Freese Road over Fall Creek Bridge Replacement (PIN...

Section 106 Evaluation and Historical Resources ReportAppendix H1

(SHPO Project Identification No. 17-PR-08070)

Freese Road over Fall CreekBridge Replacement (PIN 3756.41)

Prepared for

Town of Dryden93 East Main Street

Dryden, New York 13053

Revision 2June 2020

Freese Road over the Fall Creek Bridge ReplacementTown of Dryden, Tompkins County

Section 106 Evaluation and Historical Resources Report

Appendix H1

June 2020

Prepared for



Prepared by

Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C.443 Electronics Parkway

Liverpool, New York 13088

Town of Dryden Section 106 Evaluation and Historical Resources Report Appendix H1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

975.003/6.20 - i - Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C.

1.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... 1

2.0 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEEDS ................................................................................................... 1

3.0 PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................... 1

4.0 STEPS TAKEN TO IDENTIFY HISTORIC PROPERTIES OR HISTORIC STRUCTURES ............................. 2

5.0 EVALUATION OF PROJECT IMPACT ON IDENTIFIED HISTORIC PROPERTIES ................................... 3

6.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDED PROJECT FILING ............................................................................... 3

7.0 MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM ................................................................................................. 3

8.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................................................................................................ 4

9.0 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 5

AttachmentsAttachment A – Preferred Alternative Bridge Section and Aerial ViewAttachment B – Location MapAttachment C – PhotosAttachment D – Technical Analysis of BIN 3209800 Bridge Alternatives


975.003/6.20 - 1 - Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C.

1.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The proposed Freese Road Bridge over Fall Creek (BIN 3209800) project in the Town of Dryden,Tompkins County is being completed through the federally-funded NYSDOT BridgeNY program. Takenfrom the application, the project will ‘either replace or rehabilitate a deteriorated one-lane metal trussbridge’. The bridge has structural and geometric deficiencies that need to be addressed by theproposed project.

2.0 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEEDS

The purpose of the project is to identify a feasible and prudent solution that addresses the structuraldeficiencies and nonstandard highway features while taking into account the historic significance of theFreese Road Bridge.

· Need to improve Pedestrian & Bicycle Infrastructure,· Need to correct non-standard & non-conforming design features to improve safety,· Need to eliminate and/or minimize impacts to the historic significance/integrity of the

bridge,· Need to minimize environmental impacts to floodplains and wetland adjacent to site.

3.0 PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES

Thirteen alternatives, including the Null Alternative, have been evaluated. A comparison of each of the13 alternatives can be found in the Technical Analysis of BIN 3209800 Bridge Alternatives documentincluded in Attachment D. The specific alternatives are listed below. It is understood that Alternatives7, 10, 12, and 13a are the alternatives which would have the potential to receive a No Adverse Effectdetermination; the remaining alternatives are all anticipated to receive an Adverse Effect determination(Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 13b).

Alternatives:1. Null2. Bridge Rehabilitation – Single Lane – 13’-1” Travel Lane3. Bridge Rehabilitation – Single Lane – 14’-0” Travel Lane4. Bridge Rehabilitation – Two Lanes5. Bridge Replacement – Single Lane – Steel Multi-Girder6. Bridge Replacement – Single Lane – Steel Multi-Girder with Truss Façade7. Bridge Replacement – Single Lane – Steel Multi-Girder with Existing Truss Bridge Reused as a

Pedestrian Bridge on an Adjacent Alignment**8. Bridge Replacement – Two Lane – Steel Multi-Girder9. Bridge Replacement – Two Lane – Steel Multi-Girder with Truss Façade10. Bridge Replacement – Two Lane – Steel Multi-Girder with Existing Truss Bridge Reused as a

Pedestrian Bridge on an Adjacent Alignment**11. Bridge Replacement – Two Lane – New Truss


Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C. - 2 - 975.003/6.20

12. Bridge Replacement – Two Lane – New Truss with Existing Truss Bridge Reused as a PedestrianBridge on an Adjacent Alignment**

13a. Bridge Replacement – Two Lane – Steel Multi-Girder on Adjacent Alignment while maintainingpedestrian traffic on existing historic truss structure**

13b. Bridge Replacement – Two Lane – Steel Multi-Girder on Adjacent Alignment abandoning useof historic truss for all vehicles and pedestrian transportation purposes

Alternative 6, which has the least impact to the area, minimizes environmental impacts whilealso improving hydraulic conditions, does not require ROW acquisition, and retains the visualaesthetic similarities of the existing site, has been selected as the Town’s PreferredAlternative.

This alternative will completely replace the existing bridge with a 14’-0” wide single lane, 140’-0” long single span, multiple steel girder superstructure and concrete deck supported onconcrete abutments and piles on the existing roadway alignment. The trusses from theexisting bridge will be used as a façade on the new structure. A three-color traffic signal willbe install on both ends of the bridge.

