GUIDELINES FOR HISTORIC BRIDGE

REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT

Requested by:

American Association of State Highway

and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

Standing Committee on the Environment

Prepared by:

J. Patrick Harshbarger, Mary E. McCahon,

Joseph J. Pullaro, and Steven A. Shaup

Lichtenstein Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Paramus, New Jersey

In association with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.

March, 2007

The information contained in this report was prepared as part of NCHRP Project 25-25/ Task 19,
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board.
Acknowledgements
This study was requested by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), and conducted as part of the National Cooperative 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 prepared by Lichtenstein Consulting Engineers, Inc. in association with Parsons
Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. The work was guided by a task group chaired by Tim Hill
which included Brent Bowen, Janet D’Ignazio, Susan Gasbarro, Paul Graham, William Hauser,
Mary Ann Naber, Nancy Schamu, and Madeleine White. The project was managed by
Christopher Hedges, NCHRP Senior Program Officer.

Disclaimer

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 or its
sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of
the authors. This document is not a report of the Transportation Research Board or of the
National Research Council.

ii
CONTENTS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS .......................................................................................................v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ vi

ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................. vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................1

CHAPTER 1 Introduction and Research Approach ..............................................................2

Introduction..........................................................................................................................2
Research Approach ..............................................................................................................3

CHAPTER 2 Findings................................................................................................................4
Literature Search..................................................................................................................4
Findings from Questionnaire on Current State of Decision Making Practice .....................5

CHAPTER 3 Historic Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement Decision-Making Guidelines ..7

The Need for Decision-Making Guidelines.........................................................................7
How to Use the Decision-Making Guidelines .....................................................................7
Step 1: Understanding What Makes a Bridge Historic.......................................................8
What Makes the Bridge Historic?............................................................................8
Is the Bridge of Average or High Historical Significance? .....................................9
Can Members be Changed Without Adversely Affecting Historical
Significance?....................................................................................................10
Members/Components That Generally Have Historical Significance.......10
Members/Components That Generally Are Not Vital to Retain ...............11
Upgrading That Generally Has No Adverse Effect ...................................15
Completion of Step 1 .............................................................................................16
Step 2: Applying Structural and Functional Considerations.............................................16
Analysis of Structure Condition and Waterway Adequacy ...................................16
Considerations for Correcting Structural and Waterway Deficiencies......18
Plain, Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete ..............................................18
Iron and Steel .............................................................................................18
Stone and Brick Masonry...........................................................................19
Wood ........................................................................................................19
Waterway Adequacy and Scour.................................................................19
Analysis of Load-Carrying Capacity .....................................................................19
Considerations for Improving Load-Carrying Capacity by Bridge Type..20
Remedial Methodologies Common to Multiple Bridge Types..................20
Arch Bridges ..............................................................................................21
Truss and Girder-Floorbeam Bridges ........................................................21
Analysis of Geometry and Safety Features............................................................21
Geometry on Very Low Volume Local Roads ..........................................23
Using Accident History to Understand Deficiencies .................................23

iii
 Considerations for Improving Geometry and Safety Problems.................23
Railings ......................................................................................................24
Completion of Step 2 .............................................................................................26
Step 3: Historical and Environmental Considerations ......................................................26
Common Problems.................................................................................................26
Approaches for Addressing Historic and Environmental Considerations .............27
Completion of Step 3 .............................................................................................28
Step 4: Applying the Decision-Making Thresholds..........................................................28
Defining Feasible and Prudent...............................................................................28
Application of Thresholds Based on Aspects of Adequacy...................................30
Group I. Superstructure/Substructure Condition, Geometry and Load-
Carrying Capacity are Adequate..........................................................31
Group II. Geometry is Inadequate; Superstructure/Substructure Condition
and Load-Carrying Capacity are Adequate..........................................31
Group III. Load-Carrying Capacity is Inadequate; Superstructure/
Substructure Condition and Geometry are Adequate ..........................32
Group IV. Load-Carrying Capacity and Geometry are Inadequate;
Superstructure/Substructure Condition is Adequate............................33
Group V. Load-Carrying Capacity and Superstructure/Substructure
Condition are Inadequate; Geometry is Adequate ...............................33
Group VI. Superstructure/Substructure Condition, Geometry and Load-
Carrying Capacity are Inadequate........................................................34
Endnote ..............................................................................................................................37

APPENDIX A Literature Search ........................................................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B Summary of Responses to Questionnaire .....................................................B-1

iv
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURES

1 Bankhead Highway over Proctor Creek Bridge in Atlanta, GA ....................................12

2 Standard-design 2-span continuous bridge in Georgia ...................................................12

3 Detail of Delaware River Bridge at Washington Crossing, NJ .....................................13

4 Kansas Corral railings on John Mack Bridge at Wichita, KS.........................................13

5 Partridge Bridge at Whitefield, ME. ...............................................................................14

6 Walnut Street Bridge at Chattanooga, TN. .....................................................................15

7 Truss Bridge at Califon, NJ ...........................................................................................22

TABLES

1 Condition rating descriptions. From Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure
Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges, Federal Highway Administration,
Report No. FHWA-PD-96-001.......................................................................................17

2 Rehabilitation/Replacement Thresholds Based on Aspects of Adequacy .....................35

v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research supported herein was performed under NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 19, by
Lichtenstein Consulting Engineers, Inc. under subcontract to Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and
Douglas, Inc. Mary E. McCahon of Lichtenstein was principal investigator for this project and
led the preparation of the report. The other authors and investigators were Joseph J. Pullaro,
P.E., Steven A. Shaup, P.E. and senior historian J. Patrick Harshbarger, all of Lichtenstein. Eric
DeLony provided review comments.

The preparers would like to thank Lisa Zeimer of Parsons Brinckerhoff for administrative
assistance during the project.

vi
ABSTRACT

This report presents a literature search, findings of a survey on the current state of historic
bridge rehabilitation or replacement decision making by state and local transportation agencies,
and nationally applicable decision-making guidelines for historic bridges. The guidelines are
intended to be used as the protocol for defining when rehabilitation of historic bridges can be
considered prudent and feasible and when it is not based on engineering and environmental data
and judgments. The guidelines include identification of various approaches to bringing historic
bridges into conformance with current design and safety guidelines/standards, and the effect or
implications of remedial action on historical significance.

There are currently no such nationally applicable decision-making guidelines, but there
are a variety of state and local processes and policies for managing historic bridges. Effective
practices for the various processes inform the nationally applicable guidelines. The guidelines
are in narrative and matrix format.

vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

While the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (amended) and Section 4(f)
U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 specify nationally applicable processes for
considering preservation or replacement of historic bridges, there is no corresponding protocol
that ensures a nationally consistent approach to determining which bridges should be
rehabilitated or replaced. State and local transportation agencies have developed a wide variety
of approaches for addressing historic bridges with each reflecting the priorities and culture of the
particular agency as well as the bias, knowledge and expertise of the decision makers. Despite
the federal legislation and proactive policies of many states, historic bridges continue to be lost
for a variety of reasons. To ensure that rehabilitation versus replacement decision making is
balanced and consistent among the states, nationally applicable guidance on historic bridge
analysis is deemed by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Standing Committee on the Environment to be useful.

Research indicates that while many transportation agencies have processes for managing
historic bridges, including some with well thought out treatments for preserving specific bridges,
few have written protocols or guidelines that lead engineers and historians through the decision-
making process. When is it not prudent to rehabilitate a substandard bridge? When is it prudent
to upgrade the bridge to keep it in service? What work can be done without adversely affecting
what makes the bridge historic? Has everything that could be done to preserve the bridge been
considered? Research indicates that engineers believe that their agencies are proactive about
historic bridge preservation while historians do not. So while there are stunning successes, like
Vermont’s metal truss bridge preservation program or Oregon’s Coastal Highway bridge
rehabilitations, the perception is that historic bridges that could be saved are not being saved
because rehabilitation is not as consistently considered as it should be.

Guidelines have been developed based on effective practices, understanding of historic

bridge types and appropriate methodologies for addressing deficient load capacity, geometry and
safety features. These guidelines lead decision makers through considerations that define when
rehabilitation is prudent and feasible and when it is not based on engineering judgments balanced
with consideration of environmental issues.

A-1
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH APPROACH

INTRODUCTION

While the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (amended) and Section 4(f) of the
U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 specify nationally applicable processes for
considering preservation or replacement of historic bridges (defined as those that are listed in or
have been determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places), there is
no corresponding protocol that ensures a nationally consistent approach to determining when
rehabilitation is the appropriate decision or when replacement is justified. State and local
transportation agencies have developed a wide variety of approaches for managing historic
bridges, and many of them proactively define treatments and uses after decisions about
rehabilitation or replacement have been made. But few of the processes are founded on written
protocols or guidelines that ensure balanced decision making that spells out to all stakeholders
when rehabilitation is the prudent alternative.

When an engineer considers rehabilitation or replacement of a deficient, non-historic

bridge, the engineer may not look very deeply into rehabilitation unless the bridge is of
substantial length (at least a few hundred feet) or has multiple spans. For those bridges, whether
they are historic or not, rehabilitation is nearly always considered because it is often less
expensive than full replacement. This approach is sound and valid because ways to upgrade the
bridge and keep it in service are fully considered. But the same approach is not consistently
applied to shorter bridges. Owners and managers often decide to replace shorter bridges that
have structural, functional and/or safety problems rather than consider rehabilitation based on the
proven long-term cost effectiveness of replacement for short and single-span bridges. With so
many shorter and less complicated bridges now identified as historic, and thus worthy of
preservation under federal policy and statutes, the engineering approach to decision making
needs to acknowledge the value of these bridges and to take their historic value into account in
the decision-making process.

Those concerned about preservation of historic bridges acknowledge that there is a need
for nationally applicable guidance on analysis and decision making that balances engineering
judgment and environmental issues. There is also a need for definitions of when rehabilitation
can be considered prudent and feasible and when it cannot. The guidelines need to address all of
the issues associated with decision making, including thresholds that define such issues as when
cost makes remedial work not prudent or when a context-based solution is appropriate.

Some deficiencies are easily corrected. Others may require so much effort to bring the
bridge into conformance that rehabilitation may not be the prudent decision. Not all historic
bridges can be saved, but many can. Preservability of a historic bridge, as with any bridge, is a
factor of its ability to perform adequately, which is defined by engineers as meeting current
minimum standards or guidelines in the areas of load capacity (structural), geometry (functional)
and safety. The cost to achieve and maintain adequacy in these areas must also be factored into
any definition of preservability.

A-2
 Historical significance must also be a major factor in the decision-making process,
including whether the bridge is of such significance that a higher level of effort to preserve it is
warranted. If a bridge can be improved to an acceptable level in a prudent manner, within the
limits of acceptable technology and without adversely affecting what it is that makes it historic,
then the bridge is likely a viable candidate for rehabilitation.

RESEARCH APPROACH

The approach to research was to use existing information to the greatest extent possible
and then synthesize it (1) to identify effective practices, (2) to provide an accurate assessment of
the state of the practice of historic bridge “rehabilitation-versus-replacement” decision making
among state and local transportation agencies, (3) to identify approaches for consistent and
balanced decision making, and (4) to understand if historic bridge “issues” delay projects. The
research was conducted by doing a literature search (see Appendix A) and a targeted
questionnaire (see Appendix B). Both efforts were structured to identify effective practices and
the issues that prevent consistent consideration of rehabilitation potential of all historic bridges.
A great deal of anecdotal and empirical data is provided by the research team based on their
years of experience assessing the rehabilitation potential of all types of historic bridges.

A questionnaire was developed to determine the current state of practice and decision-
making processes that are being used by the states. The questionnaire was sent to 49 engineers
and environmental specialists, including historians, preservationists, archaeologists, and
managers, with county, state, and federal transportation agencies and state historic preservation
offices (SHPOs).

The guidelines for historic bridge rehabilitation or replacement decision making

represents the synthesis of the literature search, questionnaire responses and experience of the
researchers.

A-3
CHAPTER 2

FINDINGS

LITERATURE SEARCH

The literature search (Appendix A) revealed that very little has been published (including
the web) that addresses specific evaluation criteria or guidelines for historic bridge rehabilitation
or replacement decision making. Rather, much of the existing body of literature describes
particular rehabilitation projects or general approaches to decision making, particularly methods
for expediting or streamlining consultation under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), Section 106, and Section 4(f).

