CC 2015-09-22_08i Traffic Way Bridge Replacement ProgrammingMEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BY: MA TT HORN, CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF TRAFFIC WAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
PROJECT PROGRAMMING
DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 2015
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council authorize staff to program the Traffic Way Bridge
Replacement Project into the Highway Bridge Program for future grant funding.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
The Highway Bridge Program will fund 88.53% of the costs for the Traffic Way Bridge
replacement. Anticipated project costs are shown below:
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Costs
Project Phase 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 Total
Preliminary Engineering $400,000 $400,000
Right-of-Way $100,000 $100,000
Construction $4,000,000 $4,000,000
$4,500,000
Local Fund Match
Project Phase 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 Total
Preliminary Engineering $45,880 $45,880
Right-of-Way $11,470 $11,470
Construction $458,800 $458,800
$516,150
Once grant funds are authorized and prior to local fund match obligation, staff will
return to City Council with a funding plan for the local match portion of the project. This
work is not directly related to the Critical Needs Action Plan, but allows for the City to
leverage outside funding to replace infrastructure.
BACKGROUND:
The Traffic Way Bridge spans Arroyo Grande Creek allowing Traffic Way to connect to
West Branch Street. Traffic Way is an arterial roadway that conveys approximately
11,000 vehicles per day.
Item 8.i. - Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROGRAM THE TRAFFIC
WAY BRIDGE INTO THE HIGHWAY BRIDGE PROGRAM FOR FUTURE GRANT
FUNDING FOR REPLACEMENT
SEPTEMBER 22, 2015
PAGE2
Vicinity Map
The Traffic Way Bridge was constructed in 1932 making the bridge 83 years old. In
general , the design life of a bridge is 100 years . The Traffic Way Bridge is a reinforced
concrete structure which is supported by abutments on each end of the bridge as well
as concrete piles .
Photos of Traffic Way Bridge
Item 8.i. - Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROGRAM THE TRAFFIC
WAY BRIDGE INTO THE HIGHWAY BRIDGE PROGRAM FOR FUTURE GRANT
FUNDING FOR REPLACEMENT
SEPTEMBER 22, 2015
PAGE3
Caltrans completes bridge inspections for the Traffic Way Bridge once every two years.
In 2006, the bridge was designated scour critical meaning that the supporting members
of the bridge are compromised due to erosions of surrounding soil. The last inspection
of the Traffic Way Bridge was completed on October 24, 2014. This inspection found
signs of deck cracking, failed expansion joints, spalling concrete, concrete abrasion,
and creek channel erosion.
Bridge inspection reports provide information on bridge maintenance needs and an
overall condition rating of the bridge, known as the sufficiency rating. Sufficiency rates
range from 0 to 100. A sufficiency rating of 100 is the best rating a bridge may receive
and 0 is the worst. In addition to sufficiency ratings, if a bridge scores low in the
following inspection categories, it is given a special status of Structurally Deficient.
1. Bridge deck condition
2. Bridge superstructures or substructures
3. Bridge retaining walls
4. Bridge overall structural condition
5. Bridge waterway adequacy
If the bridge scores low in the following inspection categories it is given a special status
of Functional Obsolete.
1 . Bridge deck geometry
2. Bridge under-clearance
3. Roadway approach angles into the bridge
4. Bridge overall structural condition
5. Bridge waterway adequacy
While there is some overlap between the special status indicators of overall structural
condition and waterway adequacy, in general the Structurally Deficient indicator means
corrective action needs to be taken to remedy the bridge's ability to carry loads.
Functionally Obsolete means, while the bridge may have served its purpose when
constructed, it needs to be modified to increase the usability of the bridge.
The Traffic Way Bridge has a current Sufficiency Rating of 50.9 with a special status
indicator of Functionally Obsolete. The last bridge inspection ratings make this
structure eligible for Highway Bridge Program replacement funds.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
The largest factor making the Traffic Way Bridge eligible for rehabilitation and
replacement funds through the Highway Bridge Program is channel scour. Channel
scour is the process of flowing water eroding the creek bed away from the bridge. If
this erosion occurs adjacent to a bridge's supports, the bridge is then classified as
scour critical. It is estimated that the Arroyo Grande creek's channel has been lowered
by approximately 12 feet in the last 83 years, which has in-turn reduced the supporting
piles' ability to hold up the Traffic Way Bridge.