Alternative 6:· Serves as a means to maintain the existing historic eligible bridge truss elements on

site while also addressing the structural needs and deficiencies currently present,· allows the trusses to be repainted so as to stabilize their condition and then

reinstalled at the site,· does not require ROW and does not impact private property,· allows hydraulic improvements at this crossing by eliminating the in-stream pier,· can be constructed under the project funding. Pausing to look for additional alternate

funding sources will cause the bridge to deteriorate further; SHPO has stated that anyalternative that intentionally allows the bridge to deteriorate will also be classified ashaving the potential to adversely affect the bridge.

4.0 STEPS TAKEN TO IDENTIFY HISTORIC PROPERTIES OR HISTORIC STRUCTURES

· The New York State Cultural Resource Information System (CRIS) on the State HistoricPreservation Office’s (SHPO) website was consulted to identify archaeologically sensitive areasand sites listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places within the Area of PotentialEffect (APE) identified for this project. The results were summarized and included in a ProjectSubmittal Package (PSP) submitted to the Regional Cultural Resource Coordinator (RCRC) underseparate cover.

· Review of the PSP for assessment of obligations under Section 106 of the National HistoricPreservation Act (36 CFR Part 800) by the RCRC concluded that project activities may causeeffects on historic properties.



· Review of the Evaluation of National Register Eligibility – Task 3 of the Historic Bridge Inventoryand Management Plan final report prepared for NYSDOT and FHWA dated January 2002.

5.0 EVALUATION OF PROJECT IMPACT ON IDENTIFIED HISTORIC PROPERTIES

According to a review of the CRIS and the Evaluation of National Register Eligibility – Task 3 of theHistoric Bridge Inventory and Management Plan, it was determined that the Freese Road Metal TrussBridge, BIN 3209800, which is within the Area of Potential Effect, is listed as eligible on the State andNational Register Building List. The truss is a Post-Standardization Pratt Truss eligible under criterions A-1 for historical significance to the local community, C-5 for dating to a period of early standardization,and C-6 for the truss being multiple span. The preferred alternative (Alternative 6) reuses the trusselements from the existing bridge on a new single lane, single span structure. The existing steel gratedeck, steel floorbeams and stringers, and concrete substructure would be removed entirely.

6.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDED PROJECT FILING

The project activities will impact a National Register eligible structure.

The Criteria of Adverse Effect has been applied in accordance with 800.5(b) of the National HistoricPreservation Act and has been found that this undertaking will have an Adverse Effect on propertieseligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

7.0 MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM

In an effort to minimize the adverse effect the proposed alternative has on this historic eligible truss, theTown of Dryden intends to mitigate the impacts by:

· Retaining the primary truss assemblies (the top and bottom chords, diagonals, verticals andpinned connections) on site by installing them along the fascias of the new steel girder andconcrete deck bridge. The truss assemblies will be blasted and painted, then reinstalled as anaesthetic façade.

· There will be no structural contribution from the trusses to the new bridge. The County willretain ownership of the primary bridge including all components that are required to carrytraffic; therefore the non-structural, aesthetic trusses will be owned and maintained by theTown.

· Accommodations on the new bridge substructure will allow the longer existing truss bridge tobe extended past the end of the new bridge (approximate 10 feet per side). No modifications tothe existing truss span will be required.

· Preparing a Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) document in accordance with theNational Historic Preservation Act Section 106 requirements. This document will be provided tothe SHPO and council to be archived;


Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C. - 4 - 975.003/6.20

· Preparing technical and interpretive documentation and displays for the Town of DrydenHistorian. This will ensure that the historical and technical information of interest to the generalpublic and Town residents is available and accessible locally and regionally. The proposeddocumentation and displays will include:§ A photographic history from original construction to the present (as available)§ Engineering and structural calculations and specifications§ Current condition photographs§ A small interpretive display will be erected on adjacent public lands on Freese Road

whereby the historic bridge will be interpreted graphically and narratively. In this way,the pedestrians utilizing the adjacent trail segment may acquire an appreciation of theunique design and the visual image the bridge presented to the surrounding Fall Creeklandscape and hamlet of Varna. The display will include an interpretive panel thatwould be mounted to a natural resource (i.e. large boulder) or a kiosk on the southeastquadrant of the project site.

The project limits for the preferred alternative remain within the existing highway corridor. Thepreferred alternative will not require acquisition of new right-of-way and does not result in thedisturbance of soils previously undisturbed by past construction activities.

8.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

This project has been and will continue to be coordinated with the SHPO, Town of Dryden, TompkinsCounty, neighborhood community groups, those with Consulting Party status, and other governmentalagencies with jurisdiction in the project limits. A public information meeting was held on January 10,2018 that provided an opportunity to present general concepts outlining the objectives and potentialalternatives. A second public information meeting was held to present additional details on thealternatives and obtain comments. A strong consensus was given to maintain the existing bridge as is oras close to its current condition as possible. Specifically, there was focus on the single lane geometryand the visual truss assemblies.

