Thanks Francis, your words were an inspiration for me to look beyond what the MN Dot had listed on their web site…
This bridge is currently slated for demolition and replacement by MnDOT. The project website makes a big deal about the fact that this bridge is fracture critical. This, despite the fact that research has shown that fracture critical bridges are safe if routinely maintained and inspected (an expectation that should exist for all bridges). However, many DOT’s like to condemn bridges using the fracture critical excuse. HistoricBridges.org did not find any serious deterioration on this bridge that could not be fixed through rehabilitation. Rehabilitation would doubtless cost vastly less than the option of demolition and replacement that MNDOT has chosen. It is unclear why taxpayer dollars are being wasted on replacing a bridge that is feasible to rehabilitate. The money saved by rehabilitation could be used to preserve additional bridges, pave roads, etc. Instead, MNDOT has taken on a misleading claim that the existing historic bridge if rehabilitated would cost more to maintain in the future. This is a silly statement to make. If the replacement bridge is built of pre-stressed concrete, it will be built of a material extremely susceptible to rapid deterioration following the formation of even very small cracks. If the replacement bridge is built of steel, it will have to be painted and protected from rust just like the existing bridge. Finally, the existing bridge’s two lanes appear sufficient for traffic volumes. It is not apparent that more lanes are needed. Moreover, the proposed replacement bridge will also be two lanes. This indicates that replacement is not needed to increase traffic volume capacity.
http://historicbridges.org/bridges/browser/?bridgebrowser=minnesota/redwing/