Development of User Cost Model for Movable Bridge Openings in Florida Bernard Buxton-Tetteh

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2004 Development of User Cost Model for Movable Bridge Openings in Florida Bernard Buxton-Tetteh

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

DEVELOPMENT OF USER COST MODEL FOR MOVABLE BRIDGE OPENINGS IN FLORIDA

BERNARD BUXTON-TETTEH

A Thesis submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science

Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2004

The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Bernard Buxton-Tetteh defended on

March 26, 2004.

______

John O. Sobanjo Professor Directing Thesis

______

Renatus N. Mussa Committee Member

______

Lisa Spainhour Committee Member

Approved:

______

Jerry Wekezer, Chair, Department of Civil Engineering

The office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above-named committee members.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to God who provided me with strength and wisdom and by whose grace I have come this far in my educational career. I would like to thank Dr. John O. Sobanjo for his advice, instruction, and support and for giving me the privilege to work him in the pursuance of my Master’s degree. I would also like to thank Dr. Renatus Mussa and Dr. Lisa K. Spainhour for serving on my committee and for their guidance in the preparation of this report. I would like to thank my mother, Madam Victoria for her prayers and my brother Michael who has been a source of inspiration throughout my educational career. I would also like to thank my wife, Jamila, for her confidence in me. My sincerest gratitude also goes to Mr. Israel Titi-Ofei of SOS, Ghana, whom I first met as my house master in Achimota High School and has since then been playing the role of a loving father. I would also like to thank the Florida Department of Transportation for their help in providing data and funding for the research.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures ...... vi List of Tables ...... viii Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………. ix

1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………….…….1 1.1 Overview………..………………………………………………………………….1 1.2 Objectives of Study...…………………………………………...... 2 1.3 Significance of Study………………………………………………………………3 1.4 Scope of Study and Organization of Report....…………………………………….3

2. LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………..………...……..4 2.1 Overview………………………..………………………………………………....4 2.2 Estimation of Delays to Boats and Vehicular Traffic Caused by Movable Bridge Openings: An Empirical Analysis...... 5 2.3 Johns Pass Bridge Replacement P.D&E Study..………….…………...….…….…7 2.4 Roadway Vehicle Delay Costs at Rail-Highway Grade Crossings. ………………9 2.5 User Cost………………………………………………………………………….11 2.6 Pontis……………………………………………………………………………...13 2.7 Movable Bridges ...... 14 2.7.1 Vertical Lift Bridges ...... 14 2.7.2 Bascule Bridges ...... 16 2.7.3 Swing Bridges...... 18

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...... 19 3.1 Overview...... 19 3.2 Data Collection...... 19 3.2.1 Preliminary Site Selection...... 20 3.2.2 Final Site Selection ...... 21 3.2.3 Intracoastal Waterway...... 30 3.2.4 Vessel Height Measuring Equipment ...... 32 3.3 Vehicular and Vessel Characteristics Data ...... 33 3.3.1 Bridge ID 860060 (N.E. 14th Street Causeway) ...... 34 3.3.2 Bridge ID 780074 (Bridge of Lions) ...... 37 3.3.3 Bridge ID 930004 (Parker) ...... 38 3.3.4 Bridge IDs 150027 & 150076 (Johns Pass) ...... 41 3.3.5 Bridge ID 150050 (Pinellas Bay Way...... 43 3.4 Formulation of Models ...... 49 3.4.1 Vessel Service Flow Rate...... 49 3.4.2 Estimation of Total Roadway Blockage time...... 52 3.4.3 Directional Factor ...... 53 3.4.4 Projected Vessel Traffic...... 54 3.4.5 Estimation of Vessel Delay ...... 55 3.4.6 Vehicular Delay ...... 55

3.4.7 Estimating Total Daily Vehicular Delay...... 57 3.4.8 Projected Vehicular Traffic ...... 60 3.4.9 Sample Calculation of Vehicular and Vessel Delay...... 62 3.5 User Cost Rate...... 63

4. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ...... 66 4.1 Overview...... 66 4.2 Individual Bridge User Delay Analysis ...... 67 4.2.1 Bridge ID 860060 (N.E. 14th Street Causeway Bridge)...... 67 4.2.2 Bridge ID 930004 (Parker Bridge) ...... 68 4.2.3 Bridge IDs150027 & 150076 (Johns Pass Bridge)...... 69 4.2.4 Bridge ID 150050 (Pinellas Bay Way Bridge)...... 70 4.3 Estimate of Network User Costs for Movable Bridge Replacement ...... 80 4.3.1 Benefit of Strengthening ...... 80 4.3.2 Benefit of Raising (User Delay Costs)...... 84 4.4 Bridge Replacement Analysis...... 91 4.4.1 Prediction of Bridge Openings for Replacement Movable bridge ...... 91 4.4.2 Feasibility of Bridge Raising Options...... 93 4.4.3 Bridge Replacement Evaluation Matrix...... 99

5. DISCUSSIONS ...... 105 5.1 Implementation of User delay Cost model in Pontis ...... 105 5.2 Benefit of Replacement...... 108

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 109 6.1 Conclusions...... 109 6.2 Recommendations ...... 110

APPENDIX A. Summary of Survey Results...... 112 APPENDIX B. Movable Bridge Replacement Analysis ...... 150 APPENDIX C. Vessel Volume Projections ...... 160 APPENDIX D. Data Analysis ...... 166 APPENDIX E. User Cost Spreadsheet Models...... 177 APPENDIX F. Bridge Replacement Evaluation Matrixes...... 192 REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………197 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH……………………………………………………………...199

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 Distribution of Florida Moveable Bridges by Type ...... ……….22 Figure 3.2 Distribution of Florida Movable Bridges by FDOT District ...... 23 Figure 3.3 Distribution of Florida Movable Bridges by Roadway Functional Class ...... 24 Figure 3.4 Distribution of Movable Bridges by Type of Bridge Opening Regulations...... 26 Figure 3.5 Final Selected Study Sites for Movable Bridge Survey ...... 29 Figure 3.6 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway...... 31 Figure 3.7 Laser Level Operation ...... 32 Figure 3.8 Laser Level [ASC Scientific, 2002]...... 33 Figure 3.9 Distribution of Vessel Heights – Bridge 860060 ...... 35 Figure 3.10 Hourly Distribution of vessels – Bridge 860060 ...... 36 Figure 3.11 Hourly Distributions of Tallest Vessel Heights - Bridge 860060...... 36 Figure 3.12 Distribution of Vessel Heights – Bridge 930004 ...... 39 Figure 3.13 Hourly Distribution of vessels – Bridge 930004 ...... 40 Figure 3.14 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessel Heights -Bridge 930004 ...... 40 Figure 3.15 Distribution of Vessel Heights – Bridge 150027&150076...... 41 Figure 3.16 Hourly Distribution of vessels – Bridge 150027&150076...... 42 Figure 3.17 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessel Heights – Bridge 150027&150076 ...... 42 Figure 3.18 Distribution of Vessel Heights – Bridge 150050 ...... 43 Figure 3.19 Hourly Distribution of vessels – Bridge 150050 ...... 44 Figure 3.20 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessel Heights – Bridge 150050...... 44 Figure 3.21 Vessel Height Measurement at Bridge 860060...... 45 Figure 3.22 Barge with Construction Equipment at Bridge 860060 ...... 45 Figure 3.23 Vessel Passage at Bridge 860060...... 46 Figure 3.24 Vessel Passage at Bridge 930004...... 46 Figure 3.25 Initial Auto Queue at Bridge 930004 ...... 47 Figure 3.26 Initial Vessel Queue at Bridge 930004...... 47 Figure 3.27 Auto Queue at Bridge 780074 ...... 48 Figure 3.28 Auto Queue at Bridge 860060 ...... 48 Figure 3.29 Predicted average service time (Power Function Model)...... 51 Figure 3.30 Distribution of vessel count per bridge opening- Bridge ID 860060...... 51 Figure 3.31 Distribution of Roadway blockage duration...... 52 Figure 3.32 Hourly Distribution of Vehicular Traffic on I-10 near Marianna, Florida...... 59 Figure 3.33 Hourly Distribution of Vehicular Traffic on US-19 near Newport Richey, Florida ...... 59 Figure 4.1 Bridge 860060 – Survey Results and Bridge Replacement options...... 72 Figure 4.2 Bridge 930004 - Survey Results and Bridge Replacement options ...... 73 Figure 4.3 Bridge 150027 – Survey Results and Bridge Replacement options...... 74 Figure 4.4 Bridge 150050 – Survey Results and Bridge Replacement options...... 75 Figure 4.5 Truck Weight Reverse Cumulative Curves for Florida Highway Types ...... 82 Figure 4.6 Truck Weight Models for Florida Non-Interstate Highway ...... 82 Figure 4.7 Distribution of Movable Bridges by operating ratings...... 83

