20181416_Meeting Minutes_20110321

0
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 21. 2011
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: File
7 +iW
FROM: Lisa Feller, Pqgngineer
Project PlannProject Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: February 2, 2011 Merger Project Team Meeting for TIP Projects
R-25306, B-4974 and R-2527, NC 24-27 Widening
A merger project team meeting for the subject projects was held on February 2, 2011. The
following persons were in attendance:
Felix Davila
Ronnie Smith
Christopher Militscher
Gary Jordan
Karen Compton
David Wainwright
Travis Wilson
Hannah Cockburn
Neal Stroup
Larry Thompson
Joel Howard
John Olinger
Art King
Tony Houser
Lee Moore
Casey Harris
Rekha Patel
Sam St. Clair
Dena Snead
Jay Twisdale
Ray Lovinggood
Rachelle Beauregard
Erica Mclamb
Beverly Robinson
Lisa Feller
Ruth Brim
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Environmental Protection Agency
US Fish and Wildlife Service
US Forest Service ;
NC Division of Water Quality
Wildlife Resources Commission
Piedmont Triad RPO
Division 10
Division 10
Division 10
Division 8
Division 8
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Hydraulics
Hydraulics
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE.' KWVV.DOH.DOTSTATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
The purpose of this meeting was to review stream and wetland crossings along the project and
discuss the appropriate hydraulic structures for stream crossings in order to obtain formal concurrence
on bridging decisions, Concurrence Point 2A. Potential alignment refinements and alternative
eliminations were also discussed, and several alternatives were eliminated from further study.
PROPOSED BRIDGE AND CULVERT REQUIREMENTS
The merger project team visited the following existing major stream crossing sites detailed in
the CP2A meeting packet: Sites 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13. Listed below are comments made at
the meeting concerning several of the sites:
• Site 4, Stream St-W - A portion of Stream St,W was redefined as ephemeral and deemed non-
jurisdictional by Ronnie Smith, USAGE, during the meeting. The Microstation wetland file has
been updated to reflect this change.
• Site 4, Stream St-V - Efforts will be made to minimize and avoid impacts during future stages of
the design process.
• Site 9, Stream SU - Mitigation will most likely be required. The potential for stream relocation
will be further evaluated during future stages of the design process.
• Site 10, Stream SY-A - Topography should allow Stream SY- A to be relocated. The use of
natural stream design will be further evaluated during the actual drainage design.
• Site 12, Stream SY-A - Topography should allow Stream SY-A to be relocated. The use of
natural stream design will be further evaluated during the actual drainage design.
The signed CP2A concurrence form is attached.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The project study area was divided into seven sections. Within each section, the merger team
discussed several different scenarios for widening existing NC 24-27. Both asymmetrical widening to
the north and asymmetrical widening to the south were eliminated from further study from NC 740 to
west of SR 1778 (Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4) at the February 2, 2011 meeting. Concurrence was not
reached on Section 5, from west of SR 1778 to east of NC 73. Additional input is needed from the NC
Department of Cultural Resources - Historic Preservation Office, and further investigation of the
condition of Bridge #50 is also needed.
The merger team agreed to study the following widening scenarios in further detail for Sections
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 on February 2, 2011:
R-2530B, Section 1 - NC 740 to SR 1731
- "Best Fit"- 23' Median
R-25308. Section 2 - SR 1731 to SR 1720
- "Best Fit"- 46' Median
R-2530B. Section 3 - SR 1720 to SR 1818
- "Best Fit"- 46' Median
R-25308. Section 4 - SR 1818 to west of SR 1778
- "Best Fit"- 46' Median
B-4974. Section 5 - west of SR 1778 to east of NC 73
- Alternative 1 - South side widening, replace Bridge No. 51
- Alternative 2 - South side widening, replace Bridge No. 51 and No. 50
- Alternative 3 - North side widening, replace Bridge No. 51 and No. 50
- Alternative 4 - Replace in place, replace Bridge No. 51
R-2527. Section 6 - east of NC 73 to SR 1134
-Asymmetrical Widening to the North - 46' Median / "Best Fit"
Comments: Concurrence was reached on December 11, 2008.
R-2527. Section 7 - SR 1134 to SR 1550
-Asymmetrical Widening to the North - 46' Median / "Best Fit"
Comments: Concurrence was reached on December 11, 2008.
