1、Guidelines for Historic BridgeRehabilitation and ReplacementNovember 2008Guidelines for Historic BridgeRehabilitation and ReplacementNovember 2008 2008 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. 2008 b
2、y the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE20082009Voting MembersOfficers:President: Allen Biehler, PennsylvaniaVice President: Larry L. “Butch” Brown, MississippiSecretary-Treasurer: C
3、arlos Braceras, Utah Regional Representatives:REGION I: Carolann Wicks, Delaware, One-Year TermJoseph Marie, Connecticut, Two-Year TermREGION II: Larry L. “Butch” Brown, Mississippi, One-Year TermDan Flowers, Arkansas, Two-Year TermREGION III: Kirk T. Steudle Michigan, One-Year TermNancy J. Richards
4、on, Two-Year TermREGION IV: Rhonda G. Faught, New Mexico, One-Year TermWill Kempton, California, Two-Year TermNonvoting MembersImmediate Past President: Pete K. Rahn, MissouriAASHTO Executive Director: John Horsley, Washington, DC 2008 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
5、Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.Highways Subcommitee on Bridges and Structures, 2008MALCOLM T. KERLEY, ChairKEVIN THOMPSON, Vice ChairM. MYINT LWIN, Federal Highway Administration, SecretaryFIRAS I. SHEIKH IBRAHIM, Federal Highway Administration, Assistant
6、 SecretaryALABAMA, John F. Black, William F. Conway, George H. ConnerALASKA, Richard A. PrattARIZONA, Jean A. NehmeARKANSAS, Phil BrandCALIFORNIA, Kevin Thompson, Susan Hida, Barton J. NewtonCOLORADO, Mark A. Leonard, Michael G. SalamonCONNECTICUT, Gary J. Abramowicz, Julie F. GeorgesDELAWARE, Jiten
7、 K. Soneji, Barry A. BentonDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Nicolas Glados, L. Donald Cooney, Konjit “Connie” EskenderFLORIDA, Robert V. Robertson, Jr., Marcus Ansley, Andre PavlovGEORGIA, Paul V. Liles, Jr., Brian SummersHAWAII, Paul T. SantoIDAHO, Matthew M. FarrarILLINOIS, Ralph E. Anderson, Thomas J. Domag
8、alskiINDIANA, Anne M. RearickIOWA, Norman L. McDonaldKANSAS, Kenneth F. Hurst, James J. Brennan, Loren R. RischKENTUCKY, Allen FrankLOUISIANA, Hossein Ghara, Arthur DAndrea, Paul FossierMAINE, David Sherlock, Jeffrey S. FolsomMARYLAND, Earle S. Freedman, Robert J. HealyMASSACHUSETTS, Alexander K. Ba
9、rdowMICHIGAN, Steven P. Beck, David JuntunenMINNESOTA, Daniel L. Dorgan, Kevin WesternMISSISSIPPI, Mitchell K. Carr, B. Keith CarrMISSOURI, Dennis Heckman, Michael HarmsMONTANA, Kent M. BarnesNEBRASKA, Lyman D. Freemon, Mark Ahlman, Hussam “Sam” FallahaNEVADA, Mark P. Elicegui, Marc Grunert, Todd St
10、efonowiczNEW HAMPSHIRE, Mark W. Richardson, David L. ScottNEW JERSEY, Richard W. DunneNEW MEXICO, Jimmy D. CampNEW YORK, George A. Christian, Donald F. Dwyer, Arthur P. YannottiNORTH CAROLINA, Greg R. PerfettiNORTH DAKOTA, Terrence R. UdlandOHIO, Timothy J. Keller, Jawdat SiddiqiOKLAHOMA, Robert J.
11、Rusch, Gregory D. AllenOREGON, Bruce V. Johnson, Hormoz SeradjPENNSYLVANIA, Thomas P. Macioce, Harold C. “Hal” Rogers, Jr., Lou RuzziPUERTO RICO, Jaime CabrRHODE ISLAND, David FishSOUTH CAROLINA, Barry W. Bowers, Jeff SizemoreSOUTH DAKOTA, Kevin GoedenTENNESSEE, Edward P. WassermanTEXAS, William R.
