There's a possibility that the build date on this one is earlier. Indianapolis has a number of concrete bridges built roughly a century ago of which they are proud. They seem to have an appreciation for them as a part of their park system.
Yeah, its really confusing. What are their basis in considering a bridge to be historic? It obvious that time and life span of the bridge is one of the basis for a bridge to be called historic. Which bridge builder are they getting business with? Is it available up to now?
What is wrong with this picture: Indiana is able to consider a 32 foot reinforced concrete slab bridge built in 1955 to be historic. Yet Michigan has 1920s curved chord through girders listed Not Historic and Pennsylvania has ancient pin connected through truss bridges listed Not Historic. I like Indiana's approach better. Even if a bridge isn't super-significant, why not at least recognize its heritage and at least consider preservation rather than ignoring it completely?
It'd be nice to see under this bridge, how it's constructed. I live in Indy (waaaaay on the other side of town from this bridge, so I'm not familiar with it) -- the railing on this bridge is typical of those around town I've seen with plates showing 1950s-60s build dates.