore this down and did not replace it with a Wider duplicate / copy of the Same thing ) the point here is that someone needs to step in and stop the destruction of Iron , Steel , Covered Big Bridges and step in and say ( hey were losing too many of these way too fast and restore the Big Bridges or tear them down, " but " replace them with another one just like it but twice as wide )But everytime i see a Place where there used to be a Big Bridge i think to myself ( why didn't they restore and preserve and widen it? )instead of replacing it with one of those eyesore concrete bridges

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted April 22, 2011, by Matt Lohry

You're missing the point here...it's not a matter of making the big bridges handle more traffic--the point is historic integrity and aesthetics. They both go out the window when you start randomly cutting and welding in more steel. Trust me, it just does not work this way. If it came to this, the answer would simply be to demolish the old and build a new "bigger bridge" as a replacement, which is totally pointless...

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted April 22, 2011, by Anonymous

now if the Highway would Built a whole new Big Bridge that is Quad Lanes here then i would not be sweating it so bad , But if someone cuts the Big Bridge and does it that way half of the Highway Department's job is done because 1/2 if the Big Bridge is still there they just need a Quad Lane Big Bridge instead of a Double Lane Big Big Bridge so to make it a Quad lane , ( as i was saying before ) build a temporary Bridge off to the side and then haul in more steel to where the Big Bridge is at and then weld the hauled in Steel to the Bridge to make it go from Double Lane To a Quad Lane Big Bridge but ( preserve these Big Bridges)

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted April 22, 2011, by Brad Lain

I just don't understand why that Tony Dillon said " Widening is not the answer " How else are the Highway and County road departments supposed to keep the " Big Bridges " where they are at and make it so it can handle / carry more Traffic easier and Better? the only answer i see to the problem is to widen them because the problem is they are too narrow and if they are wider then that makes them no longer Narrow

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted April 17, 2011, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

I totally understand what you are trying to say Brad..... and believe me my friend I am not trying to discount your sentiment towards these great bridges.

I have been studying truss bridges for over 30 years now, and I am also an INDOT certified bridge inspector. It is not the answer because it would destroy the historic integrity of the bridge, and in this particular instance a 4-lane bridge is completely unnecessary.

The only thing that needed to be done to save this bridge was a rehabilitation like SR11 in Jackson County and SR1 in Randolph County. A 2-lane bridge is completely adequate in this location so I am a very disappointed that INDOT didn't retain this one.

Don't loose the passion you have for these wonderful structures Brad.....I share that same passion as well. And be thankful that you live in a state like Indiana that has made tremendous strides in the past 5 years toward saving many of these spans. While we are still loosing some of them, we are saving many more. Meanwhile, states like Pennsylvania and Missouri are decimating their historic bridge inventory at an alarming pace.

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted April 17, 2011, by Matthew Lohry

Well, I AM a civil engineer, and I AM still insisting that it cannot be done without an exhorbitant amount of cost, and it is impossible to retain any historic value with this type of invasive procedure! Brad, I love these "Big Bridges" just as much as the next die-hard pontist (which is why I am a civil engineer), but I am solid on the fact that there is no point in attempting this with a truss bridge, especially a through truss! The overhead sway bracing and the crossbracing and lateral support underneath would have to be removed and replaced--it is impossible to simply "cut the bridge in 1/2 and add more steel" without ruining the original completely. At that point, you might as well demolish and start over!! The point is not saving a historic "big bridge" just for the sake of saving it; historic value and original configuration are critically important!

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted April 17, 2011, by Clark Vance (cvance [at] dogmail [dot] com)

I'm not an engineer but I play one in the classroom, so I'll have a quick go at explaining why one cannot split and widen a bridge without significantly changing the whole structure.

A truss bridge has the part under the road and the part above the road. These don't keep the bridge from falling down. It's the stuff on the sides--the vertical stuff--that keeps a bridge from bending in the middle and collapsing. These vertical parts are the actual "truss" part of the bridge. The bridge is two parallel, vertical trusses with a road set between them and some bracing across the top to keep them vertical.

Picture building a second identical bridge next to the one you want to widen. You have now doubled the carrying capacity at the crossing. Now lets cut away the roadway and the supports above it on the new bridge. The two sides, the trusses, would still support themselves as long as they stayed vertical. Now take all the stuff you cut from between the two sides and spread it across the old bridge. You've added a lot of "bridge weight" to the bridge without adding any strength to the vertical sides, the trusses, that actually hold things up. The structure is therefore carrying a lot closer its maximum load.

