Friday, December 21, 2012
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Monday, October 22, 2012
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Monday, October 15, 2012
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Monday, September 17, 2012
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Friday, September 14, 2012
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Monday, September 10, 2012
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Monday, September 3, 2012
Friday, August 31, 2012
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Monday, August 27, 2012
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Monday, August 20, 2012
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Friday, August 10, 2012
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Monday, August 6, 2012
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Friday, August 3, 2012
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Monday, July 30, 2012
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Monday, July 23, 2012
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Friday, July 20, 2012
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Monday, July 16, 2012
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
National Dam Safety Act of 2012
On June 28, Senators Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and John Boozman (R-AR) introduced the National Dam Safety Act of 2012, which would reauthorize the National Dam Safety Program (NDSP). The NDSP focuses on the safety of the nation's dams, providing vital support for New Hampshire’s dam safety programs. This is important legislation for the State of New Hampshire! There are approximately 2,618 active dams within New Hampshire, with approximately 16% of those dams having deficiencies that require major reconstruction or maintenance.
Please let your legislators know that it is important to get this bill passed in this congress.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Friday, July 6, 2012
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Monday, July 2, 2012
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Monday, June 25, 2012
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Friday, June 22, 2012
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Conferees May Be Close to Coal Ash Resolution
Conferees May Be Close to Coal Ash Resolution
By Nathan Hurst and Alan K. Ota, CQ Staff
Highway bill negotiators appear to be nearing a compromise on the contentious question of regulating coal ash, potentially settling one of the big remaining obstacles to a conference agreement.House Republicans have been demanding language in the surface transportation authorization (HR 4348) that would bar the EPA from regulating fly ash as a hazardous waste. Recycled ash is often used in concrete and paving materials, and some states, including California, require its use to prevent water from seeping into concrete.
The House is set to vote Thursday on a motion instructing conferees to oppose EPA regulation of coal ash, an action that Republicans portrayed as a stand against an Obama administration “war on coal.” But the motion’s sponsor, West Virginia Republican David B. McKinley, acknowledged during floor debate that conferees were “deep in productive negotiations” on the issue and expected to resolve it soon.
The deal under discussion would prevent the EPA from listing coal ash as a “hazardous” material, which could preclude its use in road and bridge construction. Instead, the EPA could establish a national disposal standard for coal ash that states would administer, with support by federal regulators.
“We are confident we are very close to having language that Senate Democrats will agree to,” said an industry supporter, who added that negotiations were ongoing.
Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., also hinted during a Wednesday morning television appearance that conferees were close to settling differences on toll roads. Hoeven suggested conferees would rescind Senate-passed language to stop states from including certain privatized toll roads in their state spending that qualifies them for matching federal funds. The provision was added by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., as an amendment to the Senate-passed highway bill (S 1813).
“We have worked out a resolution on those issues,” Hoeven said on C-SPAN. “Essentially, the federal government will provide the money to the states, and it won’t count against them.”
Despite a call by leadership to complete a conference agreement this week and a flurry of urgent negotiations, many industry lobbyists and congressional aides believe another short-term extension will be needed. The current authorization (PL 112-102) expires June 30.
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer said “core” transportation issues would have to be settled before other issues, such as House demands to include language mandating quick approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, are taken up.
“We first have to resolve the transportation part,” the California Democrat said. “Once we do that, then we’ll focus on where we are with the others. . . . I feel we can get it done quickly. It just depends on what the House decides to do.”
Some Issues to Require Boehner’s Attention
Adding to the sense of urgency, the House voted 386-34 on Wednesday to adopt a motion by Minnesota Democrat Tim Walz instructing conferees to produce a conference report by Friday. House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., plans to offer another motion Thursday that would instruct conferees to take up the Senate-passed bill in their report.“This commonsense motion to instruct simply says that we should take up the Senate bill,” Hoyer said in a written statement. “I believe the Senate version would pass the House if Republican leaders bring it up for a vote.”
Some of the most contentious remaining issues — including the Keystone pipeline — are likely to require the attention of House Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. But Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said such leadership discussions would not occur until Boxer, House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman John L. Mica, R-Fla., and the other conferees resolve the remaining transportation policy issues.