Item 8.i. - Page 3
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROGRAM THE TRAFFIC
WAY BRIDGE INTO THE HIGHWAY BRIDGE PROGRAM FOR FUTURE GRANT
FUNDING FOR REPLACEMENT
SEPTEMBER 22, 2015
PAGE4
Staff and Caltrans have conferred on solutions to deal with the scour issue and agree
that moving forward with bridge replacement work is the most cost effective solution in
this situation. At present time, we have the opportunity to replace the bridge and install
a new bridge that will not be as susceptible to creek erosion or scour that will last 100
years or more.
Moving forward with scour countermeasure design, permitting and installation will likely
be costly, require a large effort to permit through waterway regulatory agencies and
could increase the flood surface elevation, making adjacent properties more
susceptible to flood waters. Flood surface elevations would increase because the
creek channel would need to be filled about 12 feet, or the amount the creek bed has
scoured.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
• Approve staff recommendation;
• Do not approve staff recommendation; or
• Provide direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
Programming the Traffic Way Bridge into the Highway Bridge Program for future
replacement will allow for a bridge structure that is near the end of its design life to be
replaced with a more suitable structure that is not prone to creek channel scour.
DISADVANTAGES:
Staff time and future funding will be required. Not using Highway Bridge Program
funding will significantly impact the City's financial cirmcumstances.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The action of programming grant funding does not require environmental review. The
Preliminary Engineering work includes environmental studies. This project will be
subject to both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance. Once complete this environmental
determination will be presented to City Council.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, September 17, 2015. The
Agenda and staff report were posted on the City's website on Friday, September 18,
2015.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Bridge Inspection Report
Item 8.i. - Page 4
Page 1 of 5
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Bridge Number 49C0318
Structure Maintenance & Investigations Facility Carried: TRAFFIC WAY
Location ARROYO GRANDE
City ARROYO GRANDE
Inspection Date 10/24/2014
Inspection Type
Bridge Inspection Report Routine FC Underwater Special Other
0
STRUCTURE NAME: ARROYO GRANDE CREEK
CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION
Year Built
Year Widened:
Length (m)
1932
N/A
69.5
Skew (degrees) :
No. of Joints
No. of Hinges :
37
6
o
Structure Description: Simple span RC "T" girders (8) on RC pile (8) bents with RC wall
abutments on concrete piles. RC wingwalls at Northerly end.
Span Configuration :6@11.3m
SAFE LQAD CAPACITY AND RATINGS
Design Live Load: M-13.5 OR H-15
Inventory Rating:
Operating Rating:
RF=0.47 =>15.2 metric tons
RF=0.78 =>25.3 metric tons
xxxxx
Calculation Method: FIELD EVAL/ENG JUDGMENT
Calculation Method: FIELD EVAL/ENG JUDGMENT
Permit Rating
Posting Load Type 3 : Legal Type 3S2:Legal Type 3-3:Legal
DESCRIPTIQN ON STRUCTURE
Deck X-Section: 0.6m rail, 1.25 sw, 12.2m , l.25m sw, 0.6m rail
Total Width: 15. 8 m Net Width: 12 . 2 m No. of Lanes:
Min. Vertical Clearance: Unimpaired
Rail Code: 0000 Rail Description: Concrete with CLF
DESCRIPTION UNDER STRUCTURE
Channel Description: sand and gravel
NOTICE
3 Speed: 30 mph
The bridge inspection condition assessment used for this inspection is based on the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Bridge Element Inspection
Manual 2013 as defined in Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) federal law. The
new element inspection methodology may result in changes to related condition and appraisal
ratings on the bridge without significant physical changes at the bridge.
The element condition information contained in this report represents the current condition of the
bridge based on the most recent routine and special inspections. Some of the notes presented
below may be from an inspection that occurred prior to the date noted in this report. Refer to
the Scope and Access section of this inspection report for a description of which portions of the
bridge were inspected on this date.
•
INSPECTION COMMENTARY
SCOPE AND ACCESS
There were no access limitations encountered during this routine inspection. A full
bridge inspection was performed. An updated channel cross section was performed.
SAFE LOAD CAPACITY
The load rating for this structure is being reviewed by the SMI Ratings Branch. The
current rating has been assigned in accordance with SMI procedures.
