Bridge Road Bridge Scoping Report 2012-08-31

7/27/2019 Bridge Road Bridge Scoping Report 2012-08-31

1/65

CountyofVentura

August31,2012

Preparedfor:

GlennDerossett,P.E.

CountyofVenturaPublicWorksAgency

TransportationDepartment

800

S.

Victoria

Ave.

Ventura,CA 930091600

Preparedby:

ShawnKowalewski,P.E.

MNSEngineers,Inc.

16N.OakStreet,2ndFloor

Ventura,CA93001

8056484840

ProjectScopingReportBridge Road Bridge


2/65


3/65

ProjectScopingReport BridgeRoadBridge

CountyofVentura,California

MNSEngineers,Inc. Pagei

ProfessionalSupervision

ThisreporthasbeenpreparedunderthedirectsupervisionofShawnKowalewski,aCalifornia

Registered Civil Engineer. The Registered Civil Engineer attests to the technical information

containedhereinandtheengineeringdatauponwhichtherecommendations,conclusions,and

decisionsarebased.

August31,2012

ShawnKowalewski Date

RegisteredCivilEngineerNo.59539


4/65



Pageii MNSEngineers,Inc.


5/65



MNSEngineers,Inc. Pageiii

Limitations

ThisstudyisintendedforusebytheCountyofVentura PublicWorksAgency Transportation

DepartmentfortheBridgeRoadBridgeProject.Thisstudyisbasedupontheprojectdescribed

and the information obtained from the County and available at the time of this study. The

findings are based upon the results of field and office investigations, combined with

interpolationofconditionsanddata.Theresultsreflectaninterpretationofthedirectevidence

obtained.Therecommendationspresentedinthisstudyarebasedupontheassumptionthatan

appropriate level of field review will be provided during construction. MNS Engineers Inc.

shouldbenotifiedofanypertinentchangesintheprojectplansorifsubsurfaceconditionsare

foundtovaryfromthosedescribedherein,includingreferencescitedandappendicesattached.

Suchchangesorvariationsmayrequirereevaluationoftherecommendationscontainedinthis

study.

The data, opinions and recommendations of this study are applicable to the specific design

elementsandlocationthatisthesubjectofthisstudy.Thereportisnotapplicabletoanyother

designelementsortoanyotherlocations.Subsequentuses,withoutthepriorwrittenconsent

ofMNSEngineers,Inc.,acceptallliabilityresultingfromuseorreuseofthedata,opinions,and

recommendations.

MNS Engineers, Inc. has no responsibility for construction means, methods, techniques,

sequences,

or

procedures,

or

for

safety

precautions

or

programs

in

connection

with

the

construction,fortheactsoromissionsofthecontractor,oranyotherpersonsperformingany

oftheconstruction,orfailureofanyofthemtoproperlyandsafelycarryouttheconstruction.


6/65



Pageiv MNSEngineers,Inc.


7/65



MNSEngineers,Inc. Pagev

TableofContents

Professional Supervision ......................................... .................................................. ...................................... i

Limitations ............................................................. .................................................. ........................................ ... iii

Table of Contents ............................................. ............................................. .............................................. ....... v

Executive Summary ............................................. ................................................ ............................................. 1

Introduction ............................................... ............................................. .............................................. ............... 4

General Description ........................................... .................................................. ............................................. 6

Assessments ............................................. ............................................... ............................................ .............. 13

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................... 26

References ......................................................................................................................................................... 30

Appendix A Site Visit Photographs .......................................... ................................................ ............ 32

Appendix B As-Built Record Drawings .......................................... .............................................. ...... 44

Appendix C Bridge Sufficiency Rating (SR) Worksheets ..................................................... ...... 50

P:\COVENVENTURA\COVEN.110003PRELIMINARYBRIDGEDESIGN\BRIDGE.01\ENGINEERING\REPORT\COVEN.110003.00BRIDGEROADSCOPINGREPORTFINAL.DOCX

LASTPRINTED8/31/201212:08:00PM


8/65



Pagevi MNSEngineers,Inc.


9/65



MNSEngineers,Inc. Page1

ExecutiveSummary

MNSEngineers, Inc. (MNS)wascontractedby theCountyofVentura toassess theoverall

conditionandfunctionalityofBridgeRoadBridgeoverSantaPaulaCreek.Thisreportisthe

culminationofthatwork.

PurposeThepurposeofthisreport istoprovideprojectscopingcleardirectionforfutureproject

developmentworktoaddresstheexistingbridgedeficiencies.Inorderofprecedence,this

reportprovidesthebasisforrecommendationsfor:

1. Rehabilitationversusreplacementofthebridge.2. Rehabilitation/replacementmethodologiesandgeneraldesignparameters.3. Professionalservicesandconstructionbudgets.

Results Theresultsofthe field investigationsperformed,thereviewof recorddrawingsandother

available information, and the completion of the various assessments leads us to

recommendbridgereplacementincludingthefollowingactions:

1. SingleSpanBridgeReplacement:Abridgereplacementbridgeofapproximately168feetinlengthwillincreasetheSRto89.4.

2. ConstructRockSlopeProtection:Erosion/scourhasbeenanongoingconcernatthebridge site and countermeasures should be designed and installed using Caltrans

rockslopeprotectiondesignguide.

3. Guard Rail, Barrier Rail and Terminal Sections: Type 80 concrete barrier rails incombination with tubular handrailing are constructed at a minimum height of 54

inches on the new bridge to satisfy vehicular barrier and pedestrian and bicycle

safetystandards.

4. RealignBridgeRoadApproachwithSR150:The intersection isrecommendedtoberealigned to an angle of 90, unless other factors indicate another alignment. All

types of site distance should be maintained or increased with intersection

realignment

Moredetailedrecommendationsareprovidedintheconclusionsectionofthisreport.


10/65



Page2 MNSEngineers,Inc.

ScopeofWorkAfter reviewing and accepting the recommendations of this report, the County should

prepare a scope of work for a replacement bridge project. The scope of services shall

include,

but

is

not

limited

to

the

following:

CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)andtheNationEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)clearances,includingrequiredstudies,mitigationprogramandpermits

Environmental clearances will be accomplished according to the most currentversions of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM) and the Caltrans

StandardEnvironmentalReference(SER)

Surveyandtopographicmapping Structuretypeselectionreport

Geotechnical

investigation

and

report

Hydrologyandhydraulicsreport,includingaLocationHydraulicStudyandSummaryFloodplainEncroachmentReport,ifneeded

Final design, including construction drawings, specification, special provisions andcostestimatesforthebridgeandroadwayapproaches

IndependentStructuralCheck Rightofwayengineering Realpropertyappraisalandacquisition Utilitycoordination Publicinformationandcommunityoutreach PreparationofnecessaryStormWaterPollutionPreventionPlans Biddingandconstructionsupportservices

All reportsandworkproductsare forCaltransadministered federally fundedprojectsand

mustfollowthelatestCaltransformatsandrequirements.

Thefollowingtablecontainsasummaryofestimatedcostandscheduleforthereplacement

bridgeproject.