Mixed Signals on Keystone
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans sent mixed signals about the importance of including a Keystone pipeline provision in a final agreement.John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, was among those who said including Keystone language is vital, noting that he voted against the Senate-passed bill, which didn’t address the pipeline.
“I think Keystone’s critical,” Cornyn said.
Other GOP senators instead emphasized concerns about meeting budget-related targets and restricting funding for non-highway projects.
“It would be great to get Keystone accomplished,” said Rob Portman of Ohio, who voted against the Senate’s two-year, $109 billion bill. He said the addition of Keystone would sway his vote in support. Without Keystone, Portman said he and other Republicans would expect the finished bill to live within Budget Control Act (PL 112-25) limits.
“Even without Keystone, if the bill comes back within the budget constraints that we set up just last year under the Budget Control Act, I would be inclined to support it,” Portman said. The Senate rejected a Republican effort during floor debate in March to limit spending to Budget Control Act levels.
Jim DeMint of South Carolina, chairman of the Senate Republican Steering Committee, said it would be “important for the highway bill to stay within the revenues of gas taxes.”
DeMint also opposed the Senate bill, which is estimated to need about $12 billion in offsets to pay for spending in excess of projected Highway Trust Fund tax receipts over two years.
“To establish the precedent that we’re going to start paying for it in other ways is just not a good thing to do,” DeMint said. “We just need to pay for it with the trust fund.”
Sen. Charles E. Grassley, a supporter of the Senate-passed bill, said he favors Keystone but doesn’t think differences on the issue should preclude a final bill.
“We’ve got to make sure that people know that our highways are going to continue to be improved,” the Iowa Republican said. “So, we’re going to have to pass a highway bill one way or another. But I hope Keystone is in there.”
Humberto Sanchez and Richard E. Cohen contributed to this story.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Friday, June 15, 2012
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Monday, June 11, 2012
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Friday, June 8, 2012
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Work begins on new roundabout - SentinelSource.com: Local News: roundabout, city council, intersection road, roads and highways, old walpole road
Work begins on new roundabout - SentinelSource.com: Local News: roundabout, city council, intersection road, roads and highways, old walpole road: Work on the new roundabout at the Maple Avenue/Court Street/Route 12A and Old Walpole Road intersection begins today in Keene.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Sunday, June 3, 2012
It's Time to Pass CM/GC Legislation for Transportation Projects!
Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) is a construction project delivery method that includes a qualifications-based selection for a designer, a qualifications-based selection for a contractor, and as the project scope is better defined, a lump sum price from that same contractor. A qualifications-based selection is a selection process based solely upon qualifications without consideration of price. The opposite would be a low-bid selection where as long as the contractors are pre-qualified to do that type of work the selection is entirely based upon the lowest bid. The designer and contractor are both procured near the start of the project.
In previous years most construction projects were completed using a process called Design-Bid-Build (DBB). Using this process, the designer was selected using a qualifications-based selection, a construction plan set was created, and the owner procured a contractor using a low-bid selection process.
More recently Design-Build (D-B) delivery methodology has been used on more projects in the northeast. In this case the designer and contractor team together and provide the owner a lump sum price. There are different formulas being used to incorporate some qualifications into the decision, but the cost is the predominant selection criteria.
One of the strengths of DBB is that for State Transportation Agencies this is the incumbent system. Their staff has been trained on this methodology throughout their careers, their systems and protocols are designed for this methodology, and through a contractual relationship with the designer, they have a great deal of control over the contract plans. The disadvantages are that there is little/no contractor interaction during the design process that can result in constructability issues and that federal construction dollars can not be secured until the design is completed, the advertisement period is completed, and a contractor is under contract. With the fluctuation of federal funding and unforeseen delays on other projects, using this method requires States to have more projects "on-shelf". On-shelf projects are projects where the design is completed, but construction is not funded. These projects can be built if there is an influx of unanticipated money, but there is a risk of having these projects need to be updated if left on-shelf for too long.
