ISSUE #253: A Bridge Over Troubled Politics (7/3/23)
August 3 "Men build too many walls and not enough bridges."
-- Joseph Fort Newton
We'd be far better served if council would direct city hall to seek new and innovative Castle Creek bridge replacement solutions vs waiting for city staff to come back in the near future with another attempt to cram its "preferred alternative" down our throats.
Read my column in yesterday's Aspen Times HERE.
In other business, thank you for submitting public comment recently regarding memoralizing the development plans for The Lumberyard. You spoke and council listened. The feedback received was enough to give council pause and the matter was continued.
The first related meeting on the subject of financing the project is a work session on July 10. Unfortunately this meeting will not allow public comment, but you can always send yours in. I hope you will, especially if you have relevant development financing knowledge and experience. Use THIS link and add "Work Session 7/10/23" to the subject line. Can you just imagine the nonsense city staff will be peddling about how easy it will be to finance the $500 million project? Let's hope council is smart enough to see through it.
Then, on August 10, council will meet again and likely vote. Stay tuned. I'll be back in touch with how you can once again become involved. If you're in town, this is the one to come to in person to make your comments directly to council.
***
When a gasoline tanker lost control while exiting I-95 outside of Philadelphia on June 11, the ensuing fire and destruction of the overpass created a monumental headache for the 160,000 vehicles that cross that section of highway every day. The 23-mile detour was initially expected to last for months while the highway was repaired, but the use of innovative materials and employment of creative solutions had the road re-opened in just 12 days.
Extrapolating to the impending Castle Creek Bridge replacement, why aren’t we looking at creative and innovative solutions? Yes, the bridge needs to be replaced. It was built in 1961 with an intended 75-year lifespan. But the city is solely fixated on one obtrusive replacement concept that will admittedly take 8-12 years to complete at a construction cost over $200 million that will do absolutely nothing to reduce travel time yet will decimate cherished open space at the entrance to Aspen.
Why, when there is some really great “bridge technology” out there? A layman’s cursory afternoon of research yielded many fascinating examples of bridge-building in the 21st century, many of which have unique similarities to our local challenges.
Our “fix” could be as easy as ABC.
Accelerated Bridge Construction is not some untested pipe-dream or newfangled concept employed in an unregulated European outpost. It’s a paradigm shift in bridge-building that prioritizes the need to minimize the mobility impacts of onsite construction that results in improvements across the board to safety, quality, durability, social costs, environmental impacts, project delivery time, and of course, cost.
One component of ABC, called “replacement in place” or the “bridge slide method,” seems to have our name on it. In short, new piers are constructed beneath the existing bridge. New lane segments are then constructed on either side. When traffic is shifted to the new outer lanes, the existing structure in the center is dismantled. A new, prefabricated structure is then slid into place.
A “replacement in place” project just like this was completed in January on State Route 79 over the Gila River in Florence, Arizona. It took just two successive weekends of lane restrictions (one lane operational, with signals) from 8pm on Friday through 5a on Monday and $22.1 million to complete.
Another ABC practice that seems applicable here is that of foundation re-use. This is where an existing bridge is rehabilitated or replaced by one of four foundation re-use options: build new foundations adjacent to the existing ones, demo and replace the existing foundations, re-use the existing ones or re-use the existing foundations after strengthening and enhancing them. Case and point, in 2015, Indiana and Kentucky collaborated to rehabilitate a deteriorating bridge over the Ohio River by strengthening the existing foundations then replacing the superstructure (span) with a pre-assembled steel truss, resulting in considerable cost savings and a significantly shorter delivery time than what a complete replacement would have taken.
The US Department of Transportation is working to create awareness, inform, educate, train, assist and entice state DOTs to employ rapid construction techniques. Pre-fabrication of bridges is not new; the industry has been pre-fabricating steel bridge beams for over 50 years and the use of pre-fabricated bridge elements and systems have seen widespread use over the past decade.
The goal of ABC is to expand pre-fabrication to all elements of the bridge with more emphasis on erection and rigging, and less on casting concrete. Sure, ABC requires different construction methods and equipment, but the method also encourages incentive dates and “complete no later than” contracts. Imagine the city of Aspen being interested in such efficiencies!
Best of all for us, CDOT already employs ABC and has for some time. In July 2013, when in just over 12 hours from noon on a Saturday to just after midnight Sunday, they rolled in and set in its final configuration the 2400-ton (4.8 million pounds) Pecos Street Bridge over I-70 between I-25 and Federal.
Examples abound. The technology exists. The experts are at work. Yet once again, the city of Aspen blusters and pontificates about leading the world while relying on overpaid consultants, quarter-century old research and outdated methodologies when planning for and making decisions about Aspen’s future.
The city has never been known for its vision, nor its construction prowess. Like its nonchalant acceptance of outrageous construction timelines, stratospheric cost estimates for one project after the next are casually approved. It’s a slap in the face.
Replacement and enlargement of the Castle Creek Bridge makes infinite sense. It can be completed far faster than any alternative. There are no regulatory entanglements. It is an existing and sufficient right of way. The Marolt Open Space is preserved. There are no issues with historic property. There are no neighborhood impacts and no new stoplights. One bridge using state and federal funds is the most cost effective solution.
In 1960, it took just a year to build the existing bridge. Imagine the possibilities of replacing it in the modern era using ABC techniques. We cannot rely on our local government to bring the solution to us. It is simply beyond their scope. It is time for city council to give new direction toward replacing the bridge.
Be prepared to voice your feedback when the city moves to jam its preferred alternative down our throats. They’re just waiting for the next opportunity. Contact TheRedAntEM@comcast.net