CONTEXTSENSITIVE DESIGN OPTIONS FOR WORKHORSE BRIDGES IN RURAL

CONTEXT-SENSITIVE DESIGN OPTIONS FOR WORKHORSE BRIDGES IN RURAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS National Cooperative Highway Research Program 25 -25, Task 118

Acknowledgments This study was conducted for the AASHTO Committee on the Environment and Sustainability, with funding provided through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 25 -25, Task 118, Context-Sensitive Design Options for Workhorse Bridges in Rural Historic Districts. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) or its sponsoring agencies. The project was managed by Ann Hartell, NCHRP Senior Program Officer and Jarrel Mc. Afee, NCHRP Senior Program Assistant. NCHRP Panel Members: • • Ann L. B. Miller, Virginia DOT Michael A. Fitzpatrick, HDR Robert W. Hadlow, Oregon DOT Dennis A. Randolph, City of Grandview (MO) Kristina Thompson, Pennsylvania DOT Kristen Zschomler, Minnesota DOT David Clarke, Federal Preservation Officer, FHWA Liaison Melissa A. Savage, AASHTO Liaison Project Team • Camilla Mc. Donald, WSP • Steven Bedford, WSP • Kate Umlauf, WSP

NCHRP 25 -25, Task 118 Research Objective Develop a practitioner-ready resource of context-sensitive design examples appropriate for workhorse bridges in rural historic districts. Along with design examples, address design components that are common to successful contextsensitive designs as well as costs associated with such designs. • What successes have DOTs and SHPOs had regarding contextsensitive design of workhorse bridges in rural historic districts? • What designs are appropriate in a historic context? • How do practitioners evaluate the historic context of a bridge?

AASHTO Bridge Aesthetics Sourcebook: Practical Ideas for Short- and Medium-Span Bridges • • • Practical Tips When Historic Bridges or Historic Settings are Involved Key Sections: • Design Guidelines • Context Sensitive Design/Context Sensitive Solutions and How to Achieve Them • Practical Tips when Historic Bridges or Historic Settings are Involved Where are we today?

NCHRP 25 -25, Task 118 Project Activities q State of Practice Survey q In-Depth Survey q Case Studies

State of Practice In-Depth Survey Case Studies State of Practice Survey Purpose and Methodology Purpose • Identify the state DOTs, SHPOs and private practitioners that have experience with the CSD/S process for replacement workhorse bridges in historic district. Methodology • Literature Review • Screening Survey

State of Practice In-Depth Survey Case Studies State of Practice Survey Results • • • Screening survey sent to both DOTs and SHPOs Sent to private sector practitioners with potential experience Twenty-two out of 50 states responded One state submitted responses from both agencies Four responses from private sector

State of Practice In-Depth Survey Case Studies State of Practice Survey Results: Workhorse Bridge Replacement Experience and Use of CSD/S Workhorse Bridge Replacement Experience in Historic District Use of CSD/S for Bridge Design in a Historic District

State of Practice In-Depth Survey Case Studies State of Practice Survey Results: Comments and Project Examples from Respondents BRIDGE NAME Stinesville Road Bridge No. 12 STATE (COUNTY) Indiana (Monroe) Lowell Canal Bridges (pending construction) Massachusetts (Middlesex) Bear Tavern Road and Jacobs Creek Road Bridges New Jersey (Mercer) Windham Street Bridge Ohio (Portage) Chenoweth Creek Bridge Oregon (Wasco) Geigel Hill Road Bridge Pennsylvania (Bucks) River Road Bridge Pennsylvania (Bucks) State Route 926 Bridge Pennsylvania (Chester) Willow Grove Avenue Bridge over SEPTA Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) York Street Bridges South Carolina (Aiken) Pine Street Bridge South Dakota (Yankton) Secretarys Sand Road Bridge No. 6092 Virginia (Albemarle) Morgan’s Ford Bridge No. 6019 Virginia (Warren) Scrabble Creek Bridge West Virginia (Fayette) Kinnickinnic River Parkway Bridge Wisconsin (Milwaukee) Saylesville Road Bridge Wisconsin (Waukesha) • Nine respondents provided project examples “We have used CSD and CSS. However, in every situation consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act or our State Historic Preservation Act has driven the decision-making process for aesthetic issues. In most situations, public input from stakeholders have been a primary consideration in these consultations. ”

State of Practice In-Depth Survey Case Studies State of Practice Survey Results: Design Reference Materials

State of Practice In-Depth Survey Case Studies In-Depth Survey Methodology In-Depth Questionnaire • Sent to 24 Screening Survey Respondents • Sent to DOT, SHPO, Private Sector individuals with previously documented experience Questions • Project Approach • Design • Public Outreach • Bridge Costs • Obstacles

State of Practice In-Depth Survey Results: Design Case Studies “Much depends upon the setting of the bridge; both its historic setting as well as the built nature of its surrounding environment. The most common features of importance are the scale (as appropriate to the historic district) and the rails. ” • • Eight DOTs, one SHPO and two Private Sector contacts responded Common features for aesthetic enhancements • Railings • Form liners • Scale • Abutments

State of Practice In-Depth Survey Case Studies In-Depth Survey Results: Project Approach • • • Early and continuous consideration for historic context Three respondents reported use of a standard treatment plan or approach Cost comparisons very limited

State of Practice In-Depth Survey Case Studies In-Depth Survey Results: Concerns • • • Designer/Engineer perception of historic bridges and CSD principles top concern Common Design obstacles • Design exceptions for railings • Bridge widening • Over-reliance on form liners Difficulty in understanding history of bridge and satisfying local property owners

State of Practice In-Depth Survey Case Studies In-Depth Survey Results: Solutions • • • Inter-agency collaboration CSD/S training Online guides Crash data Safety standards integrated into the design

State of Practice In-Depth Survey Case Studies In-Depth Survey Results: Public Outreach • • Public Meetings and Workshops 3 D printing and Microstation Drawings Early outreach Design samples

State of Practice In-Depth Survey Case Studies Digging Deeper Additional Insight into Specific Project Examples • How did you define and/or understand the historic context of the bridge? • What specific design trends/aesthetics/other features made the project contextsensitive/successful? • What were the comments/concerns from SHPO regarding the design? • What were the most effective public outreach strategies used? • How did public input influence design choices? • What were the two greatest obstacles to overcome?

State of Practice Case Studies In-Depth Survey Case Studies Results • Five general approaches to CSD/S: • Regional • Replication • Previous Bridges • Stakeholder-Driven • Design/Safety-Driven

NCHRP 25 -25 Task 118 Conclusion For More Information Visit the Project Website: https: //apps. trb. org/cmsfeed/T RBNet. Project. Display. asp? Proj ect. ID=4488 The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) produces ready-to-implement solutions to the challenges facing transportation professionals. NCHRP is sponsored by the individual state departments of transportation of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). NCHRP is administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB), part of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Any opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in resulting research products are those of the individuals and organizations who performed the research and are not necessarily those of TRB; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or NCHRP sponsors.