15-Deliberate and possibly act on a resolution supporting an application to the Texas Department of Transportation to acquire the historic Goodman rainbow truss bridge from Angelina CountyCITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM BRIEFING SHEET
Submittal Date:
Originaring Department:
Ptesented By:
Agenda Item No.:
07/23/2010
Council Date:
City Manager
Kevin Carruth
15.
07/26/2010
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Motion to approve a resolution supporting an application to the Texas Department of Transportation to
acquire the historic Goodman rainbow truss bridge from Angelina County and authorizing the City
Manager to negotiate and execute all necessary documents.
POLICY ISSUE(S):
Capital improvement
BACKGROUND:
The Texas Department of Transportarion (TxDO'I) will be replacing the 75-100 year old Goodman
rainbow truss bridge that currendy spans the Angelina River on an Angelina Counry Road. The bridge has
been determined to be eligible for placement on the National Register of Historic Places and therefore
eligible for TxDOT funding to relocate and restore for use as a non-vehicular facility. No local government
in the Lufkin District wants the bridge nor does any private enrity. TxDOT is therefore making the bridge
available to others and the City of Paris will be able to use this 16' x 100' bridge to span the Big Sandy Creek
for the Trail de Paris nature trail extension near the Sports Complex, just downstream from a similar bridge
that was placed thexe about two years ago. T'he proposed location currendy has a low-water crossing and
the Goodman Bridge will improve accessibility for the nature trail and to the ASA ProAm Tournament
archery ranges. This location will less site work than the bridge upstream and those costs will be paid
through donarions. TxDOT will pay all of the costs of rehabilitarion and relocarion (about $340,000).
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
EXHIBITS:
Resolution; Bridge picture; Location aerial; Goodman Bridge Preservation memo; Historic Bridge
Condition Surve Re ort; Historic Brid et Load Ratin Re ort
ACTION:
BUDGET INFO:
❑ Financial Report Z Minute Order
Expense
$
❑ Department Report ❑ Resolution
Budgeted Amt.
$
❑ Presentation ❑ Ordinance
y'I'D Actual
$
❑ Public Hearing ❑ Other
Acct. Name
Acct. Number
FISCAL NOTES:
The Ciry will provide in-kind labor but no cash expenditures are anricipated. TxDOT will pay to rehab and
relocate and other donations will be raised for the site work.
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Z Administration Z City Clerk ❑ Community Development ❑ EMS/IT ❑ Finance ❑ Fire
❑ Municipal Court 0 Legal ❑ Library ❑ Police Z Eng./Public Works ❑ Utilities
City of Paris
Revised 2/04/08
I n~
DRAFT
attomey\reswork\current\Goodman Bridge from Angelina C. Res 2010
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARIS, TEXAS,
ACCEPTING THE CONVEYANCE OF A RAINBOW TRUSS BRIDG, KNOWN
AS THE GOODMAN BRIDGE FROM ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS FOR
PLACEMENT AND USE AS PART OF TRAIL DE PARIS; MAKING OTHER
FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Angelina County is in possession of a surplus rainbow truss bridge that
is approximately 16' x 100' wide and known as the Goodman Bridge; and,
WHEREAS, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has determined that
the Goodman Bridge is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places but is
no longer suitable for vehicular traffic; and,
WHEREAS, Angelina County and TxDOT will replace the Goodman Bridge but also
desire to relocate and preserve the bridge; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Paris has a need and a use for such a bridge to span a creek
that bisects part of the Trail de Paris located within the incorporated city limits of the City
of Paris, Texas; and,
WHEREAS, placement and use of the bridge would constitute a useful public
purpose;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PARIS, TEXAS:
Section 1. That the findings set out in the preamble to this resolution are hereby
in all things approved.
Section 2. That the City Council does hereby approve and authorize the
application for and acquisition of the Goodman Rainbow Truss Bridge as provided by
Angelina County and the Texas Department of Transportation for placement and use as
part of the Trail de Paris.