The literature search identified two previous NCHRP syntheses by William Chamberlin
(1983, 1999) that do an excellent job of summarizing the issues faced and methods used by state
highway departments. Chamberlin concludes that approaches and levels of historic bridge
rehabilitation expertise vary greatly from state to state. Some states start with the mind set that
historic bridges should be preserved unless thorough analysis proves that rehabilitation and
preservation is not prudent and feasible; 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 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 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 (ADT<400), 2001. That guidance, which is
now part of AASHTO’s A Policy 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 outgrowths of
their historic bridge inventories, but the plans tend to be process oriented and offer a menu of
possible treatments rather than a protocol or specific technical guidance for deciding when to
rehabilitate and when to replace. Maine DOT’s Historic Bridge Preservation Plan (2004) was
the only one identified to have a specific quantifiable protocol for rehabilitation or 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 Service’s Technical
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
deciding whether to rehabilitate or replace historic bridges.

A-4
FINDINGS FROM QUESTIONNAIRE ON CURRENT STATE OF DECISION-MAKING
PRACTICE

A 16-question questionnaire was developed to research the current state of historic bridge
rehabilitation-versus-replacement decision making. It was sent to 49 engineers, 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 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
identified 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 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 and 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 achieved 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
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 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.

The survey findings confirmed the dearth of general information about historic bridge
analysis and decision making. Suggestions for disseminating useful information 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 coordination
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
AASHTO’s Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (ADT<400), but
which may not have been known or useful enough to the respondent.

A-5
 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 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 already 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 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
ownership 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.

A-6
CHAPTER 3

HISTORIC BRIDGE REHABILITATION/REPLACEMENT DECISION-MAKING

GUIDELINES

THE NEED FOR DECISION-MAKING GUIDELINES

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, the US Department of

Transportation (US DOT) Act of 1966, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969 specify nationally applicable processes for considering preservation of historic bridges, but
there is no corresponding guidance to ensure a nationally consistent approach for determining
when they should be rehabilitated or replaced. Many state and local transportation agencies have
developed approaches for managing historic bridges, including some well thought-out treatments
for preserving specific bridges. Most of the approaches reflect the culture of each agency, as well
as the knowledge and preferences of the individuals making decisions, rather than written step-
by-step protocols that lead engineers, managers and environmentalists, including historians and
preservationists, through a process to achieve consistently balanced and well-founded decisions.

While there are stunning historic bridge preservation successes, like Vermont’s metal
truss bridge preservation program or Oregon’s Coastal Highway bridge rehabilitations, the
perception is that historic bridges that could be saved are not being saved because rehabilitation
is not as fairly and consistently considered as it could be. Additionally, a need to better integrate
historic bridge rehabilitation or replacement decision making into the NEPA process has been
identified. To that end, step-by-step guidelines have been developed to address historic
preservation and engineering issues in a manner that reflects the appropriate balance between the
two seemingly divergent objectives – preserving old bridges and maintaining a safe, efficient
transportation system. These guidelines will lead decision makers through considerations that
will define when rehabilitation is feasible and prudent, and when it is not, based on engineering
judgments balanced with consideration of environmental issues.

HOW TO USE THE DECISION-MAKING GUIDELINES

The guidelines focus on the initial decision related to keeping a historic bridge in service
and on-system, not whether it has potential for adaptive use. They are more than a reiteration of
environmental review processes or identification of preferred treatments for historic bridges.
Their purpose is to lead decision makers step-by-step through a series of relevant questions that,
when answered using a balanced approach based on readily available data sets and effective-
practice techniques, will define when a bridge can be made adequate and when it cannot. The
guidance is also intended to demonstrate to owners and managers that, while there are more
issues with old bridges than those designed to meet current codes, there is a great deal of
flexibility available to make them adequate and safe while maintaining their historic
significance.

Since conditions vary from bridge to bridge, the amount of analysis needed to support a
balanced decision will vary. Some deficiencies are easily corrected while others require more
effort to bring a historic bridge into conformance with engineering standards. Some deficiencies

A-7
or site limitations are so severe that a bridge cannot be retained in service. Other factors, like
initial and life-cycle costs and the inherent perception that a new bridge is better than an old one,
affect decisions. What will not vary, however, is the relevance of certain data to define when
rehabilitation is warranted and when it is not.

Those involved with keeping historic bridges in service have struggled to codify or
quantify a threshold or rule for when rehabilitation is feasible and prudent and when it is not.
Ultimately, the rehabilitation or replacement decision, as with any bridge, is based on the cost
and level of effort needed to make it safe and adequate. If a bridge can be improved to an
acceptable level in a feasible and prudent manner without destroying what makes it historic, then
it is generally a viable candidate for rehabilitation. These guidelines are based on using three
key aspects of adequacy that, when balanced with environmental issues, can serve as thresholds
defining when rehabilitation of historic bridges is feasible and prudent and when it is not. The
three aspects of adequacy are (1) superstructure and substructure condition, including scour and
waterway adequacy, (2) geometry and safety, and (3) load-carrying capacity. While the
thresholds are applicable in most instances, there may also be other issues, including NEPA-
related issues that will affect the decision.

The guidelines lead decision makers through four steps that will result in balanced and
appropriate decisions. Each step integrates engineering and historic preservation considerations
and is intended to achieve iterated assessments.

Step 1, Understanding What Makes a Bridge Historic, provides an understanding of the

historical significance of the bridge and its components.

Step 2, Applying Structural and Functional Considerations, discusses how to balance

considerations addressing functional and operational inadequacy with historical and
environmental issues.

Step 3, Historical and Environmental Considerations, addresses any historical and

environmental issues not addressed in step 2.

Step 4, Applying the Decision-Making Thresholds, explains how to use the information
from steps 1 through 3 to define and support when rehabilitation of a historic bridge is
feasible and prudent and when it is not.

STEP 1: UNDERSTANDING WHAT MAKES A BRIDGE HISTORIC

What Makes the Bridge Historic?

The first step, and the one that will underlie all planning and preliminary engineering
assessments, is to understand why a bridge is historic.1 Bridges meet the National Register
Criteria For Evaluation and are determined to be historic for many reasons, including the fact
that they have integrity of workmanship, design, and materials. Significance can range from
being a rare example of an arcane bridge type, like a pin-connected truss, to a common bridge
type located in an architectural, commercial or rural historic district where scale rather than

A-8
technology is the primary issue. When the reason for eligibility is not well-articulated and
understood, it is difficult to make appropriate decisions about how to preserve or maintain what
makes a bridge significant or ensuring that all possible planning has been done to avoid or
minimize harm.

By understanding what makes a bridge historic, decision makers can proceed to

consideration of feasible and prudent ways to preserve significant features without having an
adverse effect. This is often done by upgrading or even replacing features of lesser importance.
Integrating this assessment of effect of any proposed actions on the historic bridge is at the heart
of meeting the federal regulatory processes required under Section 106 of the NHPA, Section
4(f) of the US DOT Act and NEPA. The clearer the understanding of significant features, the
more successful the selected alternative will be, whether a historic bridge is rehabilitated or
replaced. The understanding will also inform appropriate mitigation measures when they are
required.

Is the Bridge of Average or High Historical Significance?

All bridges that meet the federal definition of historic are afforded equal consideration
under federal laws and procedures, but not all historic bridges are equally significant. Those
that are important on the state or local level are generally considered to be of average
significance, like common bridge types located in and contributing to a historic district. Other
bridges of greater importance at the state or at the national level are generally considered to be of
high historical significance, for example a rare survivor of certain important bridge types or early
applications of a technology that goes on to have a tremendous influence on bridge building,
such as an early prestressed concrete bridge.

Understanding the level of significance is particularly important in light of FHWA’s and

NEPA’s emphasis on the holistic approach to decision making. That guidance seeks to balance
environmental and engineering issues based on the relative significance of affected Section 4(f)
properties. Bridges of high significance should be afforded greater effort to preserve them, while
average bridges may not merit a similar effort. This does not imply lessening the test for
prudence and feasibility of rehabilitation for average-significance bridges; it does mean that
some bridges deserve greater effort to rehabilitate than others.

Public interest and other circumstances may raise the level of consideration that an
average preservation priority bridge receives, but a lack of interest or public opinion should not
lessen the level of consideration. It is acknowledged that bridges for which there is a
constituency are more likely to be rehabilitated than those for which there are no advocates. If
the bridge is historic, federal laws and processes still require that it be fairly assessed for its
rehabilitation potential. The issue of education is an extremely important factor in decision
making, not just for owners and engineers but also for politicians and the public, who often drive
the decision-making process.

A-9
Can Members Be Changed Without Adversely Affecting Historic Significance?

Not all bridge members or components are equally significant; the relative importance of
components varies among the bridge types and associative historic contexts. Understanding
which members are vital to maintaining historical significance and which are not frequently
provides ways to upgrade the structure without adversely affecting it. For an early reinforced
concrete arch bridge that is technologically significant, for instance, it is the arch ring that is
important, not the standard-design railings or the roadway width. For another arch bridge that
was designed to reflect the aesthetic tenets of the City Beautiful movement, it may be that all of
the features, including the railings, are important and thus worthy of preservation in order to
maintain historical significance.

This understanding of which members contribute to the significance of a particular

historic bridge should be used during engineering analysis and evaluation phases to assess
whether the proposed work has an adverse effect or not. For example, whether the floorbeams of
a pin-connected pony truss bridge are original or not does not affect historical significance, but
retention of the pinned connections certainly does. Can floorbeams and stringers be replaced in
kind? Yes, if they are pin connected thus maintaining integrity of original design, materials and
workmanship. Similarly, can a technologically significant arch bridge that is too narrow be
widened without an adverse effect? Since the arch alone makes the bridge historic, widening it
with a cantilevered deck section and appropriate railings/barriers without dramatically changing
the overall scale can preserve the historic arch and achieve the project goals (Figure 1).

Knowledgeable historians and preservationists are responsible for understanding and

articulating which members are historically important and should be retained whenever possible,
and which can be modified without having an adverse effect. It is also their responsibility to be
reasonable and exercise good judgment that facilitates rather than hinders rehabilitation.

Members/Components That Generally Have Historical Significance

The following is a list of bridge members and components that are generally considered
significant features of historic bridges. The list is not intended to be comprehensive as
significance and importance can vary depending on the bridge type and design and why it is
historic.

• Technologically significant components or details. This addresses a wide variety of items

from panel point connections on metal truss bridges to early reinforcing designs for
concrete to continuous beams and suspended section connections (Figure 1, Figure 2).
• Particular configurations of truss design, such as Pratt, Warren, Whipple, etc.
• Completeness of early examples of common bridge types.
• Stone masonry bond patterns. Mortar joint types and compositions.
• Arch rings and related spandrel walls.
• Aesthetic railings. This does not include standard-design railings, which are rarely
aesthetic.
• Scale of bridges located in historic districts.

A-10
Members/Components That Generally Are Not Vital to Retain

The following is a list of bridge members and components that are generally not considered
significant features. The list is not intended to be comprehensive as significance and importance
can vary depending on the bridge type and design and why it is historic.

• Decks, unless they are an early or rare example of significant design, such as a brick jack
arch or composite.
• Standard-design railings unless they are an integral component of a significant standard
design (Figure 2).
• Substructure units unless they are historically or technologically significant or an integral
part of significant design (Figure 2).
• Stringers and floorbeams, unless the deck is significant.
• Rivets (Figure 3).
• Exact dimension and strength of structural steel (Figure 3).
• Existing railings when replaced with compatible ones that meet safety considerations and
reflect the original design. (Figure 4, Figure 5).
• Location of metal truss bridges. Truss bridges have historically been relocated and
reused.
• Bearings.

A-11
Figure 1. Bankhead Highway over Proctor Creek Bridge in Atlanta, GA. The 1908 bridge is
historically and technologically significant because it is one of the oldest reinforced concrete
arch bridges in the state. It is the arch itself, not the original railings (removed ca. 1955 when the
steel stringer-supported sidewalks were added) that makes this bridge eligible for the National
Register. The significant element is below the deck. Photograph by Lichtenstein Consulting
Engineers, Inc.

