Improvements to the US-281 bridge over the South Canadian River (Bridgeport Bridge)
Update 3-26-2021 - Adverse effect determination and Section 106 consultation to-date
Update 2-16-2021 - February 1, 2021 Section 106 consulting party meeting
Click button below for the mp4 video of the meeting. Click here for meeting minutes
Click button below for the mp4 video of the meeting. Click here for meeting minutes
Update 12-30-2020 - Letter to Section 106 consulting parties sent with Design Analysis Support
This letter was sent to Section 106 consulting parties
This letter was sent to Section 106 consulting parties
Update 12-23-2020 - Design Analysis Support Document and appendices
**This document is the engineering analysis to support the Section 4(f)
**This document is the engineering analysis to support the Section 4(f)
UPDATE 7-8-2020 - Section 106 Meeting Presentation
**We noticed that our figures for Vehicles per Day (VPD) are off on slide # 7 (Bridge is Too Narrow). For 2018 it should be 1,800 vehicles, and for projected 2060: 4,100 vehicles.
**We noticed that our figures for Vehicles per Day (VPD) are off on slide # 7 (Bridge is Too Narrow). For 2018 it should be 1,800 vehicles, and for projected 2060: 4,100 vehicles.
UPDATE 6-12-2020 Bridge Inspection Reports (zip file)
UPDATE 6-4-2020 - Link to BUILD Grant Application:
https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/odot/documents/sapm/branch/planning/federalgrantawards/build2020/bridgeportbridge/application-narrative/grantapplication-narrative.pdf
https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/odot/documents/sapm/branch/planning/federalgrantawards/build2020/bridgeportbridge/application-narrative/grantapplication-narrative.pdf
UPDATE November 2019 - Cultural Resources investigations report and comments (click here for pdf download)
UPDATE 6-4-19 - The Following Letter was sent to Consulting Parties listed below
Dear Consulting Party:
Re: Canadian County Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Project: JP 26360(04); Improvements to US-281 bridge over Canadian River (William H. Murray Bridge).
Introduction
Thank you for your continued participation in this project. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of FHWA’s intent to re-initiate the Section 106 process for the above-referenced undertaking and to seek comment on proposed alternatives strictly for the purposes of seeking funding through a USDOT Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Grant. The BUILD grant “…provides a unique opportunity for the DOT to invest in road, rail, transit and port projects that promise to achieve national objectives…to fund projects that have a significant local or regional impact”. You may recall that ODOT canceled the project in January 2018 due to Oklahoma budgetary adjustments that resulted in state-funding cuts. ODOT was forced to revisit the 8-year work plan and remove or delay many of our planned projects. This is a competitive grant and, if awarded, would provide FHWA and ODOT with a dedicated source of outside funding that could be used for this project. The purpose of this letter is to seek comments on three alternatives that ODOT is considering for the BUILD grant application. For the purpose of the grant application, ODOT must submit a single project, and single alternative for review by the selection committee. Selection of the alternative is strictly for the purpose of the grant and does not pre-determine the project outcome. ODOT and FHWA will still follow the Section 106, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Section 4(f) processes for the project.
The William H. Murray (Bridgeport) Bridge
Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) is seeking funding through a FHWA through the BUILD grant to make improvements to the subject bridge. The William H. Murray Bridge was built in 1933, is roughly 3,900-foot long, and contains 38 camelback pony truss spans. The bridge is structurally deficient with a sufficiency rating of 21.1 out of 100, and the structure is load posted at 9 tons. At 24-feet-wide, the existing bridge is also functionally obsolete due to its narrow width. The structure is currently used by Route 66 enthusiasts, local traffic, and large oil and gas trucks attempting to “cut across” from Interstate 40 to US-281. The bridge is not rated for these heavy vehicles, which causes stress to the bridge, and a compromised safety situation for other motorists.
The bridge is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and is considered a contributing element to the NRHP-listed 17.7 mile-long Bridgeport Hill to Hydro segment of Route 66.
