Fairfax Bridge Rehabilitation Program- Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program
Creek Road Bridge - Creek Road Bridge
Presented by the Team ofPresented by the Team of
January 29, 2014
Bridge Design Process
� Project team explores both repair and j p preplace options through assessments
� Options will be presented to Town Council p pwith input from community
� Selected option is submitted to Caltransto Caltrans
� Caltrans makes funding determination
2
Tonight’s Agenda
6:40 Introduction/Background Valerie Taylor, Nelson\NygaardG T T M F fGarrett Toy, Town Manager, Fairfax
6:50 Presentation: Bridge PreventiveMaintenance Project (BPMP)
C R d
Nader Tamannaie, CaliforniaInfrastructure Consultancy (CIC)
Canyon Road Spruce Road Marin Road
20 Q & A All7:20 Q & A All
7:35 Presentation: Creek RoadBridge Rehabilitation Project
Nader Tamannaie, (CIC)
8:00 Q & A All
8:15 Group exercise, Creek RoadBridge: Preferences & Concerns
All
48:30 Summary and Next Steps Garrett Toy
Bridge Preventive Maintenance program (BPMP)(BPMP)
� Bridges inspected every 2 yearsg p y y� Federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP)Under stewardship of Caltrans� Under stewardship of Caltrans
� Program fixes preventive maintenance issues not routine maintenanceissues, not routine maintenance
� NEPA/CEQA environmental studies & agency permits required when working in the creekpermits required when working in the creek
� 88.53% funded by HBP, the rest by Fairfax
6
Why Is BPMP Needed?
� The bridges are 85 years old or older� Original concrete and construction� Original concrete and construction workmanship not the best
� Bridges not well‐maintained over the yearsg y� BPMP improves safety and will prolong the bridge life and at lost cost to Fairfaxg
7
BPMP Summary
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS FOR FAIRFAX BRIDGES
Treat Bridge D k
Repair Cracks
Repair Existing
Remove Unused Utilit
Optional Actions
Install Narrow
Install Bridge
Replace Bridge in
Bridge
Deck Cracks & Spalls
Existing Wing-wall Utility
pipesNarrow Bridge Signs
Bridge Approach
Rail
Bridge in Next 10-15 Years
C M hCanyon Road
Metha-crylate Yes Two No Two Two No
Spruce Polyester Yes None Yes None One YespRoad
yConcrete Yes None Yes None One Yes
Marin Road No Yes Two No None None Maybe
26
Road
Environmental Permits Needed
AGENCY PERMIT NEEDED
US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACOE)
Clean Water Act, Section 404 Permit
(most likely a Nationwide Permit)(USACOE) (most likely a Nationwide Permit)
Regional Water Quality Control Clean Water Act, Section 401 Certification
Board (RWQCB) or Waiver
CA Department of Fish & Game
(DF&G)Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement
27
Construction Period Recap
� Canyon Road Bridge: 3 weeks� Spruce Road Bridge: 2 weeks� Marin Road Bridge: 2 weeks� Work may be concurrent or back‐to‐back
28
Bridge Closure Requirements
BRIDGE TEMPORARY BRIDGE CLOSURE REQUIREMENTSG O G C OSU QU S
Canyon• Close bridge for 4-5 hours after 12 p.m.
Canyon Road • Allow emergency vehicles to cross the bridge
• Publicize the dates and hours well ahead of the closure
Spruce Road
• Close bridge for 3 days to place polyester concrete • Detour the traffic and post the project area for the detour
P bli i th d t d h ll h d f th l• Publicize the dates and hours well ahead of the closure
Marin Road • No bridge closure will be necessary.
29
Road
Next Steps
� Perform Field Review with Caltrans environmental staff on February 4th
� Submit the BPMP Assessment Reportp
� Request authorization for design, including environmental studies
� Obtain agency permits
Finish final design hold another workshop� Finish final design, hold another workshop, prepare bid package, advertise for construction
Request authorization for construction30
� Request authorization for construction
More Bridge Terminology
Girder
ColumnSubstructure
Bent
Abutment
33Footing (under column & below ground)
Attributes of the Existing Bridge
Built in 1929� Built in 1929� Four‐span Concrete T‐Beam10 f t l h ld id lk� 10‐foot lanes, no shoulders, narrow sidewalks
� Articulated superstructure on concrete bents� “Shallow” foundations� N. abutment experienced washout in 2005� Marin County a seismically Active region� Bridge not a “lifeline” structure
37
Bridge Assessment & Goals
� Known to be seismically vulnerable since 1990sy� No record plans available� Test engineers took cores from concrete, used� Test engineers took cores from concrete, used GPR to locate rebar in concrete, mapped spalls
� Geotechnical engineer drilled borings to g ginvestigate the foundation soils
� CIC performed new analysis according to t it icurrent criteria
� Goal is to learn from each other what is best to do about the bridge
38
do about the bridge
How is the Bridge Seismically Vulnerable and Subject to Collapse?Subject to Collapse?
