State Line Road Bridge

Bridge Documented: August 13, 2006

Visit Historic Bridges of The U.S.'s Page For This Historic Bridge

Visit INDOT's Bridge Marketing Page For This Bridge

This Bridge is In Danger Of Demolition!

Key Facts

Bridge Name	Type	Road	Location	City	Crossing
State Line Bridge	Truss	State Line Road	Lake County, IN	Rural	Kankakee River

Construction Date	Main Span Length	Total Length	Deck Width	Vertical Clearance
c. 1900	222.1 Feet	224 Feet	17.4 Feet	19 Feet

Overview of the Bridge and Its Fate

The date given in National Bridge Inventory is 1926 for the construction date. This date is not an appropriate date for this design of bridge. I placed a circa 1900 construction date in my table to reflect the likely time that this bridge was built. This bridge is an extremely rare example of non-massive one-lane pin connected Pennsylvania through truss bridge. Although on a state and county line, this bridge is under Lake County jurisdiction who wants to demolish the bridge along with all their truss bridges. This magnificent bridge is most unfortunate to be located in such a blind-sighted county, who doesn't realize that this is one of Indiana's most important highway truss bridges, due to its rare design and high degree of historic integrity. The bridge features v-lacing on various locations, and has an a-frame portal bracing design. The water level is almost up to the floor beams of the bridge, and it is always like this lately. The reason is because the some genius in Indiana decided to dredge the Kankakee River, and it increased the flow of water so much that it caused water and silt to build in in Illinois (where the river is still natural and not dredged) which effectively have formed a dam. Nice going Indiana! As you perhaps can tell, I am not a real big fan of dredging, since it ruins the natural beauty of a river, and makes it look like an oversized ditch. There is a reason that rivers have natural sediment and plant life and wind around the landscape, and the problem that Indiana has caused is the reason why these elements which slow the flow of water are present. They help make the river work... remove them... and you have a big problem!

I specifically made a point to visit this bridge as part of my second Chicago trip, because I had learned of its planned demolition. I had found the below articles, which angered me greatly. The people who wrote these articles have a poor understanding of historic bridges, and the ability for them to be restored. I have placed the articles below and after the articles I provide a detailed response to their claims backed up with some examples, and suggested a solution that would solve the needs of both those who want an open bridge here as well as those who like the historic bridge.

Refuting The Pro-Demolitionists

Opinions Expressed About The Bridge

Editorial Opinion of the Bridge From Northwestern Indiana Times

Taken from: http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2002/12/29/opinion/times_editorials/a3b54ed5b206190586256c9c00089dc3.txt

Whenever a historic structure is razed, it is not without a tinge of nostalgia. But the time has come to replace the State Line Bridge across the Kankakee River.

It's a bridge with charm, to be sure. There aren't many of these bridges with elegant trusses left. But its time has come and gone.

Jody Melton, executive director of the Kankakee River Basin Development Corp., is no big fan of the bridge. "It's gotten so choked off, you can't get under the bridge if you're in a boat," Melton said. "You can't get from one side of the river to the other."

A quick history lesson is in order. The Kankakee River used to be a giant marsh that brought people from all over for hunting. Then the river was dredged and straightened, and farmland was created from the drained lands. The result is that flooding is a bigger problem now.

So KRBDC was created to lessen the chances of flooding along the river. And the bridge stands in the way of completing that project.

Eight or nine years ago, the bridge contributed to an ice dam that backed up water all the way to U.S. 41. Sandbags had to be put in place at Sumava Resorts to protect the riverside town from flooding.

The State Line Road bridge has been closed since August 1999 because it is structurally unsafe. But some historic preservation groups have spoken against replacing the structure because of its architectural significance.

One way of addressing that concern is to incorporate elements of the original bridge in the replacement bridge. But that would be costly. Rehabilitation work would cost less -- about $368,000 -- but would be funded only with local money. Federal funds would pay about 80 percent of the $618,200 cost of a new bridge.

So here's the best solution: Tear down the old bridge, but save the pieces so it can be erected later at another site near the Kankakee, where it can be displayed for its historic value rather than be used for modern traffic.