ODOT feels strongly that this project is an ideal candidate for this competitive grant. The bridge is an iconic structure on Historic Route 66 and has achieved national and international recognition as such. Recent interest in revitalizing Route 66, including the forthcoming 100-year anniversary of the historic road in 2026, has brought additional attention to Oklahoma’s transportation resources related to Route 66. ODOT is seeking financial assistance through the BUILD grant in order to address the deficiencies in the William H. Murray bridge and provide a sound crossing over the Canadian for the 2026 anniversary. The application deadline for the BUILD grant is July 15.
Under the BUILD grant, the applicant must submit a defined project as part of the application package. The project description must be detailed. In order to comply with Section 106 regulations implemented under 36 CFR 800, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act, ODOT is reinitiating consultation, on behalf of FHWA, to seek comments on three alternatives that ODOT is considering for the subject project. Regardless of the alternative that ODOT selects for the BUILD application, ODOT and FHWA will continue consultation under the referenced regulations to seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties. In addition, Section 4(f) regulations require FHWA to select the feasible and prudent alternative that avoids a use of a historic property. If no such alternative exists, FHWA must seek the alternative with the least overall harm to the resource(s). Please see the attached map of
ODOT and FHWA spent considerable effort meeting with Section 106 consulting parties in 2015 and 2016. A summary of our previous consultation on the subject bridge can be found at the bottom of our website: http://www.odotculturalresources.info/. The alternatives discussed below are consistent with those presented under the Design Analysis conducted for the William H. Murray Bridge and the Captain Creek bridge.
Alternatives
Three alternatives for the BUILD grant are discussed below. All three alternatives involve improvements to the bridge on its existing alignment. Alternative 1 seeks to rehabilitate the bridge to Secretary of Interior Standards. The bridge will remain load-posted, but at 15 tons, and will have a 15-year design life. Alternatives 2 and 3 seek to provide a long-term solution to the bridge by removing the load rating and providing a 75-year design life.
1) Rehabilitation in accordance with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
This alternative is similar to Alternative B, Option 1 outlined in the US-281 at the South Canadian River and Associated Roadway Section Caddo, Canadian, Blaine Counties Alternatives Analysis Report (http://www.odotculturalresources.info/uploads/6/6/6/2/6662788/us-281_draft_alternatives_analysis_9-15-16.pdf ).
Under this alternative, the William H. Murray bridge would be rehabilitated at the existing width, in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation as outlined by AASHTO NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 19 (from March, 2007). No new structures would be constructed, nor any new roadway facility. All existing traffic would continue to be permitted to use the bridge structures, including standard trucks (no oversized or overload permit vehicles). Deteriorated elements would be replaced, in-kind, with stronger materials, in accordance with the AASHTO Guidelines for Historic Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement. The concrete rails on the end spans would also be removed and replaced with new, context-sensitive, load-tested traffic rails. According to AASHTO Guidelines, decks and standard-design rails are not vital to maintain historical integrity of a structure. The metal rails of the truss spans would be cleaned and painted. Some sections of metal rail with severe collision damage may be replaced in kind.
As discussed in the referenced report, several elements of the bridge, such as gusset plates, floor beams, and stringers are in a deteriorated condition, such that in-kind replacement of the historic fabric of the bridge may itself result in an adverse effect to the bridge. The resulting rehabilitation would likely only bring the bridge up to a 15-ton rating. This alternative is not a long-term solution to the challenges affecting this structure, and provides for a 15-year design life for the bridge, at which time the structural condition will need to be addressed.
2) Construct new multi-beam superstructure and attach truss panels to superstructure, maintain existing width
This alternative is similar to Alternative 2d in the Design Support for Section 4(f) Analysis for Historic Bridges Structure No. 4124 0157 X (NBI No. 03800) SH-66B over Captain Creek Lincoln County, Oklahoma (http://www.odotculturalresources.info/uploads/6/6/6/2/6662788/lincoln_28034_04__sh-66b_captain_creek_section_106_consultation.pdf) .