12、Cox, David P. HohmannUTAH, Richard MillerVERMONT, William Michael HedgesVIRGINIA, Malcolm T. Kerley, Kendal Walus, Prasad L. Nallapaneni, Julius F. J. Volgyi, Jr.WASHINGTON, Jugesh Kapur, Tony M. Allen, Bijan KhaleghiWEST VIRGINIA, Gregory BaileyWISCONSIN, Scot Becker, Beth A. Cannestra, Finn Hubbar
13、dWYOMING, Gregg C. Fredrick, Keith R. FultonALBERTA, Tom LooNEW BRUNSWICK, Doug Noble NOVA SCOTIA, Mark PertusONTARIO, Bala Tharmabala SASKATCHEWAN, Howard Yea GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, Kary H. Witt NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE AUTHORITY, Richard J. RaczynskiNEW YORK STATE BRIDGE AUTHORITY, William J. MoreauPENNSY
14、LVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION, Gary L. GrahamSURFACE DEPLOYMENT AND DISTRIBUTION COMMAND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING AGENCY, Robert D. FranzU.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERSDEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Paul C. T. TanU.S. COAST GUARD, Nick E. Mpras, Jacob PatnaikU.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREFOREST SERVICE, John R
15、. Kattell U.S. DOT, M. Myint Lwin, Firas I. Sheikh Ibrahim, Hala Elgaaly 2008 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.Standing Committee on Environment, 2008Chair Matthew Garrett, OregonVice Chair Dia
16、nna Noble, TexasSecretary Shannon H. Eggleston, AASHTOAlabama Alfredo Acoff Don T. ArkleAlaska Bill BallardArizona Todd G. Williams, M.Sc Thor AndersonArkansas Scott Bennett Lynn MalbroughCalifornia Jay Norvell Colorado Brad BeckhamConnecticut Edgar T. HurleDelaware Terry Fulmer Mike DuRoss Michael
17、C. Hahn Robert B. McClearyDistrict of Columbia Faisal Hameed Maurice KeysFlorida Marjorie BixbyGeorgia Glenn Bowman Gail A. DAvinoHawaii VacantIdaho Dennis ClarkIllinois Barbara H. Stevens Kathleen AmesIndiana Michelle Allen Ben LawrenceIowa Jim Rost Kansas Scott VogelKentucky David Waldner, P.E.Lou
18、isiana Eric KalivodaMaine Judy C. GatesMaryland Bruce Grey Sonal Sanghavi Massachusetts Kevin M. Walsh Steven J. Miller Patricia Trombly Michigan Margaret Barondess Minnesota Frank PafkoMississippi E. Clairborne BarnwellMissouri Gayle UnruhMontana Tom Martin Jean A. RileyNebraska Randall D. Peters P
19、.E. Nevada Daniel Harms Daryl JamesNew Hampshire William HauserNew Jersey Elkins Green, Jr. Marianne FilipponiNew Mexico Kathryn KretzNew York Mary Ivey Gary McVoy, Ph.D. John Zamurs, Ph.D.North Carolina Greg Thorpe Julie Hunkins Donald G. LeeNorth Dakota Mark Gaydos Ron Henke Sheri LaresOhio Tim Hi
20、llOklahoma Dawn R. SullivanOregon Hal Gard Frances Brindle Greg Holthoff Jennifer SellersPennsylvania Gary C. Fawver, P.E.Puerto Rico Irma Garcia-Gonzalez Carmen AliceaRhode Island Sharon StoneSouth Carolina Wayne Hall Ron PattonSouth Dakota Dave Graves Terry KellerTennessee Ed Cole Doug DelaneyTexa
21、s Dianna NobleUtah Rebecka Stromness Vermont John NarowskiVirginia Steve Long Cooper WamsleyWashington Carol Lee Roalkvam Megan WhiteWest Virginia Ben Hark Laura A. Conley-RinehartWisconsin Dan ScudderWyoming Timothy Stark, P.E. Martin KidnerU.S. DOT MEMBERFHWA April Marchese Raja Veeramachaneni ASS
22、OCIATE MEMBERBRIDGE, PORT AND TOLLNew York State Thruway Authority Peter M. CasperPennsylvania Turnpike Commission David P. Willis ASSOCIATE MEMBERFEDERALUSDA Forest Service Richard Sowa Paul T. AndersonASSOCIATE MEMBER INTERNATIONALAlberta Don SniderBritish Columbia Angela Buckingham 2008 by the Am
23、erican Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.Acknowledgements This study was requested by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and conducted as part of the National Coope
24、rative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 25-25/Task 19. The NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from the state Departments of Transportation. Project 25-25 is intended to fund quick response studies on behalf of the AASHTO Standing Committee on the Environment. The report was
25、 prepared by Lichtenstein Consulting Engineers, Inc. in association with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade others assume deficient bridges should be replaced. In many cases, decisions whether to rehabilitate or replace are made based on very general guidance and assumptions. A 2004 national historic bridge
26、 workshop (DeLony and Klein) concluded that historic bridges remain a heritage at risk despite local, state, and federal legislation to identify and protect historic bridges. The workshop recommended development of historic bridge management plans and a synthesis of rehabilitation-versus-replacement
27、 options.Perhaps the most significant applicable guidance to appear in the past decade is the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (ADT400), 2001. That guidance, which is now part of AASHTOs A Polic
28、y on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, offers flexibility when considering width and safety performance, and thus increases the likelihood that narrow bridges can remain in service on very low-volume local roads. A number of state highway departments have preservation plans that are outgrowt
29、hs of their historic bridge inventories, but the plans tend to be process-oriented and offer a menu of possible treatments Chapter 2Findings 2008 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.6 Guidelines f
30、or Historic Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement rather than a protocol or specific technical guidance for deciding when to rehabilitate and when to replace. Maine DOTs Historic Bridge Preservation Plan (2004) was the only one identified to have a specific quantifiable protocol for rehabilitation o