Several individuals have been given Consulting Party status on the project. At their request, theseindividuals have been asked for input on relevant historic information on the bridge and site, as well ascomments on the proposed alternatives. NYSDOT has served as the point of contact for all withConsulting Party status.



9.0 SUMMARY

In summary, the proposed project will ensure the continued linkage for the local communitysurrounding the hamlet of Varna. The Freese Road Bridge serves as an historic and essential elementwithin the local and regional transportation system. It requires replacement due to existing structural,geometric, and safety assurance deficiencies. The rehabilitation of the existing structure is not feasibledue to the identified structural deficiencies and geometric design limitations, which constrict thehorizontal clearance. Environmental considerations associated with floodplain, hydraulics and wetlandspreclude construction at alternate sites.

In recognition of the historic and engineering significance of the Freese Road Bridge, the primary visualcomponents of the structure will be preserved at the site as part of the new bridge. Additionally,documentation will be assembled to ensure its legacy locally and within the state archives.

ATTACHMENT APREFERRED ALTERNATIVE BRIDGE SECTION AND AERIAL VIEW

ATTACHMENT BLOCATION MAPS

Freese Road over Fall Creek (BIN 3209800)

Project Location Map 1

Town of Dryden, Tompkins County, New York

PROJECT LOCATION

Freese Road over Fall Creek (BIN 3209800)

Project Location Map 2

Town of Dryden, Tompkins County, New York

PROJECT LOCATION

ATTACHMENT CPHOTOS

Photo No. 1 View of Bridge from Northwest Approach

Photo No. 2 View of Bridge from Southeast Approach

Photo No. 3 Downstream Fascia

Photo No. 4 Upstream Fascia

Photo No. 5 Southeast Abutment

Photo No. 6 Northeast Quadrant

Photo No. 7 Pier Face Looking Southeast

Photo No. 8 Pier Face Looking Northwest

Photo No. 9 Bridge Supported Utility

Photo No. 10 Deck and Truss, Looking Northwest

ATTACHMENT DTECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF BIN 3209800 BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES

Technical Analysis of BIN 3209800 Bridge Alternatives(Supplement to Findings Document)

Freese Road over Fall CreekBridge Replacement (PIN 3756.41)

Prepared for



Revision 0June 2020

Town of Dryden Technical Analysis of Bridge Alternatives


1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY

The Freese Road Bridge over Fall Creek (BIN 3209800) in the Town of Dryden, Tompkins County requiresrehabilitation or replacement to maintain this crossing. The bridge has structural and geometricdeficiencies that need to be addressed by the proposed project.

2.0 CONDITIONS AND NEEDS

BIN 3209800 is a single lane, two span, Pratt truss having a total length of 166 feet. Each span is 80 feetlong and supported on a cast-in-place concrete abutment (south abutment), a cast-in-place concrete pierlocated in Fall Creek, and a steel sheet pile abutment (north abutment). The truss superstructure iselevated approximately 11 feet above the Creek in the main span. Span 1 (the southern span) actsprimarily as an overflow channel with the second span (the northern span) carrying the primary flow ofFall Creek. The bridge currently provides a rail-to-rail travel width of 13’-1” measured between the boxbeam guiderails attached to the truss members.

The existing bridge was constructed in its current position in 1922 following storm damage of theoriginal 140 foot long, single span bridge. The ‘new’ bridge relocated the two-span bridge at SherwoodMills (estimated to have been constructed in the 1880s) to the current location and placed on newconcrete abutments and a center pier. A series of repairs and rehabilitations have been completedoccurring in 1952, 1978, 1981, 2004, 2008, 2016 and most recently 2019 in order to:

· replace the original timber decking with steel grate decking,· make repairs to the concrete abutments and center pier,· install steel sheet piling at the north abutment and center pier,· reinforce the bottom chords of the truss,· install steel guiderailing,· replace the bearings and make repairs to the concrete pedestals,· replace diagonal truss members,· address NYSDOT issued Red Flags for deteriorated stringers, a cracked weld, a faded load posting

sign, and scour around the center pier.

The frequency of the repairs and required maintenance has been increasing, while at the same time thebridge posting has also been decreasing. In the fall of 2019, the bridge received three flags for thedeterioration referenced above that has been temporarily addressed by the County. Currently there areno active Red Flags present on the bridge. The deterioration to the stringers required the bridge loadposting to be lowered from 15 tons to 9 tons. Previously, the bridge had been load posted for 15 tonswhich was governed by the safe load capacity of the eight upper chord members in the truss and the tenfloorbeams. Subsequently, in order to remove any requirement for posting the bridge, the followingmembers would need to be either replaced or supplemented:



· all stringers (4 in total for the full length of bridge),· the open steel grate deck· eight diagonal members (includes both trusses),· two vertical members (includes both trusses),· and sixteen top chords (includes both trusses).

