Contextual Bridge Task Force Report-Oct 21 2009 · 2020-05-29 · Contextual Bridge Preservation Task Force Report – October 21, 2009 – Page 1 The Contextual Bridge Preservation

Contextual Bridge Preservation Task Force Report – October 21, 2009 – Page 1

The Contextual Bridge Preservation Task Force was formed at the request of Deputy Secretary Rick Hogg, following a meeting that was held with Dee Durham, Paula Coyne, Ron DeNadai, and Henry Rowan in June, 2008. The objective of the Task Force was to establish a protocol for addressing contextual preservation of bridges. Issues that needed to be addressed included historic preservation, Smart Transportation, planning, context sensitive design, streamlining, scoping, and public involvement. The previously developed Stone Arch Bridge management plan was utilized as a model for the group. Early on, the geographic area of responsibility for the Task Force was established as Bucks and Chester Counties. Bridges that serve Collectors and Local Roads (Functional Classification) were the special focus of study, although bridges on arterials could be considered. Members of the Task Force were:

Ira Beckerman (co-chair) PennDOT BOD, EQAD Chuck Davies (co-chair) PennDOT District 6-0 Dan Stewart PennDOT BOD, HQAD Steve Roth PennDOT Office of Chief Counsel Deborah Suciu Smith Federal Highway Administration Susan Zacher Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission Carol Lee Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission Dee Durham S.A.V.E. Henry Rowan Institute of Community Preservation David Kimmerly Preservation Pennsylvania

Beginning September 26, 2008 and ending February 9, 2009, nine meetings were held. Two specific deliverables were developed – a revised Project Development Process Form and a statement of principles on Bridge Aesthetics. In addition, a series of recommendations were produced by the Task Force as a result of the meetings. The recommendations were reviewed by the Bureau of Design in a series of meetings in May and June, 2009. Decisionmaking The Task Force sought to create a process that guides key decisions on the preservation of an existing bridge, including the decisions to save or replace an existing bridge and whether a bridge eligible for listing in the National Register


of Historic Places should be rehabilitated to standards set by the Secretary of the Interior to keep its historic fabric. (See Figure 1) Ultimately, the process had to create a methodology to evaluate the six possible solutions in addressing bridge needs: preservation, rehabilitation, reconstruction, replacement, addition of a second bridge, and removal. .


Figure 1. Contextual Bridge Preservation Design Concept Tree The decision to rehabilitate/repair, reconstruct, or replace a bridge in Bucks or Chester county is initially made during the programming process by the sponsor, who submits a proposal to the responsible planning organization. The planners then review a more detailed description of any structural deficiencies before programming a project. During the programming component, although there is an opportunity for public involvement; the public usually does not participate at this stage. It is during preliminary design that type, size, and location are established, usually following a scoping process that begins the environmental analysis. As

Eligible

Yes No

Save? Rehabilitate

Yes No Yes No

New Bridge Context Sensitive

Design

Preserve (Repair) or Rehabilitate

To NR Standards

Not to NR Standards


additional structural, environmental, and cultural data is gathered, the design is further advanced. PennDOT evaluates the potential environmental impacts, the potential hydraulic issues (e.g., history of flooding), and the condition of the existing structure in detail. Based on this analysis, specific solutions are developed. It is during the preliminary design that public input is sought, but the views of the public are rarely available for the scoping or Type, Size and Location (T,S&L) step. In final design, details on the proposed solution are resolved, but generally the solution is not revisited. Form liners, decorative treatments, and other measures (faux arches, historic lighting, etc.) are considered as mitigation commitments, rather than integrated into the design in a context-sensitive way. Generally, decorative measures are taken in response to community concerns. The Task Force believes that a fuller exchange of data and ideas earlier in the process would lead to better initial decisions and fewer modifications later in the process, conserving efforts and resources and improving community relations. For example, the following information, some of which is not generally available on individual bridge projects until preliminary design begins, would aid the decision-making process if it were properly collected before programming the bridge project: a thorough bridge inspection, knowledge of public sentiment regarding the bridge, an accurate estimate of costs for each solution, and an inventory of major environmental issues associated with each solution. Much of this data is not available until preliminary design is well under way. Moreover, bridges requiring rehabilitation or replacement are often older bridges that are load restricted, metal bridges with critical details, and a significant loss of mass; and, deteriorated concrete bridges with difficult-to-detect internal corrosion. Even the availability of an excellent and detailed inspection report leaves many unknowns as to the long-term viability of a rehabilitated bridge. From an asset management perspective, investing significant resources into a bridge that can last an additional 10 years may not be as an appropriate use of tax dollars as investing into a bridge that can last an additional 50 years. To provide better decisions, the Task Force recommends a three-step decision-making approach:

• A first analysis is conducted during planning, using better environmental, community, and transportation information so that the planners can


program a bridge solution that is workable and addresses the social and transportation needs of the community.