Figure 4.8 Distribution of Movable Bridges by Inventory ratings ...... 83 Figure 4.9 Distribution of Movable Bridge Under Clearance ...... 84 Figure 4.10 Estimated Statewide Annual User Delay Cost – 2002...... 86 Figure 4.11 Estimated Statewide Annual User Delay Cost – 2020...... 86 Figure 4.12 Comparison of Estimated Statewide User Delay Costs – 2002 and 2020...... 87 Figure 4.13 Estimate of Network User Cost of Strengthening by Roadway Functional Class ...... 88 Figure 4.14 Estimate of Network User Delay Cost by Roadway Functional Class ...... 88 Figure 4.15 Total Bridge Replacement Benefit vs. User Delay Cost ...... 89 Figure 4.16 Bridge Opening Prediction Model ...... 92 Figure 4.17 Map Layout for Bridge 860060 ...... 95 Figure 4.18 Aerial Photo Map Layout for Bridge 860060...... 95 Figure 4.19 Map Layout at Bridge 930040 ...... 96 Figure 4.20 Aerial Photo Map Layout for Bridge 930040...... 96 Figure 4.21 Map Layout for Bridge 150027/150076...... 97 Figure 4.22 Aerial Photo Map Layout for Bridges 150027/150076...... 97 Figure 4.23 Map Layout for Bridge 150050 ...... 98 Figure 4.24 Aerial Photo Map Layout for Bridge 150050...... 98 Figure 4.25 Bridge Construction Costs – Model vs. Estimates from Johns Pass’ Project...... 101 Figure 4.26 Formulation of Equation for Estimation of Right-of-Way Cost...... 101 Figure 4.27 Formulation of Cost Series from 20-year Average Daily User Delay Cost (Using Values Obtained from Peak Hour Method)...... 102 Figure 4.28 Formulation of Cost Series from 20-year Average Daily User Delay Cost (Using Values Obtained from Average Method)...... 103

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Distribution of Movable Bridges (FDOT) ...... 22 Table 3.2 Roadway Functional Classification (FHWA, 1995)...... 24 Table 3.3 Distribution of Movable Bridges by Roadway Functional Class...... 24 Table 3.4 Distribution of Movable Bridges by Type of Bridge Opening Regulations ... 25 Table 3.5 List of Initial Potential Study Sites...... 26 Table 3.6 Inventory Data on Potential Study Bridge Sites...... 27 Table 3.7 Vessel Traffic Data on Potential Study Bridge Sites ...... 28 Table 3.8 Calculated Daily Average Service Times...... 50 Table 3.9 Vehicular Traffic Characteristics for ADT ...... 58 Table 3.10 Existing and Projected Vehicular Traffic for the Study Sites...... 61 Table 3.11 Listing Of Travel Time Values, August 1996...... 64 Table 3.12 Recommended Values Of Time, August 1996...... 64 Table 4.1 Results of Vehicular Delay Analyses at Bridge ID 860060...... 76 Table 4.2 Results of Vehicular Delay Analyses at Bridge ID 930004...... 77 Table 4.3 Results of Vehicular Delay Analyses at Bridge IDs 150027 & 150076 ...... 78 Table 4.4 Results of Vehicular Delay Analyses at Bridge ID 150050 ...... 79 Table 4.5 Default Pontis Piecewise Linear Model...... 81 Table 4.6 Truck Weight Piecewise Linear Model for Non-Interstate Roadways ...... 81 Table 4.7 Truck Weight Piecewise Curves for Non-Interstate Roadways ...... 81 Table 4.8 Bridge Replacement Benefits...... 90 Table 4.9 Sample List of Feasible Bridge Replacement Option...... 94 Table 4.10 Cost Estimate for Bridge Construction...... 99 Table 4.11 Validation of cost model ...... 100 Table 4.12 Bridge Replacement Evaluation Matrix - Bridge 150027 (Peak Hour Method) ...... 104 Table 4.13 Bridge Replacement Evaluation Matrix - Bridge 150027 (Average Method)...... 104

viii

ABSTRACT The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is currently in the process of implementing the AASHTO Pontis® Bridge Management System (BMS) to support network- level and project-level decision making at the state and district levels. This is aimed at improving the quality of asset management information provided to decision makers. The Pontis BMS has various sub-models among which are deterioration models, agency cost models and user cost models. The deterioration models are used to predict bridge deterioration levels and are derived from inspection condition information collected from periodic inspections of the bridges. Agency cost models are used to estimate engineering, construction and maintenance costs associated with various bridge projects. User cost models are used to quantify in economic terms the potential safety and mobility benefits of maintenance, repair and replacement of bridge structures. Movable bridge openings force vehicles traveling over the bridges to be held in queues and this results in extra travel time for motorists. The extra travel times are quantifiable as user delays costs, which are indirectly borne by commerce and the motoring public, and can be used in an economic analysis to justify the replacement of movable bridges. This thesis presents a study that involved the collection of Florida-specific data on vehicular and vessel traffic, including vehicle queue counts, average daily traffic, hourly distribution of vehicular traffic, movable bridge openings, vessel counts and vessel heights at six (6) selected, geographically unbiased, movable bridge sites within the Florida. The data were analyzed and used in the development of a user cost model for movable bridge openings for implementation in the Florida Pontis BMS. The movable bridge openings were modeled as bottleneck incidents on the roadways carried by the movable bridges and a deterministic queue model was used in analyzing the resulting delays to vehicular traffic. The developed model was used in a network analysis of Florida’s inventory of 147 movable bridges to estimate the economic benefits of bridge replacement projects with the objective of correcting load carrying capacity deficiencies and elimination of traffic delays that were caused by the movable bridge openings. Results obtained showed that the savings in delays to vehicular traffic caused by movable bridge openings would contribute about eight (8) times more than the economic benefits that may be obtained from strengthening movable bridges in Florida.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is currently in the process of implementing the AASHTO Pontis® Bridge Management System (BMS) to support network- level and project-level decision making at the state and district levels. This is aimed at improving the quality of asset management information provided to decision makers. Pontis is the most popular BMS in the transportation industry and is currently selected by 40 of the 50 state DOTs for their BMS. The essence of a BMS is to provide a decision support tool to maximize the benefit of investment in bridge structures by combining engineering, economic and management analysis to determine the most cost effective mix of routine and periodic maintenance, rehabilitation replacement and other actions over the life of the structures. The BMS requires three types of data for its effective use: deterioration data, agency cost data and user cost data. Deterioration data is derived from condition information collected from periodic inspections of the bridges. Data collected by bridge inspectors is stored in a large database and is used to write inspection reports that form the basis for a variety of decisions and analyses concerning the bridge inventory. Agency cost data typically includes the engineering, right-of-way, construction and maintenance costs associated with various bridge projects. User cost data includes the estimated vehicle operating costs, traffic delay and accident costs due to the maintenance, repair, replacement or functional deficiencies of bridge structures. Previous research efforts by the FDOT have made significant progress at the development of economic models for the estimation agency and user costs. Current efforts are being aimed at additional modeling issues and the development of methods for the implementation of the models in actual FDOT bridge management decision-making. The State of Florida is interested in developing user cost models for bridge openings for its large inventory of movable bridges to help in economic analysis aimed at justifying improvements and replacement projects. The main purpose of movable bridges is to alternately connect two different intersecting traffic routes – vessel and vehicular and/or railway – in a practical manner. Vessels with heights