The primary load-carrying elements of a truss bridge are the trusses themselves. As such, there is no redundancy in the load carrying elements of the structure. The metal truss bears the load. This alternative would seek to distribute the load path to other elements of the bridge and, in effect, creating a safe and long-term solution.
The most viable option appears to be substitution of the truss spans (as the primary load carrying element) with a new multi-beam steel superstructure with a concrete deck, to which the existing trusses would be re-attached using diaphragms at the lower chord panel points. In order to maintain the historic integrity of the original bridge, it is important that the trusses appear functional, so they will continue to support their own weight.
To support the new multi-beam main span and facilitate the removal of the fracture critical pier beams, the intermediate piers require complete reconstruction. The new piers will support the new beams for the main span, the existing beams for the approach spans, and the existing trusses. These changes will have an effect on the appearance of the bridge, and will likely be considered an adverse effect.
The concrete rails on the end spans would also be removed and replaced with new, context-sensitive, load-tested traffic rails. According to AASHTO Guidelines, decks and standard-design rails are not vital to maintain historical integrity of a structure. The metal rails of the truss spans would be cleaned and painted.
ODOT and FHWA selected this alternative for the SH-66B Captain Creek Bridge near Wellston.
3) Construct new multi-beam superstructure and attach truss panels to superstructure, widening to 40-feet.
This alternative is similar to Alternative 2b in the Design Support for Section 4(f) Analysis for Historic Bridges Structure No. 4124 0157 X (NBI No. 03800) SH-66B over Captain Creek Lincoln County, Oklahoma. This alternative is a version of the option discussed above, but provides for a 40-foot-wide bridge (http://www.odotculturalresources.info/uploads/6/6/6/2/6662788/lincoln_28034_04__sh-66b_captain_creek_section_106_consultation.pdf) .
In this alternative, it will be necessary to eliminate the truss spans as the primary load-bearing element and provide load redundancy throughout the structure. The most viable option appears to be to substitute the truss span as the primary load carrying element with a new multi-beam steel superstructure with a concrete deck, to which the existing trusses would be re-attached using diaphragms at the lower chord panel points. In order to maintain the historic integrity of the original bridge, it is important that the trusses appear functional, so they will continue to support their own weight. The structure would be widened to 40-foot wide to meet ODOT’s design standards.
The concrete rails on the end spans would also be removed and replaced with new, context-sensitive, load-tested traffic rails. According to AASHTO Guidelines, decks and standard-design rails are not vital to maintain historical integrity of a structure. The metal rails of the truss spans would be cleaned and painted.
Discussion of Alternatives
ODOT and FHWA recognize the historic significance of the bridge and the 17.7-mile-long roadbed. Indeed, we also recognize the desire for a long-term solution to the improvements to these structures. Oklahoma boasts the most drivable miles of Route 66 in any of the eight states, and there are tremendous benefits to providing a transportation solution that allows continued traffic on the bridge. ODOT and FHWA must consider initial costs of construction, yearly costs and labor associated with maintaining the bridge, driver expectancy and safety. In addition, ODOT and FHWA are aware that stakeholders and consulting parties also have varied interests in the William H. Murray Bridge and that those interests may be associated with their own agency missions.
Alternative 1 will seek to avoid or minimize adverse effects to the structure by replacing deteriorated elements with in-kind materials. The truss spans will continue to be the primary load-bearing elements of the bridge, which will require inspection and maintenance twice a year. The costs and labor associated with this will be borne by ODOT, and would not be covered by the BUILD grant. The alternative provides a 15-year solution to the bridge’s deficiencies. Future maintenance of a truss bridge and rehabilitation will need to be addressed through some other source of funding. The improvements will raise the load limit to 15 tons. Finally, the in-kind replacement of the deteriorated elements may be to such a degree that the historic fabric is compromised, possibly resulting in an adverse effect.
