Baby Bridges

A Proposal to Address the Remediation of Small, Historic Bridges in Pennsylvania

The following proposal has been submitted to the Pennsylvania Secretary of Transportation for consideration.

The diversity of Pennsylvania’s bridges is as wide as the rivers and streams that they cross, ranging from impressive spans carrying hundreds of thousands of people a day to the smallest of structures that traverse tiny streams. The smaller bridges, often in rural areas and of historic and social significance, differ not only in size from their larger brethren but also in their impact to the communities that they serve. Appropriately dubbed as “Baby Bridges,” they offer a glimpse back into history, often provide a setting of unparalleled beauty, and act as restraints to the rapid pace of modern travel. Their size is as varied as their construction, ranging from short, single lane covered bridges to narrow, two-lane stone arch designs that span several hundred feet. Intermixed with these well-recognized symbols of our past are a wide variety of steel truss designs that are uniquely beautiful and reflective of an important era in our history.

The fate of Pennsylvania’s aging “Baby Bridges” has garnered attention of late and caused a great deal of consternation. Disputes between PennDOT and local governments and citizen groups concerning the replacement of these bridges have resulted in significant delays in their remediation as well as dramatically increased the costs associated with their rehabilitation. In an effort to reduce the discord that such replacements often cause as well as to reduce the time and expense necessary to maintain an operational bridge network, it is absolutely essential to develop a statewide protocol that can be applied to “Baby Bridges.”

In doing so, Pennsylvania has an opportunity to take a position of national leadership by publicly acknowledging and acting upon the reality that “Baby Bridges” are an important element in the fabric of a community which help define the character of an area as well as establish a sense of place. The importance of these attributes cannot be overstated and the preservation of these characteristics must be recognized as a legitimate area for concern for local residents and officials if the protocol is to be successful.

The photographs above clearly illustrate why communities are willing to fight to save their "Baby Bridges." Both bridges are located in rural portions of Bucks County adjacent to historic areas and have recently been rebuilt or replaced. W ithin two weeks of reopening, numerous artists were painting pictures of the newly renovated bridge on the left, while the only artists interested in the bridge on the right were those intent in practicing their graffiti skills on the lower piers.

Because of the nature of PennDOT and the diversity of the situations that they must deal with, developing a set of operational standards is both necessary and proper. Past PennDOT administrators have been quite clear in their assertion that there is no place in a modern world for bridges that they considered to be sub-standard in their ultimate carrying capacity. Thus, there was no willingness to even contemplate establishing a different set of standards for the state’s smaller bridges. The “Baby Bridges” were simply to be eliminated. In large part, the problems that have developed relative to the remediation of “Baby Bridges” is a result of forcing design standards for ever larger bridges upon communities which are not interested in embracing the future as seen by transportation officials but who would rather maintain a connection to the past.

The simple fact that PennDOT has varying design standards for bridges of different sizes and uses indicates that the establishment of a protocol for “Baby Bridges” is realistic to achieve. In essence, it is only necessary, though not necessarily easy, to establish guidelines that define which bridges are eligible and to define what reconstructive standards are to be applied to those that are. The following recommendations should be considered as a starting point for the development of a protocol that should be implemented statewide.

The “Baby Bridge Protocol”

I. Bridge Identification

1. In order to determine which bridges are of historical or local importance and to create a more complete catalog of such structures, PennDOT shall contact each municipality and notify them of any bridges:

A. Which are identified as historically significant in the Pennsylvania Historic Bridge Survey;

B. Which are or may be a contributing element to a National Register Historic District;

C. Which transverse a water body included as part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System and/or that are classified as an Exceptional Value waterway by PA DEP;

E. Which is immediate proximity to a Heritage Corridor;

D. Which are over 75 years old;

E. Which are known to have unique design features or be constructed of unique materials;

2. Municipalities shall be given 90 days to review the list to verify its completeness. In addition, during this time period, municipalities may petition for the inclusion of bridges that they believe meet the criteria above but which were not included by oversight and/or bridges that are considered to be of local significance because of the site, viewshed, or other attributes that do not meet the specific standards set forth above.

3. The compiled list would augment and expand the existing Pennsylvania Historic Bridge Survey (PHBS) and serve as the basis for automatic inclusion of a particular structure in the Baby Bridge Protocol provided that its span was less than 200’. Bridges over 200’ whose usage, design, history and construction generally conform with the intent and purpose of this protocol shall not be excluded based on length alone.

A. Additions to the PHBS: A process to add bridges to the completed PHBS shall be developed inclusive of the regular updating of the list at predefined intervals and a mechanism that allows for the individual consideration of a non-listed bridge prior to the start of any design work that would lead to a significant alteration of its current character.