The signed CP2Revised concurrence form is attached.
NEW INFORMATION
The Swift Island Ferry I James B. Garrison Bridge (Existing Bridge #51) is eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places. An Effects Assessment meeting was held on February 10, 2011
to establish effects findings for Section 5, Alternatives 1 through 4. Alternative 4 received an "Adverse
Effect" call. An "Adverse Effect" call was given for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 if no responsible party
agrees to take ownership of Bridge # 51. If a responsible party agrees to take ownership of Bridge #
51, then Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 will have "No Adverse Effect".' The signed effects assessment form is
attached.
Following the CP2A meeting and Effects Assessment meeting, a meeting was held to gather
information for the local municipalities regarding the preservation of Bridge #51. Please see the
attached March 2, 2011 meeting minutes for further details.
Also, following the CP2A meeting, the State Bridge Management Unit reviewed Bridge #50.
Please see the attached email from Dan Holderman, State Bridge Management Engineer, for details of
the review. The information from the State Bridge Management Unit was also discussed with the
Division 10 office. The Division recommends moving forward with selecting a preferred alternative for
B-4974; Section 5 without replacing Bridge #50 unless other facts determine a need to choose an
alternative that replaces Bridge #50.
Team Members:
Please provide your comments by April 15, 2011 concerning whether any of the four alternatives can
be eliminated based on the information above and below regarding B-4974, Section 5-NC 24-27 from
west of SR 1778 to east of NC 73.
• Alternative 1 - Build a new 1135' bridge south of the existing bridges. Existing Bridge #51 can
remain in place.
• Alternative 2 - Build two new 1155' bridges south of the existing bridges. Existing Bridge #51
can remain in place.
• Alternative 3 - Build two new 1255' and 1315' bridges north of the existing bridges. Existing
Bridge #51 can remain in place.
• Alternative 4 - Remove Bridge #51 and replace it with a new 1170' bridge. Existing Bridge #50
will remain in place.
Project Study Area Impacts Summary:
Construction USFS Effects Call for Bridge #51
Alt. Cost (2010 Streams Wetlands Homes Businesses Forest Land Preserved in Bridge
estimate) feet acres (acres) Place Removal
$14
000
000 No Adverse Adverse
1 ,
, 1430 0.08 4 3 9 Effect Effect
$21
200
000 No Adverse Adverse
2 ,
, 1942 0.31 4 3 10 Effect Effect
$22
900
000 No Adverse Adverse
3 ,
, 1639 0 5 4 15 Effect Effect
$11
300
000 Adverse
4 ,
, 1,529 0.02 2 4 9 NIA Effect
NOTES:
• All impacts, but the USFS Forest Land acreage, are based on preliminary design slope stake
limits plus 25 feet. The USFS Forest Land acreage is based on preliminary proposed right of
way limits.
• Stream length impacts have been revised to reflect a portion of Stream St-W being deemed
non-jurisdictional by Ronnie Smith, USACE, during this field meeting.
• Updated right of way costs for the alternatives have not been finalized at this time.
NEXT STEPS
• Determine what alternatives can be eliminated based on new information.
• Continue coordination with the municipalities, RPOs, the US Forest Service, etc. to determine
whether they are interested in taking over Bridge #51. Follow up with the NCDOT Bike and
Pedestrian Unit to determine what improvements need to be done to Bridge #51 to
accommodate bicycles and pedestrians.
• Coordinate closely with US Forest Service concerning any construction within the Uwharrie
National Forest.
• Coordinate with Progress Energy concerning preliminary design alternatives and FERC permits.
• A Concurrence Point 3 meeting to establish the LEDPA (Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative) will be scheduled in the future after the Environmental Assessment is
completed and a public hearing is held.
If any meeting participants have any comments, questions, edits, or additions to this
memorandum, please contact Lisa Feller by email at Ifeller(@ncdot.gov or by phone at [phone],
ext. 262.
cc: Attendees (via email)
Attachments
Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2A: Bridging Decisions
Proiect Name/Description: NC 24-27, Widen to multi-lanes from NC 740 in Albemarle
in Stanly County to the Troy Bypass, west of Troy, in Montgomery County
TIP Proiects:. R-25308, B-4974, and R-2527
WBS Nos.: 34446.1.6, 39922.1.1, and 35572. 1.1
Bridging Decisions Review:; The Project Team has concurred that the following
locations utilize the specified bridge and culvert requirements:

SITE /
STREAM ID PROPOSED
HYDRAULIC STRUCTURE
REQUIREMENTS
COMMENTS
R-25306:,

1) DITCH Retain & Extend.1 @ 87.5" X 68" .
87"X63" CMPA
2 / St-AN04+02 Retain & Extend 1 6'X 6' RCBC
3 / St-B Retain & Extend 1 6'X 6' RCBC
B-4974:

4 / St-T Retain & Extend 1 @ TX 7'
Bottomless RCBC
SITE 5,
Alternative 1 /
Pee Dee River Build a new 1135' bridge south of the
existing bridges. Existing Bridge 51
can remain in lace.
SITE 5,
Alternative 2 /
Pee Dee River Build two new 1155' bridges south of
the existing bridges. Existing Bridge 51
can remain in lace.
SITE 5,
Alternative 3 /
Pee Dee River Build two new 1255'.and 1315' bridges
north of the existing bridges. Existing
Bridge 51 can remain in lace.
SITE 5,
Alternative 4 /
Pee Dee River Remove Bridge 51 and replace it with
a new 1170' bridge. Existing Bridge 50
will remain in lace.
R-2527:
6/SA Retain & Extend 2 10 X 7 RCBC
7/ SB-1 Retain & Extend 2 9 X 7 RCBC
8/SD Retain & Extend 2 10 X 7 RCBC
9/ SE Retain & Extend 2 7, X 7 RCBC S q \ ©. 0 1 g j)
10 / SY-A Retain & Extend 1 7 X 5 RCBC
11 / SY-A Retain & Extend 1 L7&5 RCBC
12 / SF-B Retain & Extend 3 9 X 9 RCBC
13 / SY-B Retain & Extend 1 8 X 8 RCBC
Concurrence Point No. 2A Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Page I of 2
The Project Team has concurred on this date of February 2, 2011, on the above
mentioned bridge and culvert requirements for TIP Projects R-2530B, B-4974, and R-
2527.
USAC Z47-1 I i
USE
NCDOT 1 4/- 6)M.
USFWSz matt
USFS
FHWA-=? C? Y l y?u .i
WRC!?/r .? a 1[ DWQ ?y i
DCR .
Concurrence Point No. 2A Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Page 2 of 2
Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2k: Alternatives to carry forward
Proiect Name/Description: NC 24-27, Widen to multi-lanes from NC 740 in Albemarle
in Stanly County to the Troy Bypass, west of Troy, in Montgomery County
TIP Projects: R-2530B, B-4974, and R-2527
WBS Nos.: 34446.1.6, 39922.1.1, and 35572.1.1
Alternatives and Alignment Review: The Project Team has concurred that the
following checked alternatives be carried forward:
R-2530B, Section 1 - NC 740 to SR 1731
? Asymmetrical Widening to the North - 23' Raised Median
? Asymmetrical Widening to the South - 23' Raised Median
R-2530B. Section 2 - SR 1731 to SR 1720
? Asymmetrical Widening to the North - 46' Median
? Asymmetrical Widening to the South -46' Median