• A second analysis during preliminary engineering evaluates detailed

environmental and bridge inspection data, as well as more extensive public involvement. It is during preliminary engineering that Section 106 is conducted. The second analysis not only supports the proposed design but also tests the original decision. It is also during the second analysis that the decision to follow Secretary of Interior Standards (SOI) is made, if a bridge rehabilitation is selected. If substantially different information arises during preliminary engineering, the opportunity to change direction is still available.

• A third analysis during final design refines the design.

A process map for this three-step approach is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 represents existing tools, such as the Smart Transportation Strike-Off letter (SOL 432-08-12), and new tools, such as a New Project Development Process Form (see below) proposed by the Task Force.

PHASES ANALYSIS TOOLS

Proj Devel Process Form

Additional Bridge Removal

Transportation Improvement Plan

Public Involvement

Public Involvement

Preservation List

Public Involvement

Section 106

LRTP

Preservation

(Repair)

Planning/ Project Initiation

Project Identification/ Prioritization

S.D. Bridges

First Analysis

Scoping Field View

Rehab/Reconst

Replacement

4(f)


KEY

Figure 2. Decision Process Map What Matters? The Task Force recommends that the first analysis during planning should be guided by a New Project Development Process (NPDP) Form and a scoping field view, which would provide more information on environmental and community issues than is gathered currently. This NPDP Form is intended to collect specific information during the planning process necessary to guide a sound decision to repair, replace, rehabilitate, reconstruct, or remove a bridge. The information to be gathered fits within six major themes identified by the Task Force: use, setting, public involvement, structure, land use plans, and cost.

Use is defined as the transportation function of the bridge, including approach roadways and the bridge’s immediate environs. It includes such sub-themes as ADA compliance, pedestrian access, other non-motorized use (bicycles, etc.), bridge function and posting, current ADT, functional

Project Analysis Engineering and Environmental Study

Second Analysis SOL

432-08-12

Rehab?Recon

SOI

Rehab/Recon non-SOI

Additional Bridge/ Repl.

TS&L NEPA/ Prelim

engineering

Final Design

Refinement

SOL 432-08-12

Public Involvement

Construction

Interim Decision

s

Tools

Removal

Final Decision

s

Dist 6-0 Committee to

review appearance

Preservation

(Repair)


classification of the adjacent road segments, traffic composition (trucks/cars), and the local network.

Setting is defined as the environmental setting for the bridge, and includes such sub-themes as: surrounding land use, historical significance, hydraulics, approaches, environmental impacts, wetland impacts, archaeology, and aesthetic and visual impacts. Public Involvement is defined as the interest(s) of the community in the bridge and bridge solution. The Team also added Environmental Justice issues to Public Involvement. Structure is defined as the condition, type, and hydraulics of the existing bridge, as well as the feasibility of either rehabilitation or replacement. Land Use Plans is defined as the presence of any land use plans related to the bridge or immediate environs, including any projected growth models. Cost is defined as the cost of any proposed solution including future maintenance, value of the solution, and private/public partnerships.

Once the relevant information is collected it is to be considered within three major contexts: transportation, land use, and community. The Transportation Context is the combined current and projected future use of the current bridge, its relationship in the local and regional transportation network and immediate environs, as well as its condition, type and hydraulics. The Land Use Context subsumes both the physical setting and land use, both current and projected. Land use needs to consider comprehensive planning, zoning and other land protection policies, and Long Range Transportation Planning. Community Context incorporates community issues, such as those identified in the Community Context Audit. It includes local cultural features, the role of the bridge in the community, and locally identified traffic or safety issues. In addition, the Community Context includes public and local governmental sentiment regarding the bridge and proposed solution.


A Bridge Management Plan? The Task Force identified a gap in the current data collecting: A bridge on a preferred list for historic preservation must be eligible or listed in the National Register as either an individual resource or as a contributing resource to a historic district. The National Register provides guidance and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act provides a process for determining whether a bridge is historic. Currently, all local and state-owned bridges in Bucks and Chester Counties have been evaluated for individual eligibility. It would be worthwhile to have the PHMC, with the assistance of PennDOT, review that list as well as the list of bridges 50 years or older to see if circumstances have changed that warrant a re-evaluation for individual bridges. Many, but not all of the bridges older than 50 years have been evaluated as to whether or not they contribute to a historic district. For the list of bridges to be compiled that is considered for historic preservation, potential historic districts should also be reviewed as well as any associated bridges. At that point, a full list of eligible and contributing bridges could be known. By contrast, some bridges, though they might not qualify on a list for historic preservation, are the focus of strong community attachment. Those bridges serve an important function to the community distinct from transportation, perhaps as a gateway to the community, a meeting point for local events, a recognizable symbol for the chamber of commerce, or part of the community mythology or literature. The Task Force has created this category of bridges that merit preservation through their contextual relationship, rather than through historic significance. The planners have not gathered information on historic preservation use in the planning/programming process, largely because historic bridge management plans are not currently available statewide. Planners do not take into account contextual preservation because the concept is new and no plans have been developed. The NPDP Form presumes existing lists of those bridges that merit historic preservation or contextual preservation. For bridges that are eligible or contributing to the National Register, a management plan can be created that identifies which bridges are NR eligible, and secondly, which of these bridges should be managed for long-term preservation. An analogous process is envisioned for the preferred list for contextual preservation. Project sponsors


