1. The Historic Bridge
Project Development
Process

2. Session Goals Brief Review of Historic Bridge Inventory Results
Discuss procedures for Select and Non-Select
bridges
Provide tips for preparing an alternatives
analysis
Morris Street Bridge over the White River, Indianapolis, Marion County – Select

3. Definitions Select Bridges historic most suitable for preservation
excellent examples of a given type of historic bridge
Non-Select Bridges
not suitable candidates for preservation
not considered excellent examples
Martin County Bridge No Select

4. Results of Historic Bridge Inventory
Volume 4 - List of Select and Non-Select Bridges

5. Results of Historic Bridge Inventory
5,313 Bridges Analyzed:
796
4,517

6. Results of Historic Bridge Inventory
796 Historic Bridges: 86
435
275

7. Results of Historic Bridge Inventory
435 Select Bridges: 35
400

8. Non-Select Bridges Early Project Development Process Tips:
Bridge Marketing—Should at least be concurrent with early coordination letter
Historic property report still needed
Archaeology report still needed
INDOT review of alternatives analysis

9. Non-Select Bridges Alternatives Analysis
Rehabilitation for Continued Vehicular Use
One or two-way roadway on historic bridge
One-way pair: historic bridge & new bridge each carry traffic
Bypass (non-vehicular use)
Relocate (non-vehicular use)
Replacement
Benton Co. Bridge No. 37 – Select

10. Non-Select Alternatives Analysis
Reasons to dismiss an alternative:
Minimum design standards cannot be met or mitigated
Minimum design standards of railroad cannot be met
LaPorte Co. Bridge No Select

11. Non-Select Alternatives Analysis
Reasons to dismiss an alternative:
Initial rehabilitation cost ≥ 40% of replacement cost
Bridge meets any two of the following:
Waterway opening is inadequate
Documented history of catching debris due to inadequate freeboard or due to piers in the stream.
Requires special inspection procedures
Classified as scour-critical
Fatigue-prone welded details are expected to reach end of service lives within next 20 years.
Sufficiency Rating of lower than 35.

12. Non-Select Alternatives Analysis
Reasons to dismiss an alternative:
No one steps forward to claim bridge.
Bypass (non-vehicular use)
Relocate (non-vehicular use)
Dearborn Co. Bridge No. 95; the Triple Whipple truss - Select

13. Non-Select Alternatives Analysis
Be SPECIFIC when describing deficiencies!
PROVE your argument.
Inadequate information:
The bridge deck is too narrow.
Specific information:
The existing bridge has a clear roadway width of 30.0 ft. The current design criteria for US 33 requires a clear roadway width on the bridge of 42.0 ft.

14. Non-Select Alternatives Analysis
More examples: The bridge does not have enough vertical clearance. The existing minimal vertical clearance is 14 feet 10 inches. According to the Indiana Design Manual, the preferred minimum vertical clearance is 16 feet 6 inches.

15. Non-Select Alternatives Analysis
More examples: The bridge piers provide inadequate clearance for the railroad tracks. The existing horizontal clearance for the railroad tracks beneath the bridge is 18’-2”, which is substandard because the required clearance is 25’.

16. How can you improve these statements?
The bridge’s sufficiency rating is really low.
The bridge’s load rating is not high enough for modern traffic.
The bridge is too narrow for
farm equipment to cross.

17. Non-Select Alternatives Analysis
Tables can help summarize info:

18. Non-Select Alternatives Analysis
Summary paragraphs are helpful:
As outlined above, Alternative No. 3 addresses the purpose and need of the project, through the replacement of existing bridge with a new bridge on the current alignment. The existing bridge cannot be feasibly maintained or rehabilitated to the current design standards or modern loadings. No one has stepped forward to take ownership of the bridge. Therefore, preservation at another location can be dismissed. The best solution is to demolish the existing structure and construct a new bridge in accordance with the current INDOT and AASHTO standards. After comparing all alternatives, Alternate No. 3 is the recommended course of action for this project due to the sufficiency of this alternative.

19. Non-Select Alternatives Analysis
Ballpark cost estimates might suffice when:
Design issues clearly dismiss alternatives
Difference between rehab and replacement option is clearly disparate

20. Non-Select Alternatives Analysis
Detailed cost estimates might be needed if:
Project is controversial
Consulting party challenges analysis
Difference between rehab and replacement is very close to prudency cut-off %

21. Select Alternatives Analysis
Select Bridges must be preserved as part of the project
Select Bridge owner is responsible for preservation
Vigo Co. Bridge No Select

22. Select Alternatives Analysis
Design exceptions might be needed
Higher threshold for dismissing rehabilitation:
Initial rehabilitation cost ≥ 80% of replacement cost
Newport Covered Bridge, Vermillion County - Select

23. Coordination for Rehabilitation
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
Plans to SHPO for review:
30%
60%
Final
Wayne Co. Bridge 701; S. G St. Bridge over Whitewater River, Richmond - Select

24. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
Repair
Replace in kind
Replicate historic features
Reversible changes
Nevins Covered Bridge, Parke County – Select

25. Coordination for Rehabilitation
EXPLAIN work to be done
Consulting parties are not engineers
Consider a consulting party meeting
Decatur Co. Bridge No Select

26. Coordination for Rehabilitation
Be SPECIFIC when describing/justifying changes
Example:
The existing bridge railing openings are 9”. The proposed railing openings are 6”, which is the maximum opening allowed by AASHTO standards.

27. Coordination for Rehabilitation
More examples:
Given that the current turn-outs are not original, are a non-integral part of the bridge that do not greatly contribute to the engineering significance, and often pose a scour issue, it was decided that replicating them in some form is not a prudent and feasible option.
Wells Co. Bridge No Non-Select

28. Coordination for Rehabilitation
More examples:
The existing railing does not include chamfering. The proposed railing includes a ¾” chamfer. This addition is because INDOT generally requires chamfering to allow easier removal of the concrete formwork after pouring and to keep the corners from breaking off.

29. Coordination for Rehabilitation
Color-code plans if needed:

30. Coordination for Rehabilitation
Color-code photos if needed:
INDOT Bridge No A, SR 42 over the Eel River, Clay County – Select

31. How can you improve these statements?
The bridge will be widened in the rehabilitation.
The existing railing will be removed and cannot be reinstalled, so Railing Type TX will be used instead.
The decorative brackets under the sidewalk will be replicated to almost match the originals.

32. Late Project Development Process Tips
Public hearing:
Required for EVERY Select and Non-Select bridge
6-month marketing period must be over
INDOT has initialed the CE for release for public review and comment
LaPorte Co. Bridge No. 505 – Select

33. Late Project Development Process Tips
CE approval:
No separate 4(f) document needed
Historic Bridge PA stipulations not implemented included in Project Commitments Database

34. Questions Documents available on INDOT website:
INDOT
Mary Kennedy (317)
Patrick Carpenter (317)
FHWA
Larry Heil (317)
Michelle Allen (317)