D-B is a delivery method with a strong track record for expediting delivery on mega-projects, typically projects of more than $100 million dollars. Due to bonding requirements, these teams are almost always led by contractors with designers in a subcontractor/subconsultant role. Advantages include continuous contractor feedback throughout the design process, maximization of the contractor's staff and equipment in the design, and the ability to secure federal construction funds at about the 30 percent design stage.The disadvantages include a significant loss of control by the owner of the final product. Specifications will still need to be met, bu,t for instance, final aesthetics of a bridge could vary radically. Hidden disadvantages include taking the designer away from their traditional business model. A great example is insurance. Owners often require designers to increase their insurance requirements for D-B projects, but in many cases that is wasted expense. The reason is that Owner/Contractor contracts, which D-B contracts generally follow, are warranty-based. The contractor is warranting the product meets the contractual provisions. Their bonds follow suit. Designer's professional liability insurance is fault-based. As long as designers followed a reasonable standard of care, then their insurance doesn't kick in. The difference between a product warranty and an engineer's standard of care is very significant and could have significant ramifications for contractor, owner, and designer if the project goes poorly.
During the stimulus and period following the on-shelf projects dried up. To ensure federal construction dollars were spent D-B delivery was elected to spend the money, instead of only selecting the best delivery method for the projects.
Lastly, I cited the effectiveness of D-B methodology on mega-projects (exceeding $100M). The jury is still out about how D-B scales down to smaller projects. I suspect that the effective cutoff for construction costs is somewhere between $30-$50 million where the process routinely works well. At lower cost projects, designers are becoming almost an irrelevant commodity, but even contractors lose economies of scale to the process. There will always be projects that fit the process better or well-oiled teams that can make the difference on these smaller projects, but I think over time it will be proven that lower dollar D-B projects are not effective. Initially many companies are willing to take a loss to have D-B experience, but it is not reasonable to think that once these companies have this experience they will continue to chase projects that do not provide a reasonable return on investment.
I think the middle ground between DBB and D-B can be taken up by CM/GC. This process can be scalable down to smaller sized projects, maintain the owner control of the design process, provide constructability reviews by the actual contractors, and will allow federal construction dollars to be secured earlier in the process. The disadvantages include the need for legislative authority, the learning curve for owners and contractors, and getting contractors on board with qualifications-based selection.
Contractors had less of a learning curve with D-B, while the designer's business plan was turned on its head. CM/GC is the designer's revenge. The process will be very familiar for the designer, but the contractor will need to reform their marketing strategies, likely to include hiring new staff. The phrase often used is a "beauty contest". Some of the larger D-B firms I have worked with had marketing departments compatible with those of a design firm, but especially if CM/GC is scaled down to smaller projects many very competent contractors have non-existent marketing staffs and could require significant changes in their business philosophy.
Two recent projects I have been familiar with would have been great uses for the CM/GC methodology. One project was a D-B and one was a DBB. The D-B was a small project (under $10M) with significant risk from environmental, railroad, and Right-of-Way. Given the limited profit margins inherent on these low dollar D-B projects the risk was too great so we walked away. The CM/GC process would have allowed these risks to be better defined while still meeting deadlines for federal construction dollar allocation. Using D-B inappropriately will ultimately drive some good contractors from the market and lead to higher costs as competition diminishes. The second project was a DBB where the designer's approach and the contractor's approach were equally sound, but so different that the owner paid for design not used, effort to evaluate the contractor's methodologies, and a lot of time was lost from the schedule while ultimately ending up somewhere in the middle of the two approaches. Had this been CM/GC, the designer and contractor could have collaborated on the effort while securing the owner's blessing. With the knowledge of the means and methods of the contractor early items such as geotechnical borings, permitting, and right-of-way could be more strategically targeted to the contractor's approach. The result would have been a more efficient design targeting the contractor's strengths.
In summary each procurement methodology has its strengths and weaknesses, every project has its unique challenges, and owners, designers, and contractors have their own strengths, weaknesses, goals, and aspirations. By seeing each of these procurement options as only a tool as effective as the appropriateness of its use, a lot of very positive results can be obtained. D-B and DBB need to have CM/GC added to the tool box to provide State Agencies the right procurement methods to maximize limited transportation funding.