Printed on: Tuesday 01/06/2015 10:19 AM 49C0318/A'.AAJ/30373
ATTACHMENT 1
Item 8.i. - Page 5
Page 2 of 5
ELEMENT INSPECTION RATINGS AND COMMENTARY
Elem Defect Defect Element Description Env Total Units Qty in each Condition State
No. /Prot Qty St. 1 St. 2 St. 3 St. 4
16 Top Flange-RC 2 1098 sq.m 248 850 0 0
1130 Cracking {RC and Other) 2 850 0 850 0 0
(16-1130)
The deck exhibits hairline pattern cracking (<0.5 millimeters wide) and areas with moderately sized
(< 0.75 millimeters wide) transverse and longitudinal cracks varying from short to approximately 1
meter in length. Aggregate pop-outs throughout the deck persist. The deck distress has remained
relatively stable since the previous inspection.
110 Girder/Beam-RC 2 556 m 552 4 0 0
1090 Exposed Rebar (PS Conc./RC) 2 4 0 4 0 0
(110-1090)
Girder 5, Span 2 exhibits several exposed and rusting reinforcing bars. The distress has remained
stable for the past several inspections.
205 Column-RC 2 40 each 32 8 0 0
1190 Abrasion {PS Conc./RC) 2 8 0 8 0 0
(205-1190)
The pile group in Bent 5 exhibits heavy abrasion along the water line.
215 Abutment-RC 2 40 m 40 0 0 0
(215)
There were no significant defects noted.
227 Pile-RC 2 6 ea. 0 6 0 0
6000 Scour 2 6 0 6 0 0
(227-6000)
Runoff has caused erosion holes at both abutments near the centerline. The piles are exposed
approximately 0.25 meters at Abutment 1. This condition has remained relatively stable since the
previous inspection.
234 Pier Cap-RC 2 88 m 88 0 0 0
(234)
There were no significant defects noted.
300 Joint-Strip Seal Exp 2 75 m 69 6 0 0
2360 Adjacent Deck or Header (Joints) 2 6 0 6 0 0
(300-2360)
There is a spall in the right wheel line southbound adjacent to the joint measuring approximately 0.2
meters x 0 .2 meters. No reinforcement is exposed (see work recommendations) .
304 Joint-Open Expansion 2 69 m 69 0 0 0
(304)
There were no significant defects noted.
311 Bearing-Moveable 2 48 each 48 0 0 0
(311)
There were no significant defects noted.
313 Bearing-Fixed 2 48 each 48 0 0 0
Printed on: Tuesday 01/06/2015 10:19 AM 49C0318/AAAJ/30373
Item 8.i. - Page 6
ELEMENT INSPECTION RATINGS AND COMMENTARY
Elem Defect Defect Element Description
No. /Prot
(313)
There were no significant defects noted.
331 Railing-RC
(331)
There were no significant defects noted.
WORK REC011MENDATIONS
RecDate: 10/18/2012
Action : Deck-Patch spalls
Work By: LOCAL AGENCY
Status : PROPOSED
RecDate: 12/10/2008
Action : Deck-Methacrylate
Work By: LOCAL AGENCY
Status : PROPOSED
RecDate: 12/10/2008
Action : Joints-Repair/Clean
Work By: LOCAL AGENCY
Status : PROPOSED
RecDate: 01/13/2006
Action : Undefined Work
Work By: LOCAL AGENCY
Status : PROPOSED
RecDate: 10/07/2002
Action : Undefined work
Work By: LOCAL AGENCY
Status : PROPOSED
RecDate: 11/01/1993
Action : Undefined work
Work By: LOCAL AGENCY
Status : PROPOSED
CHANNEL X-SECTION
Side : Upstream
Measured From : Top of RC curb
Location
~utment 1
Bent 2
Bent 3
Bent 4
Bent 5
EstCost:
StrTarget: 2 YEARS
DistTarget:
EA:
EstCost:
StrTarget: 1 YEAR
DistTarget:
EA:
EstCost:
StrTarget: 1 YEAR
DistTarget:
EA:
EstCost:
StrTarget:
DistTarget:
EA:
EstCost:
StrTarget: 2 YEARS
DistTarget:
EA:
EstCost:
StrTarget: 2 YEARS
DistTarget:
EA:
Horiz(m) Vert(m)
0.74
5.21
_,J
8.56
10.62
8.73
Printed on: Tuesday 01/06/2015 10:19 AM
Page 3 of 5
Env Total Units Qty in each Condition State
Qty St. l St. 2 St. 3 St.