Section 3. The City will not use the Goodman Bridge on a public road as a
vehicular traffic facility, will preserve and maintain the historic bridge and the features that
give it its historical significance, and will consult with the State Historic Preservation
Officer prior to altering, renovating, or transferring ownership of the bridge.
Section 4. That the Ciry Manager is authorized to negotiate and execute all
documents necessary to acquire the Goodman Bridge.
log
Section 5. That this resolution shall be effective from and after its date of passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 26th day of July, 2010.
Will Biard, Mayor
ATTEST:
Janice Ellis, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
W. Kent McIlyar, City Attorney
1-110
r~ T
cu
buo
~
~
~
~
E
~
O
O
0
~
~
i ll.
~
~
'
~
; ;
, ~,~a.
~ ~
~
~
-
~
~
~~~„,4~~~
t .
~ ~,,,~r
p-
~
~
~
.
~
~
.
~
~
~
~
3
. :
~ ,
~
,
~ ~
• ~
. < , ~ ~
~
. .
.
#
.
.
~r~ .
~
:
~ .
. ~ ~
. ' ' ~ ~,'Q
'
,
,
.
t ~I
~ F
~
}
~
.
.
. . .
x
~
y;,~ .
di
' . . . $ '~r.. ~ ,i
n
. .
. . ~1
~ I 1
.
.
~
4 . . .
~~+i . ~ ~ . .
. y~
.
~
~
~ ~
~
A1Y
1
' n
a
I
,
0. W~
. . . .
~ ~
~44a 1
. ~ ~n}1"
~
5
u'.
~
~
~
, I
M1 ~ ~
~ .w~ '
. k~`qq.ap~~+'d^='*~y ' .
. ~1"n
Sf- .
~
u
~ ~
- .
~ ~4 ,
~o"~N yt
~
A~ ~,~u .
t' ~
, ~
~ ,~ww w ~ .
. . , .
..W
,r,, ';l
. .
,
. . . ~ ~
. .
~~~wm~+."
. ~ ~ ~ .
"
~
• ~
. .
. .
~ ~ ~ .
. ti;.
. :t
.
~ ~ ~
~ ~
.
. ~ . . ~ ~ .
~
. . ~
.
s,
v~ ~ . . . ~
. . ~ ~
~ .
~ ~rX
.
. -
,
~ i.. '
~ ~ . . ~
~ t
,
~ ;
~ ~
~ ~
,
•
.
` .
, .
,
~
. . .
,.y+~uM"~r°A~Cta
~ ~ . ' .
,
.
. . ~
,
r ~
.
~~4 ~
.
~ ~ . ~ ~ . .
.
~ .
.
.
• . ~ . . '
~
i
`
~ ~ ~
~~~1
~~~r
i
- ' .
t
~
~^~m 4
~~t ~ . _ lw'~WN~~~~~'^~".~R~""F,I~~ wt~lk,..,.
'r~~ ~ ~
~ .
~ 1 ~
Goodman Bridge Preservation
The Angelina River Bridge
(Goodman Bridge) is a one-lane
truss that was built between 1910
and 1935. In 1995, during a
statewide inventory of inetal truss
bridges, the Goodman Bridge was
found to exhibit sufficient
structural integrity and engineering
complexity when compared to
similar bridge types and was
determined eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places
under Criterion C for Engineering
at the state level of significance.
The Goodman Bridge has many
major concerns (moderate to
heavy rusting on caps and
pilings, unknown depth of
pilings, below minimum load
rating, and a narrow deck width)
which is why the county
recommended this bridge for
replacement.
Because the Goodman Bridge is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places,
TxDOT had to evaluate several alternatives to determine that there was no feasible and prudent
alternative to the use of the land and to include all possible planning to minimize harm to the
property resulting from use. Based on an evaluation on several different alternatives, TxDOT
believes the most feasible and prudent alternative is to construct a new bridge downstream of the
current bridge and remove the existing bridge.