Jody Melton explains KRBC position on State Line Bridge

Taken From: http://www.bigeastern.com/kankakee/letters-state_line_bridge.htm

Jody Melton writes explaining the KRBC position regarding the controversial State Line Bridge (pictured above) - note that Jody's comments are, in part, a reply to comments from Jim Sweeney; Jim's letter is posted below.

"The State Line Bridge is a safety issue, not a drainage issue. The Drainage Boards have not weighed in on this, but the county commissioners of Lake and Newton County, Indiana and Kankakee County, Illinois responsible for public safety and transportation have. They say that their constituents want the bridge and road reopened.

Local officials from Momence, Lake Village, and Schneider and the townships have also expressed the need for the state line road to reopen with a usable structure, not a relic of times past.

The old bridge is a wonderful structure, it should be preserved and used somewhere as a useful bridge for a limited purpose. It doesn't serve any purpose at the State Line but to collect debris, block river access and create a site for potential ice jam flooding.

The county commissioners have expressed a willingness to save the bridge for other uses if that is the wish of the preservationists. They are not willing to compromise the safety of the local people by allowing the bridge and road to remain closed. Emergency vehicles, everyday traffic, and visitors to LaSalle Fish & Wildlife Area deserve to have the State Line Road functioning again. It is not a new road creating great additional disturbance to the Kankakee Marsh. It is a replacement for an existing road.

As to riverbed sand load, that is a problem the counties in Indiana and the Kankakee River Basin Commission are working on. A series of sand traps have been created in the Kankakee and Yellow Rivers upstream and the Soil and Water Districts have increased support for best management practices on basin land. There are other efforts to address erosion limited only by the state's financial situation. The existing bedload will continue to cause problems until it moves or is removed.

The Times editorial of 12-26-02 recognized the wishes of the local leaders and the people who elected them who do feel the road is needed. It also recognizes the fact that the bridge is a danger to public safety; in structural integrity, in location, and in non-usability.

Jim Sweeney's Comments on the Bridge and the Northwest Indiana Times Article

Taken From: http://www.bigeastern.com/kankakee/letters-state_line_bridge.htm

Jim Sweeney has written an open letter on the subject disputing the conclusions in the recent Times editorial:

"I was disappointed in the Times’ 12-26-02 editorial endorsing a new bridge at the Kankakee River and the Illinois Stateline. It would be one thing if that road was a needed thoroughfare, but it is not, and there have been no problems there for the three years the bridge has been closed.

The facts are that the debris is collecting at the bridge because the riverbed is rising every year. The unnatural flow of the artificial channel in Indiana deposits tons and tons of sand and silt at the Stateline every year where the natural river begins to meander again in Illinois.

Put in a new bridge and that only moves the problem farther downstream. It doesn’t fix a thing. Sadly, that is how drainage boards manage rivers in Indiana.

The solutions to all the problems of the Kankakee are upstream, upstream restoration and upstream retention. These problems become evident downstream, to correct them there is a temporary fix at best and an inefficient use of tax dollars.

I would have thought the Times would have researched this better.

A new bridge will hurt the river more than it will help Sumava Resorts."

I cannot pretend to claim that all citizens are like me: angry at the government for demolishing historic bridges. In many cases, there are people who want to see historic bridges demolished. Jody Melton is one good example. However, I should point out that 99 times out of 100 people like Jody get their wish, and the sizeable group of people who value history and beauty get the nasty end of the deal. Sadly, there are solutions out there that would, in the spirit of true democracy, please nearly everyone. For me the solution is simple. Restore the bridge for vehicular traffic, using retrofits if needed, and place the bridge on higher abutments. One thing to consider in reading the above articles is that some of these people don't know what they are talking about. Not that I know everything, but I can say that the editorials claim that this bridge's time "has come and gone" is absurd and reflects the view of someone who has not seen the success stories of even older truss bridges carrying heavier traffic, such as the Michigan's Maple Road Bridge or the 2nd Street Bridge. Indiana itself even contributes a number of restored truss bridges, which safely carry vehicular traffic, in Allen County, where there are three pin connected truss bridges restored for vehicular traffic. On a rural dirt road, a sturdy Pennsylvania through truss, properly restored, can certainly serve the demands of the vehicles that need to use the road. I would love to know what the county would do if this was an 1860s wooden covered bridge here. I bet it would be restored in place for vehicular traffic. I doubt the newspaper would say "oh well, its time has come and gone" if the county tried to demolish a covered bridge. Covered bridges can be restored using a discriminatory National Covered Bridge Preservation Act's funding, which makes it easier to restore them. This money is not available for truss bridges. But if wooden covered bridges have been restored for vehicles in other places, and "safely serve the road" than there is no reason a sturdy steel truss bridge can't. This bridge can be restored, and it can safely serve the road it is on, but people just don't want to admit it.