31、r replacement analysis and decision making.The technical literature of journal articles, conference proceedings, and briefs from such organizations as the American Concrete Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers, Association for Preservation Technology, and the National Park Services Technic
32、al Preservation Services offer many historic bridge rehabilitation case studies and scholarship on properties, testing, and conservation of materials, like reinforced concrete or steel, but again with little synthesis of this information in a format that would offer broadly applicable guidance when
33、deciding whether to rehabilitate or replace historic bridges.Findings from Questionnaire on Current State of Decision-Making PracticeA 16-question questionnaire was developed to research the current state of historic bridge rehabilitation-versus-replacement decision making. It was sent to 49 enginee
34、rs, historians, archaeologists, and managers from state departments of transportation (DOTs), counties, SHPOs, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Twenty-one respondents from 17 states replied. The goal was to elicit responses that might help the research team to identify useful resources
35、 or specific problem areas.About half of the respondents felt that their agencies were proactive in terms of rehabilitation decision making. Of these respondents, nine identified their agency as either having a written procedure that defines the process related to historic bridge treatments, or iden
36、tified their agency as currently working on a written procedure. Of the nine, five of them have (or will have) a procedure/process that addresses all bridge types, whereas the rest have written processes that address specific bridge types, like metal or wood trusses. Three respondents indicated that
37、 their agency consistently follows an unwritten approach. However, only one of these three found their agency to be acting in a proactive manner regarding historic bridges.Determining factors that affect rehabilitation versus replacement decision-making included cost, community input, Section 106 an
38、d Section 4(f) findings, engineering needs, future traffic, safety issues, historic significance, structural condition, and geometric issues such as roadway width, lane width, and vertical clearance. Only eight respondents, all of whom felt their agency to be proactive, also felt their agency achiev
39、ed a balance between engineering and historic preservation issues. Only one of these eight respondents represents an agency that does not have an established written procedure or a consistent unwritten approach. The respondents suggestions on how to achieve a consistent national approach dealt with
40、either including specific information in the analysis process, or accessing information to inform decision making. Information identified as useful to the decision-making process included clearer guidelines defining rehabilitation potential; design exceptions and options other than replacement, like
41、 relocation and bypassing; guidance on what makes a bridge historically significant and valuable; and consideration of rehabilitation occurring earlier in the decision-making process before replacement funds have been allocated. 2008 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Of
42、ficials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.Guidelines for Historic Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement 7The survey findings confirmed the dearth of general information about historic bridge analysis and decision making. Suggestions for disseminating useful informatio
43、n included setting up an easily accessible “permanent record” of related research and case studies that would include successes and failures, effective practices, and the latest technology used for bridge rehabilitation and preservation. Other suggestions included establishment of closer coordinatio
44、n between cultural resources staff, engineers, and owners and for more engineering expertise at the SHPO staff level. There was also a suggestion for information on how to address substandard features on low-volume roads, which to a large extent has already been accomplished with AASHTOs Guidelines
45、for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (ADT400), but which may not have been known or useful enough to the respondent.Over half of the respondents identified delays and other problems as common to projects involving historic bridges. These delays and problems typically arose from issues
46、 associated with completing the Section 106 and Section 4(f) processes and the additional public involvement necessary to accommodate all interested and consulting parties. Interestingly, the respondents who did not identify delays or problems felt that their agencies had a streamlined process alrea
47、dy in place with FHWA and SHPO and/or that the “rehabilitation-versus-replacement” decision-making process was so well-established that all parties knew how to advance projects. One respondent stated that there was no delay or problem because their state agency was unwilling to accept rehabilitation
48、 as an option.Issues identified as important in the decision-making process are functionality, public opinion, initial cost, life-cycle cost differences between rehabilitated and new bridges, concerns with safety, bridge location, historic significance, difficulty identifying parties to accept owner
49、ship and liability for a bypassed bridge, and traffic volumes. That engineers would rank achieving structural and geometric functionality as the highest priority is not surprising, nor is the finding that public opinion is a very strong factor in decision making or that initial and life-cycle costs matter greatly. A detailed discussion of the questionnaire and responses is included in Appendix B. 2008 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.20 Guidelines for Hi