It has been identified that this load posting affects the school bus and emergency service operations, aswell as the Town’s maintenance operations. Freese Road serves over 2000 vpd as a Local roadextending between NYS Route 366 (hamlet of Varna) and Hanshaw Road. The bridge currently carriessix times the volume recommended by the American Association of Highway Transportation Officials(AASHTO) for a single lane bridge. Anticipated nearby development could increase this volume.

The existing superstructure and substructure elements exhibit various levels of deterioration. There are17 identified elements that are rated a CS-3 or worse, based on the classifications of the 2017 New YorkState Department of Transportation Bridge Inspection Manual. A rating of CS-3 represents a poorcondition, meaning that the element has advanced deterioration but does not warrant a structuralreview. Elements with a rating of C-3 may need condition-based preventive maintenance. The memberswith CS-3 or worse ratings specific to the superstructure include the steel deck with concrete filled grid,steel stringers, steel truss (top chords, bottom chords, diagonals), expansion joint, bearings, wearingsurfaces, steel protective coating (paint), steel curb, and steel secondary members.

Additionally, the bridge is classified as scour critical and is vulnerable to instability due to potential scourat the pier and abutments as they are lacking a deep foundation system (steel piles, etc.). In 1981, theoriginal north abutment constructed on railroad rail piles washed out during a flood event and wasreplaced with the sheet pile abutment that exists today. The pier foundation is unknown, although it islikely that it is founded on a shallow spread footing similar to the original north abutment. Supplementalsheet piling has been installed around the pier since its original construction; however, this sheeting isnot embedded below the design scour depth and is largely exposed on the northern side of the pier.The fall 2019 NYSDOT Biennial Inspection discovered a portion of the steel sheeting along the mainchannel of the Creek (the north side) was completely exposed and undermined (loss of material belowthe foundation); this resulted in the bridge receiving a red flag. The flag was subsequently removed aftertemporary measures were put in place (i.e. heavy stone fill) to armor the sheeting from furtherundermining.

The existing bridge width does not meet NYSDOT standards for a single lane crossing. As previously noted,the supplemental box beam guiderail installed on the bridge (also following a NYSDOT requirement)results in an existing clear width of 13’-1”. NYSDOT Policy requires a width of 14’-0” in accordance withthe NYSDOT Bridge Manual. Due to the limited horizontal clearance the truss is vulnerable to collision.



NYSDOT, through a letter dated March 26, 2020, has provided clarification regarding the NYSDOT BridgeManual Appendix 2B – One-Lane Bridge Policy in how it shall apply to the Freese Road project. As thepolicy reads, the volume of traffic on Freese Road far exceeds the threshold for a single lane bridge,however NYSDOT concluded that a single lane bridge would be acceptable if appropriatecountermeasures were to be installed such as a three-color traffic signal on both ends of the bridge.

NYSDOT’s March 26, 2020 letter also reinforced the NYSDOT Bridge Manual’s requirements for the designloading of bridge replacement and bridge rehabilitation projects. A new or replacement bridge shall bedesigned to provide a minimum HL93 (45 ton) loading; a bridge rehabilitation shall be designed to providea minimum HS20 (36 ton) loading; and the design for a bridge superstructure rehabilitation project shallmeet that of a new or replacement bridge. NYSDOT’s March 26, 2020 letter is attached to this document.

A load rating was completed on the existing bridge and identifies that more than 80% of the truss assembly(see below) currently have an inventory rating with a value less than 1 for an HS-20 vehicular live load andwould therefore need to be either replaced or supplemented:

· all floor beams (13 in total),· all stringers (4 in total),· the open steel grate deck· all diagonal members (32 in total – both trusses),· all vertical members (22 in total – both trusses),· and sixteen top chords (16 of 20 – both trusses).

3.0 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEEDS

The purpose of the project is to identify a feasible and prudent solution that addresses the structuraldeficiencies and nonstandard highway features while taking into account the historic significance of theFreese Road Bridge.

· Need to improve Pedestrian & Bicycle Infrastructure,· Need to correct non-standard & non-conforming design features to improve safety,· Need to eliminate and/or minimize impacts to the historic significance/integrity of the

bridge,· Need to minimize environmental impacts to floodplains and wetland adjacent to site.



4.0 PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES

Thirteen alternatives, including the Null Alternative, have been evaluated and are described below:

1. NullThis alternative (taking no action regarding the bridge) ignores the basic transportation needsof maintaining a safe crossing of Fall Creek. It does not correct the structural, geometric,safety or functional non-standard features that presently exist. Additionally, noimprovements to these deficiencies will lead to the potential collapse and potential injury orloss of life. Based on these deficiencies, the bridge poses serious and unacceptable safetyhazards to both vehicular and pedestrian traffic and places unacceptable restrictions ontransport and travel. Therefore, the null alternative will be removed from furtherconsideration.