In previous years most construction projects were completed using a process called Design-Bid-Build (DBB). Using this process, the designer was selected using a qualifications-based selection, a construction plan set was created, and the owner procured a contractor using a low-bid selection process.
More recently Design-Build (D-B) delivery methodology has been used on more projects in the northeast. In this case the designer and contractor team together and provide the owner a lump sum price. There are different formulas being used to incorporate some qualifications into the decision, but the cost is the predominant selection criteria.
One of the strengths of DBB is that for State Transportation Agencies this is the incumbent system. Their staff has been trained on this methodology throughout their careers, their systems and protocols are designed for this methodology, and through a contractual relationship with the designer, they have a great deal of control over the contract plans. The disadvantages are that there is little/no contractor interaction during the design process that can result in constructability issues and that federal construction dollars can not be secured until the design is completed, the advertisement period is completed, and a contractor is under contract. With the fluctuation of federal funding and unforeseen delays on other projects, using this method requires States to have more projects "on-shelf". On-shelf projects are projects where the design is completed, but construction is not funded. These projects can be built if there is an influx of unanticipated money, but there is a risk of having these projects need to be updated if left on-shelf for too long.
D-B is a delivery method with a strong track record for expediting delivery on mega-projects, typically projects of more than $100 million dollars. Due to bonding requirements, these teams are almost always led by contractors with designers in a subcontractor/subconsultant role. Advantages include continuous contractor feedback throughout the design process, maximization of the contractor's staff and equipment in the design, and the ability to secure federal construction funds at about the 30 percent design stage.The disadvantages include a significant loss of control by the owner of the final product. Specifications will still need to be met, bu,t for instance, final aesthetics of a bridge could vary radically. Hidden disadvantages include taking the designer away from their traditional business model. A great example is insurance. Owners often require designers to increase their insurance requirements for D-B projects, but in many cases that is wasted expense. The reason is that Owner/Contractor contracts, which D-B contracts generally follow, are warranty-based. The contractor is warranting the product meets the contractual provisions. Their bonds follow suit. Designer's professional liability insurance is fault-based. As long as designers followed a reasonable standard of care, then their insurance doesn't kick in. The difference between a product warranty and an engineer's standard of care is very significant and could have significant ramifications for contractor, owner, and designer if the project goes poorly.
During the stimulus and period following the on-shelf projects dried up. To ensure federal construction dollars were spent D-B delivery was elected to spend the money, instead of only selecting the best delivery method for the projects.
Lastly, I cited the effectiveness of D-B methodology on mega-projects (exceeding $100M). The jury is still out about how D-B scales down to smaller projects. I suspect that the effective cutoff for construction costs is somewhere between $30-$50 million where the process routinely works well. At lower cost projects, designers are becoming almost an irrelevant commodity, but even contractors lose economies of scale to the process. There will always be projects that fit the process better or well-oiled teams that can make the difference on these smaller projects, but I think over time it will be proven that lower dollar D-B projects are not effective. Initially many companies are willing to take a loss to have D-B experience, but it is not reasonable to think that once these companies have this experience they will continue to chase projects that do not provide a reasonable return on investment.
I think the middle ground between DBB and D-B can be taken up by CM/GC. This process can be scalable down to smaller sized projects, maintain the owner control of the design process, provide constructability reviews by the actual contractors, and will allow federal construction dollars to be secured earlier in the process. The disadvantages include the need for legislative authority, the learning curve for owners and contractors, and getting contractors on board with qualifications-based selection.
Contractors had less of a learning curve with D-B, while the designer's business plan was turned on its head. CM/GC is the designer's revenge. The process will be very familiar for the designer, but the contractor will need to reform their marketing strategies, likely to include hiring new staff. The phrase often used is a "beauty contest". Some of the larger D-B firms I have worked with had marketing departments compatible with those of a design firm, but especially if CM/GC is scaled down to smaller projects many very competent contractors have non-existent marketing staffs and could require significant changes in their business philosophy.