1 greater than the vertical clearance under the bridge will have to queue up in a holding area till the bridge is opened. Vehicles are also forced to queue up during the bridge openings. An increase in vehicular and vessel traffic therefore creates a greater demand for accommodation of the vehicular and vessel traffic as well as longer bridge openings for vessels that utilize the facility. This ultimately results in longer periods of delays to both vehicular and vessel traffic. These traffic delays are quantifiable as costs to the users of the facilities and are relevant for use in a decision-making process involving the replacement of the bridge.

1.2 Objectives of Study The main purpose of the study is to develop a user cost model applicable to the inventory of movable bridges in the state of Florida. The model would be incorporated into the Pontis BMS and would be used to quantify or estimate, in economic terms, the potential user benefits of replacing a movable bridge. Specific objectives and tasks set up for the study include: 1. Search and review of relevant literature and data 2. Collection of data on vessel traffic, including vessels counts and heights 3. Collection of data on vehicular traffic, including traffic characteristics 4. Collection of data on movable bridge openings, including opening durations and frequencies 5. Development of model to estimate delays to vehicular traffic during movable bridge openings, based on a suitable method of delay analysis 6. Estimation of user delay costs based on relevant costs of travel time 7. Development of a template for movable bridge replacement analysis 8. Recommendation for Implementation of developed user cost model in Pontis

1.3 Significance of Study The Pontis BMS user cost model estimates the user benefits of bridge replacement as the sum of the benefits from three types of functional improvements; bridge raising, bridge strengthening and bridge widening, which may be considered in the design of the replacement bridge. When a bridge has low or insufficient load capacity or under clearance certain trucks traveling on or under the bridge are forced to detour and thus incurring additional operating and travel time costs. For the benefit of strengthening Pontis calculates the savings in terms of

2 vehicle operating and travel time costs resulting from a functional improvement action taken to rectify the deficiency of insufficient bridge load capacity. For the benefit of raising Pontis calculates the savings in terms of vehicle operating and travel time costs resulting from a functional improvement action taken to rectify the deficiency of inadequate or low vertical bridge underclearance. To evaluate a functional improvement of roadway widening in a bridge replacement project, the user cost model estimates the savings in accidents or accident risks that may result from wider travel lanes on the replacement bridge. The unique operation of movable bridges causes motorists to incur additional user costs primarily from delays experienced during their openings for the passage of vessels. The benefit of replacing a movable bridge should therefore include the benefit of any functional improvement that improves or eliminates the deficiency of the low navigable vertical clearance and this can be estimated in terms of the user cost savings that may result from reduced or eliminated delays to vehicles traveling on the bridge’s roadways. A model to estimate this user delay cost savings if incorporated into the existing Pontis user cost models will help fully estimate the benefit of replacement of a movable bridge, which would include the savings in cost incurred by detouring truck traffic, the savings in accident costs and the savings in costs incurred by delayed traffic, and therefore justify or otherwise, the allocation of available funds.

1.4 Scope of Study and Organization of Report The study will involve the identification, research and analysis of various factors that will be instrumental in the formulation of a template movable bridge user cost model for the FDOT to aid in any bridge replacement study. The study was outlined into the following tasks: (1) Literature Review (2) Data Collection and Analysis (3) Development of models For the report, basic introduction is presented in this chapter including the objectives, the scope and the significance of the study. The results of the literature review are detailed in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 addresses the research methodology, which includes the equipment employed for the data collection, the data collection procedure and a formulation of the model. The analyses and results obtained from the models are presented in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 presents a discussion of the results obtained from the model including the interpretation and significance of the results. It also presents a recommendation of the implementation of the model into Pontis. Conclusions and recommendations for future research efforts are presented in Chapter 6.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Overview

The purpose of the literature review was to identify and review all available and relevant literature and documented efforts on the subject of user delay and user cost estimation involving or related to movable bridges and which may be applicable in a Bridge Management System. This was started with a computerized search of the university library catalogs, which had databases such as Engineering Index, Elsevier Science Journals, Compendex and Applied Science and Engineering. Various search engines were also utilized in the search including the internet-based libraries, the National Transportation Library and the Transportation Research Information Service (TRIS), maintained by the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) and United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). Although a significant number of literature sources were found relating to the construction, operation, maintenance and inspection procedures for movable bridges, these procedures are not related directly to the collection and analysis of user cost data compatible with the Pontis BMS software requirements. Efforts to estimate user costs were initiated when the State of North Carolina began the development of a bridge management system. This led to the development of the Pontis Bridge Management System (BMS) currently being used by the state of Florida. A report for the implementation of Pontis in Florida by Thompson et al. (1999) was the most comprehensive and relevant report on bridge management system that was specific to the state of Florida. The study conducted was to analyze the applicability of the Pontis BMS model to Florida’s bridge inventory and provided the background to this study by making a recommendation for the development of a user cost model for Florida’s movable bridge openings. The most relevant document found on user delay for movable bridges was a study conducted by Dehgani et al. (1991), which was used as part of a technical memorandum for a Project Development and Environmental (P.D.&E) study for the 25-foot S.E. 17th Causeway bascule bridge replacement project in South Florida. The research involved an empirical analysis to estimate the delays to boats and vehicular traffic caused by the openings of the then existing 25-foot bridge. Another relevant document reviewed was the P.D.&E study for the proposed

4 replacement of the existing 21-foot bascule bridge, the Johns Pass Bridge in Madeira Beach, Florida. A report though not directly related to movable bridges was found relevant to the subject being reviewed especially in terms of the methodology employed by the author. The report titled “Roadway Vehicle Delay Costs at Rail-Highway Grade Crossings” by Ryan T. (1990), involved the estimation of delays to vehicular traffic at rail-highway at-grade crossings. The relevance of this study to the present study was based on the fact that both studies involve the interaction of two modes of transportation, which will at some times be vying for the same space simultaneously. The problems in both scenarios consist of the allotment of times between the two modes of transportation. Both scenarios also have similar roadway blockage procedures and roadway blockage effects. The blockage time for the rail at-grade crossings is comprised of the amount of time the trains physically blocks the roadway and the amount of time it is blocked by traffic control devices prior to and after the passage of the trains, and for the movable bridges is comprised of the amount of time the movable spans are moved to physically block the roadway and the amount of time the roadway is blocked by traffic control devices prior to and after moving the movable bridge spans. Brief reviews of Roadway user costs, the components and functions of the Pontis BMS and the types and modes of operation of movable bridges are also provided.