Cost Summary for Single Span Bridge Replacement over Santa Paula CreekCost Duration(months)

ProfessionalServices $350,000 1218

Construction $2,517,900 1014

Total: $2,867,900 2232

The estimated cost of a single span replacement bridge is $2,867,900 with almost

$2,523,752 eligible for reimbursement through the Highway Bridge Rehabilitation and


11/65




Replacement Program (HBRRP). Right of way acquisition is not included in the cost and

scheduleestimate.


12/65




Introduction

Inacontinuingefforttokeepitsfacilitiesassafeaspossible,theCountyofVenturaretained

the services of MNS Engineers to assist on this project. The County is planning a major

investment in Bridge Road Bridge over Santa Paula Creek. Recent inspection reports and

sufficiencyrating(SR)calculationsindicatethatthebridgeisconsideredstructurallydeficient

(SD) and is eligible for Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP)

fundsthroughtheHighwayBridgeProgram(HBP).Thefirststepinresolvingthedeficiencies

noted during the inspections is to make a determination on rehabilitation versus

replacementinotherwords,thescopeoftheprojectneedstobedetermined.

InvestigativeTeamTheengineeringteammembersandtheirresponsibilitiesinclude:

MNS Engineers, Inc. project management, civil and structural assessments anddesignrecommendations.

PadreAssociates,Inc.preliminaryenvironmentalstudies(PES)form.ScopeofWorkThegoalofthisprojectistoprovidetheCountywithadetailedexplanationofwhatmaybe

thecauseofthe issues identified inthe inspection reports,aswellassolutionstoaddress

them.Generally,thescopeofworkincludes:

ProjectMeetingsandReporting:Schedule,meetingagendas,andprogressreports. Researchand InvestigationCompileDocuments:Collectionandreviewofexisting

data, relevant reports, record drawings and other pertinent and available

information.Sitevisitsandbridge inspectionstoobtainfirsthandknowledgeofthe

issuesidentifiedintheCaltransinspectionreports.

Hydrology

Studies

and

Hydraulic

Analysis:

Prepare

preliminary

Location

Hydraulic

Study.

Geometric Assessment: Perform geometric assessment and prepare technicalmemorandum.

SafetyAssessment:Performsafetyassessmentandpreparetechnicalmemorandum.


13/65




ScopingAnalysis:Preparedetailedscopingreportincludingdescriptionofinspection,data review and recommendations for repair/mitigation activities or bridge

replacementoptionssignedbyalicensedengineerincludinganestimateofprobable

construction

costs

for

the

recommended

repairs.

Prepare

PES

form

and

Exhibit

6A

of

theHBRRPapplication.


14/65




GeneralDescription

BackgroundThisbridgesupportsBridgeRoadatwolane,twowayruralroadwaythatprovidesaccess

to a small population. The land use is mixed, but predominately agricultural in nature.

Averagedailytraffic(ADT)wasestimatedin2004at300vehicles,withapproximately2%of

those vehicles being trucks. Aerial photography of the area around the bridge indicates

orangeandavocadoorchardsinoperationtotheeastofthebridge.Thebridgeiscurrently

postedforonewaytruckandbustrafficwithaspeedlimitof15mph.

ThebridgeisasinglespansteelthroughPratttrusswithtimberdeckingthatis132feetlong

and20feetwide.Thebridgesuperstructurewasoriginallybuilt in1911aspartofa longer

bridgeandmovedtoitspresentlocationin1941.Themainmembersofthesuperstructure

aredouble channels laced together with steel strips connected with rivets. The diagonals

and bottom chords are double flat bars with eye pin connections. The floor beams

supportingthetimberdeckingandstringersaredoublesteelchannels.Allconnectionsare

rivetedexceptforseveralboltedconnectionswhichmaybeduetotheerectionofthebridge

at its current location. The bridge superstructure is supported on large concrete gravity

abutments.The creekbanksadjacent to thebridgearehighly incisedwith slopes steeper

than1H:1V.

Ventura County Transportation department prepared a project report in 1988 to repairdeficiencieswhichincludedthisscopeofwork:

A.C.resurfacingofdeck Tighteninglooseboltsinthetrussbracings Straightenthelowerstrutoftheeastswayframe Paintallsteeltrussmembers Installtubularrailing Installrockbolts Shotcreteonbotheastandwestchannelbanks Surfacedrainagecontrolofrunofffromadjacentorchard

A 2003 report prepared for the Countys Transportation Department identifies the west

abutmentwasunderminedin1999.Scourofthewestcreekbankerodedtheexistinggravity

abutmentcausing it to tilt to theeastand todamage theeastabutment rockerbearings,

east abutment backwall, and six floor beams supporting the timber decking. Scour


15/65




countermeasureswerealsoreportedtohavebeenconstructedin1999.Thework included

supporting theexistinggravityabutmenton two48 inchdiameterCIDHpiles,placing soil

nailsintheembankment,andplacingshotcretealongtheheightoftheembankment.

The2003reportpreparedrecommendationstorestorethebridgesloadcarryingcapacityto

itsoriginalstatebyperformingthefollowingwork:

Replacethetwofloorbeamsclosesttotheeastabutment; Constructionofanexpansionjointbetweenthedeckandtheeastabutment Removalandreconstructionoftheeastabutmentbackwall, Jackingup thebridge toallow theexisting rollerbearingassembly to rotate to its

naturalverticalposition;and

Resettingtherollerbearingassemblywithnewanchorbolts.The recommendations of the 1988 and 2003 project reports appear to have been

implemented.

Load rating calculations performed in July 2008 by Caltrans indicated that the timber

stringers were not capable of carrying the loads posted on the bridge. The County

contractedworkforsupplementalstringersin2009.Duringtheworkextensivedeckrotting

wasdiscoveredandtheACsurfacewasremovedandreplacedwithtimberdecking.Existing

stringerswerealsoreplacedalongwiththeadditionofsupplementarystringers.

LocationBridgeRoadBridge is locatedeastofStateRoute150justnorthoftheCityofSantaPaula,

California. The bridge crosses over Santa Paula Creek a natural and unlined drainage

channelthatdischargesintotheSantaClaraRiverjustupstreamofSantaPaula.SeeTable1

forthesitespecificlocationinformation.

Table 1 Location Information for Bridge Road Bridge over Santa Paula CreekDistrict: District7

County:

Ventura

County

Route: BridgeRoad(localroad)

USGS7.5MinuteSeriesQuadrangle: SantaPaulaPeakQuadrangle;California

Latitude/Longitude: 3423'23"N/1194'20"W

BridgeNo.: CaltransBridgeNo.52C0053/VenturaCountyBridge

No.442


16/65




Thegeneralterrainsurroundingthebridgeischaracterizedasgraduallyslopedwithinafew

hundredfeetofthebridge.Thelandvariesinelevationfromapproximately550feetinSanta

Paula Creek to 590 feet at east end of the bridge. The profile grade of the bridge is

approximately

level.

Adryweathercreekcrossingislocatedapproximately0.6milessouthofBridgeRoad,butis

accessibleonlythroughprivateland.

Project specific topographicmappingwasnotperformed.GoogleEarthdatawasused for

broadscope items of work. Whereas, LiDAR data provided by the County of Ventura

WatershedProtectionDistrictwasused toaccuratelydevelop thecreekcrosssections for

theprojecthydraulicsanalysis.

Photographsof

the

existing

bridge

and

surroundings

are

included

in

Appendix

A.