U Asym etrical Widening to the South - 46' Median
Commeni,
Concurrence Point No. 2A Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Page I of 2
R-2530B. Section 3 - SR 1720 to SR 1818
? Asymmetrical Widening to the North - 46' Median
n
R-2530B. Section 4 - SR 1818 to west of SR 1778
? Asymmetrical Widening to the North - 46' Median
B-4974. Section 5 - west of SR 1778 to east of NC 73
? Alternative 1 - South side widening replace Bridge No. 51
? Alternative 2 - South side widening replace Bridge No. 51 and No. 50
? Alternative 3 -North side widening, replace Bridoe No. 51 and No 50
? Alternative 4 - Replace in place, replace Bridge No. 51
Comments: C C t. ?r? fil n ? -ZLAI)/ I
R-2527, Section 6 - east of NC 73 to SR 1134
® Asymmetrical Widening to the North - 46' Median /"Best Fit"
Comments: Concurrence was reached on December 11. 2008.
R-2527. Section 7-SR 1134 to SR 1550 '
N Asymmetrical Widening to the North - 46' Median / "Best Fit"
Comments: Concurrence was reached on December 11. 2008.
The Project Team has concurred on this date of February 2, 2011, on the above
mentioned alternatives to carry forward for TIP Projects R-253013, B-49744,, and R-2527.
USAC ? - NCDOT JnM6 , -1)U11
n,
US6; A77-_'--? , 2-L' USFWS
USFS
FHWA?f
WRC-c? ? .22-11 DWO
DCR
RL-V.
Concurrence Point No. 2? Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Page 2 of 2
FA #. BRSTP-0024(33) 77P#:B-4974 County: Stanly/Montgomery
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Project Description: Replace Bridge No.51 on NC 24/27 over the Pee Dee River (part of the
larger road projects R-2530B and R-2527)
On February 10, 2011, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
? Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
? Other
Reviewed the subject project and agreed on the effects findings listed within the table on the
reverse of this signature page.
Signed:
1?-!1
Ib
Date
LJ
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
z(1? II
Date
Representative, HPO Date
G
J
'/---,State Historic Preservation Officer Date
N
W
C
0
v7
U
a
Q

T
N
O
P4
m

0
a
??
1>
w N ..?
N M H N
? U W
G) A
'C7

U F
i? N
? .fl Q N
?
ro
w ?_/°E 3 o`?n ro a 7

O
w O? H
u o b Y
o ?? o a o ro m

?n N

° Vt ? ,ti
3
°
?
z z
o
o ° a
mZ o
s
6 0 z
z
O .C ,??, 'C o v .C
C 3
N

0
a

a
i
, H ro ? ? z
O C O T ? ? ?
3 3 u
> °
'
H o
t H a ? . C
a? v a, a> r
?. .D
0 4
w

w O

. 0
w N .? .N.,

. 0

^ro
m .a3 a o
om
H ? r o
H
H

m
o O
0 H
° H
.r
p
o y
c ?
b
?-, a 5 'd ? C
m y O p ? O
?n
?
O ? w ? N _
? O
N? O ro
N O ? v
O U O
v
A a O
to
?
't
.
Q
3H° .
a
ro W
(D
> _M H
V ?.J C
V H