2.2 Estimation of Delays to Boats and Vehicular Traffic Caused by Movable Bridge Openings: An Empirical Analysis (Dehghani et al. 1991) The study described an interactive and simple queuing model that was developed to evaluate the potential delays to vehicular and vessel traffic caused by openings and closures of a movable bridge. Data in relation to the operation of the existing movable bridge, which included the number and heights of vessels passing under or through the bridge and the duration of the bridge openings were first collected during a three day survey. A queuing analysis was then conducted for both vessel and vehicular traffic based on parameters estimated from the survey results. Both vehicular and vessel queues were analyzed for current and the future years. The queuing analysis investigated factors ranging from bridge operating characteristics to forecasted vessel and vehicular traffic. The bridge survey identified an average vessel service time of 0.98 minutes for the weekend and 2.45 for the weekday. The average vessel service time was defined

5 as the average time required for the passage one vessel during each bridge opening. The different service times obtained for weekend and weekday was attributed to the lower vessel traffic volume on weekdays as compared to heavier vessel volumes recorded during the weekend. The same amount of time is required for the mechanical operation of the bridge and the operation of traffic control signals regardless of the number of vessels passing through the bridge opening. The lower weekday number of vessels allocates this time to fewer vessels and thus increasing the average service time (Minutes/Vessel Crossing). The study sought to investigate the worst-case scenarios and therefore analyzed peak hour queue scenarios for both vessels and vehicles. To obtain the total service time or roadway blockage the projected number of vessels in the peak hour queue was multiplied by the average vessel service time. The total service time included the time for opening and closing the bridge and the time required to operate all the traffic control devices such as drop gates and traffic lights. Most of the bridge opening times recorded during the survey were at least five minutes or more. Five minutes was therefore used as the minimum service time for each opening. Calculated roadway blockage times were therefore used only when the projected vessel queue resulted in estimated bridge openings greater than five minutes. The estimated total service time or roadway blockage duration was then used to estimate the resulting delays to vehicular traffic. The vehicular delay was estimated by applying a bottleneck concept developed by Adolf May. The concept assumes a bottleneck occurrence on the roadway during which the service flow rate of vehicles is reduced due to a blockade, which in this case would be the opening of the bridge and would be equal to zero since no vehicle is serviced by the bridge during the opening. Average and total vehicle delays were calculated for different bridge options based on the length of bridge opening and the time taken to dissipate the vehicular queue. The estimated delays were used as the basis of an economic analysis to rank the proposed replacement facilities to the existing movable bridge. Replacement options identified included providing a fixed span bridge with higher vertical clearance, providing a tunnel and considering higher-level movable bridges. The 25-foot bridge has since been replaced with a 55-foot bascule bridge, together with improved layouts of the nearest intersections.

2.3 Johns Pass Bridge Replacement P.D.&E Study (FDOT District 7, 2002)

The purpose of the study was to establish the location and design concept for the improvements to S.R. 699, the roadway carried by the bridge. It also sought to (1) identify, research and analyze the various factors that will be instrumental in the formulation of a design concept for the planned improvements to the bridge and (2) analyze all viable project alternatives. The need for the improvement was primarily due to the bridge’s current structural deficiency. Twelve structural alternatives were analyzed for the project; they included: • 3 Low-Level Bascule bridges which would involve no additional right-of-way acquisition • 7 Mid-Level Bascule bridges with various Right-of Way (ROW) effects and • 2 High-Level Fixed span bridges Delay and queuing analysis was conducted for the bridge openings based on the standard queuing theory and the methodology used to conduct a crossing delay analysis for a commuter or light rail line. The key inputs for the analysis were the average annual daily traffic (AADT), peak hour factors and average opening duration. A study of the bridge tender logs revealed that the bridge had an average of 25 daily openings with 3 openings during the peak hours of between 3:00 pm and 5:00 pm. The estimated average duration of each opening was 5 minutes and 22 seconds. Delays were estimated under the various replacement options for current and projected vessel and vehicular traffic. The selected alternatives were then evaluated using an evaluation matrix, which quantified the effects to the human and natural environment and provided a comparison of impacts and costs for the planned improvements. The matrix included costs for the design, construction and construction engineering and inspection (CEI), additional right-of- way, relocation of affected properties and services. A life cycle cost analysis was conducted to determine the costs associated with maintaining each replacement alternative. The life cycle cost analysis also factored in the roadway user delay costs incurred by motorists during bridge openings. A benefit-cost analysis was then conducted for each alternative with the existing 21- foot bascule bridge serving as a benchmark for the analysis. The benefit for each alternative was defined as the estimated reduction in user delay costs, which were calculated from the estimated delays, and was due to the reduced frequency of bridge openings that would result from the increased vertical navigational clearance. The results of the above analysis were then used as a basis for further consideration. Other relevant issues considered were the impact on the community especially for residential and

business relocations, the justification of costs, social and environmental impacts and community acceptance of the proposed alternatives. A final recommendation of a low-level 23.5-foot bascule bridge with increased horizontal navigational clearance, which required no additional right-of- way, was made as the most justifiable replacement alternative.

2.4 Roadway Vehicle Delay Costs at Rail-Highway Grade Crossings (Ryan T., 1990) The purpose of this research was to develop a practical methodology for computing the lengths of delays and costs of delays to roadway vehicles at rail-highway grade crossings (RHGCs). Analyses and some data collection efforts were first made to obtain data on delay parameters needed for the methodology for the computations of delays at RHGCs. The delay parameters included train lengths, train speeds, diurnal distribution of trains, diurnal distribution of roadway traffic, and roadway speed limit. One of the key factors in determining delay to roadway vehicles at an RHGC naturally will be the length of the each train; the longer the train, the greater the delay, all other factors being equal. The existing inventory however did not provide information on train lengths at RHGCs. In addition the nature of railroad operations did not allow for the systematic prediction of train lengths. The author chose a random date and data on train lengths were obtained for that date from transportation data. A mean of 35 cars was obtained for the train lengths and this was used as the average train length for the study. Discussions with transportation personnel also revealed an average car length of 60 feet, which was also used for the study. The inventory provided pieces of information regarding train speeds; typical maximum speed and typical minimum speed. For the purpose of the study, the average of these two values was used as the average train speed at the RHGCs. The inventory also provided pieces of information on the diurnal distribution of trains; number of daylight through trains, number of daylight switch trains, number of night time through trains and number of night time switch trains. A detailed breakdown however showed wide variations among crossings, which depended partly on location of the crossing. There was also some variation in the number of trains per day in each subdivision, with activity typically being lowest on weekend days and Mondays, and gradually increasing through the remainder of the week. Based on this information, some assumptions were made for the methodology:

• All trains cross RHGCs on weekdays (Mondays through Fridays) • Daylight trains cross RHGCs from 6 am to 6 pm • Night trains cross RHGCs from 6 pm to 6 am • Train arrivals are distributed uniformly across the given 12-hour period.