would be responsible for creating these contextual lists for bridges under their jurisdiction – the municipality for local bridges; the Commonwealth for state-owned bridges. Local communities would be asked to submit to the MPO a list of bridges identifying those for long-term contextual preservation. The MPO would use that information as part of the programming process. PennDOT would be responsible for producing the same list for state-owned bridges. The Task Force believes that creating the list is a local responsibility, and there are a number of different methods a community could use to establish the list. For example, municipalities could be asked to generate a list of bridges that are important to the community and submit that list to the Department along with its annual applications to the Liquid Fuels Tax Fund, or, in submitting information directly to the Bridge Management System. One-Lane Bridge Standards When an existing one-lane bridge has to be replaced, Department guidance typically recommends a replacement wide enough for two traffic lanes with total widths no less than 24 feet. However, even the 24-foot 2-lane bridge is wider than an existing one-lane bridge, which could be 15 to 18 feet wide. The Department’s Design Manual allows a one-lane bridge replacement under the following conditions:

(m) When an existing bridge meets all of the following conditions: • on a facility functionally classified as a local road off the National Highway System, • has an ADT less than 100, • needs reconstructed for structural reasons but there is no evidence of a site-specific safety problem, and • no existing or anticipated significant land use conflicts exist, the replacement bridge can be constructed with the same width as the existing bridge. The minimum width of a one-lane bridge should be 4.5 m (15 ft) unless the designer concludes that a narrower bridge can function effectively and the Bureau of Design, Highway Quality Assurance Division concurs. This criterion applies to bridges that are reconstructed on the same alignment and bridges that are reconstructed on a more favorable


alignment. Alignment and sight distance should be carefully studied so that they are not compromised. Appropriate safety mitigation measures should be provided. (reference: SOL 432-08-12, p. 1-16, change #2 to DM-2, General Bridge Width Table Notes)

These minimum criteria are more restrictive than current AASHTO Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (ADT ≤ 400) (VLVLR). For very low volume roads (ADT less than or equal to 400), AASHTO distinguishes new construction from existing bridges. Newly constructed bridges are bridges on roadways where there is no existing roadway or bridge in place (AASHTO 2001: 20). The existing bridge category also includes replacement of a bridge for structural reasons, and that the replacement bridge can be constructed with the same width as the existing bridge (p. 21), provided there is no evidence of a site-specific safety problem related to the width of the bridge. In order to align Department guidance with AASHTO VLVLR, SOL 432-08-12 and DM-2 should be revised to increase the maximum ADT to 400 from 100, provided all other AASHTO VLVLR conditions are met. The Task Force also extensively discussed whether the 400 ADT maximum is too restrictive, or whether a maximum hourly limit would be a better measure. In its most simplistic interpretation, a 400 ADT implies one vehicle every 3.6 minutes; however, real traffic conditions are not perfectly even. At the heart of the discussion was whether Department guidance should be revised or whether design exceptions should be used on a case-by-case basis. Given the existence of AASHTO guidance for very low-volume roads, it was agreed that it was reasonable for the Department to align with AASHTO VLVLR guidance. However, it was also reasonable to assume that 400 is a number arrived at by professional judgment, and that further research into very low volume roads is appropriate for one-lane bridge replacements (See Recommendation 4). Preservation Activities and Funding Bridges do not age in a purely linear fashion. Deterioration of a new bridge occurs in a roughly linear fashion, but at some point the bridge deteriorates in an accelerated fashion. Department experience indicates that pro-active preservation activities (a.k.a. preventative maintenance. See PennDOT SOL 430-05-07) on a bridge before this transition point are much more effective than preservation activities after the bridge begins its accelerated decline. Undertaking preservation activities of the existing bridge population is part of


an overall asset management program. Bridges deemed worthy of preservation – either because of their historic significance or local support - should receive an overall asset management evaluation and be integrated into the overall program. Currently, the Department has a small preservation fund that is used to extend the service life of selected bridges, as well as the use of maintenance work force activities. In addition, FHWA Critical Bridge Funds have been more available for preservation activities than in the past. Bridges that are identified as worthy of preservation should also be placed into the queue for that preservation funding or maintenance work force activities. Additional funding could be programmed for preservation activities that are unique to some of these bridge types, such as re-pointing for masonry bridges. Additionally, preservation activities on historic bridges can be conducted in a way that is sensitive to the Secretary of Interior Standards. These best practices could be codified into a maintenance manual, much as the best practices for maintenance of Stone Arch Bridges has been codified (PennDOT 2007). Training to Department maintenance forces for repair and preservation techniques could also be part of the best practices. Bridge Appearance and Public Acceptance The Task Force recognized that in cases where a new bridge is warranted, the “look” of that bridge can become a contentious issue between the Department and the local community. The use of context-sensitive solutions and Smart Transportation principles are shifting planning and programming focuses to a more community-based approach. To advance this effort further, the Task Force developed a Principles of Bridge Aesthetics Statement, with the goal of creating bridge designs that will be appealing to the public and less controversial during preliminary design. While this Statement is provided as part of the Task Force work, its acceptance by the Department is problematic, chiefly because of the difficulty in gaining agreement among bridge designers and other stakeholders over what the reigning aesthetic should be. Some states, such as New York (NYSDOT 2006), have established aesthetic criteria and this avenue may eventually be adopted in Pennsylvania; however, at this time establishing aesthetic criteria is beyond the scope of this report. Deliverables