B. Removal from the PHBS: No bridge on the completed PHBS may be removed without the written concurrence of the governing body of the municipality in which the bridge is located.

C. A fair and equitable appeal procedure shall be established that may be utilized by PennDOT, municipalities, private citizens and/or community groups to contest the inclusion / exclusion of a particular structure on the PHBS.

II. Remediation Protocol

1. No design work on any bridge included on the PHBS shall be commenced prior to discussions with local elected municipal representatives and written concurrence is obtained from the governing body. Such concurrence shall be considered irrevocable unless the information upon which that decision is based is found to be false, inaccurate, incomplete or purposefully misleading.

2. PennDOT shall fairly and completely provide an engineering report that details the condition of all components of the existing structure. The municipality and/or any citizen or civic groups may also conduct engineering studies at their own cost provided such tests are non-destructive.

3. PennDOT shall provide current traffic counts, LOS, and an accident history report for all bridges where the remediation contemplated requires an expansion of the existing structure.

4. The municipality shall review with PennDOT the development potential within the traffic shed of the proposed remediation to estimate future traffic volumes relative to the capacity of the existing design.

III. Selection of Reconstruction Option

A. Preservation Option

The Preservation Option shall be defined as fundamentally maintaining the span, width, design characteristics, materials, piers, abutments, et cetera of the original bridge either through repair, reconstruction or like-kind replacement. In all cases, the original materials used to construct the bridge will be utilized to the largest degree possible.

The Preservation Option may originate with either PennDOT or the municipality and will be required in cases where neglect and/or improper maintenance are the primary cause for the remediation being necessary. When the request for the utilization of the Preservation Option originates from the municipality, PennDOT shall be obligated to do so only if the following conditions are met:

1. The bridge is listed on the expanded PHBS.

2. The existing design is capable of providing an LOS of D or better for a 15-year period from the date of the proposed reopening.

3. The current design does not represent a threat to life and limb and this position is supported by the structure’s accident history.

B. Mobility Option

The Mobility Option shall be defined as the replacement or expansion of an existing bridge to increase the capacity and/or to respond to a specific safety issue that is supported by accident history. In all cases, the original materials used to construct the bridge will be utilized to the largest degree possible and the design will be consistent with the structure it is to replace.

The Mobility Option may not be utilized on any bridge listed on the expanded PHBS unless requested specifically by the municipality or unless one or more of the following conditions exist:

1. A demonstrated need to increase the capacity of the road system based on the existing design being incapable of providing an LOS of D or better for a 15-year period from the date of the proposed reopening.

2. A demonstrated need to correct an unsafe driving condition documented and supported by the accident history of the facility.

In no case shall the replacement bridge be oversized for the existing roads serviced by a bridge unless a demonstratable need exists (see III.B.1) and there is a viable, fundable plan for increasing the carrying capacity of those roads.

Changes to bridges that occur as a result of the utilization of the Mobility Option shall not be considered as a reason to reject any future application for historic district or similar status.

IV. Take backs

No municipality shall be forced to acquire ownership of a PennDOT owned bridge regardless of its size if the following conditions are met.

1. The bridge is listed on the expanded PHBS.

2. The existing design is capable of providing an LOS of D or better for a 15-year period from the date of the proposed reopening.

3. The current design does not represent a threat to life and limb and this position is supported by the structure’s accident history.

PennDOT may require that a municipality take ownership of the structure if any of the conditions above are not met and the municipality still wishes to proceed with the Preservation Option. If PennDOT requires a take back the following conditions will apply:

1. PennDOT may require that approach roadways also be taken back by the municipality but only to the extent that is required for signage or other reasonable operation and maintenance. In no case may PennDOT require that more than 300 feet of the approaches be acquired by the township.

2. Municipalities that take back a bridge shall be reimbursed for future costs by a one-time payment equal to 20% of the remediation project. Such funds shall be held in a separate account and shall be used only for the future repair of the designated structure.

3. PennDOT and the municipality shall work together in good faith to determine the most efficient manner of snow removal when both sides of the bridge are state roads. The municipality shall be responsible for providing any necessary insurance coverage and shall provide PennDOT with a hold harmless agreement if PennDOT continues to plow the bridge.

4. In order to promote longevity and minimize future repairs, the municipality shall have the authority to set size and weight restrictions for the bridge that are lower than the design criteria. Exemptions for emergency service vehicles, school buses and local deliveries may be authorized at the municipalities’ discretion.

V. Non Qualifying Bridges

Only bridges listed on the expanded PHBS shall be subject to the criteria contained within. As a matter of practice, it is advisable to consult with the municipality in which the project is located prior to the start of any design work.

VI. Development of Maintenance Standards