Alternative 2 seeks to provide a new superstructure such that bridge will not fall under any load rating (all traffic will be able to use the structure). The driver experience will be identical to the current feel. Maintenance costs and labor will be negligible, as the structure can be inspected on a two-year cycle. The solution provides for a 75-year design life. The truss panels will continue to support their own weight, minimizing the adverse effect by allowing the trusses to continue to perform a function for which they were intended.
Alternative 3 achieves the same benefits as Alternative 2, but provides for a 40-foot wide roadway. This is a desirable width for Oklahoma’s roads, as it provides for two 12-foot-wide lanes and 8-foot-wide shoulders. This would allow for a more safe facility as it would accommodate the current traffic in all forms, including the heavy truck traffic. The driver experience and “feeling” of Route 66 would be diminished. This alternative would have the most substantial degree of adverse effect.
Summary
ODOT and FHWA are seeking comments to the above alternatives to better inform our decision on how to proceed with the BUILD grant application. It is ODOT’s desire to submit one of these alternatives as the “proposed project”. ODOT and FHWA recognize that NEPA, NHPA, and Section 4(f) will still apply. If the BUILD grant is awarded, ODOT and FHWA will continue consultation to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to the bridge a d 17.7 mile roadway. In addition, ODOT and FHWA will seek to avoid a 4(f) use of the bridge. If a use is inevitable, ODOT and FHWA will seek the alternative that has the least overall harm.
Since our initial consultation in 2015, we have identified new parties with a demonstrated interest in the project (Route 66 Road Ahead Initiative). If you believe there are other parties that should be included on this list, please let us know.
If you have any questions, Please do not hesitate to contact me at 405-325-7201 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Scott Sundermeyer
Director, ODOT Cultural Resources Program
Cc (with attachments): Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office
Preservation Oklahoma, Inc.
Oklahoma Historic Bridge and Highway Group
Historic Bridge Foundation
Oklahoma Route 66 Association, Inc.
National Park Service Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program
Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department
Route 66 Road Ahead Initiative
Nathan Holth
Dear Consulting Party:
Re: Canadian County Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Project: JP 26360(04); Improvements to US-281 bridge over Canadian River (William H. Murray Bridge).
Introduction
Thank you for your continued participation in this project. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of FHWA’s intent to re-initiate the Section 106 process for the above-referenced undertaking and to seek comment on proposed alternatives strictly for the purposes of seeking funding through a USDOT Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Grant. The BUILD grant “…provides a unique opportunity for the DOT to invest in road, rail, transit and port projects that promise to achieve national objectives…to fund projects that have a significant local or regional impact”. You may recall that ODOT canceled the project in January 2018 due to Oklahoma budgetary adjustments that resulted in state-funding cuts. ODOT was forced to revisit the 8-year work plan and remove or delay many of our planned projects. This is a competitive grant and, if awarded, would provide FHWA and ODOT with a dedicated source of outside funding that could be used for this project. The purpose of this letter is to seek comments on three alternatives that ODOT is considering for the BUILD grant application. For the purpose of the grant application, ODOT must submit a single project, and single alternative for review by the selection committee. Selection of the alternative is strictly for the purpose of the grant and does not pre-determine the project outcome. ODOT and FHWA will still follow the Section 106, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Section 4(f) processes for the project.
The William H. Murray (Bridgeport) Bridge
Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) is seeking funding through a FHWA through the BUILD grant to make improvements to the subject bridge. The William H. Murray Bridge was built in 1933, is roughly 3,900-foot long, and contains 38 camelback pony truss spans. The bridge is structurally deficient with a sufficiency rating of 21.1 out of 100, and the structure is load posted at 9 tons. At 24-feet-wide, the existing bridge is also functionally obsolete due to its narrow width. The structure is currently used by Route 66 enthusiasts, local traffic, and large oil and gas trucks attempting to “cut across” from Interstate 40 to US-281. The bridge is not rated for these heavy vehicles, which causes stress to the bridge, and a compromised safety situation for other motorists.
The bridge is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and is considered a contributing element to the NRHP-listed 17.7 mile-long Bridgeport Hill to Hydro segment of Route 66.