Communications between City of Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches county officials and the Texas
Department of Transportation were conducted to relocate and preserve the Goodman Bridge.
However, an agreement could not be reached. The bridge was marketed in local newspapers as
well, and no recipients were found. The TxDOT Lufkin District was informed by TxDOT
Environmental Affairs Division that the City of Arlington may be interested in a truss bridge.
113
Bridge Inventory Record Sketch
Z..::."
~
District 11 County 174 Cont-Sec AA05-10 Structure 002 Route COt
Feature Crossed: ANGELINA RIVER
Location: 1.4 MILES 50UTH OF FM 225
EAST
l68'-8'
6 1/ 2' 39'-0, 33'-4• 33'-2' 33'-1'
RDADWAYI I
`,~-V1OX54 '--S10X25.4 '-S15X42.9--l' S10X25.4--
STEEL CAP STEEL CAP STEEI. CAP STEEL CAP
F`y=36 KSI r y=30 KSJ Fy=30 KS[ F y=30 KS1
. ~
4-8j'a3 STEcI PILES ~ - /
e 4.8- C.C. (,~vG).
@ 6.1' C.C. CMAx>
(TYP) IELEVATIDN
LOOKING SOUTH
16'-0'
i5'-3'
WEST
WtOX54
STEEL CAP
Fy=36 KSi P•fe Spar~n~
STEEL TRUSS
3'Xt0' T[MSER RUNNERS
ZN.,
/---Vxioo TREarED TIxBER DECtc
w21x44 -1 SPAN4#1,2,3,4 FROM 3,JEST - 6 S7RS SPACED e 32' <AVG) r
ST~EL EASi E~lD SPAN - 8 STRS SPACED @ 26' ;AVG1 S~•''q~t'
STRItdGERS * ~ *y
Fy=36 KSI *
TYPICAL SECTION
C. R. BARNFtART
LOOKING EAST . b0390 O" • fGFSTER~~ ' • F,4~
£~`r10NAt
~ BARNHART
ENG I NEER I NG 200S✓
~
kur L^-~r R.cors wa. x er
~ ~ ~
How Can we ureserve the bridge?
0 Three-Pariy Agreement between Nacogdoches County, a Recipient, and TxDOT
o Responsibilities of County
■ Relinquish ownership of bridge to the Recipient.
o Responsibilities of the Recipient
■ Create a plan for the bridge
■ Would develop the site, rehabilitate and maintain the bridge in accordance
with applicable federal and state standards which would include
coordination with State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in the future
prior to altering, renovating, or transferring ownership of the bridge.
o Responsibiliries of the Staxe
• Will provide for the removal and transportation of the bridge to the
Recipient's storage/temporary site location.
■ Will develop plans, specifications, and estimates necessary for the
rehabilitation of the bridge.
■ Will cooperate with the Recipient to determine the best method of
constructing the bridge improvements and establishing the bridge's final
location.
Estimated Cost of Rehabilitation & Relocation
*Estimate prices were taken from previous bridge projects. These prices may vary.
**Funding provided by TxDOT to aid in removal/rehabilitation activities associated with the bridge.
Repair/Replace Misc. steel truss members .........$50,000
Clean and Paint .................................................$200,000
New Timber Deck and Railing ...........................$10,000
Substructure at New Location .............................$25,000
Reset Bridge at Permanent Location ...................$15,000
Remove & Relocate Truss to Temp. Location.... $40 000
Total .................................................................$340,000
**Estimated cost of Demolition (-)$90,040
Final cost of rehabilitation .............................$250,000
1 i r~
Historic Bridge Condition Survey Report
District:
County:
Bridge Number:
Roadway:
Feature Crossed:
Sufficiency Rating:
Inspection Date:
Inspector:
Luflcin
Nacogdoches
11-174-0-AA05-10-002
CR 789
Angelina River
24.1 (7/3i2007)
November 15, 2407
Linwood E. Howell, Jr, P.E.
oF
~,.r~~~q Z 067
' ; vS
* • °s :1 r~
'
~~~..........wN..........
