What are the most effective approaches to enhancing and streamlining Section 106 compliance for transportation projects that involve a National Register eligible or listed historic bridge? Looking for best practices, methods, programs, etc.
Terry H. Klein, SRI Foundation
I have 2 approaches that have been very effectively in Oregon. The first is the use of "stealth" bridge rails on historic bridge rehabiltation or preservation projects. This approach solves one of the most difficult conflicts we have faced when we decide to save a deficient historic bridge - the conflict between the FHWA requirement to upgrade the railing and the desire to preserve the historic value of the bridge by retaining the old historic rail. We solve this by working closely with FHWA to develop a design to completely replace the old rail with a much stronger rail that serves the safety needs, but looks exactly like the old rail. We add steel I-shape beams inside the rail and use special steel forms to precast the historic concrete rail in sections, then use high strength bolts to attach it to the deck. It meets all of the strength requirements and is a high quality, long lasting rail, since it is precast. FHWA in Oregon has approved this approach, even though the redirection performance is not quite as good as the safety shape or other approved bridge rails.
The other approach we have used very successfully is to use rendering in our drafting software, Microstation, to show SHPO and other key decision makers that we can add a small amount of deck widening to our historic bridge rehabilitation projects to enhance driver safety, without significantly detracting from the visual quality of an historic resource. In some cases we have been able to negotiatie a partial widening, that does not meet full AASHTO reqauirements, but make a significant improvement in safety. This approach is a compromise on both the safety and historic value preservation, but has allowed us to save a few historic bridges that would otherwise have been detroyed.
Bruce Johnson
From my perspective, the most effective approaches are:
I like all of Wayne's effective approaches. And as I read through them, I thought of a discussion we had at the TRB General Structures Committee last week when Mary McCahon and I presented the new AASHTO Guidelines for Historic Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement. A really effective approach is to develop a close cooperative working relationship between engineers (designers) and cultural resource agencies (like SHPO). If you have the inventories, databases of historic resources with the elements that make the resource historic identified, and management plans developed, this would position an owner agency and its engineers to develop that give-and-take, cooperative relationship that is necessary to preserve historic resources to the fullest extent.
I will attempt to post the electronic file of the NCHRP Report that formed the basis of the AASHOT Guidelines, for information.
Bruce
This is a test reply to Bruce's comment
Kitty
Kitty Henderson, Historic Bridge Foundation
Great ideas Wayne.
Terry
To me, the single best streamlining is good design: taking into account the value of the existing structure, its setting, aesthetics, etc., without being a slave to 'standards'. When you do this, you don't have to fight so much to get your project done.
Oregon brought Historic Bridges into its Bridge Program. They, along with Movable Bridges and Painted Steel Bridges form a class of special bridges that rehabilitation is the preferred alternative, and historic value and community value must be considered for any work proposed. This does not preclude replacement, but it means that structural engineers are consciously acting on behalf of the historic bridges, at least State-owned. Multnomah County, City of Portland, Linn County (and others with Covered Bridges) are acting similarly. As noted elsewhere, Oregon Division of FHWA has been a strong supporter of this approach, and of encouraging design exceptions to document doing the right thing. The historians and cultural resource specialists have the knowledge of what needs to be protected, but the engijneers have the knowledge of how to physically do it. Some form of partnering is required. Oregon Bridge Section took on the role of managing the physical assets, including funding the necessary work, based on the recommendations of the Headquarters Environmental Group and Regional Environmental Coordinators. This wasn't consciously streamlined, but the level of mutual trust built over many years made all actions appear quick and easy.