Two recent projects I have been familiar with would have been great uses for the CM/GC methodology. One project was a D-B and one was a DBB. The D-B was a small project (under $10M) with significant risk from environmental, railroad, and Right-of-Way. Given the limited profit margins inherent on these low dollar D-B projects the risk was too great so we walked away. The CM/GC process would have allowed these risks to be better defined while still meeting deadlines for federal construction dollar allocation. Using D-B inappropriately will ultimately drive some good contractors from the market and lead to higher costs as competition diminishes. The second project was a DBB where the designer's approach and the contractor's approach were equally sound, but so different that the owner paid for design not used, effort to evaluate the contractor's methodologies, and a lot of time was lost from the schedule while ultimately ending up somewhere in the middle of the two approaches. Had this been CM/GC, the designer and contractor could have collaborated on the effort while securing the owner's blessing. With the knowledge of the means and methods of the contractor early items such as geotechnical borings, permitting, and right-of-way could be more strategically targeted to the contractor's approach. The result would have been a more efficient design targeting the contractor's strengths.
In summary each procurement methodology has its strengths and weaknesses, every project has its unique challenges, and owners, designers, and contractors have their own strengths, weaknesses, goals, and aspirations. By seeing each of these procurement options as only a tool as effective as the appropriateness of its use, a lot of very positive results can be obtained. D-B and DBB need to have CM/GC added to the tool box to provide State Agencies the right procurement methods to maximize limited transportation funding.
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Update on Surface Transportation Bill
Public-Private Partnerships, Highway Tolls Key Issues in Conference
By Nathan Hurst, CQ Staff
At issue is whether states should be allowed to introduce tolls on existing interstate highways and whether highways leased to private investors should be counted in formulas that determine each state’s share of federal surface transportation aid.
The two-year, $109 billion surface transportation measure (S 1813) passed by the Senate in March includes a major expansion of the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program, which gives states and localities access to federal dollars up front for projects that are eventually financed through public-private partnerships. The Senate bill is expected to be the basis for most of what the conference committee agrees to.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat who is chairing the conference committee, called the expansion of TIFIA funding from $100 million currently to $1 billion under her bill a “big step forward” in leveraging federal dollars to go further for highway projects, claiming it will create 1 million jobs in the process.
But other financing language has created a rift among transportation interest groups.
Transportation advocates at the motor club AAA, the American Trucking Associations and the American Highway Users Alliance have banded together in support of Senate language that would remove from highway funding formulas portions of highway mileage that states have privatized.
The coalition supports the language, which was added to the bill through an amendment by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., contending “states that remove highways from their balance sheet through long-term lease agreements (and with it the cost of maintaining those roads) should have those costs covered through the lease terms.”
Their prime example is the Chicago Skyway, a stretch of freeway leading into the Windy City from nearby Indiana. It was leased for 99 years to foreign investors for a one-time $3.5 billion payment, which Illinois then spent to pay down debt.
Other groups, including the libertarian Reason Foundation and the Bipartisan Policy Center, argued in favor of another amendment, offered but ultimately withdrawn by Sen. Thomas R. Carper, D-Del., that would have expanded the ability of states to impose tolls on existing stretches of interstate highways. Carper’s amendment was withdrawn along with a proposal by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas,, that would have restricted the imposition of new tolls on existing freeways.
In a letter to conferees last week, the Reason Foundation-led coalition argued that flexibility with tolling expansion would “greatly enhance the capacity of states and metropolitan regions to leverage additional private capital for investment in the restoration, rehabilitation, and expansion of major transportation facilities.”
The disagreement about tolls is among the unresolved questions facing the 47-member conference committee, which is racing to reach an agreement before the current extension of surface transportation authorization (PL 112-102) expires on June 30.
After House Republicans were unable to bring their five-year, $260 billion highway bill (HR 7) to the floor because the caucus was divided, the House passed an extension (HR 4348) that also included oil and gas drilling provisions and a mandate for executive branch approval of the Keystone XL pipeline project.
Last week, Boxer remained optimistic that conferees would be able to produce a conference report by early to mid-June, providing both chambers with enough time to vote on the measure and send it to President Obama.
Though several significant policy disagreements remain, Boxer predicted there were “no sticking points” that would hold up a conference report. She also was upbeat about the financing of the bill, which will need more than $10 billion in revenue offsets to cover the difference between its cost and the amount expected to be available in the Highway Trust Fund, which relies mostly on slumping fuel tax receipts.