Figure 2. Standard-design 2-span continuous bridge in Georgia. Understanding what makes this
seemingly ordinary, 2-span continuous steel stringer bridge significant is crucial to assessing
rehabilitation or replacement options. Built in 1931 by the Georgia Highway Department, it
represents state standard design that was both innovative and important to modernization of the
state highway system. Technically the bridge represents an early national application of
continuous beams, which were selected because of the economy. The timber pile bent
substructure, cantilevered deck sections, and one-rail high concrete railings also reflect economy
of design, making all of the elements part of what makes this particular bridge type and design
historic. This means that even the substructure units and the standard-design railings, which are
generally not significant features, are in fact significant. Changing them, even if reusing the 2-
span continuous beams, would be an adverse effect. Photograph by Lichtenstein Consulting
Engineers, Inc.

A-12
Figure 3. Detail of Delaware River Bridge at Washington Crossing, NJ. Undersized and
deteriorated truss members of the 1904 bridge were replaced in kind with higher strength steel to
increase the load carrying capacity. Note that the new built up members have high-strength bolts
instead of the original rivets. The wood deck was replaced with an open steel grid deck, which
also increased load capacity. Photograph by Lichtenstein Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Figure 4. Kansas Corral railings on John Mack Bridge at Wichita, KS. The crash-tested Kansas
Corral railings were placed in front of the superstructure on the 1931 bridge as part of the early
1990s rehabilitation. Note how the simple design blends appropriately with the original design
of the historic bridge. The original bridge is a Marsh-design steel through arch with a reinforced
concrete flooring system and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Photograph by
Lichtenstein Consulting Engineers, Inc.

A-13
 5a – Elevation.

5b. Through view showing modern railings.

Figure 5. Partridge Bridge at Whitefield, ME. The historical significance of Maine’s earliest
reinforced concrete rigid frame bridge, built in 1935, was not lost when an appropriate new
railing that is sufficiently stiff was placed. The design defers to the original but addresses current
safety concerns, including how approach guide rail is attached to the end posts. The railing was
designed by the bridge maintenance division of the Maine Department of Transportation.
Photograph by Lichtenstein Consulting Engineers, Inc.

A-14
Upgrading That Generally Has No Adverse Effect

The following is a list of some activities that generally do not have an adverse effect on
historic bridges. It is important to consider the reversibility of actions. A general rule is that it is
better to add than to take away. The list is not intended to be comprehensive as significance and
importance can vary depending on the bridge type and design and why it is historic.

• Adding guide rails when done in a manner that is reversible and does not damage historic
fabric.
• Addition of strengthening members if accomplished in a sensitive manner (Figure 6).
• Raising overhead members to increase vertical clearance when increase is proportional
and appropriate to overall dimensions.
• Material added to “harden” bridges against extraordinary events when the work is done in
a reversible manner and does not affect original design or how components work, such as
suspender covers on suspension bridges or adding plate to built-up members.
• In kind replacement of selected members using similar shapes and dimensions.

6a. Post-tensioned diagonal. 6b. Post-tensioned lower chord.

Figure 6. Walnut Street Bridge at Chattanooga, TN. The 1891 pin-connected bridge was
strengthened by post-tensioning the diagonals and the lower chords. Post-tensioning strands can
be seen between the eye bars of the diagonals in the foreground of 6a and in a lower chord detail
in 6b. Note the original built up floorbeam and cantilever bracket. Photograph by Lichtenstein
Consulting Engineers, Inc.

A-15
Completion of Step 1

When step 1 has been completed, decision makers should have a clear understanding of
why the bridge is historic, which members or components should be retained if possible, and
which members or components could be used to upgrade the bridge in an appropriate manner.
This information should be used as guidance for issues to address in steps 2 through 4 and to
achieve balanced judgments in evaluating the effects of proposed actions on the historic bridge.

STEP 2: APPLYING STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Once the significance of the bridge is understood, the next step is to determine if the
engineering objectives can be achieved while preserving what makes the bridge historic. As
stated previously, the engineering decision whether to rehabilitate or replace a historic bridge, as
with any bridge, is driven primarily by the ability to improve it to an acceptable level. This
decision generally means addressing three areas of functional and operational adequacy:
superstructure and substructure condition – scour and waterway adequacy, load-carrying
capacity, and geometry and safety features. Step 2 takes those three aspects of adequacy and
balances their consideration with historic preservation issues. The three aspects of functional
and operational adequacy will come into play again in step 4 as the thresholds for defining when
rehabilitation is feasible and prudent and when it is not, but only after historical and
environmental considerations have been integrated into the analysis.

Analysis of Structure Condition and Waterway Adequacy

This section provides guidance on how structural condition and waterway data needs to
be analyzed to determine if deficiencies can be brought into conformance with current standards
in a feasible and prudent manner without adversely affecting what makes a bridge historic.

The convention for defining superstructure and substructure adequacy is the National
Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) condition rating code (Table 1). Values from 0 to 9 are
linked to definitions that characterize the overall physical condition, not localized deterioration
or disrepair. These guidelines are based on using a condition rating of 4 (poor condition) as the
qualifier for when a bridge may have rehabilitation potential. Experience has demonstrated time
and again that a condition rating of 4 or higher suggests that structural condition is conducive to
rehabilitation. This does not mean that a current condition rating of less than 4 is reason to
replace a historic bridge since many bridges with this condition rating can be improved at a
reasonable cost. Condition ratings should be based on a current, in-depth, hands-on inspection
and any test results.

The adequacy of the waterway opening and any scour potential must be considered.
Scouring due to normal flows or flooding may cause undermining of foundations and put the
entire structure at risk. Where data indicates that flood elevations have increased over time, low
superstructure members may now be located below the flood-plain elevation, affecting the
adequacy of the waterway opening or rendering the superstructure susceptible to damage. Bends
in waterways may direct water flows at bridge abutments or piers causing scour. The number of
piers may cause an increase in water velocity due to a reduction in the waterway cross section.

A-16
Historic bridges, depending upon their age, may or may not have had substructures sized to
account for any scour effects. Additionally, they may not meet current design guidelines, which
are based on a 100-year flood event.

Code Description

N NOT APPLICABLE

9 EXCELLENT CONDITION

8 VERY GOOD CONDITION - no problems noted.

7 GOOD CONDITION - some minor problems.

6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - structural elements show some minor

deterioration.

5 FAIR CONDITION - all primary structural elements are sound but may have
minor section loss, cracking, spalling or scour.

4 POOR CONDITION - advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling or scour.

3 SERIOUS CONDITION - loss of section, deterioration, spalling or scour have

seriously affected primary structural components. Local failures are possible.
Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present.

2 CRITICAL CONDITION - advanced deterioration of primary structural

elements. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present or
scour may have removed substructure support. Unless closely monitored it may
be necessary to close the bridge until corrective action is taken.

1 "IMMINENT" FAILURE CONDITION - major deterioration or section loss

present in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal
movement affecting structure stability. Bridge is closed to traffic but corrective
action may put back in light service.

0 FAILED CONDITION - out of service - beyond corrective action.

Table 1. Condition rating descriptions. From Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure
Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges, Federal Highway Administration, Report No.
FHWA-PD-96-001, December 1995, p. 38.

The crucial first step in analysis of the structural condition adequacy is to understand the
cause and effect of any deterioration. This means that an in-depth, hands-on inspection needs to
be conducted to document the nature and extent of the deterioration. Previous inspection and
maintenance reports can provide information on any progression of deterioration or efficacy of
remedial actions. Gathering needed baseline information may require specialized tests for

A-17
accurate strength and condition data. With a full understanding of the deficiencies, all
appropriate treatments to make the structural condition adequate should be considered. This
includes defining and supporting the level of effort required to bring the bridge into conformance
and the associated costs. This analysis may indicate that the level of effort is much too costly
even though it is feasible to do the work. At that point, it may be possible to support a conclusion
that the bridge does not have rehabilitation potential based on its current condition.

Considerations for Correcting Structural and Waterway Deficiencies

Methods to correct deficiencies and make historic bridges adequate vary greatly
depending on bridge and material type. Successful techniques common to particular bridge
types, designs and/or materials should be considered. Additionally, new methodologies are
continuously being developed and thinking “outside the box” is recommended. At a minimum,
the following approaches to addressing structural deficiencies should be considered, at least
summarily, before a decision to replace a historic bridge is made based on its structural
condition.

Plain, Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete

Common problems: cracking, corrosion that results in spalling, cyclic freezing,

shrinkage and creep, moisture penetration, and poor coverage of reinforcing.

• Can deteriorated/failed material be removed and replaced in kind to match the existing
appearance?
• In a salt-water environment, can cathodic protection be installed?
• Can protective jackets be added to a substructure unit?
• Can piles be added around or within a footing to increase strength?
• Can a deteriorated deck be removed and replaced?
• Can a new waterproofing and/or drainage system, including clean fill, be installed?
• Can a relieving member be installed on arch bridges?
• Can broken prestressing strands be replaced?

Iron and Steel

Common problems: rust/corrosion resulting in section loss.

• Can a deteriorated or cracked member be replaced in kind?

• Can a deteriorated or cracked member be repaired with additional material bolted to it?
• Can members be added to supplement deteriorated or undersized ones?
• Will applying a coating system arrest corrosion?
• Can an auxiliary structural system, like post-tensioning, be installed (Figure 6)?

A-18
Stone and Brick Masonry

Common problems: cracking, cyclic freezing, moisture penetration and resulting

movement, vegetation resulting in movement of units, acid attack, and mortar joint failure.
Additionally, bricks are subject to spalling and efflorescence.

• Can stone arch spandrel walls and/or arch ring be disassembled and rebuilt?
• Can proper waterproofing and drainage be installed?
• Can masonry be repointed in an appropriate manner?
• Can a relieving member be installed over an existing arch?

Wood

Common problems: fire, decay, insect damage, and degradation of lignin.

• Can deteriorated or decayed members be replaced in kind or with a compatible material?

• Can an effective drainage system be installed?
• Can a preservative treatment be applied?

Waterway Adequacy and Scour

Common problems: scouring of the channel bottom due to normal flows and flooding
that put the entire structure at risk of failure.

• Can the superstructure be raised and substructure units capped?

• Can material be pumped into voids under piers?
• Can channel bottom protection be placed?
• Can concrete underpinning at abutments be installed?
• Can foundations be strengthened by the installation of piles around or within a footing?
• Can the channel be redirected?

In general, if the waterway opening is not adequate and cannot be adapted as noted
above, the bridge may not be a candidate for rehabilitation.

Analysis of Load-Carrying Capacity

This step provides guidance on how load-carrying capacity data needs to be analyzed to
determine if deficiencies can be brought into conformance with current standards/guidelines in a
feasible and prudent manner without adversely affecting what makes the bridge historic.

All in-service bridges, regardless of original design capacity or date of construction, are
required to carry a load based on a specified design vehicle. The load-carrying capacity is
determined using reduced section properties, where applicable, to account for deterioration of the
main load-carrying members and appropriate allowable stresses due to the age of the material.
Based on this analysis, the existing capacity of the structure is then compared to the capacity that

A-19
would be required to support the design vehicle. State DOTs have discretion in what trucks are
used for analysis and can use vehicles that are representative of usage in their state.

Understanding the actual load capacity is a critical first step and one that requires a
concerted effort to ensure that the analysis is fair to the historic bridge. In order to accurately
determine allowable stresses, material strength tests may be needed. Test results provide solid,
scientific data that bring credibility to the decision-making process. On larger bridges, using
three-dimensional finite element analysis coupled with load-testing and strain-gauging often
results in a finding that the bridge is capable of supporting more load than was computed using
conventional methods.

Every bridge needs to have a structural capacity that is consistent with the road network it
services, and how that is achieved must be well thought-out. When a bridge enters an agency’s
work program, an analysis is made to determine if it can support legal loads, which in many
cases is HS20 or HS25 depending on the roadway classification. The NBI ratings (inventory and
operating) can be used as a starting point, but an independent analysis must be made. At this
time appropriate or perhaps innovative methods to reduce dead load should also be considered
and evaluated. Under some circumstances, it may be appropriate to consider a lesser design
vehicle, such as an H15 vehicle for county and municipal routes not subjected to significant truck
traffic.

Many historic bridges have low load-carrying capacity because they either have
deterioration or were designed for lighter vehicles than current standards. There are several
common methods to address load-carrying deficiencies. One involves increasing the live-load
capacity of the members either by strengthening individual members or member replacement
using higher strength material. Another is to reduce dead load by replacing the existing deck
with a new, lighter-weight deck. In other instances, consideration of a lower structural capacity
may be warranted. The bridge could be located on a very low-volume local road where it only
needs to carry lighter vehicles, or there is a higher-capacity bridge nearby that can service
heavier loads.