The Task Force developed one product that can be used in making contextual bridge decisions that can be accepted by the Department. The New Project Development Process Form for Bridges is a method for assessing whether replacement, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or removal is the appropriate proposed project to be programmed for the TIP. The Bridge Aesthetics at PennDOT is a statement of principles for the aesthetic considerations in designing a new bridge during the design process. It is noted here as work that was completed by the Task Force, but is not advanced as a formal recommendation for adoption.

New Project Development Process (NPDP) Form for Bridges The New Project Development Process for Bridges (NPDP) Form is specific for bridge projects and is composed from elements of the former P2 form, the Community Context Audit, and informed by Smart Transportation principles. The NPDP Form identifies bridge needs in terms of transportation, land use and community contexts, plus a feasibility evaluation, and is organized into six sections: need; transportation context; land use context; community context; value to cost analysis; and recommendation.

Need – What is the defined need for the project? Transportation Context – a description of the existing bridge; where it exists

within a roadway system and attributes of that system; and what present or proposed multi-modal features are associated with the bridge and roadway system. The roadway typology is drawn directly from the Smart Transportation Typology (SOL 432-08-12).

Land Use Context – Is the area in the vicinity of the bridge part of a regional plan? Second, is the bridge historic? Third, is the bridge in a 4(f) setting or otherwise protected setting?

Community Context – How does the community see the bridge? Are there any community-defined important features that are in the vicinity of the bridge? Are there any community-defined safety, traffic, or growth issues associated with the bridge that are not captured in existing plans or the transportation context? Finally, what is the public and local governmental sentiment toward any of the possible project solutions, e.g. replacement, rehabilitation, removal, etc.? (Note: much of the Community Context Section has been drawn from the Community Context Audit.)


Value to Cost Analysis – This is a step-by-step analysis of each of the

possible project scenarios: replacement, reconstruction, rehabilitation, removal. Each of the possible scenarios is tested against project need in the current year, and bridge design year (which may be interpreted as the projected service life of the structure), either meeting or not meeting the need. In turn, each scenario is tested against Land Use issues and Community Context issues to determine whether the scenario adequately addresses those issues. The cost of each scenario is estimated, which also includes costs that are often overlooked, i.e. delay costs and maintenance costs. Finally, the cost per year of service is compared against the three contexts of Transportation, Land Use, and Community to show as clearly as possible how each scenario meets the overall need of the project.

Recommendation – The final matrix in the Value to Cost Analysis should form the basis of a recommended scenario. The justification for that scenario should be supported by the final matrix.

The NPDP Form is filled out by the Sponsor, the MPO and the relevant PennDOT District To provide some objectivity and repeatability in the final matrix assessments of High, Medium, or Low in meeting overall stated need, the Department should consider a scoring system for the Transportation Outcomes section. An example for illustrative purposes is provided as an attachment. Estimated Costs that are identified in the Value to Cost Analysis are recognizable, except for delay costs and maintenance. Experience demonstrates that public controversy in replacing an existing bridge could bring significant project delivery delays, e.g. Pond Eddy, and that these delays result in both additional time and money. The potential of added costs of public controversy to a replacement that might not accrue to a rehabilitation need to be explicitly considered. The Community Context should provide an early indication that there could be significant public controversy associated with the replacement of a locally popular bridge, and that it should be possible to estimate what those delays mean in additional costs. Some internal analysis of recent projects, such as Pond Eddy, should be undertaken to model these costs. Although the Task Force did not formally comment on this, the NPDP Form mimics much of the thought process for completing a 4(f) analysis. As a project goes into design, if there is a 4(f) resource being affected, the NPDP


analysis should lay the ground work for the best decision that avoids, minimizes, and mitigates the use of a 4(f) resource.

Bridge Aesthetics at PennDOT The Bridge Aesthetics at PennDOT Statement is an attempt to guide bridge designers toward a true CSS approach, emphasizing that aesthetic design should be integrated into design from the beginning and extends beyond mitigation commitments. Included in the statement are seven principles and three specific recommendations to the Department. The Task Force noted that one aspect of community concern and objection is replacing a bridge perceived to be attractive with one perceived to be ugly. When objections arise during preliminary engineering, this concern can be mitigated by adding more attractive design features to address the concern. The Task Force, however, recommended a more proactive approach: The Department would develop standard bridge designs that are effective, cost-effective, and attractive. By having a more attractive replacement option the Task Force believes community concerns will be lessened and there will be less of a need for costly redesigns. Because of the difficulty in gaining consensus on what aesthetic will be primary, a committee that will review the appearance of a bridge and use appearance as an acceptance criterion may have a greater effect on the look of a bridge than a prescriptive aesthetic approach. The Aesthetic Statement can still serve as a backdrop for the committee discussion on appearance.