Boxer said Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., and House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., had found a “very sweet spot” for financing the bill, though several Republican aides said Boxer’s assessment was “overblown.”
Baucus struggled for months to identify enough offsets to fund the Senate bill, which Boxer eventually moved ahead without a fully formed financing plan.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Monday, May 28, 2012
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Saturday, May 26, 2012
NH Construction Career Day
New Hampshire Construction Career Day has become a yearly event. High School student from across the state are invited to the Hopkinton State Fairgrounds for a day of hands on construction activities, heavy equipment demonstrations, career counseling, and one-on-one discussions with practitioners. This year's event will be held September 20th and 21st (identical sessions) from 8:00am until noon. Students are bused from their schools to the site. Last year 35 schools and 946 students participated with an appearance by Governor John lynch.
There is a broad group of partners for the event, but exhibitors, volunteers and sponsors are always needed. To get more involved visit the website www.NHCCD.weebly.com
There is a broad group of partners for the event, but exhibitors, volunteers and sponsors are always needed. To get more involved visit the website www.NHCCD.weebly.com
Creation of NH Chapter of Environmental & Water Resources Institute
The Environmental & Water Resources Institute (EWRI) of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the NH Chapter of ASCE are finalizing an agreement to authorize the creation of the Granite State Chapter of EWRI.
EWRI is dedicated to the advancement of the environmental and water resources professional community through a collaborative and mutually beneficial affiliation.
Special thanks to Paul Pepler of GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. who has been the driving force to founding the New Hampshire Chapter.
EWRI is dedicated to the advancement of the environmental and water resources professional community through a collaborative and mutually beneficial affiliation.
Special thanks to Paul Pepler of GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. who has been the driving force to founding the New Hampshire Chapter.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Monday, May 21, 2012
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Friday, May 18, 2012
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Monday, May 14, 2012
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Friday, May 11, 2012
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Monday, May 7, 2012
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Friday, May 4, 2012
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Sewell's Falls Bridge-The other Sister!
When I wrote the tale of two sister bridges, I did not have compatible photos of the Sewell's Falls Bridge. Today I happen to be in the area so I took photos compatible to the earlier shots. Sewell's Fall Bridge is very similar to the Lilac Bridge in Hooksett. First the top chords form a horizontal line, they are at heart two span structures even though Sewell's Falls has an extended set of approach spans, the main spans are of compatible lengths, and the truss members appear to be identical with the same number of vertical and diagonal members. The Sewell's Falls Bridge was designed by John Storrs and constructed in 1915. It was also rehabilitated in 1936. The face of the structure has very similar features including the pipe rail, horizontal supports of the portals and the rounded connections to the truss members. The portal framing is more open, but generally follows the same geometry. The biggest difference visually is the construction of the deck. Sewell's Falls currently has a steel grate deck where the other two bridges have wooden decks. I have called out to some of the long time residents of Concord to clarify whether the deck was originally wood. I also had a chance to look under the Sewell's Falls bridge. I think I mis-spoke on the earlier post. Visible from the top of both the Sewell's Falls Bridge and the Lilac Bridge are lateral joints every fifteen feet or so. I had previously assumed these were stringers that connected to beams that I had 
not verified from below. In fact it appears that these lateral members are actually the beams and the stringers that support the deck connect into the beams. Not being a bridge engineer by trade I will let my structural counterparts correct my structural vocabulary, but hopefully there articles will spur a few to go and visit these structures before they are gone. It would also be interesting to know more about the properties of the steel used in these bridges. The chemical make up of steel ordered today is of a consistency that engineers using the material can have a very high degree of certainty that the properties attributed to the product will in fact be true within an impressive tolerance. Prior to 1940 those properties had a lot more variance. By changing the chemical composition of steel, such as changing the carbon content, the strength and malleability (brittleness) of the steel can vary significantly. There are design guide books that can provide general guidance on the steel makeup based upon the year made and statistical probabilities, but for greater reliability samples of steel can be cut from the individual bridges being analyzed and tested to determine more accurate material properties. An added twist is that different members of a bridge may be built in different locations or that less critical members may have been made from different steel.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
A Tale of Two Sisters (Boscawen-Canterbury and Hooksett Lilac Bridges)
Recently there was an article on the planned removal of the Boscawen-Canterbury Bridge. This bridge was designed by John Williams Storrs and constructed in 1907. By 1965 it was decided to close the bridge to traffic as the original design was not compatible to the modern vehicles. This is a two span structure with a total span of about 347 feet. Assuming the spans are symmetrical, the individual spans would be about 174 feet. To the left is a profile view of one of the spans. Note the rounded appearance of the top chords.Storrs is recognized as one of the first true design engineers in the region. When Storrs is mentioned the first example of his work is normally the Sewell's Falls Bridge currently under redesign and slated for rehabilitation in the next few years, but there is another sister bridge in Hooksett that is also in a similar state of disrepair.