One problem that is mentioned, regarding the fact that federal money is available for replacement but not restoration is something that I cannot argue, although I can suggest it needs to change. Although the raw cost of restoration is cheaper, it costs the county more because higher levels of government won't pay for repair. All I can say is that this corrupt funding policy (it exists in neighboring Michigan too) that wastes millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars yearly has been the single most devastating piece of legislature for the historic bridge community ever conceived. Not only does it encourage local governments to select more costly replacement, it discourages them from engaging in routine maintenance on bridges. Why maintain a bridge, if you can just let it fall apart and get a free new bridge? This policy has been a grotesque waste of taxpayer dollars. Remember, this is your money being used unwisely!

Also, the Northwest Indiana Times seems to think that relocating the bridge somewhere is the perfect solution. It isn't. Relocation reduces the historic significance of a bridge. Granted it is better than demolition, but so many times governments look to relocation as the "easy way out" and I wish this would stop. The condition of the bridge on State Line Road is such that it deserves to carry vehicular traffic once again.

The demolition of this bridge will be one of the great atrocities in the state of Indiana. No one who wrote the articles shown in the box above was really qualified to evaluate the historic significance of the bridge. They seemed to dismiss the bridge as old and interesting but nothing more. I am not an engineer, but having visited 700 historic bridges in person at the time of composing this article, I feel I have some knowledge in the matter. One-lane pin connected Pennsylvania truss bridges are the rarest of the "common" truss configurations, such as the Pratt, Warren, Parker etc configurations. Pennsylvania truss bridges show up more often on large massive-member bridges (although they are fairly rare there too) but to find a bridge of this length showing this configuration is extremely rare. This bridge is also significant as the oldest remaining highway truss bridge in Lake County, which only has three highway truss bridges right now anyway.

So to summarize. The organization of funding in this country wastes taxpayer dollars, and results in historic bridge demolitions far too often, even when it is not economical. The State Line Bridge could be restored for less total funding, regardless of source, and could safely serve the needs of the quiet dirt road it is on. The county and local newspaper for whatever reason does not want to restore the bridge using a solution that would make everyone happy. Restoring the bridge on new higher abutments would be the perfect solution, since it would satisfy all the needs of the river and road. But knowing Lake County, I don't doubt that they will obliterate this priceless artifact that is in restorable condition.

Information and Findings From DHPA Historic Bridge Survey

Statement of Significance

The use of unusually light verticals and the absence of any sub-strut gives this truss a delicate appearance. The absence of adjustable diagonals or counters is also unusual for a pin-connected truss. The bridge retains its otherwise unadorned original members.

Architectural Description

Seated upon concrete abutments and wingwalls this pin-connected Pennsylvania through truss with sub-ties spans 222' in twelve panels bounded by intermediate verticals of laced double angles. The angle of the top chord varies for each two panels of the center and the adjoining side sections. A horizontal member (of laced double angles) placed midway between the chords suggests a mid-vertical pin-point for the double-intersecting diagonals of the pairs of central panels and for the outer panel of the adjoining side section. Double die-forged eyebars serve as diagonals and as sub-ties. U-bolted to pins below the lower chord, I floor beams support the timber deck with its 16'3" roadway and 19' of vertical clearance.