Recommendations The scope of the Task Force was limited to a pilot program for Bucks and Chester Counties in District 6-0; however, the deliverables have wider applicability in the Department. Consequently, the deliverables and recommendations made should be evaluated for wider implementation.

1. Provide the New Project Development Process (NPDP) Form to the DM-1 Rewrite Task Force for consideration. The Task Force believes the NPDP Form incorporates Smart Transportation principles and may guide the DM-1 Rewrite Task Force in revising its process. The NPDP Form is strictly for bridge projects, and as such may be considered a subset of the projects considered under DM-1. (Author’s note: At the time of the preparation of this report, there was an active Linking Planning and NEPA Task Force. The LPN Task force now acts more as a steering committee, with the DM-1 Rewrite Task Force now charged with integrating Linking Planning and NEPA principles into Design – October 21, 2009)

2. The PHMC will review the individual eligibility of historic bridges in Bucks and Chester Counties, and bridges greater than 50 years in age. The PHMC will review potential historic districts in Bucks and Chester Counties and their associated bridges to determine whether there are additional contributing bridges. PennDOT and FHWA would assist in funding and logistical support.

3. Local governments would be responsible for recommending bridges for contextual preservation and communicating that information to the Department. Add a field to the Bridge Management System for contextual preservation, providing a definition in BMS for contextual preservation. Add to BMS the list of bridges that would be on a contextual preservation list and confirm the accuracy of the list with local municipalities on an annual basis. Add basic data for bridges under 20 feet in length, if the bridge is on the contextual preservation list.

4. Revise SOL 432-08-12 and DM-2 to bring one-lane bridge guidance in line with AASHTO VLVLR guidance. Specifically, the condition of 100 ADT for allowing a one-lane bridge replacement should be raised to 400 ADT, provided the other AASHTO VLVLR conditions are met.

5. Request from TRB committee that drafted the Guidance, the rationale behind the choice of 400 ADT as defining a low-volume road.


6. Local entities should be encouraged to use Federal Funds for bridge

preservation, including bridges worthy of historic preservation or local preservation, through issuance of a strike-off letter. State-owned bridges that are worthy for historic preservation or location preservation can also use Federal funds, and can be encouraged through issuance of a strike-off letter.

7. Request permission from VaDOT to circulate their Best Practices for the Rehabilitation and Moving of Historic Metal Truss Bridges, VTRC 06-R31 (2006) as a Strike-off Letter.

8. Establish a CSS workgroup consisting of representatives from Engineering District 6-0, Bridge Quality Assurance Division, Environmental Quality Assurance Division, and the PHMC to develop a regional style for bridges in Bucks and Chester Counties, as per below. Suggested members include: Monica Harrower (6-0), Kristen Langer (BQAD), Peter Berg (6-0). Part of the mission is to adapt the TL-2 (open) parapet design to this group of bridges.

For one-span “workhorse” bridges that have no obvious overriding social context, it may be appropriate to develop a regional/county style to be replicated throughout the region/county. Templates for such a style may be found in Pennsylvania concrete bridges of the 1920’s, or, early Pennsylvania Turnpike Bridges. The style would be executed in currently available and economic materials, using current technology and simple but clear motifs. In addition, open parapets that also meet crash standards could be used to minimize the visual thickness of the superstructure.

9. Implement the following recommendation as a pilot in Chester and Bucks County, and provide a recommendation on its utility and continued applicability within two years

The Department should re-initiate the program of attaching the names and date of sponsor, bridge designer, and contractor into the superstructure in a plainly visible location.

10. District 6-0 should establish an in-house committee to review the appearance of smaller bridges that are not designed as workhorse bridges (see recommendation 8 above). Appearance will be a criterion for acceptance of the design.


Bibliography AASHTO

2001 Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low Volume Local Roads (ADT ≤ 400). American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington.

Gottemoeller, Frederick

2008 Bridge Aesthetic Sourcebook: Practical Ideas for Short and Medium Span Bridges. TRB Subcommittee on Bridge Aesthetics. AFF10-2. (DRAFT)

http://bridgeaesthetics.org/ Gauvreau, Paul

2006 Innovation and Aesthetics in Bridge Engineering. Canadian Civil Engineer 23.5.

http://www.civ.utoronto.ca/pg/Publications/Innovation%20and%20Aesthetics%20in%20Bridge%20Engineering.pdf

n.d The Three Myths of Bridge Aesthetics.