As

built

bridgeplansarelocatedinappendixB.

AvicinitymapanddetailedaerialphotographareprovidedinFigure1andFigure2.

Figure 1 Vicinity Map of Bridge Road Bridge over Santa Paula Creek

ProjectSite

Bridge Road

SantaPaula


17/65




ConditionofStructureCaltrans2010 inspection records forBridgeRoadBridgewere reviewedbeforeconducting

thefieldinvestigation.Thelatestreportindicatesthefollowingdeficiencies:

Dirthas accumulatedon topof the truss supportsatbothendsof thebridgeandimpedestheobservationofmovementintheslottedconnections.

Thelowernorthendoftheguniteslopeprotectionatthewestabutmentappearstobedegradedbyscour.Thereisalsoevidenceofunderminingatthedownstreamend

oftheslope,raisingthepossibilityofacavityatthebase.

Thestructureispostedfor:o 23tonspertrucko 31tonspersemitrailercombinationo 32tonspertruckandfulltrailero 15mpho Onewayfortrucksandbuses

Our field investigation confirmed these deficiencies as present. Overall, the Caltrans

StructureMaintenance&InvestigationsDivisionrecommendsinstallingbenchmarksateach

Figure 2 Detailed Aerial Photograph of Bridge Road Bridge over Santa Paula Creek

Top&Toe

ofBank

Bridge

Bridge Road


18/65




abutmenttofrequentlymonitorrelativemovementoftheabutmentsandcleaningdirtfrom

topoftrusssupportsatbothends.

The Structure Inventory and Appraisal Report (SIAR), completed as part of the bridge

inspection, assigns the bridge a sufficiency rating (SR) of 5.0. The sufficiency rating is a

methodofevaluatinghighwaybridgedatabycalculating fourseparate factorstoobtaina

numericvaluewhichisindicativeofbridgesufficiencytoremaininservice.Theresultofthis

method isapercentage inwhich100percentwouldrepresentanentirelysufficientbridge

and zeropercent would representanentirely insufficientordeficientbridge. A lowSR in

combinationwith specific structuralorgeometricperformancemeasurescan result in the

bridge being categorized as structurally deficient (SD) or functionally obsolete (FO),

respectively. A bridge categorizedas SD or FO and with an SR less than 80 is eligible for

rehabilitationfunds.AnFOorSDbridgewithanSR lessthan50 iseligibleforreplacement

funds. In order to stretch the funds available, Caltrans and FHWA require rehabilitation

strategiesbeconsideredpriortomovingforwardwithareplacement.Usingthesecriteria,

BridgeRoadBridgeiseligibleforreplacementfunds.

The main factors affecting the Bridge Road Bridge SR are the low inventory rating,

substructureconditionratingandapproachgeometry.

The inventory rating (in metric tons) is the load level which can safely utilize an existing

structure for an indefinite period of time. Currently the bridges inventory rating is 11.3

metric

tons.

Adding

structural

members

to

increase

load

capacity

of

the

existing

bridge

is

not

considered to be economically feasible. Inventory and operating ratings are used to

determineallowableloadsforpostingonexistingbridges.

Thesubstructureconditionratingdescribesthephysicalconditionofpiers,abutments,piles,

fenders,footings,orotherfoundationcomponents.Allsubstructuremembersareinspected

for signs of distress which may include cracking, deterioration, settlement, misalignment,

scour,section loss,collisiondamageandcorrosion.BridgeRoadBridgehasasubstructure

conditionratingof4,whichisdefinedas:

POOR CONDITION advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling or

scour.

Thewestabutmenthasalreadybeenretrofittedtoprovideadditionverticalsupportalong

withscourcountermeasures;howeverscourcontinuestoslowlyerodethecreekbank.The

existingbridgeabutmentscouldbefurtherretrofittedwithafoundationsystemtoprovide

lateralandverticalsupportshouldcreekbankscourcontinueinthefuture.


19/65




Theoverallratingfordeckgeometry includesevaluationsofcurbtocurbbridgewidthand

minimumvertical clearanceover thebridge roadwayusing tables in theBridgeRecording

andCodingGuide.ThelowerofthecodesfromthetablesislistedontheSIAR.BridgeRoad

Bridge

has

a

curb

to

curb

width

of

5.7

meters

(18.7

feet)

which

yields

a

deck

geometry

rating

of3,whichisdefinedas:

Basicallyintolerablerequiringhighpriorityofcorrectiveaction.

To increasethedeckgeometryratingtoasatisfactory level,thecurbtocurbwidthwould

needtobebroughtuptocurrentdesignstandardsforabridgewithtwolanesandtwoway

traffic.BridgeRoadBridgescurbtocurbwidthwouldneedtoincrease2.8meters(9.2feet)

toaminimum8.5meters(27.6feet)totalwidth,whichincreasesthedeckgeometryrating

to6,whichisdefinedas:

Equaltopresentminimumcriteria

Widening theexistingbridge tohelp raise theSRwould require reengineering thebridge,

whichwouldrequireaneffortsimilartodesigninganewbridge.Constructingareengineered

bridgecouldalsobeontheorderofconstructinganewbridge.Theapproachroadwayand

bridgegeometry donot meet current design standardsand can onlybe correctedwitha

bridgereplacement.

Thecosttoimplementabridgerehabilitationscenariothatcorrectedthebridgedeficiencies

toasatisfactorylevelwouldbeontheorderofdesigningandbuildinganewbridge.Amore

costeffective rehabilitatingbystrengthening the foundationonlywould result inanSRof

35.3.TheSDlabelwouldberemovedandreplacedwithanFOlabel.AmaximumSRof89.4

for a proposed structure at the site could be achieved with a bridge replacement that

corrects all deficiencies identified. SR worksheets for the existing condition, bridge

rehabilitation,andbridgereplacementoptionsarelocatedinappendixC.


20/65





21/65




Assessments

Hydrology&HydraulicAssessmentThehydrologyandhydraulicassessmentforthebridgewereconductedsimultaneouslyand

the resultswerepresented ina technicalmemorandumtitled,PreliminaryHydrologyand

HydraulicStudy,datedJune26,2012.Thememorandumissummarizedherein.

Hydrology

Existinghydrologyanalysisandcalculationsforthewatershedwerereviewed.Thelatestwas

includedinanassessmentofSantaPaulaCreekpreparedforSantaPaulaCreekFishLadder

Authority (SPCFLA) and the California Department of Fish and Game in 2007. In this

assessment the approximately 42 square mile watershed subbasin above Bridge Road

Bridge isdescribedasmostlyundeveloped land.Thereportusedguidelines inBulletin17B

(WRC,1981)toestimatedischargesforvariousfloodfrequencies.The100yearflowatthe

bridgewasestimatedtobe46,000cubicfeetpersecond(cfs).

Hydraulics

AnexistingconditionsmodelofSantaPaulaCreekfromapproximately1,000feetupstream

to1,000feetdownstreamofBridgeRoadwaspreparedusingtheUSArmyCorpofEngineers

Hydrological Engineering Centers River Analysis System (HECRAS) program and LiDAR

topographydataobtainedfromtheCountyofVentura.