REHABILITATION ALTERNATIVES:All rehabilitation alternatives shall meet the 14’-0” roadway width requirement for a single lanebridge and shall provide HS20 design loading. All single lane bridges shall be required to install athree-color traffic signal. The bridge scope would include work on all members of the bridgeincluding the repair/replacement of the steel truss members, painting all the steel truss members,and repairs to the concrete substructure. The bridge span lengths and substructure locations wouldbe maintained.

2. Bridge Rehabilitation – Single Lane – 13’-1” Travel Lane3. Bridge Rehabilitation – Single Lane – 14’-0” Travel Lane4. Bridge Rehabilitation – Two Lanes

All three alternatives would maintain the existing truss, while providing different travelwidths. Alternative 2 and 3 would retain the single lane crossing; Alternative 4 would widenthe crossing to accommodate two lanes of traffic plus a shared use shoulder for pedestrianaccess.

Alternative 2 was eliminated from further consideration because it would not address thegeometric deficiencies as well as safety and operational deficiencies as required by the Town’sPurpose and Need. All three alternatives would require structural modifications to satisfy therequired vehicular load rating requirements as outlined by NYSDOT and BridgeNY. Themodifications required to the truss elements as well as the floorbeams, stringers, and deckvary in scope and will require either completely replacing the individual members orsupplementing the members substantially where feasible. Consideration for Alternative 3showed that more than 80% of the truss members needed to be either replaced orsupplemented (as described above in the Conditions and Needs) to carry the required loading.



An evaluation for Alternative 4 found that all existing truss members had insufficient capacityto accommodate the two-lane bridge. Therefore, by replacing all members this alternativecould not remain as a bridge rehabilitation, and is therefore not a possible alternative.

Recognizing that these alternatives would have a limited service life, would not meet theproject objectives associated with geometric and safety deficiencies (Alternative 2 and 3), andwould require significant structural member modifications or replacement, it was concludedthat these alternatives shall be eliminated from further consideration.

SINGLE LANE REPLACEMENT ALTERNATIVES:All single lane bridge alternatives shall meet the 14’-0” roadway width requirement and shall berequired to install a three-color traffic signal. The single lane bridge replacement alternatives wouldcompletely replace the existing bridge with a new single lane, multiple steel girder superstructureand concrete deck supported on concrete abutments and piles on the existing roadway alignment.All alternatives that are being considered that eliminate the existing bridge on site from beingmaintained as freestanding independent bridge will be constructed with a more cost-effective 140’long single-span (alternatives 5, 6); otherwise the bridge will be constructed with a center pier toaccommodate the re-use of the existing bridge (Alternative 7).

5. Bridge Replacement – Single Lane – Steel Multi-Girder6. Bridge Replacement – Single Lane – Steel Multi-Girder with Truss Façade7. Bridge Replacement – Single Lane – Steel Multi-Girder with Existing Truss Bridge Reused as a

Pedestrian Bridge on an Adjacent Alignment

The difference between the alternatives is how the existing truss bridge would be handled:Alternative 5 would not re-use the truss at the site; Alternative 6 would use the trusses as afaçade on the new structure; and Alternative 7 would relocate the existing truss to serve as anindependent pedestrian bridge. These three single lane, replacement alternatives satisfy theTown’s Purpose and Need and the NYSDOT requirements, however there are several factorsthat eliminate Alternatives 5 and 7.

Alternative 6, which has the least impact to the area, minimizes environmental impacts whilealso improving hydraulic conditions, does not require ROW acquisition, and retains the visualaesthetic similarities of the existing site. This has been selected as the Town’s PreferredAlternative. The Town believes this is the most feasible and prudent alternative with the leastamount of adverse effect to the surrounding property and community. Alternative 6combines input received from the local community requesting that the single lane bridgecrossing be maintained and that the existing bridge be preserved on the site. The single lane,truss bridge at this site provides a familiar gateway element that the Varna hamlet has beenidentified with. At the same time, Alternative 6 is also able to accomplish the NYSDOTrequirements for the bridge capacity and the three-color traffic signal. The replacement



bridge would be structurally designed to carry HL-93 legal load with an estimated 75-year lifespan; the existing trusses would be applied as a façade along the bridge facias giving theappearance of a truss bridge, but without the low load carrying capacity or structuraldeficiencies present today.

Alternative 5 does not maintain the existing truss at the site and has therefore been eliminatedfrom further consideration.

