RIDOT Acting Chief Engineer Kazem Farhoumand discusses proposed bridge design

There was representation from elected officials and a a dozen vocal citizens at this evening's update from the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) on the status of the proposed Sakonnet River Bridge, with much of the questioning focused on the maintenance of the span once construction finishes in 2011. Town Councilors Dennis Canario, Karen Gleason, Len Katzman, Huck Little, Jim Seveney, and Bill West were joined by State Reps. Joe Amaral and Ray Gallison as they peppered RIDOT engineer Kazem Farhoumand with questions throughout the 2-hour meeting.

"When [RIDOT Director Jerome] Williams began working on this in early 2007, he asked us to look at rehabbing the bridge rather than replacing, or if not possible, to come up with a list of possible cost-reduction measures," Farhoumand explained. The resulting project review committee, he noted, "Took a fresh look at what we were proposing and came up with 40 proposals, 20 of which were adopted."

I've covered one of the main design changes, the proposal to use weathering steel here and here. Other items discussed this evening were changing the slope of the bridge (not the height above the water, but the incline), shortening the span by using a berm on the Tiverton side, using metal rather than wire railings, and redesigning the support pillars make them easier to cast in pieces and assemble on-site.

Farhoumand was also careful to point out important aspects of the bridge which have not changed: the 13-foot multi-use bike and pedestrian path, the scenic overlooks, median LED lighting, and most importantly for boaters, the navigation channel which remains 66 feet high by 289 feet long, significantly wider than the current span.

Given the questions that came up in Tiverton, RIDOT was ready with facts (MASS DOT uses weathering steel by default for all bridges) and some examples of such bridges in the region, most notably, the Sikorsky Bridge in Milford, CT. They even had a clever slide of a tiny pedestrian bridge that is part of the Cliff Walk which was deliberately painted a similar color precisely for its rustic look.

Both the weathering steel and concrete options were going out to bid, said Farhoumand, and they expected to advertise in June 2008, with about four years of construction to follow. After a half-hour presentation, Farhoumand opened the floor to questions.

Councilor Bill West asked about the maintenance timetable. Farhoumand noted that the bridge was designed to be "maintenance-friendly," reducing the number of joints from the 114 present on the current span to just 3 or 4.

Tailgunner Gleason took the opportunity to once again look for a guarantee (see here and here ). "I need a guarantee that DOT is going to follow through," she said, advocating instead that the bridge be turned over to the RI Bridge and Turnpike Authority and tolls put in place to pay for it. No, seriously. She really did: "I would not object to a toll on this bridge if I thought it was going to be taken care of." And she said RIDOT should take another look at that.

Rep Ray Gallison took exception to Gleason's proposal."I introduced a bill to prevent tolls on this bridge," he said. "I think we would be taking a big chance turning it over to the Bridge and Turnpike Authority. We were told we could take tolls off Mt. Hope, now they're proposing [replacing them.]"

I won't comment on Gleason's response. I will simply report it: "I think the tolls were taken down for political reasons. In my opinion we should have kept them."

Local resident Bernard Kane who lives on Hillside Avenue raised the question of impact on property values. Specifically, his property values, given that he occupies the nearest house. In what was clearly not his best moment of the night, Farhoumand said, "You're the one who writes to us."

"This was our nest egg," said Kane. "You have damaged the property just by relocating the bridge. I implore you to give me some relief."

Farhoumand promised that RIDOT's real estate division would get in touch, but this wasn't enough for the Council. Jim Seveney suggested that RIDOT look at the question of reimbursement for property values and get on the Council's agenda.

Economic Development Committee member Alan Shers asked if RIDOT had considered rail access. "We have done a preliminary study, but at that time, determined that there would not be enough ridership," said Farhoumand. However, he added, by locaating the bridge south of the current structure, they have preserved the option for the future.

Rep. Joe Amaral drilled in on the maintenance schedule and how it would be funded. "The numbers at DOT show that 50 cents of every dollar goes to pay off old bonds," he noted, comparing the much higher traffic on Rt. 24 to the better maintained spans of the Bridge and Turnpike Authority. "If you look at maintenance schedule on the Newport and Mount Hope bridges there are some legitimate concerns." Farhoumand placed the blame on state finances. "In today's environment, having the funds to do what you need is a luxury we just don't have. The resources are not there to provide the same degree of maintenance." Amaral suggested that RIDOT explore ways of working with the Turnpike authority to see if collective maintenance contracts might be cheaper.

Larry Fitzmorris and Karen Gleason confer after the RIDOT meeting.

Then Tailgunner Gleason had an opportunity to demonstrate her knowledge of civil engineering. "I'm really concerned about the Mount Hope bridge," she said, noting that when she's on the bridge with trucks, moving slowly or stopped by flaggers, "I'm really nervous." Farhoumand asked, to clarify, "So you're worried about being on the bridge with trucks?" He wasn't misunderstanding. Watch the tape. She really was.

Anyone who gets elected to a position of authority where they get to shoot their mouth off about engineering projects ought to understand some basic concepts. There are two fundamental sources of load when it comes to bridges: the total physical weight of the bridge itself, called the dead load, and the transient weight of traffic and pedestrians crossing the structure, called the live load. (There's also wind, but lets leave those aside for a moment.) In a bridge like the Mount Hope, the dead loading, per linear foot, is several multiples of the weight of the trucks or cars. Put another way: the bridge does a lot of its work holding itself up. Think about how much the bridge weighs compared, even, to a really big, Gleason-scaring truck. This is stuff that was so basic the Roeblings knew about it in the 1880s, and it's one of the reasons the Brooklyn Bridge is still standing.

Maybe this is what she was talking about with PCC, Inc. President Larry Fitzmorris after the meeting, in the hallway outside the Town Council Chambers. He's very technical, you know.

Note: Yes, it is true that suspension bridges and steel truss bridges distribute dead loads in different ways, and in truss bridges those vary with the size of the structural member. I'm making a general point. Work with me here.