Phase 3: Structural restoration of the bridge foundation, arches, and wing walls.

 

This phase would consist of the following tasks, among others which might develop as the work proceeds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Task 3.1: Identify structural restoration needs and estimate restoration cost.

 

This task consists of a design engineering study conducted by persons experienced in restoration of stone arch construction and fully aware of the requirements of the Department of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. This task alone could cost in excess of $30,000. Although restoration of a historic bridge qualifies for federal Transportation Enhancement funding, the design work which necessarily precedes restoration does not qualify; it must be covered by other funding sources. A grant from the Kansas Heritage Trust Fund could be used to pay for the engineering design work. This is an 80% state, 20% (minimum) private or local match program.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Task 3.2: Carry out physical restoration of the bridge structure.

 

A successful completion of Task 3.1 would provide the necessary engineering design resource to include in an application for restoration funding from the federal Transportation Enhancement program. This is an 80% federal, 20% (minimum) private or local match program. There is no stated limit on the size of the grant, although there is a fixed amount per state per year, and a policy of distributing the awards geographically.

 

Preliminary work on this matter suggests the structural restoration could involve all of the following:

►Remove and replace some of the arch stones.

►Replace deteriorated foundation stones.

►Clean out and replace deteriorated mortar.

►Stabilize cracked stones by installing interior metal fasteners. 

►Rebuild damaged wing wall. 

►Install a rainwater diversion system to reduce water infiltration.

All of the work would have to be fully compliant with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Task 3.3: Consider new possibilities.

 

Since the structural restoration of the bridge would return it to its full strength, it would be capable of carrying large vehicles such as tour busses and large motor homes. Given this new capability, it would be desirable to configure the site so that vehicles could drive over the bridge and experience the full effect the bridge has to offer.

 

There are administrative law issues, however, since funding for the replacement bridge stipulated that the old bridge would be taken out of service.

 

A barrier defining the perimeter of a parking area could itself be an interesting addition to the site. The barrier could be made of the same kind of stones used in the bridge. They are in good supply locally, after all.

 

The little kid in all of us really wants to climb up on enormous stones. But it would also be possible to make the stones around the parking area an educational feature of the site by using stones in various stages of cutting, shaping, and dressing as they would have been in preparation for building the bridge.

Return to Plan Summary.