Alternative 7 maintains the existing truss at the site in whole as an adjacent pedestrian bridge,however two specific factors have caused this alternative to be considered neither feasible norprudent. A discussion for any alternative that includes twin bridges and project cost is includedbelow.

TWO LANE REPLACEMENT ALTERNATIVES:These two lane bridge replacement alternatives would completely replace the existing bridge with anew two lane, multiple steel girder superstructure (alternatives 8, 9, 10) or new truss superstructure(alternatives 11, 12) with a concrete deck supported on concrete abutments and piles on theexisting roadway alignment. All alternatives that are being considered that eliminate the existingbridge on site from being maintained as freestanding independent bridge will be constructed with amore cost-effective 140’ long single-span (alternatives 8, 9, 11); otherwise the bridge will beconstructed with a center pier to accommodate the re-use of the existing bridge (Alternatives 10,12).

8. Bridge Replacement – Two Lane – Steel Multi-Girder9. Bridge Replacement – Two Lane – Steel Multi-Girder with Truss Façade10. Bridge Replacement – Two Lane – Steel Multi-Girder with Existing Truss Bridge Reused as a

Pedestrian Bridge on an Adjacent Alignment11. Bridge Replacement – Two Lane – New Truss12. Bridge Replacement – Two Lane – New Truss with Existing Truss Bridge Reused as a Pedestrian

Bridge on an Adjacent Alignment

These five alternatives would completely replace the existing bridge with a new two lanestructure. The difference between the alternatives is how the existing truss bridge would behandled: Alternatives 8 and 11 would not re-use the truss at the site; Alternative 9 would usejust the trusses as a façade on the new structure; and Alternatives 10 and 12 would relocatethe existing truss to serve as an independent pedestrian bridge.



These alternatives all meet the project objectives, purpose and needs. Alternatives 8, 9, and11 have been simply eliminated due to opposition from the local community preferring asingle lane bridge. Alternatives 10 and 12 maintain the existing truss at the site in whole as anadjacent pedestrian bridge; however, they are not considered feasible and prudent due to thetwin bridge and project cost factors (described below).

OFFLINE REPLACEMENT ALTERNATIVES:These alternatives maintain the existing truss bridge in its current location while realigning the roadoff the current alignment. A new two span, multiple steel girder superstructure and concrete decksupported on concrete abutments and piles would be constructed adjacent to the existing bridge.The existing bridge would either be rehabilitated to accommodate pedestrian traffic and thereforerequire minor rehabilitation of the truss members, painting all the steel truss members, and repairsto the concrete substructure (alternative 13a) or no work would be completed on the existing truss(Alternative 13b).

13a. Bridge Replacement – Two Lane – Steel Multi-Girder on Adjacent Alignment while maintainingpedestrian traffic on existing historic truss structure

13b. Bridge Replacement – Two Lane – Steel Multi-Girder on Adjacent Alignment abandoning useof historic truss for all vehicles and pedestrian transportation purposes

Alternative 13a and Alternative 13b (off-line bridge replacement with or without the existingtruss continued to be used) would resolve the safety, structural, geometric concerns identifiedat this site while retaining the historical eligible truss bridge. These alternatives meet theproject objectives, purpose and needs however, they are not considered feasible and prudentdue to the twin bridge and project cost factors (described below).

Twin Bridge Consideration (Twinning):The Town feels strongly that any option that involves "twinning" would be poorly received inthe community and therefore rejected by the Town. Furthermore, the following factors havebeen taken into consideration and have eliminated any twinning alternatives fromconsideration:

· These alternatives would have significant negative impacts on the adjacent privateproperties by constructing a bridge and the associated approach roadway on an off-linealignment essentially in the front yard of the residences infringing on their setback fromthe road. The pair of bridges would overwhelm and overtake the roadside yards of theadjacent properties.



· These alternatives would require the bridge and a portion of the highway to beconstructed outside of the existing highway boundary. Property acquisition would berequired from three property owners (Kim Klein, Cornell University, and Laurie Snyder). Itis understood that one or more of these property owners would be resistant to sellingproperty to further this project and would therefore require an eminent domain process.

· These alternatives have the potential to impact potential archeological sensitive areas byconstructing in a location not known to have been previously disturbed.

· These alternatives prevent improvements to the hydraulic performance of this crossing bymaintaining the existing span configuration and in-stream pier.

· Alternatives 13a and 13b retain the historic eligible bridge supported on spread footingsby leaving it in place. Recognizing that this existing bridge is susceptible to continuedscour and that there is currently inadequate scour protection, the existing bridge willinevitably continue to deteriorate to a point of collapse. This has the potential to createan unsafe condition where a newly constructed downstream bridge is susceptible toimpact damage from the existing bridge. This collapse and debris buildup could createflooding to the nearby residential properties and infrastructure in the vicinity of thebridges. This lack of a deep foundation system contradicts the requirements of the NYSBridge Manual for bridges over water and therefore cannot be completed.