http://www.civ.utoronto.ca/pg/Publications/3%20Myths%2002%2005%2023%202.pdf

New York State DOT

2006 Bridge Manual, New York State Department of Transportation Office of Structures 4th Edition, Section 23: Aesthetics

PennDOT

2005 Community Context Audit http://65.207.30.22/css/www/

2002 Design Manual Part 2, Highway Design. Publication 13M 2005 Bridge Preservation Programmatic Agreement. SOL 430-05-07. 2007 Stone Arch Bridge Maintenance Manual

www.penndotcrm.org

2008 Smart Transportation Guidebook. 2008 Smart Transportation Interim Policy. SOL 432-08-10. 2008 Design Flexibility, Design Manual Part 1A. SOL 432-08-12. 2008 Section 4(f) Handbook. Publication 349.

http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/Bureaus/pdBOS.nsf/FormsAndPubsHomePage?OpenFrameSet

2007 Stone Arch Bridge Management Plan (District 6-0)

www.penndotcrm.org


Rowan, Henry

n.d. A Proposal to Address the Remediation of Small, Historic Bridges in Pennsylvania.

http://www.paluc.org/transportation_issues/baby_bridges.htm

New Project Development Process – BridgesSponsor Responsibil ity Page 1 MPO/RPO Responsibil ity District Task Force Responsibil ity General Information County ___________ Municipality _______________ Contact Person _____________________ Mailing Address _____________________________________ Telephone _________ FAX _________ E-mail _________ Existing Needs □ Structural Deficiency Ratings

Deck_____ Superstruct_____ Substruct_____ □ Safety Specify: ________________ □ Poor Traffic LOS Current_____ Design Year______ □ Functionally Obsolete Specify: ____________________ □ Substandard Design features (geometry) Specify: ____________ □ Preventative Maintenance □ Emergency Relief Detour length for Life Services _______ miles

TRANSPORTATION CONTEXT BMS Number: ______________ Local Name: __________________________ Feature Crossed: ___________________________ Bridge Type:___________ Length:______ Width:______ Year Built:_____ Year Last Rehabilitated: ________ Risk Assessment: __________ Vertical Clearance:_____________ Weight Limit:__________ Sidewalks: □ None □ One Side (width:___) □ Both Sides (cum width: ____) Roadway Name: _________________________________________________ SR or Twp. Route No.: _____ Federal-Aid System: Y/N Roadway Typology – Approach Roads

Current Year Design Year

Rural Places

Suburban Neighborhood Suburban Corridor

Suburban Center

Town/Village

Neighborhood Tow

n Center

Urban Core

Rural Places

Suburban Neighborhood Suburban Corridor

Suburban Center

Town/Village

Neighborhood Tow

n Center

Urban Core

Regional Arterial

New Project Development Process – BridgesSponsor Responsibil ity Page 2 MPO/RPO Responsibil ity District Task Force Responsibil ity

Community Arterial

Community Collector

Neighborhood Collector

Local Road/Street

Functional Classification – Approach Roads

Current Year Design Year Urban Rural Urban Rural Interstate Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector

Minor Collector

Local Current ADT: ________ Current Design Hourly Volume: _________ Truck %: __________ Year Last Improved: _______ Directional Distribution (%): ______________ Posted Speed: ________ Design Speed: __________ Pavement Width: ___________ Shoulder Width: _________ Multimodalism: Is the bridge regularly used by bicyclists or pedestrians? □ yes □ no If yes: please check for all applicable: Commuters □ yes □ no Bicycle touring □ yes □ no Bicycle clubs □ yes □ no Hiking, walking, or running clubs □ yes □ no Tourism/sightseeing □ yes □ no Is the bridge included in or related to bicycle or pedestrian

facilities identified in a master plan? □ yes □ no

New Project Development Process – BridgesSponsor Responsibil ity Page 3 MPO/RPO Responsibil ity District Task Force Responsibil ity Could the bridge provide continuity and linkages with existing

or proposed bicycle/ pedestrian facilities? □ yes □ no Is the bridge included in or related to a regional/ local

recreational plan □ yes □ no □ Rails-to-trails □ Greenways □ Local, State, National Parks


LAND USE CONTEXT Is this immediate region part of a regional plan or transportation plan? Regional Plan □ yes □ no If yes, identify which plan: □ MPO □ County □ Township □ Boro □ Other □ Long Range Transportation Plan Has the area in the vicinity of the proposal been identified as part of planned growth? □ yes □ no If yes, please describe: Has the area in the vicinity of the proposal been identified as part of a redevelopment plan? □ yes □ no If yes, how does the proposed project relate to the anticipated redevelopment? □ yes □ no Are there other scheduled or planned projects that are part of the local network that would significantly affect the roadway typology or functional classification of the bridge’s approach roads? □ yes □ no If yes, please describe: □ Bridge NR Eligible or Listed □ Bridge contributing to NR District □ Bridge locally designated significant Land adjacent to bridge: □ NR District, but bridge not contributing □ Known archaeological site □ Active Farm □ Agricultural Protection □ Conservation Easement □ Stream Restoration □ Wetlands present □ Threatened/ Endangered Species present □ 4(f) Resource (publicly owned park/ recreation area, wildlife/waterfowl

refuge, National/ State Forests or State Gamelands) □ Other. Please describe: __________________________________________