Split the old bridge and weld in the extra width. The sides are still carrying a lot more "bridge weight" (also called "dead load") than they were originally designed to carry. Now consider the added weight of twice the traffic. The trusses are probably carrying more than they can safely carry

The only way to make the bridge side trusses safely able to carry the extra weight of the new bridge parts and the extra traffic is to increase the strength of the trusses. This means roughly doubling the size of everything making up the truss. Remember, increasing the size of the trusses along the sides adds weight--dead load--too.

I hope this will put to rest the notion that one can split a truss bridge, widen it, and expect to preserve the size and configuration of the original trusses.

It's much cheaper, safer, and simpler to build a second bridge beside the original. Perhaps put up a cheap UCEB a respectful distance from the truss bridge and when capacity needs further increase, no one will mourn the replacement of the UCEB with a bigger, better, newer, more expensive job creation project.

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted April 17, 2011, by Brad Lain

Don't Destroy this Big Bridge, Just Widen it

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted April 17, 2011, by Robert Thompson

Brevity, dude. That is one major Wall-'O-Text!

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted April 17, 2011, by Brad Lain

If i am thinking of the correct HWY 11 Bridge that Anthony Dillon is talking about, i might be thinking of another HWY 11 Bridge. But there is 2 Big Bridges that crosses White River on HWY 11 in Jackson County that the County HWY department recently Painted Light Blue so i doubt it if that one will get torn down but it was green like the one is on HWY 3 across Sand Creek until about 15 years ago so i think it will be there for a long time