ODOT feels strongly that this project is an ideal candidate for this competitive grant. The bridge is an iconic structure on Historic Route 66 and has achieved national and international recognition as such. Recent interest in revitalizing Route 66, including the forthcoming 100-year anniversary of the historic road in 2026, has brought additional attention to Oklahoma’s transportation resources related to Route 66. ODOT is seeking financial assistance through the BUILD grant in order to address the deficiencies in the William H. Murray bridge and provide a sound crossing over the Canadian for the 2026 anniversary. The application deadline for the BUILD grant is July 15.
Under the BUILD grant, the applicant must submit a defined project as part of the application package. The project description must be detailed. In order to comply with Section 106 regulations implemented under 36 CFR 800, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act, ODOT is reinitiating consultation, on behalf of FHWA, to seek comments on three alternatives that ODOT is considering for the subject project. Regardless of the alternative that ODOT selects for the BUILD application, ODOT and FHWA will continue consultation under the referenced regulations to seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties. In addition, Section 4(f) regulations require FHWA to select the feasible and prudent alternative that avoids a use of a historic property. If no such alternative exists, FHWA must seek the alternative with the least overall harm to the resource(s). Please see the attached map of
ODOT and FHWA spent considerable effort meeting with Section 106 consulting parties in 2015 and 2016. A summary of our previous consultation on the subject bridge can be found at the bottom of our website: http://www.odotculturalresources.info/. The alternatives discussed below are consistent with those presented under the Design Analysis conducted for the William H. Murray Bridge and the Captain Creek bridge.
Alternatives
Three alternatives for the BUILD grant are discussed below. All three alternatives involve improvements to the bridge on its existing alignment. Alternative 1 seeks to rehabilitate the bridge to Secretary of Interior Standards. The bridge will remain load-posted, but at 15 tons, and will have a 15-year design life. Alternatives 2 and 3 seek to provide a long-term solution to the bridge by removing the load rating and providing a 75-year design life.
1) Rehabilitation in accordance with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
This alternative is similar to Alternative B, Option 1 outlined in the US-281 at the South Canadian River and Associated Roadway Section Caddo, Canadian, Blaine Counties Alternatives Analysis Report (http://www.odotculturalresources.info/uploads/6/6/6/2/6662788/us-281_draft_alternatives_analysis_9-15-16.pdf ).
Under this alternative, the William H. Murray bridge would be rehabilitated at the existing width, in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation as outlined by AASHTO NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 19 (from March, 2007). No new structures would be constructed, nor any new roadway facility. All existing traffic would continue to be permitted to use the bridge structures, including standard trucks (no oversized or overload permit vehicles). Deteriorated elements would be replaced, in-kind, with stronger materials, in accordance with the AASHTO Guidelines for Historic Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement. The concrete rails on the end spans would also be removed and replaced with new, context-sensitive, load-tested traffic rails. According to AASHTO Guidelines, decks and standard-design rails are not vital to maintain historical integrity of a structure. The metal rails of the truss spans would be cleaned and painted. Some sections of metal rail with severe collision damage may be replaced in kind.
As discussed in the referenced report, several elements of the bridge, such as gusset plates, floor beams, and stringers are in a deteriorated condition, such that in-kind replacement of the historic fabric of the bridge may itself result in an adverse effect to the bridge. The resulting rehabilitation would likely only bring the bridge up to a 15-ton rating. This alternative is not a long-term solution to the challenges affecting this structure, and provides for a 15-year design life for the bridge, at which time the structural condition will need to be addressed.
2) Construct new multi-beam superstructure and attach truss panels to superstructure, maintain existing width
This alternative is similar to Alternative 2d in the Design Support for Section 4(f) Analysis for Historic Bridges Structure No. 4124 0157 X (NBI No. 03800) SH-66B over Captain Creek Lincoln County, Oklahoma (http://www.odotculturalresources.info/uploads/6/6/6/2/6662788/lincoln_28034_04__sh-66b_captain_creek_section_106_consultation.pdf) .