L. E. H~3~F~~cLG «t. r4
. .......«o<..,.....~.z p..:~
Gr~562
~1t3
Bridge Description. The bridge consists of 5 simple steel stringer spans on steel supports. The middle 3 spans
were originally a sing(e polygonal warren iruss span. The truss was rendered nonfunctionaJ by adding steel
piling under 2 of the 5 intermediate truss floorbeams and by replacing the original iruss stringers with larger
stringers capable of spanning between the supported floorbeams. The original approach spans had a length of
approximately 24 ft. These spans were replaced with longer spans supported on new steel pile abutments located
behind the original timber pile abutments that were faiiing.
The existing bridge was built in 1993. Details of the original truss suggest that it was fabricated between 19 10
and 1935. The bridge is on a 01 skew. The bridge is posted for a Weight Limit of 17500 Ibs Axie or Tandem
(Sign R12-2Tb).
The existing bridge is to be replaced. Since proposals are being considered to preserve the original truss, the
focus of this report is on the conditian ofthe origina► truss and its suitahi(ity for rehabilitation.
~1~
Historic BridEe Condition Survev Report
] 1- I 74-0-AA45-10-002
page 2.
Observations:
Roadway Approaches. Asphaltic approach pavement has minor cracks and is stightly uneven.
Substructure. The original steel support at the west end of the truss is severely rusted and has been
supplemented with additional steel piling installed under the originai steel cap. The originat steel support at the
east end of the truss has failed due to rust and has been replaced with new steel caps and pipe piling. The
original abutments faited and have been replaced with new steel caps and pipe piling. Steel pipe pi(ing were also
installed under 2 of the 5 intermediate truss floorbeams. The new steel supports and added bracing have
moderate rust overall with some heavily custed areas on piling near the water level_
Superstructure-Floorbeams. Floorbeams have widespread paint failure and rust. Estimated section loss is a
maximum of 5%.
Superstracivre-Stringers. AlI original steel stringers have been replaced. New stringers have minor rust due
to lactc af paint. Bstimated sectian loss is 2%.
Superstructure-Bearings and Bracing. Truss bearings and fateral bracing members are in good condition
with minor rust due to paint failure.
Superstructure-Truss. T'he truss members have extensive paint failure and rust with overall section losses
estimated at 5°/a. Several vertical members are severely rusted at the lower connections (See photo). T'he
verticals are "no-force" members that only function to brace the top chord. Two vertical members were
incorrect(y installed resutting in slight bowing of the members due to misalignment at the top chord connection
(See photos). Some top chord stay plates and counection plates are severely rusted. Several short members were
added between the end post and bottom chord near the NE truss bearing apparently ta aid replacement of the east
truss support (See photo). Several truss members have minor damage from vehicular impact and from
mishandling during construction or repair work (See photos). None of the ohserved damage significantly affects
structural capacity of the truss.
ChanneL Significant widening and deepening of the channel since the original bridge was built was the primary
cause of original abutment failure. The new abutments and intermediate supports are not threatened by the
current channel condition.
Deck. Timber deck planks have moderate weathering and decay. A few planics are broken (See photo). Steel
raiting is rusty due to lack of paint and has minor damage ai several sections.
Conclusion•
Although the original truss is not functional in the existing bridge, it remains in fair condition with minor impact
damage, overall ►noderate rust, and a few severely rusted secondary components. The following iteras of work --_should be considered as part of a rehabilitation or preservarion praject.
• Remove added members between the end post and bottom chord near the NE truss bearing.
• Straighten or repair damaged truss members and rail sections.
• Switch position of the two improperty installed vertical members to correct their misaIignment.