Sand Creek IND 3 Bridge
Posted April 17, 2011, by Brad Lain

You confused me about what you said when i added the other day about widening the Big Bridge across the creek. What you said after i said about Widening the Big Bridge ( when you said "Cutting them in 1 / 2 is not the answer" ) Why wouldn't that be a great answer ? that is the only way that i can think of to keep it a Big Bridge and make it a "Quad Lane" Big Bridge How else is the way to keep the Big Bridge as a Big Bridge and Make it Go from Being a Double Lane to a Quad Lane Bridge??? , the Steel Bridge needs to stay there You just do not understand what i am trying to say Tony. What i am trying to say is that the HWY dept. would build a temporary bridge next to the Big Bridge and then haul in more Steel to make the Big Bridge Wider and then cut the Big Bridge in 1 / 2 and then weld the brought in steel to make the Big Bridge go from a Double Lane Big Bridge ( like it currently is ) to a Quad Lane Big Bridge. then reopen the Big Bridge once done and it would still be a Steel Bridge but twice as wide , I get a feeling of happiness and tingling in my face if someone hugs me whenever i am going across any Big Bridge and i think the reason that it is , is because it is such a wonderful large masterpice some1 had created just for people to go across Water and there is alot there that goes above our heads when we go across them especially when they have a top on them like this does across Sand Creek. Please encourage that the county road departments and the HWY departmants do this because they are not replacing the Big Bridges with new Big Bridges. They are becoming rarer and rarer all the time, now if they would always widen them instead of replacing them with those eyesore concrete bridges then i would be thrilled and excited but it seems like to me it would make more sense to haul in more steel on HWY Big Bridges and iron on county road Big Bridges and cut the Bridge in 1 / 2 ( if it has a top on it like the Sand Creek Bridge does here on HWY 3 and then weld the brought in steel on the Big Bridge to make the Big Bridge go from a Double Lane to a Quad Lane Big Bridge then the Big Bridge still will be there and it will be able to handle the traffic that goes across / through it easier since there will be more lanes. But people who work for the County and State and U.S. HWY road departments need to preserve these historic and beautiful Big Bridges and keep them from destruction on the other hand it would be OK if it would be temporairly torn down to be re-Built across another River / Creek on the same HWY or on a different HWY or road. but the only reason i see that a person or people would want a Big Bridge torn down is because it is not wide enough and the perfect answer is to widen the bridge like i am talking here since there is more people traveling more now as then when the Big Bridge was built across the creek and if the State HWY Department Widens ( not tears down ) the Big Bridge, then that will help with the traffic moving better. now if the road departments in the country still made Big Bridges then it would not be so frustrating when they tear down Big Bridges instead of saving and restoring them what the county road department did with the John Tinkey Bridge ( or New Hope Bridge across the Flatrock river in Bartholomew County on 400N )it is a perfect example of what the Highway Dpeartment should do with the Big Bridge ( and other Big Bridges too ). I was talking about the Eyesore Concrete Bridges, i cannot stand to see the bridge now on HWY 50 by Brownstown across White River where there was once 4 Big Bridges at, just like the way the Big Bridges are across the Whitewater River River by Brookville IND across HWY 52 in Franklin County i feel like " grrrrr " inside me when i see a Big Bridge has been replaced with one of those Eyesore Concrete Bridges. When i go across a Big Bridge, like i was saying above, I get so excited that i can feel happiness and tingling in my face as if someone hugs me or if i were to find $1,000,000 but when i go across one of those Big Bridges but when i go across a Concrete Bridge, It is like ( blah ) and ( why is this here instead of what was previously here before but wider ) Now if a Big Bridge doesn't have a top on it - then no Iron / Steel needs to be hauled in or welding would need to be done. What i call a ( Big Bridge ) is any bridge that is the same height or taller than a Car. i would love to have the State HWY and U.S. HWY and county road departments see this and maybe this will jog their mind about tearing the Big Bridges down and not replace them with those eyesore Concrete Bridges and have them widen the Big Bridges instead. i feel like printing and laminating ( so the weather does not damage it ) notes to put on Concrete Bridges . that says ( where did that beautiful magnificent Steel / Iron landmark structure go and why is that eyesore concrete bridge in its place ? when it should have been repainted and widened and taken care of to keep it beautiful looking instead of torn down and replaced with the eyesore Concrete Bridge. I have seen some pictures on the Website where the County and State and U.S HWY Road department has done what i am talking about with Widening the Big Bridges. now on HWY 7 which goes fron Bartholomew County ( where i am at ) to Jefferson County ( Madison IND ) there was at least 3 Big Bridges - 2 of them were across Clifty Creek (outside Columbus ) and then 1 across Sand Creek at Scipio and i was doing the same there with those 3 Big Bridges ( wanting the State HWY to Widen The Big Bridges ) instead they tore them down and replaced them with those eyesore Concrete Bridges. Why Who Knows, all i know its it was the wrong idea to tear down those beautiful Big Bridges. I want to see someone fix this bridge so it will be a Quad Lane Bridge, not tear it down. i have a guide here at home that was made 15 years ago that i bought at a library book sale in Columbus that tells me where all the Iron Bridges are at in the State and i would go to where the bridge says it is and the Big Bridge is gone and replaced with one of those of eyesore concrete Bridges When it should be wider. it is not right that they tore the ones down they did instead of widening them. i would go to find where the bridge is at and there would be one of those Eyesore Concrete Bridges in its place instead of widening it to make it easier to cross the Creek / River and some of the bridges the pictures showed in the book were really fancy and nice looking , strongly built i want to see the HWy Dept and County Road Department save these Big Bridges and make them so they can carry more traffic and that is where the perfect ( widening ) idea falls into place at, so then that way more people can cross the Creek / River at a given time without slowing down traffic it would end up looking like a Quad Lane Big Bridge Crossing the Ohio or Wabash Rivers except the Big Bridge would be alot shorter since Sand Creek isn't nearly as wide and the reason i say it would end up looking like one of the Big Bridges crossing the Ohio or Wabash Rivers is because of its width not length. but if they do tear down the Big Bridge "please" replace it with a Quad Lane Big Bridge ( hopefully ) i have my fingers crossed that the State HWY Dept does this "please do" But it would be easier just to do what i was saying above where the State Hwy Dept would Widen the Big Bridge and haul in more Steel and then Cut the Big Bridge in 1 / 2 and then weld the brought in steel to the Bridge and reopen it with it being a Quad Lane Bridge and that would be easier because 1 / 2 of the Big Bridge is already there it is just split in to two pieces and then they would need to make 2 more lanes and weld the Steel that had been brought in to widen the Bridge and then re - open the Big Bridge after it gets done and then other Big Bridges would have the same thing done to them where they get widened instead of torn down. remember - widening is the correct word to save the ( used frequently / alot ) Big Bridges another thing too the Big Bridge needs is "Painted" not torn down I would love to see more Big Bridges being built to replace the eyesore concrete bridges like where HWY 31 and Haw Creek meet ( that was a Big Bridge like this one ) i can think of many places where there was Big Bridges that was taken out and not replaced with another one just like it or widened. i have often thought about instead of having people tear down the Big Bridges, build a second Big Bridge next to the one that is there and then use the Big Bridge that is already there for traffic going one direction in both ways ( for example both lanes would go South ) then next to it build another Big Bridge for traffic going North that would be a Double Lane Bridge or else keep the Big Bridge there and build a Twin right next to it for traffic going the other way i know i don't want to see the Beautiful Steel / Iron / Covered Bridges gone and taken out ( unless they are going to be used in another place for Traffic ) but if they are going to scrap the Big Bridge " Big No No " . There is no ( Iron )bridges in Steuben and Union Counties how else would be another way besides ( Widening ) the Big Bridges would there be to save them to make it so they would be able to carry more Traffic at a given time ( can't think of any ) so that is how i came up with the idea of " widening" the Big Bridges. i am totally shocked and amazed that someone would think that( Widening ) "is not the answer"