2 139 m 139 0 0
Patch deck spall adjacent to the joint in
the right wheel line southbound.
Treat the deck with methacrylate.
Repair the damaged joint header at Bents
3 and 6.
The Local Agency should investigate and
provide adequate scour countermeasures
for this structure. We recommend
monitoring the structure during the flood
events until the designed scour counter
measure has properly been constructed and
remove drift and debris as required.
Remove the drift debris accumulating on
the upstream side of Bents 4 and 5.
Back fill erosion and construct drainage
system at both abutments.
X-Section Date: 10/24/2014
Comments
49C0318/AAAJ/30373
4
0
Item 8.i. - Page 7
CHANNEL X-SECTION
Side : Upstream
Measured From :Top of RC curb
Location Horiz (ml Vert (ml
Bent 6 7.66
Abutment 7 5.65
Team Leader Anthony Fernandes
Report Author Anthony Fernandes
Inspected By A.Fernandes(EJ.Halsted
Anthony Fern"ifri"des (Registered Civil Engineer)
Printed on: Tuesday 01/06/2015 10:19 AM
Comments
Page 4 of 5
X-Section Date: 10/24/2014
Fernandes
No. 60501
06/30/2016
49C0318/AAAJ/30373
Item 8.i. - Page 8
Page 5 of 5
STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL REPORT
**************** IDENTIFICATION ***************
(1) STATE NAME-CALIFORNIA
(8) STRUCTURE NUMBER
(5) INVENTORY ROUTE(ON/UNDER)-
(2) HIGHWAY AGENCY DISTRICT
ON
069
49C0318
150000000
05
(3) COUNTY CODE 079 (4) PLACE CODE 02868
(6) FEATURE INTERSECTED-ARROYO GRANDE CREEK
(7) FACILITY CARRIED-TRAFFIC WAY
( 9) LOCATION -ARROYO GRANDE
(11) MILEPOINT/KILOMETERPOINT 0
(12) BASE HIGHWAY NETWORK-NOT ON NET 0
(13) LRS INVENTORY ROUTE & SUBROUTE
(16) LATITUDE 35 DEG 07 MIN 19.87 SEC
(17) LONGITUDE 120 DEG 34 MIN 49.88 SEC
(98) BORDER BRIDGE STATE CODE % SHARE %
(99) BORDER BRIDGE STRUCTURE NUMBER
******** STRUCTURE TYPE AND MATERIAL *********
(43) STRUCTURE TYPE MAIN:MATERIAL-CONCRETE
TYPE-TEE BEAM
(44) STRUCTURE TYPE APPR:MATERIAL-
TYPE-OTHER/NA
(45) NUMBER OF SPANS IN MAIN UNIT
(46) NUMBER OF APPROACH SPANS
(107) DECK STRUCTURE TYPE-CIP CONCRETE
(108) WEARING SURFACE / PROTECTIVE SYSTEM:
A) TYPE OF WEARING SURFACE-NONE
B) TYPE OF MEMBRANE-NONE
C) TYPE OF DECK PROTECTION-NONE
CODE 104
OTHER/NA
CODE 000
6
0
CODE 1
CODE O
CODE O
CODE 0
*************** AGE AND SERVICE ***************
(27) YEAR BUILT 1932
0000 (106) YEAR RECONSTRUCTED
(42) TYPE OF SERVICE: ON-HIGHWAY-PEDESTRIAN 5
UNDER-WATERWAY
(28) LANES:ON STRUCTURE 03 UNDER STRUCTURE
5
00
9600 (29) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
(30) YEAR OF ADT 2010 (109) TRUCK ADT 4 %
(19) BYPASS, DETOUR LENGTH 2 KM
*************** GEOMETRIC DATA ****************
(48) LENGTH OF MAXIMUM SPAN
(49) STRUCTURE LENGTH
(SO) CURB OR SIDEWALK: LEFT 1.8 M
(51) BRIDGE ROADWAY WIDTH CURB TO CURB
(52) DECK WIDTH OUT TO OUT
(32) APPROACH ROADWAY WIDTH (W/SHOULDERS)
(33) BRIDGE MEDIAN-NO MEDIAN
11.3 M
69.5 M
RIGHT l.8 M
12.2 M
15. 8 M
12 .2 M
0
(34) SKEW 37 DEG (35) STRUCTURE FLARED NO
(10) INVENTORY ROUTE MIN VERT CLEAR
(47) INVENTORY ROUTE TOTAL HORIZ CLEAR