The primary load-carrying elements of a truss bridge are the trusses themselves. As such, there is no redundancy in the load carrying elements of the structure. The metal truss bears the load. This alternative would seek to distribute the load path to other elements of the bridge and, in effect, creating a safe and long-term solution.
The most viable option appears to be substitution of the truss spans (as the primary load carrying element) with a new multi-beam steel superstructure with a concrete deck, to which the existing trusses would be re-attached using diaphragms at the lower chord panel points. In order to maintain the historic integrity of the original bridge, it is important that the trusses appear functional, so they will continue to support their own weight.
To support the new multi-beam main span and facilitate the removal of the fracture critical pier beams, the intermediate piers require complete reconstruction. The new piers will support the new beams for the main span, the existing beams for the approach spans, and the existing trusses. These changes will have an effect on the appearance of the bridge, and will likely be considered an adverse effect.
The concrete rails on the end spans would also be removed and replaced with new, context-sensitive, load-tested traffic rails. According to AASHTO Guidelines, decks and standard-design rails are not vital to maintain historical integrity of a structure. The metal rails of the truss spans would be cleaned and painted.
ODOT and FHWA selected this alternative for the SH-66B Captain Creek Bridge near Wellston.
3) Construct new multi-beam superstructure and attach truss panels to superstructure, widening to 40-feet.
This alternative is similar to Alternative 2b in the Design Support for Section 4(f) Analysis for Historic Bridges Structure No. 4124 0157 X (NBI No. 03800) SH-66B over Captain Creek Lincoln County, Oklahoma. This alternative is a version of the option discussed above, but provides for a 40-foot-wide bridge (http://www.odotculturalresources.info/uploads/6/6/6/2/6662788/lincoln_28034_04__sh-66b_captain_creek_section_106_consultation.pdf) .
In this alternative, it will be necessary to eliminate the truss spans as the primary load-bearing element and provide load redundancy throughout the structure. The most viable option appears to be to substitute the truss span as the primary load carrying element with a new multi-beam steel superstructure with a concrete deck, to which the existing trusses would be re-attached using diaphragms at the lower chord panel points. In order to maintain the historic integrity of the original bridge, it is important that the trusses appear functional, so they will continue to support their own weight. The structure would be widened to 40-foot wide to meet ODOT’s design standards.
The concrete rails on the end spans would also be removed and replaced with new, context-sensitive, load-tested traffic rails. According to AASHTO Guidelines, decks and standard-design rails are not vital to maintain historical integrity of a structure. The metal rails of the truss spans would be cleaned and painted.
Discussion of Alternatives
ODOT and FHWA recognize the historic significance of the bridge and the 17.7-mile-long roadbed. Indeed, we also recognize the desire for a long-term solution to the improvements to these structures. Oklahoma boasts the most drivable miles of Route 66 in any of the eight states, and there are tremendous benefits to providing a transportation solution that allows continued traffic on the bridge. ODOT and FHWA must consider initial costs of construction, yearly costs and labor associated with maintaining the bridge, driver expectancy and safety. In addition, ODOT and FHWA are aware that stakeholders and consulting parties also have varied interests in the William H. Murray Bridge and that those interests may be associated with their own agency missions.
Alternative 1 will seek to avoid or minimize adverse effects to the structure by replacing deteriorated elements with in-kind materials. The truss spans will continue to be the primary load-bearing elements of the bridge, which will require inspection and maintenance twice a year. The costs and labor associated with this will be borne by ODOT, and would not be covered by the BUILD grant. The alternative provides a 15-year solution to the bridge’s deficiencies. Future maintenance of a truss bridge and rehabilitation will need to be addressed through some other source of funding. The improvements will raise the load limit to 15 tons. Finally, the in-kind replacement of the deteriorated elements may be to such a degree that the historic fabric is compromised, possibly resulting in an adverse effect.