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted April 16, 2011, by J.P.

A good example of building a new bridge beside the old one, and doing two lanes of traffic on each bridges is the red river bridge in Clarksville Tennessee. http://bridgehunter.com/tn/montgomery/63SR0130015/

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted April 16, 2011, by Matthew Lohry

I agree with Tony here--from an engineering standpoint, widening a through truss bridge is an enormous nightmare, and it is very difficult to pull it off and make the bridge look as if it was originally configured as such. Also, it would destroy the historic value and would not be much better than just building a new, wider truss to replace the old. I still think that there are feasible options, such as 1) a complete rehab and conversion to single direction, and build a new bridge beside it to handle the opposite direction, 2) rehabilitate and allow it to remain a 2-lane bridge on a 2-lane road (as Tony mentioned), or 3) relocate the bridge to either a bicycle/pedestrian trail or much lighter used road, and rehabilitate it there. Keep in mind, it is just as important to maintain historic integrity as it is to save the structure in this case.

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted April 15, 2011, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

I feel your pain Brad.....

But I have to reiterate...... cutting them in half is NOT the answer. This is a 2 lane bridge on a 2 lane road and is completely adequate for it's location. I have traveled this road many times and it doesn't carry the traffic that some of the other State Highway bridges do.

INDOT has rehabilitated several of it's Parkers in the past few years......not sure why this wasn't one of them.

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted April 15, 2011, by Brad Lain

Restore restore restore and widen. Don't Destroy the Big Bridge and replace it with 1 of those eyesore concrete Bridges!!!

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted April 15, 2011, by Brad Lain

I read it in the Columbus Republic today that they are going to tear this Big Bridge down and I just dont see why people dont think 1st about tearing down these " Beautiful " Big bridges and not tear them down but instead build a temporary bridge right next to the Big Bridge then close the Big Bridge and have the traffic use the temporary bridge and then cut the Big Bridge in 1/2 and haul in more steel and then weld the steel to the Big Bridge and have the Big Bridge go from a ( Double Lane ) to a ( Quad Lane Bridge ) then after the Highway / Road Department completes the Big Bridge after widening it - then tear down the Temporary Bridge. This Big Bridge is perfectly Fine except too narrow and needs painted and so people can save these beautiful Big Bridges --- Just widen them and not tear them down and replace them with those eyesore concrete ( not ) Big Bridges where we cannot see the creek / river when we cross the Big Bridge. People need to love and enjoy these beatiful Big Bridges and not keep making it so there will be less and less of them all the time. Keep the Big Bridges where they are at or if they do get taken out , then put the Big Bridges somewhere else where they can get used and enjoyed. i want those eyesore Concrete Bridges gone and replace them with what was previously there before except they would be widened. These Big Bridges need Tender Loving Care and if they are too narrow, Widen the Big Bridges and leave the Big Bridge there --- for example have a Double lane Big Bridge like what is shown in the picture go to a Quad Lane Big bridge and have a Single Lane Big Bridge go to a Double Lane Big Bridge but please don't replace the Big Bridge and make it so it is no longer there. I wish people would do something to "save" all Iron - Steel and Covered Big Bridges from destruction raising awareness that the ones that are getting torn down are not getting replaced with other Big Bridges that are Iron --- Steel --- Covered Bridges that are wider i don't know why people don't restore and preserve the Big Bridges that get torn down and expand them so more traffic can cross the Creeks and Rivers at the same time the only thing that i see that is a down side or disadvantage with the Big Bridges is they are sometimes too narrow. so therefore the perfect answer for that is to widen it . not tear it down keep the Steel Bridge there Please