� Bridge will experience ground accelerations up to 1.35 g
� Superstructure will unseat due to seismic movement
� Columns will fail – too much bending� Bent caps will fail – too much bending� Foundations will fail – too much rotation� Bridge considered as Category 1 Bridge, subject to collapse
39
j p
Seismic Retrofit and Alternate Solutions
� Three alternative concepts plus the p pcost of retrofitting the bridge– Infill walls, enlarged footings, restrainer , g g ,cables, shear keys and seismic approach slabs
– Infill walls, waffle slabs, restrainer cables and shear keys
– Infill walls, large diameter cast‐in‐drilled‐hole (CIDH) piles, restrainer cables and shear keys
– Address preventive maintenance needs too
40
Consider Bridge Widening for Retrofit
� Accomplish seismic retrofit by building an “anchor’ structure along the north edge
� Complement retrofit with infill walls and l l blarge CIDH piles at abutments
� Gain standard vehicular lanes, bike lanes d d d id lk l i d land standard sidewalks, more multimodal
� Width increased from 28 feet to 44 feet� Implement traffic calming measures � Address preventive maintenance needs
42
p
Consider Bridge Replacement as a Way to Address seismic Deficienciesto Address seismic Deficiencies
� Remove existing bridge and replace it� New bridge 44 feet wide (Increased from 28’‐2”)
� Same lanes and other geometry as widening� Two‐span box girder bridge on� Two span box girder bridge on 2‐column bent
� Opportunity for multi‐modal accommodationpp y� Opportunity for traffic calming measures
44
Construction Period
� Alternate 1 (Retrofit): 6 months (one season)
� Alternate 2 (Widen): 10 months (2 seasons)
Alternate 3 (Replace): 12 months (2 seasons)� Alternate 3 (Replace): 12 months (2 seasons)
46
Traffic Handling During Construction
� Choice 1:– Keep the existing bridge open during retrofit, or widening
– For replacement, remove and replace in two stages
� Choice 2:– Close the road for any of the 3 alternates and detour the traffic
47
Alternate Comparisons - Advantages
ALTERNATIVECOSTS
(CONSTRUCTION + ADVANTAGESALTERNATIVE (CONSTRUCTION + Lifecycle & Capital)
ADVANTAGES
1CConstruction: $1.21 m Least amount of creek disturbance
Short one season project1C
(Retrofit only)Lifecycle: 1.97 m Total: $3.18 m
Short one-season project No falsework required Least expensive alternate
Standard bike lanes and sidewalks2
(Retrofit with Widening)
Construction: 2.58 mLifecycle: 1.63 m
Total:$4.21 m
Standard bike lanes and sidewalks A full one-season project No falsework required Multimodal + Conducive to Traffic Calming Multimodal + Conducive to Traffic Calming
3Construction: 3.05 m
Lifecycle: 0 74 m
Standard bike lanes and sidewalks 75 -100 years of life Low maintenance
49
(Replace Bridge)Lifecycle: 0.74 m
Total:$3.79 million Aesthetically pleasing Lowest lifecycle cost Multimodal + Conducive to Traffic Calming
Alternate Comparisons - Disadvantages
ALTERNATIVE DISADVANTAGES
1C
Limited bridge life, 30‐40 years & regular maintenance needed Bridge and sidewalks remain narrow Aesthetically neutral
(Retrofit only) Aesthetically neutral Large CIDH pile installation messy for a couple of weeks Lifecycle and future capital costs (nearly $2 m) paid by Fairfax
2(Retrofit with
Widening)
Existing bridge portion will have limited life (30‐40 year), need moderate maintenance, & will need to be replaced in the future
Most expensive alternateWidening) Lifecycle and future capital costs (nearly $1.6 m) paid by Fairfax
3 Bridge foundation work in creek
M i f l k i k
50
3(Replace Bridge)
May require falsework in creek Total cost 20% more than retrofit, but 11% less than widening Likely two‐season construction
Retrofit vs. Replacement Decision
� Upfront as well as lifecycle costs p y(the latter on Fairfax)
� Remaining life of existing bridge vs. new bridgeg g g g
� Amenities such as bike lanes and ADA‐compliant sidewalksp
� Bridge aestheticsCIC recommends replacement� CIC recommends replacement
51
Next Steps
� Decide which alternate to go forward� Decide which alternate to go forward with tonight
� Town Council to consider the decision on the February 5th Council meeting
� Perform Field Review with Caltrans on Feb. 11th
� Submit Seismic Retrofit Strategy Report to Caltrans
� Caltrans to approve Seismic Retrofit Strategy Report, its recommendations and costs
52
Process Approval and Bridge Funding
NEPA/CEQA environmental studies and� NEPA/CEQA environmental studies and agency permits required
� Apply to Caltrans for design & environmental� Apply to Caltrans for design & environmental funds
� Design & environmental 100% federally funded� Construction 88.5% federal, 11.5% State, 0% Fairfax
� Same cost‐sharing will apply to replacement� Use it or lose it funding
53
Thank you for coming!Thank you for coming!
For more information ‐email: [email protected]
b it htt //f i f b idwebsite: http://fairfaxbridges.comphone: 415‐284‐1544 (Daniele or Valerie)