COMMUNITY CONTEXT Are there important cultural features or identifiers within the project area, including local history? □ yes □ no If yes, please describe: Are there important social/community features or identifiers within the project area? □ yes □ no

New Project Development Process – BridgesSponsor Responsibil ity Page 5 MPO/RPO Responsibil ity District Task Force Responsibil ity If yes, please describe: Does the bridge/roadway serve as a community gateway? □ yes □ no If yes, please describe: Are there important architectural features within the project area? □ yes □ no If yes, please describe: Are there important natural features within the project area? □ yes □ no If yes, please describe: Are there wild and scenic rivers within the project area? □ yes □ no If yes, please describe: Is the bridge used to support local businesses and/or tourism? □ yes □ no If yes, please describe: Are there community safety issues (not covered under Transportation Context)? □ yes □ no If yes, please describe: Are there community traffic issues (not covered under Transportation Context)? □ yes □ no If yes, please describe: Are there local growth issues (not covered under existing regional planning)? □ yes □ no If yes, please describe: Public Interest Is the bridge on a preferred list for historic preservation (as identified through a historic preservation plan)? □ yes □ no If yes, please describe: Is the bridge on a preferred list for contextual preservation (as identified through a community survey and plan)? □ yes □ no If yes, please describe: Is there demonstrated local governmental support for a rehabilitation option? □ yes □ no If yes, please describe: Are there identified non-governmental groups supporting a rehabilitation option? □ yes □ no If yes, please describe: Is there a demonstrated public controversy over removal or replacement of the bridge? □ yes □ no

New Project Development Process – BridgesSponsor Responsibil ity Page 6 MPO/RPO Responsibil ity District Task Force Responsibil ity If yes, please describe:


VALUE TO COST ANALYSIS Transportation Outcomes Identify how well each scenario addresses applicable project need(s) for both current year and design year (set at 50 years for purposes of this form) (if preventative maintenance, skip)

CURRENT YEAR Replacement Reconstruction Rehabilitation Removal Structural Deficiency

□ Meet □ DNM □ NA

□ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA

Safety □ Meet □ DNM □ NA


LOS □ Meet □ DNM □ NA


Functional Obsolete



Substandard design



DESIGN YEAR Replacement Reconstruction Rehabilitation Removal

Structural Deficiency



Safety □ Meet □ DNM □ NA


LOS □ Meet □ DNM □ NA


Functional Obsolete



Substandard design



DNM – does not meet NA – not applicable Identify how well each scenario addresses other Transportation Issues for both current year and design year:

CURRENT YEAR Replacement Reconstruction Rehabilitation Removal □ Meet □ DNM □

NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA










New Project Development Process – BridgesSponsor Responsibil ity Page 8 MPO/RPO Responsibil ity District Task Force Responsibil ity □ Meet □ DNM □


Identify how well each scenario address Land Use Issues for both current year and design year

CURRENT YEAR Replacement Reconstruction Rehabilitation Removal Regional Plan □ Meet □ DNM □


Historic Resources □ Meet □ DNM □ NA


4(f) □ Meet □ DNM □ NA


Easements □ Meet □ DNM □ NA


Environmental impacts




Regional Plan □ Meet □ DNM □ NA


Historic Resources □ Meet □ DNM □ NA


4(f) □ Meet □ DNM □ NA


Easements □ Meet □ DNM □ NA


Environmental impacts



Identify how well each scenario address Community Issues for both current year and design year

CURRENT YEAR Replacement Reconstruction Rehabilitation Removal Preserve list □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA

Social/Cultural □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA

Natural □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA

Gateway □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA

Tourism □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA

Local transportation

□ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA

Other

DESIGN YEAR Replacement Reconstruction Rehabilitation Removal Preserve list □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA

Social/Cultural □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA

Natural □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA

Gateway □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA

Tourism □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA

Local transportation

□ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA □ Meet □ DNM □ NA

Other

New Project Development Process – BridgesSponsor Responsibil ity Page 9 MPO/RPO Responsibil ity District Task Force Responsibil ity Estimated Costs

Replacement Reconstruction Rehabilitation Removal Preliminary Design

Final Design Construction Sub-total Delay costs* Maintenance** Total *Delay costs covers costs associated with public controversy and includes consultant and in-house efforts in redesign, public involvement, escalations in construction, business impacts, etc. **Maintenance costs should be estimated for the entire anticipated service life, but should not include routine annual or biennial maintenance activities. Value Rate value as high, medium, or low as a summation of each context. For transportation context, rate as how each scenario meets overall stated need(s).