Alternative 2 seeks to provide a new superstructure such that bridge will not fall under any load rating (all traffic will be able to use the structure). The driver experience will be identical to the current feel. Maintenance costs and labor will be negligible, as the structure can be inspected on a two-year cycle. The solution provides for a 75-year design life. The truss panels will continue to support their own weight, minimizing the adverse effect by allowing the trusses to continue to perform a function for which they were intended.
Alternative 3 achieves the same benefits as Alternative 2, but provides for a 40-foot wide roadway. This is a desirable width for Oklahoma’s roads, as it provides for two 12-foot-wide lanes and 8-foot-wide shoulders. This would allow for a more safe facility as it would accommodate the current traffic in all forms, including the heavy truck traffic. The driver experience and “feeling” of Route 66 would be diminished. This alternative would have the most substantial degree of adverse effect.
Summary
ODOT and FHWA are seeking comments to the above alternatives to better inform our decision on how to proceed with the BUILD grant application. It is ODOT’s desire to submit one of these alternatives as the “proposed project”. ODOT and FHWA recognize that NEPA, NHPA, and Section 4(f) will still apply. If the BUILD grant is awarded, ODOT and FHWA will continue consultation to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to the bridge a d 17.7 mile roadway. In addition, ODOT and FHWA will seek to avoid a 4(f) use of the bridge. If a use is inevitable, ODOT and FHWA will seek the alternative that has the least overall harm.
Since our initial consultation in 2015, we have identified new parties with a demonstrated interest in the project (Route 66 Road Ahead Initiative). If you believe there are other parties that should be included on this list, please let us know.
If you have any questions, Please do not hesitate to contact me at 405-325-7201 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Scott Sundermeyer
Director, ODOT Cultural Resources Program
Cc (with attachments): Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office
Preservation Oklahoma, Inc.
Oklahoma Historic Bridge and Highway Group
Historic Bridge Foundation
Oklahoma Route 66 Association, Inc.
National Park Service Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program
Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department
Route 66 Road Ahead Initiative
Nathan Holth
UPDATE 1-30-18
In June, 2015, ODOT initiated consultation with parties interested in Historic Route 66, historic bridges, and local and national preservation organizations to inform you of our intent to prepare an environmental study of the above-referenced project. Our efforts resulted in two consulting party meetings held at the Oklahoma History Center (June 26, 2015 and September 22, 2016). In these meetings, we discussed the current condition of the bridge, its annual maintenance schedule, and ODOT’s alternatives to preserve the bridge. We also invited comments from consulting parties so that we could incorporate your concerns into our analysis.
Earlier LAST year. ODOT was forced to make budgetary adjustments, resulting from over $840 million in state funding cuts over the last seven years. This resulted in a revisit of the 8-year work plan, and a cut of some $240 million in road and bridge projects. Many projects were removed or delayed due to the budget cut.
This letter is to inform you that the subject bridge and approaches project is one of the projects that has been cancelled and removed from the 8-year work plan. While cancelled from the program, the bridge will continue to carry traffic in its current configuration and condition for as long as it is deemed safe, reasonable, and prudent. With the cancellation of the project, ODOT, however, will no longer be investing in the studies to the long-term solutions to the bridge deficiencies. Because there is no project, ODOT will no longer be conducting consulting party meetings, and we have cancelled the environmental and cultural resources studies we began in 2015.
ODOT is aware of the local and national significance of this bridge and roadway, and the international significance of Route 66. As such, should the bridge project re-enter the 8-year work plan, we will assuredly request your participation as a consulting party.
If you have any questions regarding this project, please visit the following website
(http://www.odotculturalresources.info/bridgeportbridge.html) or contact Scott Sundermeyer at 405-325-7201.
The Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) is preparing an environmental review of the above referenced project. The purpose of the project is to provide a structurally sound crossing over the South Canadian and to preserve Route 66 as a tourist destination in Oklahoma. The need of the project is that the existing bridge is structurally deficient and has a narrow width.