· Alternative 7, 10, 12, 13a – these alternative will require the Town to take ownership andmaintenance responsibilities for the existing historic eligible truss bridge. While theproject will leave the bridge in a condition where it should not need significantmaintenance for the next 20 years, the Town would have significantly more liability andresponsibility for a load carrying structure than they do currently (the bridge is currentlyowned and maintained by Tompkins County). Furthermore, at the end of the 20-yearservice life, the Town will be responsible for beginning a permanent maintenanceprogram, the cost of which would be borne by the Town’s taxpayers. Alternative 6, theTown’s preferred alternative, will require the Town to take ownership and maintenance ofthe truss facades, however these truss members will function as aesthetic elements onlyand do not carry life or property. The Town has committed to the ownership andmaintenance of these truss elements to remain.

Project Cost Consideration:In order for the project to proceed it has to be affordable. Each alternatives that has thepotential for a No Adverse Effect determination (Alternatives 7, 10, 12, and 13a) significantlyexceeds the available funding that can be obtained for this bridge. The additional effort torehabilitate/reconstruct a second bridge exceeds the funding that was received through theBridgeNY program (the BridgeNY scope of work only intended to construct a single bridge andtherefore this is understandable).



All applicable groups have been consulted to locate additional funding for this project:

1. The BridgeNY funding is a competitively awarded, capped amount; no additional moneycan be secured for the Town through BridgeNY.

2. NYSDOT has stated that they are not able to contribute from any other funding sourcesto the project. Their BridgeNY commitment was all that can be provided to this project.

3. The Town of Dryden (as the project sponsor) has stated that their tax base cannotsupport an increased construction cost above the grant amount. The BridgeNY programawards funding requiring a 5% local match. Any alternative or change in scope thatresults in costs above the BridgeNY grant has to be paid in whole by the Townindependent of the grant.

4. Tompkins County (as the bridge owner) has maintained throughout the course of thisproject that they do not have additional funding to support this project above the grantamount.

5. The nationwide Historic Bridge Foundation and local Historic Ithaca have contributedas consulting parties on the project, but are not able to contribute funds.

In conclusion, Alternative 6:

· maintains the existing historic eligible bridge truss elements on site while alsoaddressing the structural needs and deficiencies currently present,

· allows the trusses to be repainted so as to stabilize their condition and thenreinstalled at the site,

· does not require ROW and does not impact private property,· allows hydraulic improvements at this crossing by eliminating the in-stream pier,· and can be constructed under the project funding.



ATTACHMENT ANYSDOT Correspondence

50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12232 │ www.dot.ny.gov

March 26, 2020 Mr. Jason Leifer Town Supervisor Town of Dryden 96 East Main Street Dryden, NY 13053 Mr. Dan Lamb Deputy Supervisor Town of Dryden 96 East Main Street Dryden, NY 13053 Dear Mr. Leifer & Mr. Lamb: RE: LOCALLY ADMINISTERED FEDERAL AID PROJECT PIN 375641 – D035600 – BIN 3209800 FREESE ROAD OVER FALL CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, BRIDGENY PROJECT TOWN OF DRYDEN, TOMPKINS COUNTY Thank you for your February 13th letter requesting written clarif ication from the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) on the State’s One Lane Bridge Policy and the minimum loading requirements for a bridge replacement or bridge rehabilitation. One of NYSDOT’s primary goals as an agency is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network for the traveling public. The 2019 One Lane Bridge Policy (attached) was developed to determine where it would be acceptable to replace an existing one lane bridge with another one lane bridge. There are multiple requirements included within the policy that must be met to allow for the replacement of the existing one lane bridge with another one lane bridge. One of the requirements is that the two way average daily traffic must be less than 350 vehicles per day (vpd). Freese Road currently has almost six times that volume at 2064 vpd. NYSDOT has listened to many within the community that would like to retain the one-lane historic structure and have considered transportation countermeasures that would prevent head on collisions. Those countermeasures included installation of a three-color signal on each side of the bridge or converting the highway to one way traffic to prevent head on collisions. NYSDOT has also supported twinning the historical structure to provide two way traffic or revitalizing the existing historical bridge as a pedestrian/ bicycle pathway to preserve the historical asset. NYSDOT cannot support an alternative that compromises the safety of the traveling public as outlined in the one lane bridge policy. New and replacement bridges shall be designed to provide a minimum HL93 (45 tons) loading. Bridge rehabilitation projects shall be designed to provide a minimum HS20 (36 tons) loading with

Mr. Jason Leifer Mr. Dan Lamb March 4, 2020 Page 2 the exception of superstructure bridge rehabilitation projects where minimum loading shall meet that of a new or replacement bridge. The existing bridge is currently posted for 9 tons. Any deviations to the minimum loadings would require a non-standard feature justification to be approved by the NYSDOT, the bridge owner (Tompkins County), the project sponsor (Town of Dryden), and the Engineer of Record (Barton & Loguidice). Please contact Doug Mills, P.E. at (315) 428-4410 with any additional questions you may have. Very truly yours, Original Signed by Mark Frechette Mark Frechette, P.E. Director, Planning & Program Management Group MF:DKM:cm cc: Jeff Smith, Tompkins County Doug Mills, RLPL

NYSDOT Bridge Manual One-Lane Bridge Policy

2019 2B-1

Appendix 2BOne-Lane Bridge Policy

A. Objective: This policy sets forth criteria used to determine where it would beacceptable to replace an existing one-lane bridge by another one-lane bridge.