Replacement Reconstruction Rehabilitation Removal Total Costs Anticipated service (years)

Cost per year service Transportation Context □ H □ M □ L □ H □ M □ L □ H □ M □ L □ H □ M □ L Land Use Context □ H □ M □ L □ H □ M □ L □ H □ M □ L □ H □ M □ L Community Context □ H □ M □ L □ H □ M □ L □ H □ M □ L □ H □ M □ L Recommendation Preferred scenario: ___________ Justification: ________________________________________________________

Bridge Aesthetics Principles

In addition to their transportation function, bridges may have a visual impact on their immediate surroundings. The Context Sensitive Solution philosophy presumes bridge designs possess visual and aesthetic attributes. The following principles should apply to the design and execution of all new bridges (including replacements) in Chester and Bucks Counties 1. Bridge aesthetics is defined as creating a structure that is functional, yet visually appealing and befitting the context; a marriage of engineering and architecture. 2. Aesthetics needs to be considered early in bridge design. Aesthetics is not merely an extension of mitigation actions. 3. Designers incorporating aesthetics as part of CSS need to understand the social function of the bridge, for example whether the bridge is a gateway to a community, within a park, rural historic district, or built environment. 4. The existing bridge may or may not be part of the context.

a. While the existing bridge may influence the design of a new bridge to replace it, the existing bridge will be gone and no longer be part of the setting.

b. The existing bridge may be one of a series of similar or dissimilar structures crossing the same location over time, so that the existing bridge may be one of a number of historically authentic designs.

5. Bridge aesthetics is best determined in consultation with the local community. 6. Appearance is influenced by 12 determinants:

a. Horizontal and vertical geometry b. Scale and mass1 c. Superstructure types d. Pier placement and span arrangements

1Although scale and mass is typically understood as an aesthetic visual quality rather than a design element or determinant, we believe it to be as important a determinant of appearance as the others.

e. Abutment placement and exposed height f. Materials2 g. Superstructure shape (including parapets, overlays and railings) h. Pier shape i. Abutment shape j. Color k. Texture, ornamentation, and details. l. Lighting, signing, and landscaping.

The 12 determinants should be considered with regard to social function of the bridge, as part of CSS.

7. With some exceptions, replacement of bridges on existing location may not offer much flexibility in Determinants a through e. Opportunities for aesthetic design may be limited to Determinants g through j, and on occasion Determinant f.

2The basic material a bridge is constructed from also influences its appearance, primarily in the differences between steel and concrete, which are the two primary mediums currently used. This effect on appearance is more substantial and pervasive than the effect of surface textures (Determinant k). To a great extent the choice of steel or concrete has a direct impact on Determinants a, c, g, and j.

New Project Development Process – Bridges Value to Cost Analysis Scoring

Attachment 1 Transportation Outcomes Transportation Context Points Assigned Meets Does

Not Meet

Not Applicable

Current Year Structural Deficiency 3 -3 0 Safety 5 -5 0 Level of Service 1 -1 0 Functional Obsolescence 1 -1 0 Substandard Design 1 -1 0 Promotes Multi-modalism 2 -2 -1 Design Year Structural Deficiency 3 -3 0 Safety 7 -7 0 Level of Service 2 -2 0 Functional Obsolescence 1 -1 0 Substandard Design 2 -1 0 Promotes Multi-modalism 3 -3 -2 Add Current and Design Year points for each outcome. Range of values is +31 to -30. High = >22 Medium = 21 to -5 Low = <-5 Land Use Context Points Assigned Meets Does

Not Meet

Not Applicable

Current Year Regional Plan 4 -4 -1 Historic Places 3 -3 0

FOR

ILLU

STRA

TIO

N

ON

LY


Attachment 1 4(f) 3 -3 0 Easements 2 -2 0 Environmental Impacts 3 -3 0 Design Year Regional Plan 8 -8 -2 Historic Places 3 -3 0 4(f) 3 -3 0 Easements 4 -4 0 Environmental Impacts 2 -2 0 Add Current and Design Year points for each outcome. Range of values is +35 to -35. High = >24 Medium = 23 to -5 Low = <-5 Community Context Points Assigned Meets Does

Not Meet

Not Applicable

Current Year Preserve List 4 -4 -1 Social/Cultural 3 -3 0 Natural 2 -2 0 Gateway 2 -2 0 Tourism 2 -1 0 Local Transportation 2 -2 0 Other 2 -2 0 Design Year Preserve List 4 -4 -1 Social/Cultural 3 -3 0 Natural 2 -2 0 Gateway 2 -2 0 Tourism 2 -1 0 Local Transportation 2 -2 0 Other 2 -2 0


Attachment 1 Add Current and Design Year points for each outcome. Range of values is +32 to -30. High = >22 Medium = 21 to -5 Low = <-5 High, Medium, and Low values for each of the scenarios would be entered under the Value Section for each of the Contexts: Transportation, Land Use, and Community.

Replacement Reconstruction Rehabilitation Removal Total Costs Anticipated service (years)

Cost per year service Transportation Context □ H □ M □ L □ H □ M □ L □ H □ M □ L □ H □ M □ L Land Use Context □ H □ M □ L □ H □ M □ L □ H □ M □ L □ H □ M □ L Community Context □ H □ M □ L □ H □ M □ L □ H □ M □ L □ H □ M □ L

FOR

ILLU

STRA

TIO

N

ON

LY

Documents

Contextual Bridge Task Force Report-Oct 21 2009 · 2020-05-29 · Contextual Bridge Preservation Task Force Report – October 21, 2009 – Page 1 The Contextual Bridge Preservation