Considerations for Improving Load-Carrying Capacity By Bridge Type

Common problems associated with inadequate load-carrying capacity are deteriorated

members, particularly controlling members, inadequate load capacity of the original design to
meet current requirements, too much dead load, simplistic analysis that does not reflect the true
capacity of a bridge, and roadway classification.

At a minimum, the following approaches to addressing load-carrying capacity

deficiencies should be analyzed.

Remedial Methodologies Common to Multiple Bridge Types:

• Can dead load be reduced by replacing the deck with a lighter one?
• Can carbon-fiber reinforcing polymer wrapping be used to strengthen concrete
components?

A-20
 • Can material be added to individual members to increase capacity? This includes
installing high-strength rods as well as plates.
• Can deteriorated members or sections of members be replaced in kind to restore
structural integrity and/or increase capacity?
• Can a parallel bridge be constructed to create a one-way pair and thus reduce the live
load? If so, any visual changes should not be considered adverse when the historic bridge
is preserved.
• Can use of the bridge be restricted? Is there a full-capacity crossing nearby?
• Can the roadway be reclassified? This could result in a different definition of adequate.

Arch Bridges

• Can existing fill material be replaced with lighter-weight fill or engineered fill to
decrease dead load?
• Can a relieving slab or auxiliary member be placed to carry some or all of the live loads?

Truss and Girder-Floorbeam Bridges

• Can the flooring system be replaced in kind with higher capacity members? Upgrading
floorbeams and stringers can increase load-carrying capacity significantly.
• Can the truss lines or girders be used to support themselves and any sidewalks as part of a
new superstructure? The usefulness of this alternative is predicated on many factors
including original dimensions and how much the bridge can be widened so that scale of
the bridge is not compromised (Figure 7).

Analysis of Geometry and Safety Features

This step provides guidance on how geometric and safety-feature data needs to be
analyzed to determine if deficiencies can be brought into conformance with current
standards/guidelines in a feasible and prudent manner without adversely affecting what makes
the bridge historic. When working with historic bridges, geometry and safety-feature deficiencies
often prove to be the most challenging to solve.

For a bridge to continue in use, it must be geometrically (functionally) adequate and safe.
Geometric adequacy includes consideration of the number of travel lanes, roadway width,
shoulder width, approach roadway width, vertical clearance over the roadway, underclearances,
horizontal clearances, sight distances across the bridge and at the approaches, proximity to
intersections and the functional classification of roadways carried and any crossed. Safety
features include the crashworthiness of guide rail and railing systems based on their capability to
effectively redirect an errant vehicle and to safely stop it in a controlled manner.

Two parameters that are used to evaluate the geometric adequacy of a bridge are the
functional classification of the roadway, which is based on whether it serves as an arterial,
collector or local road and whether the setting is urban or rural, and the average daily traffic
(ADT) count. The ADT also considers the percentage of that count that is truck traffic. Traffic
volume affects historic bridges because they are often geometrically inadequate for today’s usage

A-21
demands. Since geometric adequacy is defined by the characteristics of the traffic serviced, ADT
is an important consideration affecting the required number and width of lanes, shoulder widths,
and roadway alignment. These parameters are often used together to set minimum acceptable
geometric guidelines and standards.

Bridges with geometry or safety features that do not meet current design standards are
classified as functionally obsolete. However, a bridge classified as functionally obsolete because
it does not meet current guidelines should not automatically be considered unsafe and in need of
replacement. Many functionally obsolete bridges perform adequately. For those instances, a
design exception for width should be considered and used if it is appropriate. Design exceptions
are based on in-depth studies that include data such as accident history, travel speed, etc., to
support using a lesser design criteria. Under certain conditions, a reduced roadway width can be
justified.

Figure 7. Truss Bridge at Califon, NJ. One of the first truss widening projects in the mid-
Atlantic region, the historic 1887 pin-connected through truss bridge located in the Califon
historic district was widened from 17' to 24' between the truss lines in 1985 by cutting the trusses
and attaching them to the fascia stringers of the new superstructure. While the original flooring
system, and thus how the truss bridge worked has been lost, the truss lines support themselves
and the original cantilevered sidewalks. The widening was successful because of the original
scale of the 100’-long bridge. A 10' widening would not be successful on a 60'-long pony truss
bridge. Note how the widening is appropriately expressed in the portal brace. Photograph by
Lichtenstein Consulting Engineers, Inc.

A-22
Geometry on Very Low Volume Local Roads

To account for the correlation between lower traffic volume and lack of accidents caused
by substandard geometry, AASHTO in its 2001 Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-
Volume Local Roads (ADT <400) established geometric guidelines that are now part of its A
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (5th edition, 2004). The very low-volume
local road guidance uses risk assessment in determining roadway and bridge width adequacy by
weighing the cost effectiveness of the work against "substantial safety improvements.” The
AASHTO guidelines state that “existing bridges can remain in place without widening unless
there is evidence of site-specific safety problems related to the width of the bridge.” Based on
this guidance, if the bridge is on a local road, is performing well, and is structurally adequate, it
probably has rehabilitation potential. This policy supports and reinforces earlier guidance from
AASHTO that a certain level of flexibility, when applied to bridges on low-volume roads, would
allow lesser design values based on specific, minimal, "tolerable" criteria. Bridges that are
functioning adequately now, and can be considered to do the same into the future with
appropriate maintenance, are considered to have rehabilitation potential even though they do not
meet current standards.

Many states have adopted their own bridge and roadway geometric policies for various
classifications of highways. These policies are considered to be a starting point for bridge widths.
Additionally, width of the approach roadways and their continuity with the bridge roadway width
can be an important consideration that may affect the definition of "tolerable" and thus
rehabilitation potential. If the bridge roadway width is equal to that of the approaches and
neither the bridge roadway width or approach roadway width meet current design requirements,
the bridge may still be a candidate for rehabilitation until such time as the approach roads are
also upgraded and as long as other considerations, like accident history, demonstrate adequate
safety performance. This concept is being used increasingly by state DOTs to “right-size”
projects.

Using Accident History to Understand Deficiencies

Accident reports are an extremely useful source of specific information about what
geometric features of the bridge, if any, are problematic. It is important to review specific
accident reports to determine what types of accidents are attributable to the bridge itself,
including its geometric characteristics and its safety features. The reports are generally compiled
by highway segment, not for a bridge alone, so accidents may not be related to bridge
deficiencies. A nearby intersection, for instance, may have turning movement-related accidents.
Since the intersection and bridge share a common highway segment, all accidents will be
reported with the bridge, which may in fact be functioning adequately. The review of accident
reports will also assist with assessing risk management.

Considerations for Improving Geometry and Safety Problems

Common problems associated with geometry and safety are many and include bridge
width, shoulder width, clearances, stopping sight distances (or vertical and horizontal alignment
of the approaches that results in insufficient stopping sight distances), superelevation, proximity

A-23
to intersections, and railing/barrier design. Additionally, there can be safety problems related to
substandard geometry and roadside features at the ends of the bridge, like the blunt ends of
superstructures above the roadway, lack of a proper barrier system (length, inadequate transition,
inadequate attachment to the bridge railing), and crashworthiness of bridge railings.

While not comprehensive, the following are important questions to consider. The
relevance of particular questions will vary depending on site constraints.

• Can a bridge be widened without adversely affecting its scale (Figure 7)?
• Can the vertical clearance be increased to remain in scale with the bridge and not have an
adverse effect?
• Does the original design make it possible to consider adding cantilevered deck sections
(Figure 1)? Can sidewalks be cantilevered from the superstructure?
• Can substandard approaches be improved to an acceptable level using techniques like
adding shoulders, flattening curves, flattening side slopes, adding superelevation,
removing hazardous features, etc.?
• Likewise, can sight distance be improved?
• Can any sidewalks be eliminated to provide more roadway width?
• Can signals or signage be installed to control alternating flow of traffic on a low-volume
road?
• When the proposed improvement is for a highway or street that is already substandard,
can minimally acceptable standards/guidelines be used?
• Would a design exception result in maintaining the historic bridge and meeting the
project goals?
• Can the roadway be reclassified?
• Can custom or context-based railings appropriate for the bridge type and setting be used
(Figure 4)?
• Can a crashworthy traffic barrier be placed at the curb line, and the historic railing
retained?
• Can the historic bridge be retained and used for pedestrian sidewalks/bikeway in
combination with a new vehicular bridge using a funding source other than the Highway
Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP)? Using the historic bridge to
maintain some of the functionality of the upgraded crossing may result in being able to
keep it on-system and thus eligible for future maintenance funds.
• Can a parallel bridge be constructed to create a one-way pair? If so, visual changes
should not be considered adverse when the historic bridge is preserved.
• Can the scale and proportions of a bridge contributing to a historic district be maintained
by a new, replacement bridge and have no adverse affect to the district?
• Is it prudent to avoid use by constructing a bypass? This frequently means that the
historic bridge will not remain on-system and will require a new owner.

Railings

Many railing systems and traffic barriers on historic bridges do not meet current safety
standards for crashworthiness, minimum height, and adequacy of guardrails at the approaches, or

A-24
the transition between the two systems. They are therefore evaluated as substandard and
obsolete. Additionally, older railings may be deteriorated due to normal deterioration and
deferred maintenance. On some, the opening size between individual rail components can create
snagging hazards and pocketing problems that can result in unacceptable vehicular deceleration.

Crashworthiness is based on a railing’s capability to effectively redirect an errant vehicle

and to safely stop it in a controlled manner, and it is determined by conducting crash tests on
full-scale railings in accordance with established guidelines. The AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Standards have adopted the test levels specified in NCHRP Report 350, Recommended
Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features, which requires that
railings on new bridges be crash tested. The test levels range from TL-1 for low volume, low
speed local streets to TL-6 for heavy trucks with high centers of gravity and unfavorable site
conditions.

Replication of historic railings to meet crash test requirements is difficult because the
older railings were not designed for modern design impact loads. One approach is to find a
crash-tested barrier, like the open balustrade Texas railing (T411) that can be modified to
recreate the appearance of a historic design. Many configurations of railings have been crash
tested, and approved railings can be found at the FHWA Safety Web site
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/road_hardware/bridgerailings.htm (Figure 5).

Some state agencies take a different approach to defining safe bridge railings by using the
AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition. Deficient railings on
existing bridges can be replaced using designs that defer to the historic shape while meeting
safety and load requirements specified in the Standard Specifications. States like Oregon use
this approach to construct new reinforced concrete railings that resist snagging and are capable of
withstanding a 10,000 pound horizontal force and look like the historic railings they replaced.
This approach, which is used with FHWA and SHPO concurrence, provides the opportunity to
design new railings that are visually historic while meeting the design load requirements for
railing strength. When railings are truly an important part of the historic value of a bridge, this
approach should be considered.

Considerations for Improving Bridge Railings. Providing adequate traffic railings or

barriers on historic bridges is a common problem. There are many effective practices for
addressing substandard railings, including placing approved traffic railings in front of
substandard ones or placing a traffic railing at the roadway curb line. Substandard historic
railings can also be replaced with new, compatible designs that meet current safety standards.
Whenever possible, new railings that defer to the original design should be determined to have
no adverse effect on the historic bridge.

Some railing-related questions to consider are as follows:

• Can deficient railings be replaced “in kind” with no adverse effect, i.e., with a design that
incorporates modern load and safety features with the historic design?
• Can an aesthetic, crash-tested design be used as an in-kind replacement (Figure 5)?

A-25
 • Can crashworthy traffic railings be installed at the roadway, leaving the historic railings
in place?
• Can an adequate guide rail system be placed in front of historic railings, which will be
left in place?
• Can a stone parapet be rebuilt in reinforced concrete capable of meeting current codes
and faced with a stone veneer that matches the historic pattern?
• Can members be added to increase height or reduce opening size?

Completion of Step 2

When the step 2 analysis of the engineering objectives has been completed, specific
condition, load-carrying capacity, and geometry/safety deficiencies will have been identified.
Methodologies for addressing the deficiencies will be fully understood as will their efficacy to
meet the project need and purpose.

The next step is to evaluate the proposed actions against historical and any other
environmental considerations. The engineering judgments will be balanced with historical and
any other environmental considerations as well as costs, both initial and life cycle, to support the
appropriate decision.