H
C,4 ?o 'T 0,0

a O ^O v

N C .9
3 y b
C W

y G b

V

a G w j a
c 2 w P
a
O1
C U
?
w

v

u
a w w

y d d
N
w z
to

a
U)
Its
W I
Q
-
r-
cc v I

I ?.
V ?
? z ? I
z ; z
a
LL !
?
?1
CIJ
1 '4 Y

0
C
7
R.
O
c.
0
w
own
G
W
w
0
O
ti
Op
N
w
N
ti
3 0
wz
0
U
N
?y O
? ro
N
O z . rr
c
ro rL, '
?E ,
SWIFT ISLAND BRIDGE MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 2, 2011
LOAM
Attendees:
Lindsey Dunevant, Hanna Cockburn, Dana Stoogenke, Lisa Feller, and Beverly Robinson
Welcome:
Dana Stoogenke thanked everyone for being able to attend the meeting in person and via
conference call.
Davidson County Example:
Hanna Cockburn reviewed the process that Davidson County took to secure the historic
Wilcox Bridge. It was noted that Rowan County initially was going to participate in the
ownership of the bridge, but then decided not to. There was a proposed legal agreement
between the two counties that Hanna will try to get a copy of. The demolition cost would be
$2.5 million. This honey, minus the repairs, would be given to Davidson County for future
repairs and upgrades. Davidson County spent about $15,000 to have an independent
inspection conducted of the bridge.
Swift Island Bridge:
Lisa and Beverly discussed the timeframe for the NC 24-27 widening project. NCDOT staff
would need to know by this summer if a jurisdiction is interested in taking ownership of the
bridge. The structure will impact the alternatives for a new bridge alignment. The bridge
could be torn down as early as 2016. Lindsey wanted to understand why the Swift Island
Bridge demolition cost estimate was $2 million lower then the Wilcox Bridge. Lisa and
Beverly were not sure. They were going to ask for a new demolition cost estimate based on
the actual bridge, not an average cost. Dana requested that if the Swift Island Bridge is
preserved, appropriate bicycle accommodations would be made on the NC 24-27 project.
Lisa wanted the RPO to help the jurisdiction craft a formal request for bicycle
accommodations. Hanna wanted to know if there would be any land transferred with the
Swift Island Bridge for parking or passive use.
Unanswered Questions/Next Steps:
1.) NCDOT is going to provide stakeholders with an updated cost estimate for the Swift
Island Bridge demolition.
2.) NCDOT is going to provide stakeholders with how often a non-motorized bridge
needs to be inspected.
3.) NCDOT will work with Bicycle and Pedestrian Division to finalize what the Swift
Island Bridge will need to bring it up to Bicycle and Pedestrian standard. .
1000 North 1st Street, Suite 17 0 Albemarle, NC 28001 ® 980.581,6589 ®www.rockvriverroo.org
"Serving Anson. Stanly and a portion or Union Counties & Municipalities."
RURAL PLANNING ORGANIZATION
4.) Hanna is going to try and locate the proposed legal agreement between Davidson and
Rowan County.
5.) Hanna is going to try and find out how much it cost to conduct the private inspection
of the bridge.
6.) Dana and Hanna will work together to request what bicycle and pedestrian
accommodations will be needed on the NC 24-27 project.
Next meeting, if needed, is scheduled for March 24 (loam- l l am).
Updates since this meeting:
1. Lisa has requested a new cost estimate for the bridge demolition.
2. Hanna has requested the proposed legal documents between Rowan and Davidson
Counties.
3. Commissioner Lindsey Dunevant has discussed the Swift Island Bridge Preservation
Project with Andy Lucas, Stanly County Manager. Andy has emailed all of the
commissioners information about this topic. A discussion, most likely, will not
happen until the demolish cost are finalized.
1000 North l st Strect, Suite 17 ® Albemarle, NC 28001 ® 980.581.6589 0 %mw.rockyriverrou org
"Serving Anson, Slanly and a portion of Union Counties & Municipalities."
i
I
i
Feller, Lisa M
From: Holderman, Daniel D
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 2:29 PM
To: Feller, Lisa M
Cc: Robinson, Beverly G; Patel, Rekha V; Stclair, Samuel L; Jones, Joel G, Brooks, Tawana B;
Jones, Joel G; Idol, Don R; Black, Henry A; Houser, Anthony A; Moore, Lee A; Olinger, John
R; Haywood, Luther G; Moose, Barry S; Nelson, Eric B; Garrett, Paul
Subject: RE: B-4974 NC 24/27 over Lake Tillery (Stanly & Montgomery Counties)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Lisa - the SBMU has again reviewed Bridge #50 Stanley, the EB bridge in this project.
1. This bridge was built in 1979 and presently has a sufficiency rating of 87.6 2. It presently has condition grades of: deck,
5, superstructure (girders), 7; substructure, 5.
3. Shortly after completion, alkali silica reactivity (ASR) showed up, with extensive repairs being done to the pier tremies
and footings, along with pier caps and end bent caps. The ASR seems to have slowed or stopped judging by the latest
Inspection Report not reporting any new problems.
4. The bridge is not load posted.
5. Although the bridge may not look "pretty", due to the ASR repairs, it appears to be structurally sound.
6. The joints at each end of the bridge need replacing (this work will likely need to be done in advance of the project).
7. The top of the end bent backwalls need to be replaced as part of the joint replacements.
It is estimated that the bridge will be able to stay in service another 20-30 years. Some areas of the epoxy coatings used
to coat areas of ASR may need to be refreshed as part of the project. The ends of the weathering steel girders at
expansion joints should be painted as part of the project.
Being that this is a "B" Project, using Highway Bridge Program (HBP) funds, the replacement of this bridge would not
qualify for replacement funding thru the HBP due to the high sufficiency rating.
The SBMU recommends the bridge not be replaced as part of B-4974, but that it continued to be maintained.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project.
Dan Holderman
-----Original Message-----
From: Feller, Lisa M
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 3:43 PM
To: Holderman, Daniel D
Cc: Robinson, Beverly G; Patel, Rekha V; Stclair, Samuel L; Jones, Joel G; Brooks, Tawana B; Jones, Joel G; Idol, Don
R, Black, Henry A; Houser, Anthony A; Moore, Lee A; Olinger, John R; Haywood, Luther G
Subject: RE: B-4974 NC 24/27 over Lake Tillery (Stanly & Montgomery Counties)
Hi Dan,
Here is the other email pertaining to this bridge:
-----Original Message-----
From: Midkiff, Eric
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 8:35 AM
To: Feller, Lisa M, Robinson, Beverly G
Subject: FW: Br. #50 Stanley
g yel7`1
0
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
GOVERNOR
April 27, 2011
Memo to: File
From: Daniel D. Holderman
State Bridge Management Engineer
Subject: Bridge #51 Stanly County, NC24/27/73 over Pee Dee River
Bridge Information:
Built 1927
3 East Approach spans @ 50' each
4 Concrete Arch spans @ 210' each
1 West Approach span @ 50'
20' Cl. Roadway
Asphalt wearing surface

EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
SECRETARY
Inspection report shows bridge to be in "Poor" condition.
Inspection condition grades: Deck = 5; Superstructure = 6; Substructure = 4
Not load posted
Sufficiency Rating = 47
Comments:
Arches are in relatively good condition, with minor spalling
Concrete deck has longitudinal cracks in bottom with efflorescence
Reinforced concrete deck girders good condition with minor spatting
Columns and caps of arch spans fair condition with spalling
Abutments poor with spalls
Riprap needed on river banks
Asphalt wearing surface in fair condition, with joints needing scaling
Work needed at present time:
Repair spalled areas of concrete curbs: $25,000
Repair concrete railings 25,000
Repair deck drainage system 150,000
Seal cracks in asphalt wearing surface 50,000
Repair cap spalls 100,000
Repair column spalls . 200,000
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
BRIDGE MANAGEMENT UNIT FAX: [phone] BERYL ROAD
1565 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH, NC 27606
RALEIGH,NC 27699-1565
Add riprap to river banks 100,000
Total $650,000
Say $750,000
Maintenance required:
Seal asphalt wearing surface: Every 7 years @ $50,000 $7,500/yr
Replace asphalt wearing surface: Every 21 years @ $200,000 10,000/yr
Repair concrete spalls: Every 10 years @ $150,000 15,000/yr
Sweep deck: Twice per year @ $500 1,000/yi
Safety Inspection: Every 2 years @ $50,000 25,000/yr
Total $58,500/yr
Say $75,000/yr
Spall repairs likely can be accomplished by utilizing shot-crete.
Estimated remaining life as a bike/pedestrian bridge is 50 years. This likely can be
extended if proper maintenance is provided.
Safety inspections need to be continued every two years, and the bridge maintained to an
unposted level, so that maintenance vehicles, construction equipment, and inspection
equipment can utilize the bridge. This should include an underwater inspection every 4
years.
Demolition cost is approximately $2M. Contractors that were contacted for estimates on
the demolition of the Wil-Cox Bridge, gave estimates of $IM to $3M, with 4 of the 6
contractors contacted indicating "$2.5M was adequate". The one that gave the estimate
of $ l M had not visited the bridge.
Railings of at least 42" high likely will be needed to be provided if the bridge is converted
to a pedestrian bridge, or at least 54" high if bicycles are allowed.