• Repair severely rusted top chord stay plates and vertical member sections at bottom chord connections.
• Ciean and paint the bridge if feasible. Some connections need to be disassembled to remove pack rust.
• Install stringers consistent with the original design.
• Rehabilitate the timber deck using existing planks.
• Install the truss on new supparts at a suitable site.
1 ry
1
Historic Bridge Load Rating Report
District: Lufkin
County: Nacogdoches
Bridge Number: 11-1740-A.A05-10-002
Roadway: CR 789
Feature Crossed: Angelina River
53562
r4
Analysis Notes. HS laad ratings were calculated at inventory and operatuig leveLs. The load factor method was used to rate
the truss members, huss member connections, floorbeams, and steel suingers. The allowable load method was used to rate
the timber deck. Load Ratings were based on dimensions, member cross sections, and connections details deternuned from
field measurements. See Tcuss Member Listing Worksheet for a sketc6 of the truss, a Iisting of truss members and connection
data, and calcularions of truss dead load and distribution factor for live load.
Truss member loads were analyzed using RISA-313 Version 5.5. Since the truss is staticalIy determinate and deflections are
not cansidered in the analysis or nting, unit properties were used for every member in the analysis. Analysis results were
used in a modified version of a spreadsheet developed by TxDOT to calculate truss member ratings. Stee} floorbeams were
rated using a modified version of the T7cDOT Load Rating Spreadsheet. The modified version uses routines for the HS nting
of steel stringers with tive load calculations modified to madel floorbeam parameters. Sbeel stringers were rated using the
TxDOT Load Rating Spreadsheet with an added calculation for pedestrian loadi.ng. Stringer spacing and deck tluckness were
adjusted to correct for the difference in unit weights and distribution factors between concrete and timber decics. T'he timber
deck was rated using the Texas Briclge Load Rating Program.
The following additional assumptions were made based on engineering judgment:
• Truss upper chord lateral stability is not a factor.
• Foundation capaciries are not relevant to the analysis since original and proposed foundations are unlmown.
• Original and proposed stringers are assumed to be 57 x 15.3 steel beams. Field measurements indicate origiaa]
stringer spacing = 2'-7".
An As-Built Vehicular Load Rating was done assuming no deterioration of structural members. The rating results do not
meet the ininimum operaring load capacity of HS 15 required for continued use by vetucular traffic at this site.
Current Condition Vehicular and Pedestrian Load Ratings were done based on estimated section losses of 5% for steel
truss members and fioorbeams. Steel shiugers and tunber deck for the proposed (current) rehabilitated bridge are assumed to
be new material or salvaged materiai with no deterioration.
Rating Summary:
As-Bailt
Member
Vehicular Load Rating
Inventorv
Oneratine
Truss
HS 14_3
HS 23.9
Floorbeam
HS 8.4
HS 14.1
Truss Stringers
HS 3.9
HS 6.5
Deck
HS 14.5
HS 21.7
Overall Ratings
HS 3.9
HS 6.5
Existing Bridge Ratings (Piling Contro()
Current Condition
Vehicutar Load Raling
Inventorv Oaeratine
HS 13.6 EiS 22.7
HS
7.9
HS 13.2
H5
4.8
HS 8.1
HS
14.5
HS 21.7
HS
4.8
RS 8.1
HS
9.1
HS 12.8
Current Condition
Pedestrian Load Rating
Inventon Ooeratine
P 60 P 100
P 96
P 160
P 145
P 241
N/A
N/A
P 60
P 100
Comments:
The original truss on this bridge remains in fair condition but does not meet the minirnum HS 15 operating load capacity
required for cantinued vehicular use at this site. The bridge does meet the minimum P SS operating load capacity required
for use as a pedestrian bridge. Refer to the Historic Bridge Condition Srrrvey Report for a list of work iterns thai should be
considered if long-term preservation or rehabilitation of the original huss is needed.
jt (7