Data on vehicular traffic at RHGCs was obtained and analyzed in an attempt to develop a diurnal distribution for roadway traffic at the crossings. Because the diurnal distribution of train traffic could only be broken into daylight or night components, the diurnal distribution of roadway traffic was also needed broken into those two components. The percentages of AADT occurring between 6am and 6pm were computed for the daylight component and those occurring between 6pm and 6am were computed for the night component. This was done for each of 42 RHGCs for which data was provided. The percentages of daily traffic occurring from 6am to 6pm at each crossing were averaged to obtain the average daylight hourly volume and likewise for the percentages occurring between 6pm and 6am for the night time hourly volume. Four groupings of the RHGCs were established: RHGCs in cities, RHGCs not in cities, urban RHGCs and rural RHGCs. Statistical tests were performed on the in city versus not in city and urban versus rural groups and the results indicated that none of the values of t were significant at the 0.05 level of significance and that the values for the in city versus not in city were closer to the 0.05 level than the urban versus rural group. Based on these results, the author concluded that there was no reason to believe that the diurnal distribution of roadway traffic at one type of RHGC was different from that at another. The directional split of traffic was assumed to be 60 to 40 percent during all hours. This was based upon observed traffic volumes within the state of Maryland. The direction of heavier traffic flow was however immaterial to the methodology. The delay cost computations used for the study assumed that traffic would travel at the speed limit unless forced below that speed by a train or a queue caused by the train. Data was therefore collected on vehicular speed limits at some selected RHGCs. Statistical tests were again performed to determine if different values were appropriate for use with different types of crossings. Similar comparisons were made as with the diurnal distribution; in city versus not in city and urban versus rural and the results indicated that the difference in mean speed limit was not significant at the 0.05 level of significance for urban versus rural, but was significant at the

0.001 level for the in city versus not in city. Thus two default speed limits 25mph for the in city crossings and 30 mph for the not in city were used for the analyses. The computation of delay to roadway vehicles was estimated using a simple deterministic model that was formulated based on a general simple queuing theory. According to the model, roadway traffic arrives at the RHGC at an assumed uniform arrival rate. The arrival of a train causes the occurrence of a queue, which grows in length till the train clears the crossing and diminishes as the vehicles depart at a service rate which is assumed to equal the saturation flow rate on the roadway. The user costs caused by delays at RHGCs were computed by using a procedure developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) The procedure provides graphs and tables that can be used to estimate, for each light-duty vehicle, user costs for stopped conditions and for each speed-change cycle. The following steps were applied: • Only vehicles that arrived during the total blockage time were assumed to stop. Vehicles arriving while the queue discharged were assumed to be slowed, but not stopped. • All vehicles were assumed to approach the RHGC at the posted speed and depart at the posted speed. All vehicles that were slowed but not stopped were assumed to reach as low as half of the posted speed The travel time costs were computed assuming an average value of $6 per person-hour and average vehicle occupancy of 1.6 persons. The $6 value was estimated from the FHWA document, while the vehicle occupancy was estimated from local conditions. Roadway vehicle delay costs were computed for each RHGC in the state of Maryland using the available inventory data. Annual delay costs at the various RHGCs ranged from $0 to $ 407,441, with mean value of $4,180 per RHGC.

2.5 User Cost User costs are the costs incurred by highway users traveling on the facility and the excess costs incurred by those who cannot use the facility because of either agency or self-imposed detour requirements (Walls and Smith, 1998). User costs typically are an aggregation of three separate components: Vehicle Operating Costs, User Delay Costs and Accident Costs. User costs serve as input to improvement optimization process, which compares the savings in user costs

10 due to replacement or improvement with the cost of the investment. User cost models quantify in economic terms ($) the benefits to the user of functional improvements to physical infrastructure. In bridge management systems, the user cost model predicts the benefits of improved safety (reduction of accident costs) and/or improved mobility (reduction of operating costs and reduction of travel time/delays) of functional improvements or replacement. Ellis et al. (1997) classified the wide-ranging elements of road user cost into three major categories as follows: a) Unquantified costs. For example the effect on social welfare, ecological impacts etc. b) Quantified costs not converted into monetary terms. For example road safety, pollution from emissions and traffic noise pollution. c) Costs converted into monetary terms. For example vehicle operating costs, savings in travel time and accident costs. A schematic view of the above classification is depicted in Figure 2.1.

Details of the three user cost components that are converted into monetary terms are as follows:

Vehicle operating costs: Vehicle operating costs generally considered are costs incurred from fuel consumption, oil consumption, tire wear, vehicle depreciation, maintenance and repair.

Time costs: Factors that affect time cost vary with each person and each trip. Some of the relevant factors are: 1. Characteristics of the person(s) traveling in the car. For example age, number, occupation, wage earnings, etc. 2. The trip (distance, number of stops, purpose-business or pleasure-etc). 3. Environment. For example, the day of the week, hour of the day, local land use, traffic volume and composition, type and design of highway. 4. Factors of Value. For example productive time, utilization of lost time, activities before and after trip, amount of consecutive time available.

Accident costs: Accidents are classified as fatal, injury and property damage only (PDO). Accident costs are generally derived by the willingness to pay method. This method estimates the amount of money society would pay to reduce exposure to accident risks.

Road user effects

Quantified effects Un-quantified effect

Social effects Monetary Factors Non-Monetary Factors Environmental Impacts

Vehicle operating costs Accident costs Environmental effects Comfort

Time costs

Figure 2.1 Classification of Road User Effects. (Ellis et al. 1997)

2.6 PONTIS Pontis® is a comprehensive bridge management system developed by the FHWA in conjunction with six state Departments of Transportation and the joint consultancy venture between Optima, Inc. and Cambridge Systematics. Pontis stores bridge inventory and inspection data; formulates network-wide preservation and improvement policies used in evaluating the needs of each bridge in a network and makes recommendations for what projects to include in an agency’s plan for deriving maximum benefit from limited funds. The condition data included in the system are more detailed than the

requirements of the National Bridge Inventory (NBI). The bridge is divided into individual elements, or sections of the bridge, which are comprised of the same material and can be expected to deteriorate in the same manner. The condition of each element is reported according to a condition state, which is a quantitative measure of deterioration. The condition states are defined in engineering terms and are on a scale from 1 to 5 for most elements. Pontis also views bridge deterioration as probabilistic, recognizing the uncertainty in predicting deterioration rates. The system models deterioration of the bridge elements as a Markov process. Pontis automatically updates the deterioration rates after historical inspection data are gathered. User cost models have been adapted from research performed by North Carolina. Pontis has the ability to estimate accident costs, user costs resulting from detours and travel time costs. This information is used in the optimization models to examine trade-offs between options. In Pontis, user cost models are used to predict user benefits in terms of the functional improvements; bridge deck widening and approach alignment improvement, bridge raising and bridge strengthening. In the optimization routine, maintenance, repair and rehabilitation actions (preservation) are separated from improvement actions. Preservation deals with individual elements of a bridge and consists of activities such as replacing a damaged section of deck or painting a steel truss. Improvement however addresses functional aspects of a bridge such as strengthening of a bridge to carry heavier loads. Pontis also employs a top-down analytical approach by optimizing over the network before determining individual bridge projects. The Florida Department of Transportation is implementing the Pontis bridge Management System as a decision support tool for planning and programming bridge maintenance, repairs, rehabilitation, improvements and replacements for the more than 6,000 bridges on the state highway network with the objective of keeping at least 90% of them above the level of standards set for non-deficiency in bridges. Florida currently has about 93% of its bridges above the set standards (Vandervalk Anita, 1999).