TheresultsoutputfromHECRASoftheexistingcreekmodelarepresentedbelowinTable2

HECRASHydraulicOutput.Figure3below isanexcerpt from thePreliminaryHydrology

andHydraulicStudy (labeledFigure1 in thestudy)andshowstheextentsof the100year

watersurfaceelevationandlocationofthecrosssectionsusedtomodelthecreek.

Themodelwasalsoanalyzedwithtwoproposedbridgeconfigurations:atwospanoption

with6footdiameterpierinthemiddleofthecreekorhalfthespanandanassumedbridge

depthof5feetandasinglespanbridgewithassumeddepthof8.5feet.Theprofilegradeof

theproposedbridgeswasassumedtomatchexistingbridgegradeatthewestbankand2

feetlowerthanexistinggradeoftheeastbank.


22/65




Table 2 HEC-RAS Hydraulic Output

River

Station

MinimumChannel

Elevation(feet)

BaseFlood(Q100=46,000cfs)

WaterSurface

Elevation(feet)

Channel

Velocity

(feet/sec)

WaterSurfaceTop

Width(feet)

21+00 567.58 596.18 18.34 113.42

20+00 566.93 594.84 18.21 145.34

19+00 565.70 594.71 15.44 171.92

18+00 563.69 594.17 14.56 197.90

16+50 560.78 593.84 12.06 238.13

15+11.2 558.28 589.43 18.54 162.56

14+09.04 555.83 590.61 12.39 241.83

13+21.33 554.96 582.72 23.71 112.49

12+35.66 553.57 574.44 28.94 106.10

11+50 552.18 581.37 14.86 136.35

11+30 BRU 581.45 14.04 143.86

11+30 BRD 581.47 13.40 138.12

10+86.13 551.45 580.06 15.86 125.71

10+00 550.97 579.49 15.00 143.47

9+00 549.60 578.81 14.38 142.70

8+00 547.93 576.16 17.37 121.49

7+00 547.15 572.34 20.68 114.32

6+00 546.18 567.85 23.28 117.56

5+00 543.78 559.18 28.15 135.32

4+00 542.91 562.17 19.93 140.96

3+00 539.51 557.90 21.99 139.27

2+00 537.11 552.40 23.75 173.25

1+00 533.46 551.15 20.27 180.53

The100yearflowestimatedwatersurfaceelevationsatthe locationoftheexistingbridge

for each modeled span configuration are presented in Table 3 below. Free board is

measuredfromthelowestsoffitpointforeachconfiguration.

Table 3: Water Surface Elevation and Freeboard Comparison

SpanConfiguration

100YearFlow 50YearFlow

W.S.ElevationApproximate

FreeboardElevation

Approximate

Freeboard

ExistingSingleSpan 581.5' 5.0' 575.2 11.3

Proposed

Single

Span

582.3'

5.0'

574.8 2.5

ProposedTwoSpan 581.2' 2.8' 575.0 9.0

AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications with Caltrans amendments recommend that bridges

convey the50year flowwith2 feetof freeboardmeasured from the lowestpointof the

bridgesoffitandthatthebridgeconveysthe100yearflowwithnofreeboardrequirements.

Theexistingbridgemeetscurrenthydraulicdesignrequirements.Theproposedsinglespan


23/65




bridge configuration has been estimated to convey the 100year flow with the girders

encroachingapproximately5feetbelowthewatersurface(girdersarepartiallysubmerged).

The2feetoffreeboardforthe50yearflowisprovided.

Nomajor floodinghasbeendocumentedatBridgeRoadBridge.Furthermore,due to the

current landuseanddevelopmentpotential in thearea, there is lowprobability that the

100year storm event flow will significantly increase upstream of the bridge. The risk of

property lossdue to floodingadjacent to thebridge isminimal.Nohydraulicchangesare

recommendedforbridgerehabilitation.Afullhydraulicanalysisthatrecreatestheeffective

modelforareplacementbridgewillbenecessaryinfinaldesign.

ScourScour

at

the

bridge

was

evaluated

using

HEC

RAS

and

the

methodologies

presented

in

HydraulicEngineeringCircularNo.18,EvaluatingScouratBridges,5thEdition(HEC18).HECRASusesoutputdata fromsteadyflowanalysisas input forscourcalculations.Toanalyize

pierandcontractionscour,themediangrainsizediameter(D50)istheonlyadditionalinput

required.ThereportpreparedforSPCFLAandCDFGaddressingthegeomorphologyofSanta

PaulaCreekdescribes thecreekchannel substrate in thevicinityofBridgeRoadBridgeas

Figure 3 Detailed Aerial Photograph of Bridge Road Bridge over Santa Paula Creek


24/65




being a coarse cobble deposit with median grain size diameter D50=138mm, but also

identifiesexposedbedrockinthechannelupstreamofthebridge.

Thestudydoesnotconsiderabutmentscourforthewestabutmentbecauseembankment

hasshotcreteslopeprotectionthatcannotbeevaluatedusingthemethodologiespresentin

HEC18. Results of contraction scour analysis for the 100year flow are estimated to be

negligible inthecreekchannel.Eastabutmentscour for the100year flow isestimated to

scour a depth of 17.8 feet below the toe of the gravity abutment, approximately 2 feet

below creek channel bottom. Pier scour for the two span scenario was estimated to be

approximately7feetbelowtheexistingchannelcreekbottom.

Thedurationofflowaffectstheamountofscourandthepotentialtoreachcalculatedscour

depth. Santa Paula Creek is considered a flashy creek meaning that flows increase

rapidly,peakforashortperiodandthendecreaserapidly.Therefore,peakflowsareofshort

duration,whichresultsinactualscourlessthancalculated.

Inthe71yearhistoryofBridgeRoadBridgenomajorfloodinghasbeenobserved.Scourof

thewestembankmenthasbeen identifiedandmitigationmeasureshavebeen inplacefor

overadecade,butappeartoneedadditionalwork.

Scourcountermeasurerepairsarerecommendedforrehabilitationandconstructionofrock

slopeprotection(RSP)forproposedbridgescenariosarerecommendedandwillbeincluded

incostestimates.

Geometrics&SafetyAssessmentThe geometric and safety assessments for the bridge and site were conducted

simultaneously and the results were presented in a technical memorandum titled,

GeometricandSafetyAssessment,datedMay11,2012.Thememorandumissummarized

herein.

Ingeneral,thegeometricassessmentfocusedontwomajorareas:

SightdistanceandGrade/Profile Roadalignment

Thesafetyassessmentfocusedonthreemajorareas:

Pedestrianandbicycleaccess Pavementdelineationandsignage


25/65




Guardrail,barrierrailandterminalendsectionsTheresultsoftheoverallprojectscopingcanbesignificantlyaffectedbythegeometricand

safety assessments. Bridge sufficiency ratings are affected by geometric and safety

componentsspecificallyapproachroadwaygeometrics,roadandbridgewidths,andsafety

featuressuchasbridgerailings,transitions,approachguardrailandapproachguardrailends.

Deficiencies here can result in safety and liability issues,decreased traffic operations and

mobilityandcanresultinthebridgebeingclassifiedasfunctionallyobsolete.Therefore,itis

importanttoidentifydeficienciesnow,understandtheirimpactstotheoverallproject,and

givethemconsiderationbeforemakinganymajorinvestmentinthebridge.