The Lilac or Hooksett Village Bridge in Hooksett is a three-span high Pratt Truss also designed by Storrs. This bridge was opened in 1909 and repaired in 1936. In 1976 this bridge was bypassed and closed. The total span is 490 feet with the longest span about 170 feet. The remaining spans are approximately 160 feet. The horizontal alignment of the upper chords and the different scales on the pictures make these bridges look very different, but looking at other angles definitely shows the family resemblance.
Here is a picture of the front of the Boscawen-Canterbury bridge. The curved shape of the upper chords results in a shorter distance between the horizontal members of the portals, but otherwise the geometry of the truss members appears to be identical, member sizes are close, and the portal bracing is also very similar. I could not get a good view of the connections now that both bridges are closed to pedestrian traffic, but assuming these are simple connections, the spans of the bridges are very similar. The pipe railing is also used on both bridges even though on the Boscawen-Canterbury bridge the pipe railing on the right side is now detached and draped across the deck. Also note the curved molding detail where the portal and truss meet on both bridges. Unfortunately one other thing that both bridges have in common is the passage of time, a number of years being out of service and little or no hope of being rehabilitated before being turned into scrap metal before anyone raises a serious effort to preserve them.
It is unfortunate that when a bridge is tagged with a historic designation it actual further encumbers the engineers that are trying to save it. Bridges not being repaired for lack of funds require even more money when the bridge has been identified as historical. In the end the engineer and historic nature of the structure are put at odds due to the higher costs and longer time lines required for design and construction. 
If we truly value our historic bridges, we need to make it an advantage to have a historic bridge designation when setting priorities for funding. Currently bridges are rated between 0 and 100 with new bridges rated higher and these two bridges rated at or near zero. As bridges deteriorate, they become eligible first for rehabilitation funding and if allowed to deteriorate further then they become eligible for replacement funding. An idea would be to identify bridges that are culturally more significant and make those structures eligible for these funding sources 10 rating points or more prior to other bridges. Since many of our historic structures are already well past their ratings needed to be eligible for funding, the other consideration would be eligibility for funding. Many of these structures are no longer the work horses of our transportation systems and do not rise to the priority of the more heavily traveled structures. This will continue to occur by necessity while we systematically underfund our transportationinfrastructure.
The top deck photo is from Boscawen-Canterbury. The pipe rail is now rolled over onto the deck. Below is the Lilac Bridge deck. Again note the similarity in the truss members and portal framing. A noticeable difference is the sidewalk on the left hand side of the Lilac Bridge. A careful eye will also spot the cradles for what was either a gas or water line that has since been removed. Both decks were wooden, but the Boscawen-Canterbury bridge had longitudinal decking running continuously over what looks like steel lateral stringers. The Lilac Bridge has lateral decking with a steel member every 15 feet. The decking system would be more apparent with a view below the bridge, but it didn't happen this trip.
For both of these bridges I am afraid that time is running or has run out. If you value historic structures, grab your camera and get out for a visit. For many of these structures, recognition of their historic value to the extent where funding will be provided in time to save them will never occur before the only option will be documentation then scrap metal. Engineers are a practical lot. I would be interested to know what John Storrs would think about the historic preservation requirements and attempts to save his bridges, of which I believe only seven are still in existence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)