2.7 Movable Bridges Bridges are of two general types: fixed and movable. Fixed bridges are usually classified by their basic geometry such as arches, trusses, beams, girder, suspension and cable stayed. Movable bridges are more complex structures having machinery for opening a portion of the

13 bridge, to allow the passage of ships or other traffic through the bridge. The movable span may be turned or drawn to one side, lifted up, or let down. Types of movable bridges include vertical lift, swing and bascule, descriptions of which are given as follows:

2.7.1 Vertical lift bridges A vertical lift bridge consists of an interior simple span resting on abutments when closed and is raised much like an elevator using cables, pulleys, motors and counterweights to allow river traffic to pass beneath the structure. To the ends of the girders are attached ropes or chains, which pass over sheaves on top of a frame at each end of the bridge. There are motors that turn the reduction gears connected to shafts and drums. These drums pull the operating ropes connected to the lift span and towers. Rollers at each corner guide the lift span. These rollers prevent the lift span from moving sideways during the lift. The tremendous weight of the lift span is balanced by concrete counterweights. The weight of the bridge girder is therefore largely compensated and the remaining residual load is lifted and lowered by means of a cable winch. Turntables on the cables allow maintenance personnel to adjust the tension in the cables and the alignment of the counterweights to compensate for wear over time. The supporting structure of the bridge is made of steel in order to reduce the weight to be lifted and in order to allow for an economical solution of the lifting mechanism. The appropriate supporting element of the lifting mechanism is steel cable because it combines maximum strength of materials with very high availability; i.e. the supporting cable announces fatigue a long time in advance and can therefore be replaced in time so that safe lifting operation is ensured all the time. The bridge is locked when it is in the upper top and the lower service positions. The classical lifting bridge is used with scarce space in urban areas for bridging inland waterways. Overhead clearance for navigation however remains limited. It has the advantage over the bascule bridge in that it can be made of any length feasible for a simple span, while the span of a bascule bridge is limited. Its disadvantage is the high first cost and the expensive operation. The vertical-lift bridge is most suitable for spans that require only a small lift, such as bridges over canals. An operator situated in the control room on the bridge controls all the traffic signals, gates and mechanisms for controlling traffic and raising and lowering the span. Three-color traffic lights are used to stop vehicles from entering the lift span. Stripes and Walk/Don’t Walk

14 signs are used to indicate safe zones for pedestrians. Other flashing lights mounted on the ramps to the bridge warn approaching vehicles that the lift span is opening. The operator can control the movement of the lift span by selecting a pre-determined height or personally manipulating the speed of the motors until the desired height is reached. Once the lift span reaches the desired height, the operator stops the motors, applies the span brakes and waits until the river traffic has passed beneath the span. After the river traffic has cleared, the operator reverses the sequence and lowers the lift span down to its locked resting position on the structure and allows street traffic to flow again.

Figure 2.2 Vertical Lift Bridge (Across the Willamette River in Portland, U.S.A.)

2.7.2 Bascule Bridges Bascule bridges have interior spans called "leaves" that rotate upward and away from the centerline of the river, providing clear passage for river traffic. Unlike the vertical lift bridges, when opened, there is no vertical obstacle to river traffic. They rotate about trunnions or roll back on circular segments, or have a combined motion of turning and rolling, and are counterweighted to reduce the power required for operation. There are motors that turn the reduction gears connected to shafts and gears. These gears are connected to rack assemblies,

15 which are mounted on the counterweights. Bascule bridges are made in one leaf, or in two leaves that meet in the center. The two-leaf bridges have a locking device at the ends, and are arranged to act as cantilevers when closed, and sometimes as three-hinged arches. The span locks keep the ends of the leaves from bouncing as traffic passes over them. Bascule bridges with one leaf or symmetrical bascule bridges with two leaves have an opening angle of up to 85° create optimum clearance for navigation without upper limitation. In case of navigation channels near the coast which are also used by large deep-sea vessels bascule bridges are particularly appropriate because they offer unlimited overhead clearance and their large spans are able to cope also with wide shipping channels. In urban areas with scarcity of space and no possibility of high access for cross traffic, bascule bridges offer a solution for the "crossing" of road and waterborne traffic. The impressing architecture of opened bascule bridges enhances the skyline. In order to allow for easier configuration of the moving elements the bridge leaves, with the decks for road and railway traffic, are mostly made of steel. Contrary to historical bascule bridges with counterweights installed rather high above ground level today's counterweights are aesthetically shaped and integrated in the cantilever at ground level. Easy and proven electromechanical and electro-hydraulic drives are available: Today the most economical drive with maximum availability and minimum maintenance is the electro hydraulic drive with hydraulic cylinders for opening and closing of the bridge and with sliding bearing made of bronze with solid lubrication for the turning point. The required locking devices at the center and at the ends of the bridge are also driven hydraulically. The bascule bridge has the advantage that it can be used in places where there is no space available alongside of the bridge. It can be enlarged or widened by putting up additional spans alongside of it, without interfering with the operations of the existing span or with navigation; the length of span, however, is limited, as the influence of wind pressure becomes very important in long spans and is limited to about 200 ft. for single-leaf, and 350 ft. for double-leaf bridges. The design depends upon many conditions, such as location, distance from the floor to water level, under-clearance required, length of span, frequency of opening, speed required, kind of power available for operating, etc. An operator situated in the control room on the side of the bridge controls the traffic gates and signals and all the mechanisms for raising and lowering the spans. Red lights mounted on the pedestrian and vehicle traffic gates are flashed to indicate that the gates will be closing

shortly. A warning horn is beeped and remains on during the entire process. Three-color traffic lights are used to stop vehicles from entering the lift span. Other flashing lights mounted on the ramps to the bridge warn approaching vehicles that the lift span is opening. The operator next lowers the vehicle and pedestrian gates, which will prevent traffic from entering the span. He/she then lowers the gates on the exit lanes of the bridge. When all traffic is clear of the span, the operator opens the span locks to disconnect the two lift span leaves from each other or simply lifts the span for a single leaf bridge. Once the lift span leaf reaches the desired height, the operator stops the motors, applies the span brakes and waits until the river traffic has passed beneath the span. After the river traffic has cleared, the operator reverses the sequence and lowers the leaves down to their locked resting position and allows street traffic to flow again.