SightDistance(Path&ProfileofTravel)

Sight distance is the continuous length of roadway ahead visible to the driver. Caltrans

HighwayDesignManual(HDM),Section201providesguidancefordeterminingthevarious

sightdistancesprovidedandrequiredforagivensituation.Fourtypesofsightdistancewere

analyzedforBridgeRoadBridge:

Passingsightdistance Stoppingsightdistance Decisionsightdistance Cornersightdistance

Overall,

no

bridge

or

road

modifications

are

recommended

to

address

sight

distance

requirements for thecurrentpostedvehicle speedsandADT.Somediscretionary changes

couldbeincluded inarehabilitationproject,buttheyarenotrequiredandtheywouldnot

improve the bridge sufficiency rating. If the bridge is replaced, sight distances should be

maintainedorincreased.

RoadAlignment

Currently,BridgeRoadintersectsSR150ata76angle.A90teeintersectionispreferred

fornewconstruction. Ifthebridge isreplaced,considerationshouldbegiventorealigning

the roadway toprovidea road90 tee intersection,unlessother factors indicateanother

alignment.

TheexistingalignmentofBridgeRoadcreatesaYsplitattheintersectionofRaffertyRoad

andBridgeRoad.Currently, theanglebetween northboundBridgeRoad andSouthbound

RaffertyRoad iscurrently46degrees.BridgeRoadatRaffertyRoad intersectionshouldbe


26/65




consideredtobe realignedwithanewbridge replacement to increase theanglebetween

theroads.

Pedestrian&BicycleAccess

Standalonepedestrianandbicyclefacilitiesarenotrequiredforthisbridgeduetotherural

locationandtypicaluse.Theexistingbridgedoesnotprovidepedestrianaccessorbicycle

lanesoravailableshoulderspace.Bothbicyclesandwheelchairusersareforcedtousethe

vehicletravelledwaywhencrossingthebridge.

Itisrecommendedtoprovideadequateshoulderareaonbothsidesofthetravelledwaysto

provide pedestrian, ADA and bicycle access if the bridge is replaced. It is not possible to

upgradebicycleandpedestrianfacilitiesforarehabilitationscenario.

PavementDelineation

&

Signage

Allexistingsignsandpostsshouldbereplacedwithbreakawaysupportsandhighervisibility

retroreflective signage (for nighttime conditions) per the CAMUTCD. Existing object

markersshouldbeadjustedwiththeconstructionofbridgeendtreatmentsifthebridgeisto

remain.

Ifanewbridgeistobeinstalled,thealignmentofBridgeRoadwouldbealtered.Duetothe

proximity of the bridge to the intersection of Bridge Road and Rafferty Road, it is

recommended that intersection signage improvements be made based on the change in

alignment.ItislikelythatanynewalignmentwouldreshapetheintersectionfromaYtoa

T. ATIntersection sign (W24) wouldbenefit allapproachesand ayield sign should be

consideredalongtheRaffertyRoadapproach.

Guardrail,BarrierRail&TerminalEndSections

Theexistingbarrierrailingsonthebridgeare inpoorconditionanddonotmeetvehicular,

bicycleorpedestrianstandards.Additionally,theendsofthebarrierrailarenotprotected.

TheseitemsareeligibleforHBRRPfunds.

It isrecommendedthatthebarrierrailsbereconstructedusingcurrentstandardsandthat

theendsbeprotected if thebridge is rehabilitated. Acombination railingof54 inches to

benefit all modes of bridge traffic is recommended. These improvements will be

automaticallyincludedinthebridgerehabilitationscenario.

When considering a new bridge structure, pedestrian railings in the form of chain link

fencingarenotrecommendedduetothescenicnatureofthebridge locationtotheSanta

PaulaCreek.Thus,tubularhandrailingshouldbeusedwithcombinedrailheightforsafetyof


27/65




pedestrian.AConcreteBarrierType80orType736shouldbeconsideredifnosidewalksare

present;however,atubularhandrailcombinationwouldaccommodateanypedestrianusers

of the bridge even without sidewalks. Bicycle railings would be satisfied with the

combination

of

tube

railings

and

concrete

barrier,

as

the

minimum

height

of

the

bicycle

rail

is54inchesabovethedecksurface.

CostAssessmentBridge rehabilitation and replacement are both major capital investments, therefore it is

important tounderstand theoverallscheduleandbudgetcostsofeachstrategy.The final

component of the project scoping report is to develop the cost assessment. Future

professional services are considered with the construction costs. County staff and

management time is not considered or included at this time. The construction costs

assessment

uses

Caltrans

construction

contract

cost

data,

as

well

as

cost

data

developed

fromourrecentworkonsimilarprojects.

Bridge replacement options covered herein will include construction costs of route

realignment recommended in the project Geometrics and Safety memo. Land acquisition

costsforadditionrightofwaytoconstructroadrealignmenthavenotbeenestimatedinthis

report.Approximately14,000 square feetof landwillneed tobeacquired;10,000 square

feet of orchard and 4,000 square feet crossing SantaPaula Creek. Land acquisition is not

anticipatedatthistimeforbridgerehabilitation.

Areplacementbridgeshouldbeconstructed intwophases.Phaseoneconsistsofbuilding

approximatelyhalfofthenewbridgetotheupstreamsideofthebridgewhiletheexisting

bridgewillremaininservicetolocaltrafficuntilphase1constructioniscompletedandopen

to traffic. Once phase 1 is complete, the existing bridge will be removed and phase 2

construction will commence. Both phases will be tied together with a closure pour.

Constructiontrafficisanticipatedtousethedryweathercreekcrossingsouthofthesitefor

accesstotheeastsideofthecreek.

RehabilitateBridge

The bridge rehabilitation scenario considered adds a 72inch CIDH pile on the north and

southsideoftheofeachexistinggravityabutmenttiedtogetherbyanapproximate8feet

wideby4feettallgradebeamdoweledtothegravityabutment.TheCIDHpilesandgrade

beamretrofithasbeenpreliminarilydesignedtosupporttheexistinggravityabutments in

theevent furtherunderminingoccursand they losevertical support. Lateralcapacitywas

estimatedusinggroundmotiondata fromsimilarprojectexperience in the localareaand

eccentricloadingoftheCIDHpiles.Thecostforwideningthebridgewasnotincludedinthis


28/65




rehabilitation scenariobecause it isexpected thatcostwouldbe similar toa replacement

bridge.

Theestimatedcostforconstructionofbridgerehabilitation is$500,000.Expectedduration

ofconstruction is34months.Theconstructioncostestimate isdetailed inTable4below.

Theestimateshouldnotbeconsideredallinclusiveonlymajoritemsofworkareidentified

atthistime.The largecontingencyof25% isusedforplanningphaseestimatestoaccount

forsmalleritemsofworknotyetidentified.

The estimated cost for professional fees for civil engineering, bridge engineering and

environmental permitting is $125,000. Expected duration for completion of professional

servicesis36months.

Thetotalestimatedcostforconstructionandexternalprofessionalfeesis$625,000forthe

bridgerehabilitationscenario.Thetotaltimetocompletionis915months.