STEP 3: HISTORICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

While engineering issues and costs often drive the decision to rehabilitate or replace a
historic bridge, they are not the only factors involved in the analysis and selection of the
preferred alternative. Since passage of the NHPA and the US DOT Act in 1966 and NEPA in
1969, the federal government has established procedures affording those concerned with historic
preservation opportunities to be a meaningful part of the analysis and decision-making process
when historic properties are involved. This means that for projects to have credibility with
multiple perspectives, it must be demonstrated that preservation and/or avoidance of an adverse
effect has been fairly considered as part of the scoping and preliminary engineering studies, and
that all possible planning to minimize harm to historic properties was done. This integration of
historical and environmental issues has the greatest efficacy when it is done from the outset of
the project.

Common Problems

There are many common problems associated with historical and environmental issues
related to making decisions about historic bridge rehabilitation or replacement. They include, but
are not limited to, the following:

• Not clearly understanding the historical significance of a bridge.

• Failure of preliminary scoping, preliminary engineering, and/or the NEPA process to
incorporate federally required activities to assess effect or to demonstrate that there is no
feasible and prudent alternative that does not involve using the historic bridge.
• Failure to demonstrate that all possible planning to minimize harm has been done.
• Failure to adequately consider the views of the public.

A-26
 • Failure to match project need and purpose with actual conditions of the setting (context-
sensitive-based).
• Inability to apply flexibility when it may be appropriate to achieve a balanced solution.
• Engineering prejudice against certain historic bridge types.

Approaches for Addressing Historic and Environmental Considerations

Since these guidelines are intended to balance historic preservation with engineering
issues throughout the decision-making process, there is likely to be some overlap between steps
2 and 3 as consideration of some historical issues will have already been integrated into the
analysis of the engineering data in step 2. Given the breadth and variety of historical and
environmental issues, there may well be other factors that must be taken into account. This could
include looking at engineering judgments from the environmental perspective, particularly non-
construction methodologies. Considerations will vary from project to project depending on
factors like bridge type, severity of deficiencies, setting or historic context, and other
environmental issues.

The following are some of the commonly applicable historical and environmental
considerations that, at a minimum, should be considered. This could include looking at selected
engineering judgments from the environmental perspective:

• Are there additional environmental constraints like wetlands, historic archaeological

sites, takings, or other NEPA issues that must be considered? If so, do they affect the
feasibility of particular methods to rehabilitate or replace the bridge?
• Does the required work to address deficiencies exceed what is generally considered to be
prudent? This includes cost and other effects to non-4(f) resources like communities or
natural resources.
• Can the project goal be achieved without an adverse effect to historic properties?
• Is the SHPO placing too much emphasis on visual effect of proposed modifications at the
expense of losing an opportunity to otherwise retain a historic bridge?
• With the understanding that safety cannot be compromised is rehabilitation possible
using de minimis impacts or a design exception?
• Does the project meet the regulatory definition of adverse effect but still preserve what
makes the bridge historic? In this instance it may be the feasible and prudent alternative
even though it is determined to have an adverse effect.
• Is required work so extensive that, while feasible, it is not prudent given the initial cost
and effect on a historic bridge?
• Are the engineering conclusions well supported? Was avoiding or not using the historic
bridge considered?
• Can the project goal be achieved using minimally acceptable or tolerable design criteria?
• Can the roadway be reclassified to lower the definition of what is structurally and
geometrically adequate?
• Is the project need and purpose statement appropriate to the setting? For example, is a
40'-wide bridge scoped for a project that has a lengthy 24'-wide approach roadway with
no improved shoulders?
• Have non-construction alternatives to meeting the project goal been explored?

A-27
 • Have the views and values of the community been appropriately addressed?
• Is preservation being used as the reason to resolve land use and zoning issues thus
skewing the importance of the bridge to the detriment of sound engineering and/or
safety?

Completion of Step 3

Completing step 3 will result in tempering engineering data and analysis with historical
and environmental considerations and offer a clear understanding of the effect of any action on
the historic bridge or other environmental considerations. It also results in knowing which
methodologies will achieve the project goals of providing a safe and adequate facility while
preserving what makes the bridge historic.

The next step is to determine the feasibility and prudence of the alternatives.

STEP 4: APPLYING THE DECISION-MAKING THRESHOLDS

Step 4 uses the aspects of adequacy – the structural and functional/safety factors –
tempered with historic considerations to define when rehabilitation of a historic bridge can be
considered feasible and prudent and when it can not. This is where the decision to rehabilitate or
replace a historic bridge is supported and justified by applying the decision-making thresholds to
the findings and conclusions from steps 1 through 3. Step 4 starts with understanding the
meaning of prudent and feasible and moves to applying that understanding to the thresholds of
adequacy to support the decision to rehabilitate or replace the historic bridge.

Defining Feasible and Prudent

The measure of the viability of any proposed alternative is whether it is feasible and
prudent. What does feasible and prudent mean? From the engineering perspective, the
technology exists to do almost anything given unlimited resources. Thus, much is possible or
technically feasible, but is that action prudent? Resources are not unlimited, and there are other
engineering and environmental concerns that affect decision making, like initial cost, life-cycle
costs, and any additional environmental issues, from the presence of other historic properties or
wetlands to extraordinary disruptions.

There is no inclusive definition of what is prudent and what is not; it varies from project
to project based on its need and purpose and existing conditions. It is useful, however, to think
of prudent as tempering feasibility with common sense and realistic constraints. Is it feasible, for
example, to spend $5,000,000 to paint a long historic through truss bridge that is functionally and
structurally inadequate and cannot be brought into conformance? Yes, it certainly is, but is it
prudent to do so when the bridge will remain substandard? Does that judgement change when
there are no long-range plans to replace the substandard bridge with one that meets current
design and safety criteria? Is it then prudent to paint the bridge and do all that can be done using
both construction and non-construction techniques to make it as adequate as possible?

A-28
 To facilitate advancing projects through the NEPA process using a holistic approach,
FHWA has defined a feasible and prudent alternative as one that “avoids using Section 4(f)
property [like a historic bridge] and does not cause other severe problems of a magnitude that
outweighs the importance of protecting the Section 4(f) property. In assessing the importance of
protecting the Section 4(f) property, it is appropriate to consider the relative value of the resource
to the preservation goals of the statute [23 U.S.C. 138 and 49 U.S.C. 303 and known as Section
4(f)].” Through codification (CFR 774.17(h)(1-5)), which at this writing is in the comment
phase, FHWA provides six instances of when an alternative is not feasible and prudent:

1. It cannot be built as a matter of sound engineering judgment;

2. It compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the project
in light of its stated purpose and need;
3. It results in severe safety or operational problems;
4. After reasonable mitigation, it causes severe impacts or disruptions to other resources,
groups, communities or the environment;
5. Extraordinary initial and/or life cycle costs; and/or
6. Causes unique problems or other factors.

Life-cycle costs are one of the most frequently used factors in decision making. Agencies
have limited resources, and choices must continually be made whether to utilize them on old
bridges. There are some historic bridges where cost clearly is not an issue, like our landmark
bridges or long bridges that will be rehabilitated without being considered for replacement. But
those instances are few and far removed from the problems of allocating resources among the
much more common shorter and average significance bridges. It is for these structures where
initial construction and long-term maintenance costs are vitally important and often the deciding
factor. Additionally, a bias that new is better than old often factors into decisions.

Once the issues related to load capacity, functional adequacy and environmental concerns
have been addressed, the remaining question is “How much do initial cost (cost of rehabilitation)
and life-cycle costs differ from that of a new bridge?” There are no hard and fast rules to answer
that question, but it can be said with certainty that if the cost of rehabilitation is less than the cost
of replacement, if the life-cycle costs are approximately equal to that of a new bridge, and if the
life of the rehabilitation is on the order of 25 years, then rehabilitation can be easily justified
even though a new bridge may have a life of 50 years or more. Experience shows that even if
the cost of rehabilitation approaches the cost of replacement, as long as the cost of maintenance
and the rehabilitation life remains reasonable, rehabilitation of the historic bridge is justified.
Rehabilitation should not be considered if the maintenance costs are extremely high and if major
work will be required in less than 25 years.

An important point to remember is that rehabilitation must correct the deficient features
using methods that do not require constant maintenance. Selected materials and methods should
be the best available and in conformance with generally accepted preservation and conservation
guidance, even when cheaper and less long-lived methods are available. The prudent approach is
to rehabilitate well so that the work does not need to be done again anytime soon and that
maintenance costs are not abnormal.

A-29
 Because existing conditions and the level of effort to make a historic bridge adequate
vary from bridge to bridge, it is not possible to prescribe hard and quantitative rules as to when
rehabilitation is feasible and prudent and when it is not. Decision making needs to be founded on
a reasoned understanding of when the work needed to make a bridge adequate exceeds the
benefits of such work. This includes balancing the cost and effect(s) with the historical and
cultural significance of the bridge itself and the impact of the bridge work on other
environmental considerations. The consideration of other environmental factors in a holistic
manner may result in a sound and balanced decision that those other factors are more important
than preservation of the historic bridge. Even though the bridge work is feasible, from the
holistic perspective, it may not be prudent.

Application of Thresholds Based on Aspects of Adequacy

This step explains how to use the aspects of adequacy – the structural and
functional/safety factors – to determine when rehabilitation of a historic bridge is feasible and
prudent and when it is not. It is acknowledged that rehabilitation or replacement decisions are
largely founded on the ability of a bridge to perform adequately based on aspects of functional
and operational adequacy. At the same time, it must also be acknowledged that the adequacy
thresholds are not the stand-alone definition of when replacement is the right decision. It is not
appropriate to decide to replace a deficient, historic bridge unless all feasible and prudent means
to address the deficiencies without adversely affecting what makes the bridge historic, as well as
any other environmental constraints, have been fully analyzed and fairly evaluated in accordance
with these guidelines.

Since rehabilitation or replacement decisions are largely founded on the feasibility and
prudence of making the superstructure and substructure condition, load-carrying capacity, and
geometry/safety features adequate, the thresholds defining when rehabilitation is the appropriate
decision and when it is not are based on placing the bridge into one of six groups. These groups
are derived from probable combinations of the three aspects of adequacy. Combinations that
include bridges with inadequate superstructure and substructure condition and adequate load-
carrying capacity are not included because it is unlikely that bridges with poor condition ratings
would have an adequate load-carrying capacity. Within each of the six groups is guidance on
when rehabilitation may be the appropriate decision and when it may not.

Group I. Adequate: Superstructure/Substructure Condition

Load-Carrying Capacity
Geometry

Group II. Inadequate: Geometry

Adequate: Superstructure/Substructure Condition
Load-Carrying Capacity

Group III. Inadequate: Load-Carrying Capacity

Adequate: Superstructure/Substructure Condition
Geometry

A-30
 Group IV. Inadequate: Load-Carrying Capacity
Geometry
Adequate: Superstructure/Substructure Condition

Group V. Inadequate: Load-Carrying Capacity

Superstructure/Substructure Condition
Adequate: Geometry

Group VI. Inadequate: Load-Carrying Capacity

Superstructure/Substructure Condition
Geometry

From the engineering perspective, the threshold for defining when rehabilitation is the
appropriate decision is a structural condition code value of 4 (Table 1). A condition code value
of 4 (poor) will require further study to determine if there are feasible and prudent options for
rehabilitation. Bridges with a code value of 5 (fair) or greater generally have rehabilitation
potential.

A condition code value of 3 (serious) is unacceptable when and if the controlling

member(s) cannot be sufficiently improved. If the controlling member(s) can be improved, then
the bridge is considered to have rehabilitation potential despite its 3 or below rating. If the
controlling member(s) cannot be improved without destroying what it is that makes the bridge
historic, or if it is not feasible and prudent to do so, then the bridge is evaluated as not having
rehabilitation potential for remaining in service.

Bridges with high and exceptional historical significance should be considered for
rehabilitation based on a greater level of effort (level of engineering required, cost, etc.) because
of their overriding historical significance. Even with more effort, some may not have
rehabilitation potential. When there is no prudent or feasible way to keep a historic bridge in
service without destroying what it is that makes it significant or finding an adaptive use, even at
the higher level of effort, the bridge will not have preservation potential.

The thresholds described below have been presented in matrix form in Table 2.