Figure 2.3 Bascule Bridge (Across the Intracoastal waterway at Pompano, Florida, USA)

2.7.3 Swing Bridges

Swing bridges rotate their movable spans on a pedestal in a horizontal plane around a vertical axis to a position parallel with the marine channel, allowing vessels to move past on either side. When in operation, the movable span is supported in one of two methods; center

17 bearing on a vertical pin or pivot, or rim bearing on a circular girder called a drum, which in turning moves on rollers. The rim bearing design was used for wider and heavier movable spans. The pivot may be in the center of the span, forming a truss of two equal arms which balance each other and give two openings for navigation; or it may be at one side of the center, forming a truss with unequal arms, with the short arm counterweighted to balance the bridge about its pivot; or there may be two pivots, in which case a locking arrangement has to be provided at the center where the arms meet, and the shore ends anchored to the masonry, when the bridge is closed. The superstructure of swing span bridges can be trusses or girders, and historically they reflected the prevailing practices of fixed bridge construction with the specific type and design matched to the length and capacity needed at the crossing. Swing span bridges are rotated by a series of reducing gear sets and a rack and pinion drive. Turning is carried out electro-mechanically by means of toothed rim and pinion or electro-hydraulically by means of horizontal hydraulic cylinders acting onto the pivot. Swing bridges are best adapted for long and heavy spans; they have been built for single- and double-track railroad structures up to 520-ft. span, and for four- track structures up to 390-ft. span. Swing bridges are slower to operate than other types of movable bridges and many have been replaced with bascule or vertical lift bridges.

Figure 2.4 Swing Bridge (Across the Shatt-al-Arab River, at Basrah, Iraq)

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Overview

As stated earlier, the primary objective of this study is to develop a user cost model for the estimation of the benefit, to road users in the state of Florida, of replacing movable bridges. The development of the user cost model therefore required the review of vessel and vehicular traffic data specific to the state. Some information regarding the past and current vessel traffic was available from the FDOT Bridge Opening Logs. This information however did not provide data on the heights of vessels using the waterways or the duration of openings, which are critical for the analyses of different bridge replacement options. The methodology for the research therefore required a two-stage approach: (1) Data Collection and (2) Formulation of the models. The data collection process was conducted through a search for and review of existing data on the volume and characteristics of vehicular and vessel traffic and field data collection at selected bridge sites. The field data collection comprised of a vessel traffic survey to collect data on bridge openings durations, count of vessels and height distribution of vessels using the state’s waterways. This was conducted at selected study sites from where data representative of the state was determined to be best obtained based on some set criteria, which included the geographical location of the bridge, frequency of bridge openings, vessel and vehicular volumes. The formulation of models involved traffic flow analysis, regression and other statistical analysis performed on the data to obtain the best functional relationships to describe the data.

3.2 Data Collection The existing data on the bridges, the vessel volume and bridge openings were obtained from the FDOT Bridge Opening Logs and National Bridge Inventory (NBI). Data on vehicular traffic was obtained from the Florida Traffic Information (FTI) and also from the NBI. The FDOT Bridge Openings logs contained information such as the total monthly number of bridge openings for each movable bridge and the total number of vessels for which the openings were made. The data obtained was for the period January 1981 to May 2001.

The National Bridge Inventory (NBI) is an inventory of over 600,000 bridges on public roads throughout the United States and is maintained by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Florida had a total of 147 bridges recorded in the NBI. For each recorded bridge the NBI has 122 unique coded fields that describe the bridge in terms of age, location, structural characteristics, traffics characteristics, operating characteristics, and maintenance and inspections history (FHWA, 1995). Relevant structural characteristics noted for the purpose of this study included the type and materials of construction, load-rating capacities and number of bridge spans. Relevant traffic characteristics noted for the purpose of this study included the annual average daily traffic on the roadway carried by the bridge (AADT), percentage of trucks in traffic stream, and future AADT projections. Relevant operating characteristics noted include the number of lanes on the bridge, type of service on the bridge, navigable vertical under clearance, and horizontal clearance on the bridge. The Florida Traffic Information provided information on the characteristics of the vehicular traffic on the roadways such as the peak hour factor, directional distribution of traffic and the hourly distribution the daily traffic volumes. It also provided updated information on the current AADT on the roadways. The sites for the field data collection were selected based on the analysis of available site- specific vehicular and vessel data and other statewide considerations such as the geographical locations of the movable bridges and the type of functional class of roadways served by the movable bridges. The methodology for the site selection and field data collection is described as follows:

3.2.1 Preliminary Site Selection Reconnaissance visits were made to several movable bridge sites to observe the operations of the movable bridges and the characteristics of bridge openings and closures. It was also aimed at helping to select appropriate sites for the study. A total of six (6) bridges sites in District 2 were visited. The Impulse Laser range finder, a hand-held laser equipment that has been selected for prior use in the measure of truck heights, was tried during the reconnaissance to ascertain its effectiveness for obtaining reliable data.

The FDOT Bridge Opening Logs were initially reviewed to aid in the selection of study sites where potentially relevant and adequate data could be obtained. The following primary data from the logs considered for each bridge site during this stage of the analysis were: • Number of Vessels using the waterway over which bridge spans • Frequency of openings The number of vessels and frequency of openings gave an indication of level of usage of the bridge openings. Sites that were selected based on the above considerations were further analyzed for a second stage of selection based on: • The average daily traffic (ADT) on the roadway carried by the bridge • Functional class of the inventory route and • Geographical location of the sites in Florida The model to be developed from the data collected is to be used as a state bridge management tool, therefore it was deemed important that the data, as much as possible, should be representative of the functional classes of roadways carried by movable bridges, and also not be geographically biased. A ratio of the number of vessels to the number of openings obtained from the FDOT Bridge Opening Logs was computed for each month of the entire period. The ratio of vessels per opening was used as a measure of determining the level of vessel traffic through the bridge. A ratio of 2.00 vessels per opening was used as the minimum threshold value to sort out the data for further analysis. This procedure provided a list of 70, out of the total of 152 movable bridges in the inventory, which have had at least a monthly average of 2 vessels demanding passage at each of its opening. A detailed analysis was then made for each of these bridges to review issues such as the actual monthly opening frequencies and number of vessels that result in the ratios of 2.00 or more and how recent were these ratios. Several bridges were eliminated through this detailed analysis because their high vessels- bridge openings ratios occurred mostly between 1981 and 1990 and had lower ratios thereafter. Other bridges were also eliminated because despite having high ratios, the actual number of vessels and frequency of openings were low. The remaining bridges were sorted out into their respective districts and subjected to a further selection process based on their roadway AADT. Bridges with low vehicular volumes were eliminated because the study sites were intended to reflect areas where the impact of the openings was significant.

3.2.2 Final Site Selection Final selection was then made based to reflect the geographical distribution of movable bridges in the state of Florida, and the distribution of the state’s movable bridges relative to the type of movable span operation (bascule, swing or lift), functional classes of the roadways carried by the bridge and the set regulations for daily bridge opening frequencies. According to the 2002 inventory, Florida presently has a total of 152 movable bridges with 91% of them being of the bascule type, 7% swing and 2% lift. Of the state’s seven (7) districts, district 4, with Fort Lauderdale as the district capital, has a total of 49 whiles District 3 has 1. Details of these distributions, which were obtained from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Bridge Management System’s Bridge Inventory Report for June 2002, are given in table 3.1.