The US-281 Bridgeport bridge (Bridge A) is roughly 3,900-foot long, contains 38 camelback pony truss spans, and was built in 1932-1933. The bridge is 24 feet wide. Bridge A is structurally deficient with a sufficiency rating of 34.9 out of 100. The existing bridge is also functionally obsolete due to its narrow width.
Two additional bridges are located within the study area and may be affected by some of the alternatives being considered. These two bridges are located along US-281, west of Bridge A. Bridge B, also called the Tower Bridge, carries US-281 over an unnamed creek and is a 378 foot-long steel I-beam bridge located 1.1 miles west of the Canadian County line. Bridge B is structurally deficient. Bridge C, carrying US-281 over an unnamed creek, is a reinforced concrete box culvert located 0.3 miles west of the Canadian County line.
The Bridgeport Bridge (Bridge A) and adjacent roadway segments are iconic historic features integral to the regional tourism economy. In addition to being individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the historic bridge is also arguably the most important element of the NRHP-listed 17.7-mile long Bridgeport Hill-Hydro Route 66 Segment Historic District. All of the approach roadways to the bridge are part of the District, including the entire roadway from the south end of the bridge west to Hydro and the roadway from the north end of the bridge to Bridgeport Hill, northeast of the project.
Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, Federal agencies are required to take into account the effects that their undertaking may have on historic properties.
If you have any questions regarding this project, please complete the comments section below or contact Scott Sundermeyer at 405-325-7201 or ssundermeyer@odot.org
The US-281 Bridgeport bridge (Bridge A) is roughly 3,900-foot long, contains 38 camelback pony truss spans, and was built in 1932-1933. The bridge is 24 feet wide. Bridge A is structurally deficient with a sufficiency rating of 34.9 out of 100. The existing bridge is also functionally obsolete due to its narrow width.
Two additional bridges are located within the study area and may be affected by some of the alternatives being considered. These two bridges are located along US-281, west of Bridge A. Bridge B, also called the Tower Bridge, carries US-281 over an unnamed creek and is a 378 foot-long steel I-beam bridge located 1.1 miles west of the Canadian County line. Bridge B is structurally deficient. Bridge C, carrying US-281 over an unnamed creek, is a reinforced concrete box culvert located 0.3 miles west of the Canadian County line.
The Bridgeport Bridge (Bridge A) and adjacent roadway segments are iconic historic features integral to the regional tourism economy. In addition to being individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the historic bridge is also arguably the most important element of the NRHP-listed 17.7-mile long Bridgeport Hill-Hydro Route 66 Segment Historic District. All of the approach roadways to the bridge are part of the District, including the entire roadway from the south end of the bridge west to Hydro and the roadway from the north end of the bridge to Bridgeport Hill, northeast of the project.
Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, Federal agencies are required to take into account the effects that their undertaking may have on historic properties.
If you have any questions regarding this project, please complete the comments section below or contact Scott Sundermeyer at 405-325-7201 or ssundermeyer@odot.org
Bridgeport Bridge project files and documentation
- Cultural Resources Report and consultation (November 2019)
- US-281 Meeting 9/22/2016 Meeting Minutes (added 6/12/2016)
- US-281 Meeting Alternatives Analysis presentation 9/22/2016 (added 9/25/2016)
- US-281 DRAFT Alternatives Analysis 9-15-16 (Added 9/15/2016)
- Guidelines for Historic Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement (AASHTO) (added 5/19/2016)
- Collision analysis for US-281/SH-66 from Y-intersection to county line (added 5/5/2016)
- Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Report (added 1/5/2016)
- South Canadian River Reconnaissance Study- Full Report (added 1/5/2016)
- Consulting party meeting PowerPoint presentation (added 6/26/2015; video is below)
- Fracture Critical Bridge Inspection Report
- Other Special Bridge Inspection Report
- NRHP Registration form
- NRHP form photos
Other bridges considered in the project
Videos:
- SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 CONSULTING PARTY MEETING PRESENTATION (link to video)
- JUNE 26, 2015 CONSULTING PARTY MEETING PRESENTATION (video embedded below)