 |
  |
|
Key Facts |
Bridge Name | Type | Road | Location | City | Crossing |
Indianapolis Blvd. Bridge |
Truss |
IN-152 |
Lake County, IN |
Hammond |
Railroad (Gibson Railroad Yard) |
|
Technical Facts |
|
Construction Date |
Rehabilitation Date |
Minimum Railroad Underclearance | Vertical Clearance | Skew Angle |
| 1935 | 1984 | 21.82 Feet | 14.73 Feet | 19 Degrees |
| Total Structure Length | Main Spans | Main Span Lengths (In Feet) | Total Main-Span Length | Approach Spans | Roadway Width |
| 2117.24 Feet | 9 | 5 spans @ 172, 1 @ 187, and 3 @ 246 | 1908 Feet | 8 pre-stressed concrete continuous totaling aprox. 209 Feet | 39.7 Feet |
This extremely long bridge has a length comparable to Ohio River bridges such as Ohio's Market Street Bridge. It is also a wide truss bridge, apparently originally a four-lane structure. Today it has two lanes, a bike lane on the east side, and a small shoulder on the west side. This bridge does not achieve its long length via some complex cantilever span, but instead utilizes many classic Parker through truss spans instead. They feature riveted connections. The railings on the bridge appear to be original. There is extensive v-lacing and lattice present on the bridge, although some members feature battens instead. I found Inland steel stamps on the bridge. The bridge is composed of nine spans of varying size. Although the spans at each end of the bridge appear normal, the remaining seven spans in between have a skew to them that resulted in some bizarre cooked portal designs that give this bridge a distinctive appearance. The result is a bridge whose skewed spans are individually interesting, but combined form a bridge that is both unusual, and is a also a monumental-sized landmark for Hammond. This bridge can be seen from the Indiana Tollway as you head toward Illinois, sweeping across the rail yard. Much of the rail yard appears to be abandoned today, and the bridge simply passes over field for much of the distance. The bridge is so long, and has a slight curve to the deck, that you cannot see the other end of the bridge when you first start to cross it. The bridge is a thrill to walk or drive across.
Indiana probably wants to demolish this bridge not just because they feel it is outdated and falling apart, but also because much of it doesn't even cross anything but a field anymore. Despite this, I feel the structure is important to preserve as a whole in its original location because it is such a large structure and impressive to the eye, and also has historic value. Whether they restore it or replace it, a fair amount of money is going to be spent on the bridge due to its size. Replacement would however incur additional costs for removing such a large structure. Often, replacing a bridge costs more than restoring it! Why not save demolition costs and use this money towards preserving this historic landmark? Another interesting option that could be considered is to place fill under the spans of the bridge that serve no purpose anymore. In other words, simply allow the trusses to rest on dirt, so that people could continue to enjoy the tunnel-effect as they drove across the bridge, but INDOT would not have to worry about the bridge supporting anything. This might look dumb from a side view, and affect historic integrity, but to people driving across the bridge the change would be undetectable. It certainly would be better than replacing this bridge with either nothing but dirt or replacing it with an ugly slab bridge.
Despite the beauty, history, and inviting alternatives I have suggested above, INDOT wants to replace this bridge. Much like Pennsylvania does, INDOT uses a bridge marketing program as a path to easily replace bridges, and relieve themselves of responsibility for preserving historic bridges. The idea is to offer doomed bridges to third parties for relocation and restoration in a new location. This is a poor way to manage this nation's rich assortment of historic bridges, because few individuals or small organizations are going to be able to choke up the money required to not only restore but relocate a bridge as well. The point of government is to undertake projects that benefit the general public and may cost too much for individuals to undertake (like building expressways for example or building a public school system). I personally feel that bridge preservation is something that should be government funded. When I see all the outlandish things the federal government wastes taxpayer money on, bridge preservation is actually a very reasonable thing for governments to fund. The other problem with bridge marketing is that when a bridge is relocated, a great deal of historic value is lost. Some bridges may lose the ability to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places if they are relocated.
There is one other problem with bridge marketing, particularly with the Indianapolis Blvd. Bridge. Just take a look at the bridge. What bike trail or back yard is going to have the room for this bridge?! How and where on earth is someone going to move this bridge to? Like some guy is going to email INDOT and tell them he is going to throw the bridge up over the Ohio River that happens to run through his backyard! I suppose that someone might decide to move part of the bridge, in other words one or two of the spans. But even that is stupid, because what makes this bridge so interesting is its length. The bridge needs to be whole to be appreciated. Sure, the skewed spans would be interesting on their own, but think of how much less interesting they would be compared to the monstrosity seen in Hammond today. Another point. Even a single span would be a large undertaking for a individual or organization to undertake. The individual spans themselves are of fair length, and plus they are four-lanes wide! A bridge this wide is not going to fit well on a rail-trail, plus its width makes it larger and more costly to move. In the end, INDOTs bridge marketing plan reflects INDOT's lack of genuine interest in the beauty of their state and also their lack of concern for transportation heritage.
I predict that this bridge will be completely demolished, unfortunately. Perhaps someone might claim one of the spans, but I doubt it. The bridge deserves to be restored in place. Hammond is an industrial city, and this bridge is one of the few elements of beauty in the area, and so it is important to the landscape. In addition, even from a statewide perspective, this is one of the finest bridges in Indiana, and its loss will be felt for generations.
Be sure to check my photo gallery. I have a ton of photos for this bridge, sorted into separate galleries by category.