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted March 6, 2011, by Tom Hoffman (tehoffm [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Yes it will be shame to see this bridge go. It seems like there has been an assult on Indiana state highway Parker tusses lately. It is just barely less than the standard bridge width of 24 feet and SR3 is not as crowded as SR7. Even if a shorter highway truss bridge would still be obsolete if rehabbed, it should be mandatory that the bridge is disassembled for future use such as on a not so crowded or low speed street. It will also be a shame that the 1897 Lafayette truss will outlive its replacement bridge. There is another case like this here in Indiana. I'll bet the Tioga bridge in Monticello once carried US 421 but was replaced by a new route with a Parker truss which has been replaced.

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted February 11, 2011, by Anthony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

The 3 examples James gave all appear to have decent prospects for the future.

The SR11 Bridge in Jackson County was originally deemed "Non-select" in the M&H inventory, but after pointing out that INDOT had rehabilitated this span it was changed to Select.

The SR256 Bridge was not rated in the inventory, but also appears to have been recently rehabbed. A very low ADT count (for a state road) will likely help it's cause as well.

The US31 Bridge, although looking a little shabby in the current pictures, has been rated as a Select bridge and will hopefully be restored in the near future.

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted February 10, 2011, by James McCray (jamesinslocomb [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Here are a few of the bridges of the same type in Indiana:

http://bridgehunter.com/in/jackson/east-white-11/

http://bridgehunter.com/in/washington/30830/

http://bridgehunter.com/in/jackson/9210/

These are only a few, but there are many more examples that I know of, but if they are being replaced, we should begin to bring attention to these bridges.

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted February 10, 2011, by Anthony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Was just looking at my listing of the state highway truss bridges. This one was built in 1933 by the Brookville Bridge Company using plans 472 & 472A. BBC was the fabricator and likely erected the span as well.

The Clark County span was built in 1941 using plan 1521. A.G. Ryan & Sons were the contractors, with no mention of who fabricated it.

Comparison of these 2 spans shows a considerable amount of changes in the 8 years between them. As Nathan mentioned, the curved portal/sway bracing stands out. I was surprised that the clearance 14.8 vs. 14.6 was only slightly improved (if these numbers are accurate).

One of my favorites, the SR 75 Bridge in Carroll County appears similar to the Clark County span:

http://bridgehunter.com/in/carroll/wildcat-75/

This bridge was built in 1947 using plan #1551, but I did notice the clearance on this one to be even less at 14.3 (again based on accuracy). I would assume that the contractor had a range of so many inches within the state guidelines.

Unfortunately, none of these 3 were shown much respect in the recent state historic bridge inventory, and appear to offer a contrast for what the future holds. The Sand Creek SR3 Bridge is doomed to be removed in a matter of months. The Silver Creek SR403 Bridge in it's present state is likely heading down the same path. The Wildcat Creek SR75 Bridge does offer some hope, as a 2007 deck repair and paint job would suggest a prolonged life. I will need to check the final listing to see if this span's status was changed to reflect the apparent "preservation commitment" on behalf of INDOT.

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted February 9, 2011, by Nathan Holth (form3 [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

Both the Silver and Sand creek bridges were built using State Standard plans for bridges, which is why they look similar. The state literally had a stack of plans for truss bridges of various sizes to be used. Note however, that the Silver Creek Bridge was built to a slightly different standard (just like software, the state had different versions over time), which includes attractive arched portal and sway bracing, so bridges built to that plan are a little more attractive in my view.

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted February 9, 2011, by James McCray (jamesinslocomb [at] yahoo [dot] com)

The ironic thing about this is that the older truss bridge (http://bridgehunter.com/in/jennings/bh37993/) to the east still remains while this bridge will be replaced. This truss at the time it was built was the "modern" replacement for the older truss bridge. When this bridge gets replaced we will have a rare, but sad, occasion where the replacement bridge gets replaced while the original bridge still remains to see its 3rd generation replacement!

One can find an almost exact copy of this bridge: the IN 403 bridge (http://bridgehunter.com/in/clark/32000/) that crosses Silver Creek between Sellersburg and Charlestown, IN. It seems that these truss bridges are standard for Indiana (IDOT)during the time they were built.

Sand Creek IN 3 Bridge
Posted February 9, 2011, by Anthony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Will be sad to see this one go!

Had hoped it would be a "Select" bridge in the state inventory, but M&H didn't even bother to rate it.