Group I. Superstructure/Substructure Condition, Geometry, and Load-Carrying Capacity are

Adequate

These bridges are generally in poor (4), fair (5), or satisfactory (6) structural condition
and have adequate travelway width and alignment matching or exceeding that of the approaches.
All bridges in this group have rehabilitation potential.

Group II. Geometry is Inadequate; Superstructure/Substructure Condition and Load-Carrying

Capacity are Adequate

Many historic bridges are in this group because they were designed as one-lane or
narrow, two-lane bridges, often without shoulders, and are not adequate by today’s standards. In

A-31
addition to being narrow, some are located on horizontal curves that cause sight distance and
alignment problems. They may also have inadequate safety features like railings or barriers.

A bridge may be a good candidate for rehabilitation if widening and improving the
deficiencies can be accomplished without destroying what makes the bridge historic in a manner
that is feasible and prudent and without adversely affecting other environmental concerns like
wetlands, historic districts, and/or archaeological resources.

Older bridges often have no shoulders carried through from the approaches. The bridge
roadway width may or may not conform to the approaches. If the bridge lane width is equal to
that of the approaches and neither meets design requirements, the bridge would be a candidate
for preservation until such time as the approaches are upgraded and it can be demonstrated that
accident data is low, sight distance is good, and speed is low.

The AASHTO green book, which serves as a design standard in many states, allows
bridges to remain in place on local rural and rural collector roads and streets after an approach
roadway improvement if they meet certain "tolerable" criteria. AASHTO's 2001 Guidelines for
Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (ADT <400) states that "existing bridges
can remain in place without widening unless there is evidence of site-specific safety problems
related to the width of the bridge." Bridges that meet a state's bridge roadway width standards
and/or the AASHTO guidelines may have rehabilitation potential.

Based on supporting analysis and an evaluation that balances engineering with other
environmental issues like historic preservation, bridges with inadequate geometry can be
determined to have no rehabilitation potential under the following circumstances:

1. A bridge that has previously been widened or already has a cantilevered deck section and
has no capacity for further widening to improve the substandard geometry.
2. A bridge that is too narrow for its current usage, has inadequate approach geometry (such
as being on a sharp curve), and cannot be improved cost effectively.
3. A bridge that cannot be made geometrically adequate without destroying what it is that
makes it historic.

Group III. Load-Carrying Capacity is Inadequate: Superstructure/Substructure Condition and

Geometry are Adequate

Bridges that are in this group were originally designed for lighter loads than are currently
acceptable. The superstructure and substructure may be in fair or better condition (condition
rating of 5 or greater), but the bridge is simply not strong enough to support today’s heavier
vehicles. Those bridges that can be strengthened to increase load-carrying capacity without
destroying what it is that makes it historic in a manner that is feasible and prudent have
preservation potential. This includes using generally accepted methodologies for strengthening in
a sensitive manner that does not alter the integrity of the original design of the bridge.

Local bridges that have or can be strengthened to an H15 load-carrying capacity and are
on very low volume (<400 ADT) and low volume roads (less than 1000 ADT) with a low

A-32
percentage of truck traffic (5% or less) and for which there is an appropriate bypass may have
preservation potential.

If the reason for a low load-carrying capacity is not clear, the bridge should be considered
to have rehabilitation potential until more in-depth evaluation into the deficiencies and specific
analysis can be completed. Decisions need to be based on actual conditions, not assumptions,
particularly when there are methodologies to determine these conditions.

Based on supporting analysis and evaluation that balances engineering with other
environmental issues like historic preservation, bridges with inadequate load-carrying capacity
can be determined to have no rehabilitation potential under the following circumstances:

1. A bridge that has no capacity to be strengthened or cannot be strengthened in a cost-

effective manner.
2. A bridge with a high percentage of truck traffic that cannot be made adequate.

Group IV. Load-Carrying Capacity and Geometry are Inadequate; Superstructure/Substructure

Condition is Adequate

Bridges in this group generally were originally designed for lighter loads and smaller
vehicles with lower ADTs. In analyzing the bridges within this group, group II criteria should be
used for geometry, and group III criteria should be used for load-carrying capacity. If the
analysis of conditions of either or both groups indicates that a bridge cannot be made adequate
without destroying its historical value or other environmental concerns, then rehabilitation may
not be the feasible and prudent decision. Bridges that cannot be improved in a manner that is
feasible and prudent so that both the geometry and the load-carrying capacity are adequate may
be considered as not having rehabilitation potential.

Group V. Load-Carrying Capacity and Superstructure/Substructure Condition are Inadequate;

Geometry is Adequate

Bridges that are in this group were originally designed for lighter load requirements
(load-carrying capacity) and are deteriorated due to age or poor maintenance practice. These
bridges will typically require some level of structural rehabilitation to improve their condition
and load-carrying capacity. Sometimes the amount of work required is too great or the bridge
type is one that cannot readily be repaired and/or strengthened, like reinforced concrete rigid
frame and T-beam bridges. In analyzing the bridges within this group, group III criteria should
be used for load-carrying capacity.

Bridges that cannot be improved in a feasible and prudent manner so that both the
condition and the load-carrying capacity are adequate may be considered to not have
rehabilitation potential.

A-33
Group VI. Superstructure/Substructure Condition, Geometry, and Load-Carrying Capacity are
Inadequate

Bridges in this group are severely deteriorated and severely deficient. When a bridge is
deficient in all categories and those deficiencies cannot be corrected in a feasible and prudent
manner, it is very unlikely to have rehabilitation potential. The problems may be too great for
keeping it on-system.

A-34
Superstructure
Rehabilitation
/ Substructure Load-Carrying Capacity Geometry
Potential
Condition
Bridge can be widened or
Approach deficiencies can be improved Bridge has
without destroying what makes bridge potential
significant
Bridge roadway width equal to approaches
Capacity ≥ design Bridge may
but does not meet design requirements or
requirements have potential
No site specific safety problems
or
Capacity sufficient to meet Bridge has no ability to be widened or
acceptable lower design substandard geometry cannot be improved
requirements or
Bridge is
Bridge is too narrow for current use, has
unlikely to
inadequate approach geometry and cannot
have potential
be improved in cost effective manner or
Bridge cannot be made adequate without
destroying what makes bridge significant
Bridge can be widened or
Approach deficiences can be improved
without destroying what makes bridge
Bridge may
significant
have potential
Bridge roadway width equal to approaches
Capacity < design
but does not meet design requirements or
requirements
No site specific safety problems
NBI Ratings but
Able to meet a lower capacity Bridge has no ability to be widened or
≥5
requirement substandard geometry cannot be improved
in a cost effective manner or
Bridge is
Bridge is too narrow for current use, has
unlikely to
inadequate approach geometry and cannot
have potential
be improved in cost effective manner or
Bridge cannot be made adequate without
destroying what makes bridge significant
Bridge can be widened or
Approach deficiencies can be improved
without destroying what makes bridge
significant
Bridge roadway width equal to approaches
Capacity < design
but does not meet design requirements or
requirements Bridge is
No site specific safety problems
and unlikely to
Unable to meet capacity Bridge has no ability to be widened or have potential
requirements substandard geometry cannot be improved
in a cost effective manner or
Bridge is too narrow for current use, has
inadequate approach geometry and cannot
be improved in cost effective manner or
Bridge cannot be made adequate without
destroying what makes bridge significant
2a. Rehabilitation potential for structures with NBI Ratings ≥ 5.

Table 2. Rehabilitation/Replacement Thresholds Based on Aspects of Adequacy. Table by

Lichtenstein Consulting Engineers, Inc.

A-35
Superstructure
Rehabilitation
/ Substructure Load-Carrying Capacity Geometry
Potential
Condition
Bridge can be widened or
Approach deficiencies can be improved
without destroying what makes bridge
Bridge may
significant
have potential
Bridge roadway width equal to approaches
Capacity ≥ design
but does not meet design requirements or
requirements
No site specific safety problems
or
Capacity sufficient to meet Bridge has no ability to be widened or
acceptable lower design substandard geometry cannot be improved
requirements or Bridge is
Bridge is too narrow for current use, has unlikely to
inadequate approach geometry and cannot have potential
be improved in cost effective manner or
Bridge cannot be made adequate without
destroying what makes bridge significant
Bridge can be widened or
Approach deficiencies can be improved
without destroying what makes bridge
Bridge may
significant
have potential
Bridge roadway width equal to approaches
Capacity < design
but does not meet design requirements or
requirements
No site specific safety problems
NBI Ratings but
Able to meet a lower capacity Bridge has no ability to be widened or
= 3 or 4
requirement substandard geometry cannot be improved
in a cost effective manner or Bridge is
Bridge is too narrow for current use, has unlikely to
inadequate approach geometry and cannot have potential
be improved in cost effective manner or
Bridge cannot be made adequate without
destroying what makes bridge significant
Bridge can be widened or
Approach deficiencies can be improved
without destroying what makes bridge
significant
Bridge roadway width equal to approaches
Capacity < design
but does not meet design requirements or
requirements Bridge is
No site specific safety problems
and unlikely to
Unable to meet capacity Bridge has no ability to be widened or have potential
requirements substandard geometry cannot be improved
in a cost effective manner or
Bridge is too narrow for current use, has
inadequate approach geometry and cannot
be improved in cost effective manner or
Bridge cannot be made adequate without
destroying what makes bridge significant
2b. Rehabilitation potential for structures with NBI Ratings = 3 or 4.

Table 2. Rehabilitation/Replacement Thresholds Based on Aspects of Adequacy. Table by

Lichtenstein Consulting Engineers, Inc.

A-36
Superstructure
/ Substructure Rehabilitation Potential
Condition
Bridge is unlikely to have potential unless controlling members can be upgraded in a cost
effective manner.
NBI Ratings
≤2 If controlling members can be upgraded cost effectively, rehabilitation potential should be
considered as described for NBI ratings of 3 or 4 with regard to load-carrying capacity and
geometry impacts.
2c. Rehabilitation potential for structures with NBI Ratings ≤ 2.

Table 2. Rehabilitation/Replacement Thresholds Based on Aspects of Adequacy. Table by

Lichtenstein Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Endnote

1. Guidance on historical significance is generally part of states’ historic bridge inventories

and/or updates. The historic context narratives will explain why some bridges in statewide
populations are significant. Additionally, individual bridge inventory forms or reports may
address specific features for particular bridges as should any National Register of Historic Places
nomination. NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 15 A Context for Common Historic Bridge Types
(October, 2005) is useful as is Carl W. Condit’s seminal two-volume work American Building
Art published in 1961 by the Oxford University Press. For prestressed concrete, the Prestressed
Concrete Institute’s 1981 Reflections on the Beginnings of Prestressed Concrete in America is a
good source.

A-37
APPENDIX A

LITERATURE SEARCH

The purpose of the literature search was to identify and critically review the professional
literature and current practice, including those web sites, manuals, reports and protocols prepared
by state departments of transportation, useful in the development of nationally applicable
guidance for historic bridge rehabilitation analysis. Significantly, no literature was identified
that systematically and scientifically addresses national guidance for deciding when to
rehabilitate or replace historic bridges as a class.

Following is an annotated list summarizing the literature that was found to have the
greatest general applicability to the development of guidelines for historic bridge rehabilitation
analysis.

GENERAL OVERVIEW AND GUIDANCE

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Guidelines for Geometric
Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (ADT<400). Washington, DC (2001) 96 pp.

Now incorporated into AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and

Streets, also known as the Green Book, the guidance addressed the unique needs of very low-
volume local roads and the geometric designs appropriate to meet those needs. The guidelines
recommend an approach for both rehabilitation and new construction using safety risk
assessment and design flexibility based on the experience of engineering professionals familiar
with site conditions and local experience. The key elements in selecting an appropriate bridge
width are width of the approach roadway (traveled way and shoulder widths) and safety
performance of the existing bridge. The guidance states that a one-lane bridge is acceptable on a
road with ADT<100 when the bridge can operate effectively.

Chamberlin, W. P., “Historic Bridges – Criteria for Decision Making.” NCHRP Synthesis of
Highway Practice No. 101, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, DC (1983) 77 pp.

Establishment of National Bridge Inspection Standards and the Highway Bridge

Replacement and Rehabilitation Program to upgrade bridges with sufficiency ratings of less than
50% placed old and historic bridges at risk because they are the ones most likely to have
substandard geometry and/or load-carrying capacity. This pioneering synthesis examined state
highway agencies’ efforts to identify historic bridges and approaches to resolving inherent issues
to preserve them. The conclusion of the 1983 study was that both identification and preservation
of historic bridges varied greatly from state to state and few states had even considered a
consistent approach for managing them.