HBRRPrequirementsspecifythatbridgeswithmajorreconstructionwithinthepast10years

willnotbeconsidereddeficientbridgesandwillnotbeeligibletoreceiveanyfundsuntil10

years has elapsed since the major reconstruction (Ten Year Rule #1). For example, if the

bridge isrehabilitated in2013,butdeteriorates furtherand isagaintechnicallyeligiblefor

HBRRPfunds(SDorFOdesignationandSR


29/65




covered for this assessment but should budgeted for in addition to rehabilitation costs

presented.

ReplaceBridge SingleSpanOption

Abridgereplacementscenarioconsideredasimplespanconfigurationof170feettosimplify

environmental permitting and improve creek hydraulics. The simple span configuration

considersusingprecastprestressedconcretegirdersworkwillbedone intwophaseswith

theexistingbridgetoremainopentotrafficduringphase1.

Theestimatedcostforconstructionofbridgereplacementis$2,517,900.Expectedduration

ofconstructionis1014monthsandwillbelimitedtocertaintimesoftheyearsduetowork

inandaroundthecreek.TheconstructioncostestimateisdetailedinTable5Construction

CostEstimate forReplacementofBridgeRoadBridgeoverSantaPaulaCreek,below.The

estimateshouldnotbeconsideredallinclusiveonlymajoritemsofworkareidentifiedat

thistime.Thelargecontingencyof25%isusedforplanningphaseestimatestoaccountfor

smalleritemsofworknotyetidentified.

Table 5 Construct ion Cost Estimate for Single Span Bridge Replacement of Bridge Road Bridge over

Santa Paula Creek

ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNITPRICE COST

RemoveBridge LS 1 $60,000 $60,000

StructureExcavation CY 250 $100 $25,000

StructureBackfill CY 250 $100 $25,000

FurnishPile LF 3,000 $60 $180,000

DrivePile EA 40 $3,000 $120,000

StructureConcrete,Bridge CY 620 $1,300 $806,000

BarReinforcingSteel(Bridge) LB 95,500 $0.50 $47,750

FurnishPrecastPrestressedConcreteGirder EA 7 $31,500 $220,500

ErectPrecastPrestressedConcreteGirder EA 7 $6,000 $42,000

BarrierRail& TubularHandRail LF 340 $340 $115,600

MetalBeamGuardrail,TransitionRailing&TerminalSection EA 4 $10,000 $40,000

ApproachRoadway(Subgrade,AB,HMA) SF 16,500 $5 $82,500

RockSlopeProtection CY 2,500 $100 $250,000

SUBTOTAL $2,014,350

CONTINGENCY(25%) $503,600

GRANDTOTAL $2,517,900


30/65




Alternatively,acastinplaceconcretebridgedesigncouldbeconstructed.Thequantityfor

theStructureConcrete,Bridgeitemwouldincrease300cy,or$390,000,butwouldremove

Furnish&ErectPC/PSGirdersitemsestimatedat$262,500.Temporarysupporttoconstruct

a

cast

in

place

option

would

also

need

to

be

considered

and

from

similar

project

experience

couldbeapproximately$55,000.ThereforetheapparentcostsavingstousingPC/PSgirders

isapproximately$183,000.ThereareotherbenefitstousingPC/PSgirdersincludingreduced

constructiondurationandenvironmental risk,but theability to fabricateand transport to

thesitegirdersofthelengthrequiredwouldneedmoredetailedinvestigation.

Theestimated cost for external (nonCounty) professional fees for topographic surveying,

rightofway retracement, civil engineering, bridge engineering, geotechnical engineering,

utility coordination, environmental documentation and permitting, and rightofway

engineering is$350,000.Rightofwayacquisition isexcludedbecause theCounty typically

performsthisserviceinhouse.Expecteddurationforcompletionofprofessionalservices is

1218months.

Thetotalestimatedcostforconstructionandexternalprofessionalfeesis$2,867,900forthe

bridge replacement scenario. The total time from design to completion of construction is

approximately2232months.

Thedesign lifefornewbridges is75years.Periodicmaintenancewillberequiredoverthis

period.

ReplaceBridge MultiSpanOption

Alternatively,amultispanconfigurationof two85 footspanswith72 inchdiameterCIDH

piers, located approximately in the middle of the creek, can be considered to reduce

superstructuredepthtoallow100yearflowstobeconveyedwithoutgirderencroachment.

Thisoptionwilladdadditioncostforpiersinthecreek,butcansaveonsuperstructurecosts.

Themultispanconfigurationconsidersusingprecastprestressedconcretegirdersworkwill

bedoneintwophaseswiththeexistingbridgetoremainopentotrafficduringphase1.




CostEstimate forMultiSpanReplacementof BridgeRoadBridgeoverSantaPaulaCreek,

below.Theestimateshouldnotbeconsideredallinclusiveonlymajor itemsofworkare

identifiedatthistime.Thelargecontingencyof25%isusedforplanningphaseestimatesto

accountforsmalleritemsofworknotyetidentified.


31/65




Alternatively,acastinplaceconcretebridgedesigncouldbeconstructed.Thequantityfor

the Structure Concrete, Bridge item would increase 188 cy, or $244,000, and temporary

supportatanestimatedcostof$55,000wouldneedtobe included,butwouldberemove

Furnish

&

Erect

PC/PS

Girders

items

estimated

at

$224,000.

Therefore

the

apparent

superstructure cost savings is approximately $67,000. There are other benefits to using

PC/PSgirdersincludingreducedconstructiondurationandenvironmentalrisk,buttheability

to transport and fabricate girders of the required length to the site would need a more

detailedinvestigation.

Externalprofessionalfeesdiscussedinthesectionaboveareestimatedtobesimilarforboth

options,approximately$350,000.

Table 6 Construction Cost Estimate for Multi Span Bridge Replacement of Bridge Road Bridge over

Santa Paula Creek





FurnishPile LF 2,000 $60 $120,000

DrivePile EA 26 $3,000 $78,000

72inchCastinDrillHolePier LF 360 $1,300 $468,000

StructureConcrete,Bridge CY 620 $1,300 $806,000

BarReinforcingSteel(Bridge) LB 95,500 $0.50 $47,750

FurnishPrecastPrestressedConcreteGirder EA 14 $11,000 $154,000

ErectPrecastPrestressedConcreteGirder EA 14 $5,000 $70,000

BarrierRail& TubularHandRail LF 340 $340 $115,600




SUBTOTAL $2,341,850




32/65





bridge replacement scenario. The total time from design to completion of construction is



period.

ReplaceBridge PreEngineeredandPreFabricatedSteelThroughTruss

This alternative considers a simple span of 170 feet using a preengineered and pre

fabricated steel truss bridge. Prefabricated bridges are available from many different

manufacturers and can easily be used at a variety of project sites with spans up to

approximately100130feetinlength. BridgeRoadBridgesspanlimitsprefabricatedtruss

options and can only feasibly use a through style truss bridge to span the creek crossing

withoutpiers.

Aprefabricatedstructurethatwillbeabletospanthecreekwouldbeshippedtothesite

almostcompletelydisassembledduetotheheightofthetrussesnotbeingabletoliedown

onatruckwithinthelegallimits.Thestructuralmemberswouldthenneedtobeboltedand

weldedtogether.Thisstructurecanbeinstalledinmultipleways. Itcanbefullyassembled

and lifted in place or it can be launched from one side of the creek to lessen loads.