Information and Findings From Indiana's Historic Bridge InventoryDescription of Bridge A year after the ISHC had an overpass of two railroads built in Lake County (#1030), it contracted for an even more complex railroad overpass. This one involved eighteen spans on a 19-degree skew, carrying a 40-ft. roadway, 6-ft. sidewalks outside the trusses, and a metal stairway to the rail yard. In December 1935, E. J. Albrecht of Chicago, Illinois, successfully bid $590,512.92 to build the overpass on concrete bents and abutments. From North to South, the structure consisted of nine reinforced-concrete T-beam spans (8@42'1"; 1@41') which then flanked nine steel Parker through-truss spans. Each outer steel span had one truss of 171 ft. 6 in. and one truss of 186 ft. 8 in. to accommodate the skew and sandwiched between them a 171 ft. 6 in. span, three 245 ft. 6 in. spans, and three 171 ft. 6 in. spans. Albrecht officially completed his work by mid-September 1937. The state's design task was not an easy one. The very substantial rail yard required both a very long and, given some raised rails or humps to facilitate classification, more than average vertical clearance. The yard, though, was located in the city of East Chicago which limited the state's ability to shift or to elevate the roadway ahead of the bridge easily. As a result, the bridge had to be skewed considerably, and it had to accommodate within the structure much of the vertical rise needed to clear the rail yard--in all, 744 ft. of vertical curve. The first four trussed-spans from the North inclined up; the next five to the South angled downward. The wider than average roadway appropriate for an urban setting also complicated the design of the trusses. No state standard addressed all or even most of these special conditions. The state engineers met the challenges with some mixture of structural types and a combination of unusual trussed-span lengths. To handle the 19-degrees of skew settled upon, the state engineers had to offset the trusses of each span by approximately the length of an end panel. For the internal spans, this resulted in trading off a panel at each end with the adjacent span. The end spans, however, required trusses of different length, since there was no span beyond the abutment from which to borrow a panel. Thus each end-span had one truss of 171 ft. 6 in. and one of 186 ft. 8 in. Panel lengths varied from span to span. End panels tended to be shorter than central ones, although there seemed to be no consistent standard by span-length or panel-position. End panels ranged from 13 ft. 10 in. to 18 ft. 10 in. on the shorter spans, and from 15 ft. 8 in. to 22 ft. 5 in. on the longer ones. Most center panels on the shorter spans were 23 ft. 9 in. long and on the longer ones at 26 ft. 6 in. With one truss of each outer span made one panel longer than the other, the trusses of every other span were offset. Where the offset operated, those members which crossed from one truss to another-- struts, sway frames, and floor-beams--were tied between verticals of different panels within a span and inevitably skipped one hip vertical. At the ends of the spans, the portals and the floor-beams between the endposts necessarily accommodated the skew and left a different distance from the previous frame or floor beam at each side. Hence the decision noted above to shorten the outer panels over the inner ones and thereby to contain the varied distance between members at span- end to manageable lengths. Truss depth varied by place in the span, span-length, and--given the skew and vertical curve-- location in the structure. At the portals, shorter spans (171'-186') varied from 20 ft. 6 in. to 27 ft. 10 in., and longer ones (245') ranged from 21 ft. to 30 ft. At midspan, the variation depended entirely upon truss-length: the shorter at 35 ft.; the longer at 44 ft. 6 in. All top chord members are differently sloped, and only in the nine-panel length is the center panel's member parallel with the lower chord. In the shorter spans, all top chord members are fabricated from a cover plate, lattice bars, and a pair of 18-in. channels generally increasing in weight from the endposts to the more central members, sometimes by riveting plates to the channels' webs. The longer spans relied on fabricated rather than rolled channels, using 26-in. plates and angles to provide unusually heavy members. The lower chord's members differ by span length. The shorter ones rely on a pair of rolled 15-in. channels growing in weight toward midspan, sometimes by the addition of stiffening plates. The longer spans call for crafted channels made from 24-in. plates and angles, stiffened in all except the outer two panels on each end with a second set of plates added to the channel web. The size and design of web members also often varied by span length. The verticals of both the shorter and the long spans were alike in format, except that the latter were somewhat heavier. They all generally used a pair of laced 12-in. channels, except for the hip vertical which depended upon a rolled 12-in. I-beam. Substantial latticed struts and heavy upper sway framing placed above 15 ft. of roadway clearance buttress the quite-tall trusses against wind and vehicle-induced stress. Like the upper bracing, the portals rely on latticed sections. The diagonals of the shorter spans were made from a pair of 12-in. channels dropping in weight from the outer (@40#) to the inner (@20.7#) panels. The long spans used a pair of 15-in. channels with tie-plates for the outer diagonals and crafted channels laced together for the inner ones. None of the spans used counterbracing. For its floor-beams, the state required 48-in. deep crafted girders, in turn to be riveted to the verticals above the lower chord in each span. Arranged in nine rows, the rolled I stringers vary considerably depending largely upon the panel length each needed to accommodate. They range from 13 in. to 24 in. depths and from weights of 53 lbs. to 83 lbs. All are attached to the floor-beams' sides. Together, the floor-beams and the stringers carry the concrete deck. A pair of angles supplies each lower sway bracing member. A pair of channels and posts line each truss as guardrails, and coped concrete approach rails with bush-hammered panels guide traffic into and out of the approach spans. Brackets added to the floor-beams and verticals carry the sidewalks and steel handrails outside each truss. A metal stairway located on the East about midway along the bridge accommodated pedestrian passage to and from the rail yard. The requirements of this location forced the
state engineers to move well beyond their standard plans for parts of
the Parker through-truss design. In this, they are among the more
notable design difficulties addressed by the ISHC and produced some of
the state's longest trussed spans. While the trusses remain and retain
their original members, the concrete deck has been replaced. The
reinforced concrete T-beam approaches have also all been replaced with
prestressed concrete I-beam spans, most of which are somewhat longer
than the originals. The coped concrete approach rails were ripped out
with the T-beams. [HABS/HAER card] Bridge Considered Historic By Survey: Yes |