A-38
Chamberlin, W. P., “Historic Highway Bridge Preservation Practices.” NCHRP Synthesis of
Highway Practice No. 275, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, DC (1999) 64 pp.

William Chamberlin’s excellent research and synthesis that summarizes the variety of
methods state highway agencies use to manage their historic bridges remains definitive. It
makes clear that addressing historic bridges is done to satisfy federal laws, but how historic
bridges are managed and decisions are made is a state issue; there is not a national approach. In
addition to explaining the laws and issues associated with preserving or replacing historic
bridges, Chamberlin provides specific examples of various state approaches to bridge
preservation, which illustrate superbly his point that methods vary greatly from formal, stand-
alone documents to memoranda of agreement, protocols that outline a hierarchy of treatments to
be considered, and unwritten but spoken understandings of how decisions will be made.

DeLony, E. and Klein, T. H., “Historic Bridges: A Heritage at Risk. A Report on a Workshop on
the Preservation and Management of Historic Bridges. Washington, DC December 3-4, 2003.”
SRI Foundation, Preservation Conference Series 1 (June 2004) 32 pp.

Report is a summary of the issues, initiatives and recommendations identified by a

national panel of experts who gathered at a two-day workshop to define the issues confronting
historic bridges. The goal of the workshop was to consider possible solutions for preserving “this
heritage at risk.” The group produced ten specific recommendations to “streamline and enhance
historic bridge preservation and management nationwide,” and those recommendations range
from mandating states to do bridge-specific management plans to an NCHRP synthesis on
rehabilitation verses replacement decision making. The report also includes synthesis of a 15-
question survey sent to a variety of historic bridge stakeholders.

STATE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENTS – PLANS, PROGRAMS, AND

MANUALS

Connecticut Department of Transportation, Office of Environmental Planning. “Connecticut

Historic Bridge Inventory. Final Report: Preservation Plan.” Hartford, CT (1991) 206 pp.

As an outgrowth of the state’s historic highway bridge inventory, Connecticut’s

preservation plan was designed to provide decision makers with a menu of options (no action,
posting, by-pass, selective rehabilitation, major structural rehabilitation, relocation, replacement)
with applicability to various historic bridge types and contexts, like bridges on the Merritt
Parkway. While the plan does not establish specific decision-making criteria, it does provide
rehabilitation guidance and preservation considerations applied individually to each of the 120
historic bridges in the state inventory.

Maine Department of Transportation, “Historic Bridge Management Plan.” 2 vols. (2004).

MDOT’s comprehensive management plan consists of several supporting work products

including a report on appropriate treatments for historic bridge types and materials, a protocol for
establishing level of significance (average, high, exceptional), a protocol for determining when

A-39
bridges have preservation potential and when they do not, and bridge specific plans that balance
historic/environmental considerations with ability of the bridge to provide or be improved to
meet current standards and design criteria. Engineering judgments are used to assess ability to
achieve adequate level of service, geometry, capacity, condition, and long-term maintenance
impacting the feasibility of preservation and rehabilitation.

Miller, A. B., Clark, K. M., and Grimes, M. C., “A Management Plan for Historic Bridges in
Virginia.” Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, VA (2001) 127 pp.

The plan addresses the legal, engineering, regulatory, financial, and political issues that
arise concerning the management of historic bridges and evaluates treatment and management
options geared toward eliminating "...eliminates the need for costly and time-consuming bridges
studies that can unnecessarily slow planning, construction, and rehabilitation projects." A bridge
management database was developed with a system for rating significance levels and a matrix of
possible treatments including repair and maintain for vehicular use, structural upgrade to VDOT
standards, repair and maintain for adaptive use, transfer ownership, preventive maintenance,
discontinue use, abandon, document and dismantle for future use, and document and demolish.
The matrix was used to develop an individual management plan for approximately fifty state-
owned historic bridges. The plan recommends the establishment of a historic bridge
management fund and regularly scheduled updates to the management plan.

Ohio Department of Transportation, “Historic Bridges.” Web site address:

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/oes/hist_bridges.htm (As of March 16, 2007).

The website provides access to documents and data from ODOT’s historic bridge
program including programmatic agreements, preservation plans for truss and arch bridge types,
a clearinghouse list of truss bridges available for relocation and adaptive re-use, state funding
options for bridge rehabilitation, and a comprehensive list of the state’s historic highway bridges,
particularly useful to Ohio’s many county and municipal bridge owners.

Texas Department of Transportation, Bridge Division, “Historic Bridge Manual.” Revised

(April 2006) 42 pp.

The manual “provides guidance on TxDOT-required coordination activities, funding

restrictions, and reuse options to be considered when preserving historic bridges in the course of
bridge replacement and rehabilitation projects.” It contains minimum design criteria or
thresholds for load and width for off-system bridges with ADT <251. Note that this is more
stringent than AASHTO policy for the same classification of highway. Web site address:
http://manuals/dot.state.tx.us (As of March 16, 2007).

Sparks, Patrick, P.E. “Guide to Evaluating Historic Iron & Steel Bridges.” Prepared for the
Texas Department of Transportation (December 2004).

The guide presents a nondestructive approach to evaluating metal truss bridges based on
visual inspection, materials identification/characterization, and nondestructive testing and is
intended to supplement other guides and standards. It also includes guidance on structural

A-40
analysis and a bibliography that is strong on metallurgy.

Vermont Agency of Transportation, “Vermont Historic Bridge Program.” Web site address:
http://www.aot.state.vt.us/progdev/Sections/LTF/VermontHistoricBridgeProgram/HBP00Vermo
ntHistoricBridgeProgram.htm (As of March 17, 2006).

The web site contains all of the pieces for this state’s comprehensive approach to
preservation and maintenance of historic bridges. It includes programmatic agreements defining
how the program will work, development of bridge-specific studies to identify preservation
potential, uses and treatments, and state design standards that balance engineering and impacts
on natural resources, historic, scenic or other community values. The goal of each truss bridge
plan is/was to identify preservation use and treatments, so there are no specific decision-making
criteria or protocol. The Vermont program represents an exemplary agency commitment to
rehabilitation being the rule rather than the exception with all of the pieces in place, from state
design standards that tolerate “reasonable” widths and sight distances to financial incentives for
towns. Consequently, its guidance is more process rather than rehab versus replacement decision
making oriented. Their update of the approach to evolving plans for covered bridges represents
an important movement to applying a holistic approach with emphasis on public education and
involvement.

TECHNICAL LITERATURE

The technical papers published by professional societies, institutes, and agencies

represent the largest body of detailed information on specific strategies for historic bridge
rehabilitation. The available data tends to be project specific or specific to the study of particular
bridge materials. It is often derived from conferences and designed to communicate the
experiences and findings of practitioners to other practitioners, thus building up the professional
knowledge base.

The technical literature is an important resource to inform the development of specific

rehabilitation protocols as applied to specific bridge types, designs, and materials. The following
are a list of some organizations that have published technical papers related to historic bridge
rehabilitation, but it is not an exhaustive list.

American Concrete Institute (ACI)

The ACI publishes two journals (ACI Materials Journal and ACI Structural Journal) and
a magazine (Concrete International) that feature research, analysis, and projects related to the
development of the professional knowledge and application of concrete, including occasional
papers on maintenance, repair, and historic analysis. Most of the information presented is
project specific but there are some synopses of issues facing the rehabilitation of historic
reinforced concrete. The ACI journals and magazine are indexed and abstracted. Web site
address: http://www.concrete.org (As of March 16, 2007).

A-41
 Examples:

Kemp, E. L., “An Introduction to the Structural Evaluation of Historic Reinforced

Concrete Structures.” Concrete International, Vol.1, No. 10 (Oct. 1979).

O’Connor, J. P., Cutts, J. M., Yates, G. R., and Olson, Carlton A., “Evaluation of Historic
Concrete Structures.” Concrete International, Vol.19, No. 8 (Aug. 1997).

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

Among the many useful ASCE publications are its Conference Proceedings,
Transactions, Journal of Bridge Engineering, and Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering.
Articles are abstracted and searchable on-line. Web site address: http://ascelibrary.aip.org (As of
March 16, 2007). The application of the ASCE literature to specific bridge rehabilitation
solutions is wide ranging and offers a body of professional experience treating most historic
bridge types and materials. Articles offer strategies for addressing issues of structural analysis,
load-carrying capacity, and rehabilitation techniques. Data is offered that has potential use in the
establishment of specific rehabilitation protocols, e.g. reliable and proven methods of testing the
strength of wrought-iron truss members, often resulting in higher than assumed strength.

Examples:

Gordon, R. and Knopf, R., “Evaluation of Wrought Iron for Continued Service in
Historic Bridges.” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 4
(July/August 2005), pp. 393-399.

Green, P. S., “Rehabilitation of a Nineteenth Century Cast and Wrought Iron Bridge.”
ASCE Structures Congress, Proceedings (1999), pp. 259-262.

Lamar, D. M. and Schafer, B. W., “Structural Analysis of Two Historic Covered Wooden
Bridges.” Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 6 (November/December 2004), pp.
623-633.

Pullaro, J., “Restoring Historic Bridges Using Modern Methods.” ASCE Structures
Congress, Proceedings (1999), pp. 263-267.

Association for Preservation Technology (APT)

The APT Bulletin publishes case studies and technical information in the field of historic
preservation, including the history of building materials and state-of-the-art technical
information for preservation. Many of the articles are derived from papers presented at the
annual APT conference.

A-42
 Examples:

Fischetti, D. C., “Conservation Case Study of the Cornish-Windsor Covered Bridge.”

APT Bulletin, Vol. 23, No. 1 (1991), pp. 22-28.

Simpson, L., Guadette, P., and Slaton, D., “Centre Street Bridge Lions: Rehabilitation
and Replication of Historic Concrete Sculpture.” APT Bulletin, Vol. 32, Nos. 2/3 (2001),
pp. 13-20.

Sparks, S. P. and Badoux, M. E., “Non-destructive Evaluation of Historic Wrought-Iron

Truss Bridge in New Braunfels, Texas.” APT Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. 1 (1998), pp. 5-10.

National Park Service. Technical Preservation Services. Preservation Briefs.

The National Park Service’s Preservation Briefs series offers general guidance on
preserving, rehabilitating, and restoring historic buildings and structures. The briefs synthesize
important and widely accepted professional guidance on the treatment of historic materials,
much of it applicable to bridge rehabilitation approaches that meet the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards. Web site address: http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/TPS/briefs/presbhom.htm (As of March
16, 2007).

Examples:

Coney, W. B., “Preservation of Historic Concrete, Problems and General Approaches.”

Preservation Brief No. 15, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services,
Washington, DC (1987), 11 pp.

Mack, R. C. and Grimmer, A., “Assessing Cleaning and Water-Repellent Treatments for
Historic Masonry Buildings.” Preservation Brief No. 1, National Park Service, Technical
Preservation Services, Washington, DC (Revised, 2000), 17 pp.

Mack, R. C. and Speweik, J. P., “Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry

Buildings.” Preservation Brief No. 2, National Park Service, Technical Preservation
Services, Washington, DC (Revised, 1988), 21 pp.

Waite, J. G., “The Maintenance and Repair of Architectural Cast Iron.” Preservation
Brief No. 27, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, Washington, DC
(1991), 17 pp.

Weaver, M. E., “Removing Graffiti from Historic Masonry.” Preservation Brief No. 38,
National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, Washington, DC (1995), 15 pp.

A-43
APPENDIX B

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE

Two questionnaires were developed to solicit information on the current state of practice
regarding whether to rehabilitate or replace a historic bridge. One questionnaire was for historic
bridge owners and state agencies, and the other for state historic preservation office (SHPO)
personnel. They were sent to 49 engineers and environmentalists, including historians,
preservationists, archaeologists, and managers, with county, state, federal transportation agencies
and to SHPO offices. The purpose of the questionnaires was threefold: (1) to assess how
decisions are made related to rehabilitation versus replacement of historic bridges, (2) to solicit
suggestions on how to improve the process, and (3) to solicit data about decision-making that
could inform the guidelines.