(53) MIN VERT CLEAR OVER BRIDGE RDWY
(54) MIN VERT UNDERCLEAR REF-NOT H/RR
(55) MIN LAT UNDERCLEAR RT REF-NOT H/RR
(56) MIN LAT UNDERCLEAR LT
99.99 M
12 .2 M
99.99 M
0.00 M
0. 0 M
0.0 M
*************** NAVIGATION DATA ***************
(38) NAVIGATION CONTROL-
(111) PIER PROTECTION-
NO CONTROL
(39) NAVIGATION VERTICAL CLEARANCE
(116) VERT-LIFT BRIDGE NAV MIN VERT CLEAR
(40) NAVIGATION HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE
Printed on: Tuesday 01/06/2015
CODE 0
CODE
0.0 M
M
0.0 M
10:19 AM
***********************************************
SUFFICIENCY RATING = 50.9
STATUS
HEALTH INDEX
FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE
88.4
PAINT CONDITION INDEX = N/A
************* CLASSIFICATION *************
(112) NBIS BRIDGE LENGTH-YES
(104) HIGHWAY SYSTEM-NOT ON NHS
(26) FUNCTIONAL CLASS-COLLECTOR URBAN
(100) DEFENSE HIGHWAY-NOT STRAHNET
(101) PARALLEL STRUCTURE-NONE EXISTS
(102) DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC-2 WAY
(103) TEMPORARY STRUCTURE-
(105) FED.LANDS HWY-NOT APPLICABLE
(110) DESIGNATED NATIONAL NETWORK -NOT ON NET
(20) TOLL-ON FREE ROAD
(21) MAINTAIN-CITY OR MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY
(22) OWNER-CITY OR MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY
(37) HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE-NOT ELIGIBLE
CODE
y
0
17
0
N
2
0
0
3
04
04
5
**************** CONDITION **************** CODE
(58) DECK
(59) SUPERSTRUCTURE
(60) SUBSTRUCTURE
(61) CHANNEL & CHANNEL PROTECTION
(62) CULVERTS
6
8
7
7
N
********* LOAD RATING AND POSTING ********* CODE
(31) DESIGN LOAD-M-13.5 OR H-15 2
(63) OPERATING RATING METHOD~ FIELD EVAL/ENG JUD 0
(64) OPERATING RATING-
(65) INVENTORY RATING METHOD-
25.3
FIELD EVAL/ENG JUI: 0
(66) INVENTORY RATING-15.2
(70) BRIDGE POSTING-EQUAL TO OR ABOVE LEGAL LOADS 5
(41) STRUCTURE OPEN, POSTED OR CLOSED-
DESCRIPTION-OPEN, NO RESTRICTION
A
**************** APPRAISAL **************** CODE
(67) STRUCTURAL EVALUATION
(68) DECK GEOMETRY
(69) UNDERCLEARANCES, VERTICAL & HORIZONTAL
(71) WATER ADEQUACY
3
4
N
9
6 (72) APPROACH ROADWAY ALIGNMENT
(36) TRAFFIC SAFETY FEATURES
(113) SCOUR CRITICAL BRIDGES
0 000
3
********** PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS **********
(75) TYPE OF WORK-MISC STRUCTURAL WORK
(76) LENGTH OF STRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT
(94) BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT COST
(95) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT COST
(96) TOTAL PROJECT COST
(97) YEAR OF IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATE
(114) FUTURE ADT
(115) YEAR OF FUTURE ADT
CODE 38
69.5 M
$1,101,000
$220,200
$1, 849' 680
2010
10304
2034
*************** INSPECTIONS ***************
(90) INSPECTION DATE 10/14 (91) FREQUENCY 24 MO
(92) CRITICAL FEATURE INSPECTION: (93) CFI DATE
A) FRACTURE CRIT DETAIL-
B) UNDERWATER INSP-
C) OTHER SPECIAL INSP-
NO
NO
NO
MO A)
MO B)
MO C)
49C0318/AAAJ/30373
Item 8.i. - Page 9
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Item 8.i. - Page 10