1icfi.com |

NCHRP 25-25 Task 88: Transferring Historic Bridges – Approaches and Challenges

Prepared by:Stephen Mikesell and ICF International

July 28, 2014

2icfi.com |

Purpose of NCHRP 25-25 Task 88

• Focus on 23 USC 144 (g), the “donation requirement”• How is it being implemented?• What works and what does not work?• What are the best practices and other solutions that might

make it work even better?

3icfi.com |

The General Approach

• Literature review: desktop research• Interviews with DOT, NGO, SHPO representatives• Summarize results, propose recommendations

4icfi.com |

The Literature Review

• Programmatic Agreements• Historic Bridge Plans• Internal agency procedures• Formal marketing programs• Case-by-case marketing plans

5icfi.com |

Programmatic Agreements

• Bridge-specific PA, not Program-wide PA• High correlation between having a PA and having a

successful donation program• Section 106 vs. 144(g)

6icfi.com |

Example: Indiana Programmatic Agreement

• Specifies length, method, and media for notices of availability

• Specifies that rehabilitation must be shown to be neither prudent nor feasible prior to marketing program

• Specifies maintenance requirement at new site

7icfi.com |

Bridge Maintenance Plans

• Fewer in number than a PAs• Two basic types: general guidance and bridge-specific

plans• The gold standard is Ohio, which links a bridge

maintenance plan to a PA• Texas plan offers specific guidance for the media, length

of time for notices

8icfi.com |

Internal DOT Procedures

• Not a productive research angle• Found mention of donation in Georgia, Idaho, Indiana

9icfi.com |

Formal Marketing Programs

• Most often called “Adopt a Bridge”• Found evidence of 10 state programs, not all of them

active• Model programs in Indiana, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania• Web-based, includes visuals, technical data (length,

width, condition)

10icfi.com |

Project-specific Marketing Plans

• Each state unique, with wide differences even within a state

• Ordinarily newspaper-based, not web-based• Wide differences in length of notices

11icfi.com |

Interviews

• Jon Axline, Montana DOT• Tom Barrett, Ohio DOT• Paul Brandenburg Indiana Spans • Robert Hadlow, Oregon DOT• Kitty Henderson, Historic Bridge

Foundation• Bruce Jensen, Texas DOT• Mary Kennedy, Indiana DOT• Sandy Lawrence Georgia DOT• Elizabeth Merritt, NTHP

• Elizabeth Muzzey New Hampshire SHPO

• MaryAnn Naber, FHWA• John Narowski, Vermont DOT• Antony Opperman, Virginia DOT• David Powellson, New Hampshire

DOT• Kara Russell, Pennsylvania DOT• Sandy Lawrence Georgia DOT• Jack VanDop, FHWA

• 15 patterned questions, with opportunity to expand• 17 interviewees:

12icfi.com |

1. What is your general experience with donating a historic bridge, whether bypassed or relocated?

• States successful with relocations: Ohio, Texas, Vermont, Indiana

• States successful with bypasses: Montana, Oregon

13icfi.com |

2. What percentage of bridge marketing efforts of which you are aware were related to a bypass situation and what percentage involved relocation efforts?

• Bypass is rare• DOTs have issues with bypass without long term

maintenance

14icfi.com |

3. Describe briefly the methods you used in notifying the public and public agencies about the availability of the bridge – phone calls, newspaper advertisements, notices via a dedicated Adopt-a-Bridge Program, etc.

• Varies enormously• Most use newspapers• Internet seen as most effective

15icfi.com |

4. In your experience, is one of these media more useful than others?

• In terms of formal notifications, Internet listings are by far the preferred media

• However, informal notifications (telephone calls, e-mails, and face-to-face meetings) are more effective, and the means by which most bridges get donated.

16icfi.com |

5. How many bridge marketing efforts in your state were successful, i.e., resulted in a bridge being donated to a willing recipient?

• Numbers small everywhere• States celebrate successes, rue failures

17icfi.com |

6. If you were involved in a successful transfer, describe the conditions that, in your view, led to that success.

• Need for bridge• Recipient with funds

18icfi.com |

7. If you were involved in a marketing effort that failed (i.e., did not result in a transfer), describe the conditions that led to that failure.

8. Speaking specifically about the bypass option, describe some specific cases in which you were involved, successful or not.

9. Speaking specifically about the relocation option, describe some specific cases in which you were involved, successful or not.

19icfi.com |

10. Some transportation officials have maintained that it is ineffective to attempt to market certain bridges, because they have characteristics that make it nearly impossible that a recipient could be found. Do you have direct experience in this situation?

20icfi.com |

11. Would you support developing some type of screening mechanism to weed out poor candidates from the donation program? If the answer is yes, how do you think such a screening mechanism might be structured?

12. Do you have an opinion as to how much time should be allocated to the effort to market or donate a historic bridge?

21icfi.com |

13. Under federal law, funding for relocation or rehabilitation for non-vehicular use of a historic bridge is limited to the estimated cost of demolition. In your experience, has this limitation acted as a deterrent to effectively donating a historic bridge? If so, would a change in the funding formula assist in efforts to identify potential recipients?

14. Would you support changes to federal law to eliminate or modify the blanket donation requirement? If so, what changes would you recommend?

15. Are there other aspects of the historic bridge marketing program you would like to discuss?

22icfi.com |

Summary of Findings

23icfi.com |

1. Donation efforts nationwide are geared chiefly to marketing truss bridges for relocation.

2. Many states focus exclusively upon marketing metal truss bridges.

3. Some states continue to “market” non-truss bridges, even while holding to the conclusion that this effort has little likelihood for success.

Findings

24icfi.com |

4. Some states have developed formal or informal methods for not marketing bridges with low marketability.

5. Some states have used temporary storage for truss bridges as an adjunct part of their marketing mechanism.

6. The methods for notifying the public of the availability of a surplus bridge differ widely. In most states, they are restricted to newspaper advertisements, website notices, and personal communications through e-mails and telephone calls.

Findings, cont.

25icfi.com |

7. Nearly all states that were interviewed agreed that there should be a process for screening bridges for marketing. There was no consensus, however, as to the conditions under which an exemption should occur and how the exemption should be decided.

8. Is the “cost of demolition” allowance sufficient to encourage re-use of a bridge, in situ or through relocation?

Findings, cont.

26icfi.com |

Recommendations

27icfi.com |

Each state DOT should adopt a uniform process for notifying the public and agencies of the availability of a surplus bridge, including the media for notification and time allotted for notification, and consider including that process in a bridge-specific PA

28icfi.com |

State DOTs should consider adopting internal policies that historic bridge marketing will occur only after in situ preservation has been shown to be infeasible.

29icfi.com |

State DOTs should explore the development of a process for exempting from marketing efforts bridges shown to be unmarketable. This process should be developed in close coordination with the FHWA, to ensure consistency with the donation requirement, and with the state SHPO, to ensure consistency with the Section 106 process.

30icfi.com |

State DOTs should consider establishing uniform procedures for estimating the “cost of demolition,” which can be applied to any bridge preservation project, whether it involves relocation or in situ preservation.

31icfi.com |

State DOTs should consider developing specific definitions for the requirement for long-term preservation of a bridge to encourage greater interest in adoption of historic bridges, particularly by non-profit groups and private parties

32icfi.com |

Thank you for attending