Twenty-one respondents from 17 states responded to the questionnaire. Three responses

were from SHPOs, 17 responses were from state departments of transportation, and one response
was from a county. Because of the small number of responses from SHPOs and the similarity in
the questions asked in the two questionnaires, the results have been combined into a single
discussion of each question. Where responses from SHPOs differ significantly from other
responses, they have been specifically called out in the summaries below.

QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES

1. Do you consider your agency to be proactive in rehabilitation of historic bridges? If

not, why not?

Ten of the respondents (roughly half) considered their agency to be proactive in

rehabilitation of historic bridges. Reasons given for this included:
• the existence of multiple programs aimed at historic bridge preservation,
• pride in state heritage resulting in concentrated efforts to avoid replacement of
historic bridges,
• state encouragement to consider rehabilitation and relocation of historic bridges,
• subprograms for historic bridges in condition assessment done as part of study to
determine rehabilitation or replacement,
• active consideration for replacement if upgrading of historic bridge not feasible,
• the number of historic bridges that have been successfully rehabilitated, and
• transportation enhancement funds set aside to assist local governments in the
rehabilitation of historic bridges.

Of the remaining respondents who did not identify their agency as proactive in
rehabilitation of historic bridges, reasons given included:
• agency considers replacement to be better,
• not many rehabilitations have been done and agency has only recently begun to
consider rehabilitation a viable option,
• rehabilitation is not the primary mission of the agency,
• financial considerations,

B-1
 • engineering dominated decision making,
• rehabilitation is only considered when public input demands it,
• rehabilitation is considered a “last option,” and
• rehabilitation only considered if SHPO rules “No Adverse Affect”.

It is interesting to note that all of the engineers who responded as part of the survey
considered their agency to be proactive, while only two of the ten historians who responded
considered their agency to be proactive.

2. Do you have a written process/protocol that defines the decision-making process

related to historic bridge treatments? Does it address all types of bridges or certain
types like arches or trusses? Explain how it has or has not been successful.

Six respondents identified that their agency has a written process/protocol that defines the
decision-making process. Three respondents indicated that their agency is currently working on
a written process/protocol. Five of the nine respondents answered that their written process
addresses all types of bridges, whereas the remaining three addressed covered bridges and metal
truss bridges.

Of the nine respondents who currently have or are working on a written process, all
thought that their agencies are or may be proactive.

3. If you do not have a written protocol, do you have an unwritten but spoken
approach and is it consistently followed?

Three respondents indicated that their agency had an unwritten but spoken approach
consistently followed. Of these three, only one considered their agency to be proactive.

4. How does your process decide one way or another between rehabilitation or
replacement? What are the deciding factors? Is there a fair balance between
historic preservation issues/ NEPA/Section 4(f) considerations and sound
engineering or does one perspective dominate?

Eight respondents described the decision as a process specific to each bridge, usually
dependent on structural condition and geometrics, as well as rehabilitation costs.

Seven respondents stated that the decision to rehabilitate or replace an historic bridge is
based upon the results of NEPA, Section 106 and 4(f) processes and a finding of No Adverse
Affect from the SHPO, with input from engineers regarding structure condition.

Only three respondents stated that the process followed a plan. Plans included a multi-
variable ranking process and prescribed treatments for certain bridge types or specific bridges.
In the case of one respondent, the process is plan specific for certain bridges, with the remainder
of structures being decided on a case-by-case basis.

B-2
 Two respondents described the process as decided on an individual basis, where
rehabilitation usually is selected when the structure has an advocate or advocacy group pushing
for rehabilitation.

Two respondents stated that the decision is based on structural condition and the ability to
rehabilitate the bridge.

Identified deciding factors include (with number of times listed by respondents):

• cost (6)
• community input (5)
• SHPO/NEPA/Section 106/4(f) determination (4)
• engineering needs, such as ability to rehabilitate or maintenance of traffic (4)
• anticipated traffic (3)
• accident rates and other safety issues (3)
• historic significance (3)
• structural condition (2)
• geometrics (2)
• hazardous materials (1)

Eight respondents felt that there was a balance between historic preservation issues and
sound engineering. It is interesting to note that all those who felt there was a balance were also
those who thought their agency was proactive in rehabilitation of historic bridges. Only one of
the respondents who felt there was a balance was part of an agency who did not have either a
written or unwritten approach consistently followed.

Of those who felt that there is not a balance, engineering was always considered to
dominate the situation.

5. Are you satisfied with the process in your state? How could it be improved?

Ten respondents were satisfied with the process in their state. Eight of the ten also had
responded that their agency was either proactive or were not sure whether the agency was
proactive as far as rehabilitating historic bridges. Of the ten respondents, all but two either have
a written process or have an unwritten process consistently followed.

Eight respondents were not satisfied with the process in their state. Only two of these
eight felt that their agency was proactive regarding rehabilitation of historic bridges.

Suggested improvements to the process included:

• integrate rehabilitation or replacement decision into the process at an earlier stage, not
just at final design, so that there is more time to explore options,
• closer coordination between cultural resources staff, engineers and owners,
• evaluate all bridges for rehabilitation potential, not just the top tier or highest profile
structures, based on either past historic bridge survey or in addition to the condition
report, historic and engineering significance,
• examine structures on an individual basis, not as a group,

B-3
 • publish a historic inventory on the web,
• engineering background in SHPO,
• provide more consistent SHPO review without subjective interpretations,
• create a dedicated fund for historic bridge management and rehabilitation,
• provide a clear-cut process with a formula to make the decision,
• provide more predictability through use of a management plan, and
• include preservation recommendations in the historic survey.

Several respondents believed that a centralized formulation for deciding the feasibility of
rehab would promote preservation.

6. What information/methodology would be most helpful to making rehabilitation a

more viable alternate and facilitate the decision-making process?

Seven respondents suggested a permanent record of research and case studies that would
present successes and failures, the best practices and latest technology used in rehabilitation and
preservation. Safety railings were singled out by some respondents as a component that should
be particularly addressed.

Four respondents suggested that clearer guidelines regarding design exceptions and
options other than replacement would be helpful.

Other suggestions included:

• provide a method that would allow for earlier evaluation of a structure’s potential for
rehabilitation prior to assignment of funding to replace the structure,
• publicize the presence of federal funding sources for rehabilitation, in addition to
making more of these funds available,
• provide additional guidance regarding relocation, stabilization, and abandonment of
structures,
• provide better definitions of what makes a bridge or bridge type historically
significant and valuable,
• relax SHPO interpretations of Secretary of the Interior standards for preservation to
consider rehabilitation not an adverse affect as long as the basic design and geometry
is not altered, and
• provide policy guidance that is more forgiving of substandard features on low volume
roads.

7. Does lack of designated funds or incentives outside the highway bridge

rehabilitation replacement program factor into decision-making? If such assistance
were available, would that likely change decisions?

Sixteen of 19 respondents felt that the lack of designated funds does factor into decision
making. However, in light of this, only ten of fifteen respondents felt that additional assistance
would change decisions. It would appear that the decision to rehabilitate historic bridges is in
large part related to cost, but that cost is not the overriding factor.

B-4
8. Do projects involving historic bridges cause delays or other problems? Explain.

Twelve of 20 respondents felt that historic bridge projects do cause delays or other
problems. Explanations given included:
• extensive coordination required between the public, the agency and the engineering
consultant,
• the process is time consuming and has inconsistent review,
• repair options require historical assessment,
• section 106 and 4(f) processes,
• community objections to preservation treatments, and
• relocation of structures cause delays.

The eight respondents who felt that historic bridge project did not cause delays or other
problems offered the following as explanations:
• Their agency has a streamlined process with FHWA and SHPO already on-board,
• Survey, review and management process is proactive in identifying historic bridges
for rehabilitation,
• Agency is not willing to accept rehabilitation as an option, and
• Teams usually understand the scope of the project so that time delays are usually
avoided

9. Are staff (consultants) encouraged to consider lesser or minimal acceptable criteria in

order to accommodate rehabilitation rather than replacement or a context sensitive
solution?

Respondents from proactive agencies or non-proactive agencies were evenly split

regarding this question.

10. Are you comfortable with design flexibility? Why or why not?

Thirteen of 18 respondents felt comfortable with design flexibility. Reasons for this
comfort included:
• some decisions are better based on subjective issues,
• design standards for their agency recognizes the need for flexibility,
• agency in-house expertise,
• strong dichotomy between modern requirements and service a rehabilitated historic
bridge can provide, and
• guidelines have been set by state agency and AASHTO.

Reasons given by those not comfortable with design flexibility included:

• no clear guidance or precedents to compare or gauge decisions,
• structure must be able to meet an acceptable level regarding safety issues, weight
limits and future development,
• flexibility not accepted by engineers within the agency,
• reluctance by agency to try solutions that have not been tested within the state, and

B-5
 • liability-conscious agency.

11. Has FHWA’s emphasis on context sensitive solutions and/or AASHTO’s recent
guidelines on geometric design of very low volume local roads affected bridge rehab
or replacement decisions?

Thirteen of 19 respondents did not feel that the FHWA emphasis has affected decisions
regarding rehabilitation or replacement.

12. Does your staff (consultants) have the knowledge and understanding to fairly assess
rehabilitation potential?

Thirteen of 20 respondents believe their staff or consultants have the knowledge and
understanding to fairly assess rehabilitation potential. Interestingly, for three states in which
there were two respondents from different agencies within the state, the respondents did not feel
the same way about this issue.

13. Which bridge deficiencies have proven to be the most difficult to address through
rehabilitation? Please be specific.

The responses have been tabulated and are listed below, with the number of times
mentioned by respondents in parentheses):
• Geometrics, such as roadway width, horizontal clearance, overhead clearances, lane
widths and sight distance (17 respondents)
• Load capacity (10)
• Safety railings (7)
• Fatigue or fracture critical details (3)
• Waterway considerations (3)
• Material integrity due to deterioration (2)
• Replacement of substandard elements that cannot be replaced in kind (1)
• Lead paint abatement (1)
• Long term durability (1)
• Seismic retrofit (1)

14. What issues are important in determining whether a historic bridge is rehabilitated
or replaced? Grade the following from a 1-5 with 5 being very important and 1
being least important: Cost, Functionality, Life cycle cost/long term maintenance of
new vs. rehabilitated, Feeling that new is better than rehabilitated, Lack of
confidence in staff or consultants being able to rehabilitate bridges, Public opinion,
Other: please specify.

Among the six items requested for grading in the question, the average score (in order of
most important to least important) was as follows:
• functionality (average score 4.33)
• public opinion (4.06)
• cost (3.75)

B-6
 • life cycle cost/long term maintenance of new vs. rehabilitated (3.67)
• feeling that new is better than rehabilitated (2.82)
• lack of confidence in staff or consultants being able to rehabilitate bridges (1.88)

Several respondents listed additional items they considered important. These items are as
follows (listed by one respondent unless otherwise noted), along with rating scores:
• Safety – listed by three respondents, with average rating 5.00
• Location – listed by three respondents, with average rating 3.33
• Historic Significance –rating 5.0
• Willingness for an entity to accept ownership and liability for bypassed or “orphaned”
bridges – rating 5.0
• Traffic Volume – rating 4.0
• Environmental impact – rating 3.0
• Clear waterway of piers – rating 1.0

15. Do you have a bridge specific-historic bridge management plan that evaluates which
historic bridges have preservation potential and which do not? If yes, has it been
effective? Does it address all historic bridges or certain ones (type, condition, etc)? If
no, is one being considered?

Six of 18 respondents do have a bridge-specific historic bridge management plan that

evaluates the preservation potential of historic bridges. All six find the plan to be effective. Two
of the six respondents identified their plan as addressing all bridge types, with the remaining four
identifying specific structures or structure types. Structure types listed by the four respondents
included covered bridges and metal truss bridges.

Of the twelve respondents that do not have a historic bridge management plan, seven are
currently considering creating a plan.

16. Please provide additional comments that you would like to offer. A copy of any
written procedure or protocol or a link to an electronic version would be greatly
appreciated.

Aside from some web-based links where various agency documents could be found, few
additional comments were received. However, two comments were received related to costs and
funding. One respondent stated that making more funding available to local agencies for
rehabilitation and maintenance of historic bridges would make a huge difference in retaining
locally-owned historic bridges. The other respondent stated that monies for continued
preservation needs must be redistributed to state and federal reserves so that they do not have to
compete for funds with new construction projects.

A third respondent stated that saving bridges is unlikely unless there is local advocacy for
the rehabilitation of an historic bridge.

B-7