Alternatively,eachtrusscanbeassembledandplacedseparatelyfollowedbyfloorbeams,

stringers and overhead supports. Finally, it can be erected in place, depending on site

conditions,usingfalsework.Oncethebridgehasbeendeliveredtothesite,itwilllikelytakeatleastacoupleweekstoassemble.

One downside of using a prefabricated truss bridge is that staged construction is not

possible.Alternatively,thebridgecanbeconstructedonanewalignmentoffsetupstreamof

the existing bridge and once completed and open to traffic the existing bridge can be

demolished.Constructionofaprefabricatedbridgethismannerwillrequireapproximately

50 to60percent addition rightofwayacquisition than other replacement options in this

report.




CostEstimateforSingleSpanPreFabricatedBridgeReplacementofBridgeRoadBridgeover

SantaPaulaCreek,below.Theestimateshouldnotbeconsideredallinclusiveonlymajor


33/65




itemsofworkareidentifiedatthistime.The largecontingencyof25%isusedforplanning

phaseestimatestoaccountforsmalleritemsofworknotyetidentified.

Theestimated cost for external (nonCounty) professional fees for topographic surveying,

rightofway retracement, civil engineering, bridge engineering, geotechnical engineering,

utility coordination, environmental documentation and permitting, and rightofway

engineering is$275,000.Rightofwayacquisition isexcludedbecause theCounty typically

performsthisservice inhouse.Expecteddurationforcompletionofprofessionalservicesis

1218months.


bridge replacement scenario.The total time from design to completion of construction is



period.

Table 7 Constructi on Cost Estimate for Single Span Pre-Fabricated Bridge Replacement of BridgeRoad Bridge over Santa Paula Creek





FurnishPile LF 3,000 $60 $180,000

DrivePile EA 40 $3,000 $120,000

FurnishPreFabricatedBridge LS 1 $1,300,000 $1,300,000

ErectPreFabricatedBridge LS 1 $400,000 $400,000




SUBTOTAL $2,482,500




34/65




Conclusion

RecommendationsTheresultsofthe field investigationsperformed,thereviewofrecorddrawingsandother

available information, and the completion of the various assessments leads us to

recommendthefollowingactions:

1. SingleSpanBridgeReplacement:Programingmoneyforabridgereplacementatthecurrenttimeguaranteesafederalparticipationlevelof88percentofeligiblecosts.A

replacement bridge will remove SD or FO tags by updating approach geometry,

inventoryratingsandsubstructuretocurrentdesignstandards.Abridgereplacement

willincreasetheSRto89.4.AnSRof100cannotbeachievedforthisprojectlocation

becausenodetour isavailable.Bridge layout is tobeperCountyofVenturaRoad

StandardPlateB7,ruralroadswithoutcurbs.

2. Construct Rock Slope Protection: The 100year storm water surface elevationencroachesonthegirdersandflowvelocityisestimatedat16feet/secondnearthe

bridge, which is highlyerosive. Erosion/scour has beenan ongoing concern at the

bridge site and countermeasures should be designed and installed using Caltrans

rockslopeprotectiondesignguide.

3. GuardRail,BarrierRailandTerminalSections:Type80orType736concretebarrierrailsincombinationwithtubularhandrailingareconstructedataminimumheightof

54 inchesonthenewbridge tosatisfyvehicularbarrierandpedestrianandbicycle

safetystandards.Becauseofthebridgesitessceniccharacter,chainlinkfencingisnot

recommended for pedestrian safety. Terminal sections will require relocation of

drainagefacilitiesateachcornerofthebridgeinfinaldesign.

4. RealignBridgeRoadApproachwithSR150:The intersection isrecommendedtoberealigned to an angle of 90, unless other factors indicate another alignment. All

types of site distance should be maintained or increased with intersection

realignment. Realignment is required to construct a roadway that meets current

Ventura County standards. The roadway profile should also conform to Highway

DesignManualstandardsandprovideaminimumlongitudinalslopealongthebridge

of0.125%.RaffertyRoadandBridgeroadshouldberealignedtoprovideappropriate

sitedistancefortheRaffertyRoadapproach.


35/65




Geometricandsafety,hydraulicsandscour,andstructuraldeficienciesofBridgeRoadBridge

havebeenidentifiedandpresentedinthisreport.Repairingexistingbridgedeficiencieswill

onlyraisetheSRto43.7andstillleavethebridgefunctionallyobsoleteandthebridgewould

not

be

eligible

for

federal

funds

participation

for

a

minimum

of

ten

years.

Geometric

issues

canonlybecorrectedwithabridgereplacement.Hydraulicsanalysis indicatestheexisting

andproposedsinglespanbridgeconfigurationisanticipatedtoconveytheestimated50and

100year flows.Bridge replacementwillcorrectall identifieddeficienciesandwith regular

maintenancewillretainasatisfactorySRratingformanydecades.

ItemsNeedingAdditionalConsiderationThe following items may require additional consideration and/or resolution before

constructioncancommence.

ConstructionImpacts

Theconstructionimpactsassociatedwiththeitemsofworkdescribedabovemayinclude:

Restrictionsonconstructionperiods DiversionofwaterinSantaPaulaCreek Site/creekaccess Sedimentcontrol

Autilitynotification letterwas sent toutility companies serving thearea to requestatlas

informationonanyutilitiesintheprojectvicinity.Ahighpressuregaslineandseveralwater

linesarecarriedontheexistingbridge.Utilityrelocationwillneedtobecoordinationinfinal

designwithutilityprovidersowningthefacilitiesonthebridge.

Accesstotheeastsideofthecreekwillberequiredforconstructionequipment.Geometry

oftheexistingbridgewilllikelynotallowanexcavatororcraneofmoderatesizeacrossthe

bridge.Thedrycreekcrossingsouthofthesite ispotentiallyavailabletoprovideaccessto

constructionequipment,butfurtherstudytoobtaintemporaryeasementswillbeneeded.

Temporary access via the creek for the public is too risky and not necessary because

replacementbridgeconstructionisanticipatedtoproceedinstageswithaccesstotheeastsideofthecreekprovidedatalltimesorwithlimitedinterruption.

EnvironmentalPermitting

Workonandunderthebridgeandoverthecreekrequiresaccesstoandconstructioninthe

creekbed.Environmentalpermittingstakeholdermayrequirepermits,suchas:


36/65




USArmyCorpsofEngineersCleanWaterActSection404permit; CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGameStreambedAlterationAgreement; Regional Water Quality Control Board NPDES permit required for any water

discharged

to

the

creek

and

401

Water

Quality

Certification;

and

County of Ventura Watershed Protection District encroachment permit may berequired.

RightofWay

Rightofway acquisition will be required for the bridge replacement and roadway

realignment;however,therightofwaywasnot investigated inthisstudy.AccesstoSanta

PaulaCreekmayrequireTemporaryConstructionEasements(TCEs)orrightsofentry.

HazardousMaterials

Theexisting steel trussbridge is paintedandhas several coatsof paint that may contain

lead.


37/65





38/65




References

American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO). 2008. The Manualfor Bridge

Evaluation;FirstEdition.

American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO). 2006. AASHTO LRFD Bridge

DesignSpecifications;ThirdEdition;2004;with2006InterimRevisions.

CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation(Caltrans).July2010.BridgeMemotoDesigners.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). November 2008. Bridge Design

Specifications.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). July 2010. BridgeInspection

Report;

BridgeRoadBridgeoverSantaPaulaCreekBridgeNo.52C0053.

CountyofVentura,TransportationDepartment.1988.ProjectReport:BridgeRoadatSanta

PaulaCreekBridgeNo.442(52C0053).

MNS Engineers. May 2012. TechnicalMemorandum;BridgeRoadBridge;Geometric and

SafetyAssessment.

MNS Engineers. June 2012. Technical Memorandum; Bridge Road Bridge; Preliminary

Hydrology&

Hydraulic

Assessment.

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1995.

Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nations

Bridges;ReportNo.FHWAPD96001.

W.Koo&Associates.2003.BridgeRepair/ImprovementStudyforBridgeRoadOverSanta

PaulaCreek.


39/65





40/65




AppendixASiteVisitPhotographs


41/65





42/65




Figure 4 West Bridge Approach Looki ng East

Figure 5 North Side of Road Look ing Southeast


43/65




Figure 6 Northwest Top of Bank Looking East

Figure 7 Northern Edge of Bridge Looking East


44/65




Figure 8 West Bridge Approach Looking North

Figure 9 East Bridge Approach Looki ng East


45/65




Figure 10 Intersection o f Bridge Road and Rafferty Road Looking Northeast

Figure 11 East Bridge Approach


46/65




Figure 12 Northern Edge of Bridge Looking West

Figure 13 Northern Edge of Bridge Looking West


47/65




Figure 14 Upstream Side of Bri dge Floor Beams, Timber Stringers and Utilities

Figure 15 Top of East Bank Looking Down on Slope Protection


48/65




Figure 16 East Abutment Bearing Seat

Figure 17 Timber Stringers and Floor Beams (looking Southwest)


49/65




Figure 18 Northern Side of Bridge Looking at East Abutment, Shotcrete and Utilities on Bridge

Figure 19 Northeast Quadrent of Bridge Looking North at Santa Paula Creek


50/65




Figure 20 Timber Decking

Figure 21 Southeast Quadrant of Br idge Looking Sout h at Drainage and West Bank Slope Protection


51/65




Figure 22 South Side of West Abutment

Figure 23 Southwest Drainage Inlet


52/65




AppendixBAsBuiltRecordDrawings


53/65





54/65


55/65





56/65


57/65





58/65




AppendixCBridgeSufficiencyRating(SR)Worksheets

1. ExistingCondition2. Rehabilitation3. Replacement


59/65





60/65

[SR=5]&StructurallyDeficient(SD)

EligibleforHBPReplacementFunds

Prepared: ShawnKowalewski

Checked:

Date: June19,2012

InputfromStructureInventoryandAppraisalReport

Item Value Description Item Value Description

5 1 inventoryrouterecordtype(firstdigit) 58 7 deckcondition

19 199 detourlength 59 7 superstructurecondition

26 09/00 functionalclassificationofinv.route 60 4 substructurecondition

28 02/00 lanesonunderstructure 62 N culvertcondition

2/0 no.oftrafficdirectionson/under 66 11.3 inventoryrating

29 300 averagedaily

traffic

(ADT) 67 4 structural

evaluation

32 5.5 approachroadwaywidth(w/shoulders) 68 3 deckgeometry

36 0000 trafficsafetyfeatures 69 N underclearances,verticalandhorizontal

42 1/5 typeofserviceon/under 71 9 waterwayadequacy

43 310 structuretype 72 3 approachroadwayalignment

51 5.7 bridgeroadwaywidthcurbtocurb 100 0 defensehighway

53 6.00 minimumverticalclearanceoverbridge

StructuralAdequacyandSafety(55%maximum)=S1 0

A 25 B 31.5

ServiceabilityandFunctionalObsolescence(30%maximum)=S2 5

A 0 deckcondition X 150 ADT/lane

B 2 structuralevaluation Y 2.85 width/lane

C 4 deckgeometry G 0 widthofroadinsufficiency(bridge&road)

D 0 underclearances H 15 widthofroadinsufficiency(ADT&width)

E 0 waterwayadequacy I 0 verticalclearanceinsufficiency

F 4 approachroadwayalignment J 10 sumofAF

EssentialityforPublicUse(15%maximum)=S3 0

K 0.1 structural/serviceabilityfactor B 0 STRAHNETHighwaycomponent

A 15.0 detourimpact

component

SpecialReductions(13%maximum)=S4 0

A 5 detourlengthreduction

B 5 structuretypereduction 0 bridgerailingsdonotmeetstandards

C 3 trafficsafetyfeaturesreduction 0 transitionsdonotmeetstandards

0 approachguardraildoesnotmeetstandards

0 approachguardrailendsdonotmeetstandards

SufficiencyRating(S1+S2+S3S4) 5

BridgeSufficiencyRatingWorksheet

BridgeName:

BridgeID

No.:

BridgeOwner:

BridgeRoadoverSantaPaulaCreek Exist.

CaltransBridge

52C

0053;

County

Bridge

442

CountyofVentura

P:\COVENVentura\COVEN.110003PreliminaryBridgeDesign\Bridge.01\Engineering\Structure\COVEN.110003.01SRWorksheet Page59


61/65

PageIntentionallyLeftBlank



62/65

[SR=35.3]&FunctionallyObsolete(FO)

EligibleforHBPReplacementFunds

Prepared: RobSandquist

Checked:

Date: June19,2012








29 300 averagedaily

traffic


evaluation







StructuralAdequacyandSafety(55%maximum)=S1 23.5

A 0 B 31.5








EssentialityforPublicUse(15%maximum)=S3 6.8


A 8.2 detourimpact

component



B 5 structuretypereduction 0 bridgerailingsdonotmeetstandards

C 3 trafficsafetyfeaturesreduction 0 transitionsdonotmeetstandards

0 approachguardraildoesnotmeetstandards

0 approachguardrailendsdonotmeetstandards

SufficiencyRating(S1+S2+S3S4) 35.3

BridgeOwner: CountyofVentura


BridgeName: BridgeRoadoverSantaPaulaCreek Rehab

BridgeID

No.: Caltrans

Bridge

52C

0053;

County

Bridge

442



63/65




64/65

[SR=89.4]

NotEligibleforHBPFunds

Prepared: RobSandquist

Checked:

Date: June19,2012








29 600 averagedaily

traffic


evaluation







StructuralAdequacyandSafety(55%maximum)=S1 55

A 0 B 0.0








EssentialityforPublicUse(15%maximum)=S3 9.4


A 5.6 detourimpact

component



B 0 structuretypereduction 1 bridgerailingsmeetcurrentstandards

C 0 trafficsafetyfeaturesreduction 1 transitionsmeetcurrentstandards

1 approachguardrailmeetscurrentstandards

1 approachguardrailendsmeetcurrentstandards

SufficiencyRating(S1+S2+S3S4) 89.4

BridgeOwner: CountyofVentura


BridgeName: BridgeRoadoverSantaPaulaCreek Replace

BridgeID

No.: Caltrans

Bridge

52C

0053;

County

Bridge

442



65/65


Bridge Road Bridge Scoping Report 2012-08-31

Documents

Transcript of Bridge Road Bridge Scoping Report 2012-08-31