When an existing one-lane bridge has deteriorated beyond a point where rehabilitation isappropriate, an evaluation shall be made to determine whether closure of the road orremoval of the bridge is an acceptable solution. If that evaluation indicates that the bridge isdeserving of replacement, then a determination must be made of the number of traffic lanes tobe carried by the proposed bridge. The objective of this policy is to govern that decision.

B. Definitions:

Existing One-Lane Bridge: One upon which two vehicles, traveling in the same or oppositedirection, will not normally attempt to pass one another. The bridge may or may not be signedas a "One-Lane Bridge". In the absence of recorded or observed experience, any bridge lessthan 16’-0” wide, curb to curb or rail to rail, shall be considered as a one-lane bridge. A rampbridge, carrying traffic in only one direction, is not a one-lane bridge for the purpose of thisdefinition.

Existing One-Lane Road: One upon which two vehicles, traveling in the same or oppositedirection, will pass one another only with care, usually by the slowing or stopping of one orboth vehicles, and perhaps by the movement of one or both vehicles partially off the pavementsurface, often accomplished at intermittent widenings which may occur naturally or which maybe developed deliberately to facilitate such passing. In the absence of recorded or observedexperience, any road measuring less than 16’-0” wide, edge to edge of roadway (includingpavement plus graded shoulders), shall be considered as a one-lane road, unless it carries trafficin only one direction.

C. Requirements: An existing one-lane bridge may be replaced by another one-lanebridge if each of the following requirements are met:

1. The project shall meet the requirements of Table 5-11 of AASHTO’s A Policy onGeometric Design of Highways and Streets - 2011.

2. The current two-way ADT must be less than 350, and the predicted ADT for the 30th yearafter completion of the project must be less than 500.

3. The current and anticipated future operating speeds must be not greater than 40 MPH.

4. An analysis of the three-year crash experience must reveal no more than one reportedcrash, with no crash being reported during that same period as being directly attributableto the narrowness of the existing one-lane bridge.

5. The replacement bridge and its approaches must be signed as a "One-Lane Bridge"in accordance with the MUTCD.

One-Lane Bridge Policy NYSDOT Bridge Manual

2B-2 2019

6. Horizontal and vertical sight distances must be provided to allow approaching motoriststo safely observe an opposing vehicle on the bridge or its far approaches.

D. Desirable Conditions: In addition to the above requirements, other relevant factorsshould be evaluated and considered before a final decision is made in favor of replacing a one-lane bridge with a one-lane bridge. Several of these factors are subjective in nature, andothers may be very difficult to measure or identify with exactness. All should be treated asdesirable conditions which should be met, but which are not absolute requirements. A list ofsuch preferable conditions would include, but not be limited to, the following:

1. The local authorities should have no substantive objection to a one-lane bridge.

2. The existing two-way approach roadway should be one-lane wide and operating as aone-lane road (although this may be difficult to determine with confidence).

3. There should be no plans for the improvement of the highway which would be expected tosubstantially alter existing operating conditions.

E. Supporting Documentation: Sufficient information should be supplied in the ScopingPhase so that the requirements and desirable conditions can be evaluated and a decisionreached prior to the preparation of the Design Approval Document. If portions of that informationare lacking, the final decision on the number of lanes may be made at a later time, but must, inany event, be resolved at or prior to Design Approval.

F. Justification: To achieve economics, one-lane bridge replacements shall be permittedo n l y when certain safety requirements have been met and certain conditions evaluated.Compared against the cost of a complete two-lane bridge, a minimum savings of 10%-15%can be routinely expected, with appreciable greater savings when existing substructures canbe retained.

Conclusion: When all requirements have been met, and when a final decision has been madeto replace an existing one-lane bridge by another one-lane bridge, and when Design Approval,specifying that decision, has been obtained, the structural design normally shall produce plansfor a bridge 14’-0” wide between railings, except that the replacement shall not be narrower thanthe existing one-lane bridge. Minor variations are permissible to account for the intricacies ofparticular structural components.

www.bartonandloguidice.com

Date post:	14-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Freese Road over Fall Creek Bridge Replacement (PIN...

Documents