Table 3.1 - Distribution of Movable Bridges (FDOT 2002)

TYPE DISTRICT LIFT BASCULE SWING Total 01- BARTOW 1 22 2 25 02- LAKE CITY 1 8 1 10 03- CHIPLEY 0 1 0 1 04- FT. LAUDERDALE 0 47 2 49 05- DELAND 0 12 4 16 06- MIAMI 0 27 1 28 07- TAMPA 1 21 1 23 Total 3 138 11 152

160 140

120 100

No. of Bridges 60 40

20 0 LIFT BASCULE SWING Type of Movable Bridge

Figure 3.1 Distribution of Florida’s Movable Bridges by Type

NO.BRIDGES OF 10

06- MIAMI

-FT. 04 07- TAMPA 05- DELAND 05- 03- CHIPLEY 01- BARTOW LAUDERDALE 02-CITY LAKE

DISTRICT

Figure 3.2 Distribution of Florida’s Movable Bridges by FDOT District

Roadway Functional Classes: The FDOT and FWHA classify roadways into twelve functional classes based on their mobility and access characteristics (Table 3.2). A study of the functional classes of the roadways carried by movable bridges showed that most movable bridges, about 86%, carry roadways that serve urban vehicular traffic roadways i.e. Roadways with functional classes between 11 and 19. The distributions of the functional classes are shown in table 3.2 and figure 3.3 below. A study of the bridge opening log sheet data also indicated that most of the bridges carrying rural roadways, i.e. roadways with functional classes between 1 and 10 have relatively lower vessel traffic and consequently fewer openings. For the study therefore bridges carrying urban roadways, i.e. Roadways with functional classes between 11 and 19 were selected, specifically functional classes 14, 16 and 17, which together represent about 80% of all the various roadways carried by movable bridges in the State of Florida.

Table 3.2 Roadway Functional Classification (Source: FHWA/FDOT)

Functional Class Description 01 Principal Arterial-Interstate 02 Principal Arterial-Other 06 Minor Arterial Rural 07 Major Collector 08 Minor Collector 09 Local 11 Principal Arterial-Interstate 12 Principal Arterial-Other Freeways or Expressways 14 Other Principal Arterial Urban 16 Minor Arterial 17 Collector 19 Local

Table 3.3 Distribution of Florida’s Movable Bridges by Roadway Functional Class

Functional Class Number of Bridges Percentage 2 9 6.1 6 4 2.7 7 6 4.1 9 1 0.7 11 1 0.7 12 2 1.4 14 36 24.3 16 59 39.9 17 24 16.2 19 6 4.1

50 40

30 No. of Bridges 20

0 2 6 7 9 111214161719 Roadway Functional Class

Figure 3.3 Distribution of Florida’s Movable Bridges by Roadway Functional Class

Bridge Opening Regulations: Movable bridges are operated under the following three types of opening regulations: (1) Opening on signal or demand, (2) Special or timed and (3) Advance Notice. Under the open-on-signal regulation the bridge tender opens the bridge on the approach of any vessel and keeps it open till all approaching vessels have passed through the bridge opening. This mode of operation can be compared to the operation of a signalized intersection, where the vessels on the waterway are treated with uttermost priority. The bridge therefore remains closed for vehicular movement only when there are no approaching vessels or vessels using the opened bridge. Vessels therefore experience almost no delays at such movable bridges. Under the special regulations the bridge opening is regulated through a cycle of opening intervals similar to the operation of a semi-actuated signalized intersection, where the major movement is the vehicular traffic movement over the bridge and the minor movement is that of the vessels under the bridge and the servicing of the minor (vessel) traffic, when present, is limited to set times. Cycle duration of 15-minutes, 20-minutes and 30-minutes and one-hour may usually used depending on the amount of vessel traffic on the waterway and volume of vehicular traffic on the roadway. Some bridges have a combination of the cycle times such as hourly opening cycles on week days and 20- minute cycles at weekends or 30-minute cycles on weekdays and 15-minute cycles on weekends. Some bridges also have special Open-on- demand regulations, which require an advance notice to be given to the bridge tenders at least a minimum of a set time before the arrival of the vessel at the bridge. Advance notification times may range from 2 hours to 48 hours. 5 movable bridges in the State of Florida are currently being operated on an advance notice regulation. The distribution of the various opening regulation under which the movable bridges in Florida are operated is given in the table 3.4 below:

Table 3.4 Distribution of Florida’s Movable Bridges by Type of Opening Regulations

TYPE OF REGULATION NO. OF BRIDGES PERCENTAGE OPEN-ON-SIGNAL 44 29 SPECIAL REGULATION 104 68 ADVANCE NOTICE 5 3

120

100

Bridges of No. 40

0 SPECIA L OPEN ON SIGNA L A DV A NCE NOTICE Type of Bridge Opening Regulation

Figure 3.4 Distribution of Bridge Opening Regulations

Based on the criteria and methodology discussed above an analysis of the existing data obtained from the National Bridge Inventory (NBI), the FDOT Bridge Report, and the FDOT Movable bridges opening log, twelve bridges sites were selected as potential study sites out of which six were eventually used as data collection sites.

Table 3.5 List of Initial Potential Study Sites

Structure Highway County Functional Number Agency Features Intersected Class of District Inv. Rte. 1 720005 2 Duval ORTEGA RIVER 17 2 720068 2 Duval INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY 14 3 720069 2 Duval INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY 14 4 780074 2 St. Johns ICWW MATANZAS RIVER, ST. AUG 16 5 860011 4 Broward SR A1A OVER HILLSBORO 16 6 860060 4 Broward I.C.W.W 17 7 930004 4 Palm Beach I.C.C.W. 14 8 930064 4 Palm Beach SR-806 OVER ICWW 12 9 930157 4 Palm Beach INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY 14 10 150050 7 Pinellas INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY 16 11 150027 7 Pinellas JOHNS PASS BOCACIEGA BAY 16 12 150076 7 Pinellas JOHNS PASS BOCACIEGA BAY 16

Table 3.6 Inventory Data on Potential Study Bridge Sites.

Structure Type of Highway County Facility Carried By Location Functional AADT Number Design / Agency Features Intersected Structure Class of (FTI) Constr. District Inv. Rte. -2001 1 720005 Bascule 2 Duval ORTEGA RIVER SR-211 SR 211 OVER ORTEGA RIVER 17 5800 2 720068 Bascule 2 Duval INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY US-90 W.B. (SR-212) U.S.-90 / INTRACOASTAL WY 14 19047 3 720069 Bascule 2 Duval INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY US-90 E.B. (SR-212) U.S.-90 / INTRACOASTAL WY 14 19047 4 780074 Bascule 2 St. Johns ICWW MATANZAS RIVER. ST AUG SR-A-1-A (LIONS) IN ST. AUGUSTINE 16 23000 5 860011 Bascule 4 Broward SR A1A OVER HILLSBORO SR-A1A OCEAN BLVD AT HILSBRO INL 16 9900 6 860060 Bascule 4 Broward I.C.W.W SR-844 (14 ST.CSWY) 300' W OF A1A & E OF SR-5 17 13500 7 930004 Bascule 4 Palm Beach I.C.C.W. SR-5 (US-1) 1.6 KM SOUTH OF SR 786 14 24500 8 930064 Bascule 4 Palm Beach SR-806 OVER ICWW SR-806 800' W OF A1A & E OF SR-5 12 12500 9 930157 Bascule 4 Palm Beach INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY SR A1A 200 M. W.OF SR 5 ON A1A 14 21500 10 150050 Bascule 7 Pinellas INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY SR-682 5.3KM WEST OF US 19 16 17900 11 150027 Bascule 7 Pinellas JOHNS PASS BOCACIEGA BAY SR - 699 S.B. (GULF BLVD) 2.7KM S OF SR 666 16 10500 12 150076 Bascule 7 Pinellas JOHNS PASS BOCACIEGA BAY SR - 699 N.B. (GULF BLVD) 2.7KM S OF SR 666 16 10500

Table 3.6 (Continued)

Structure Year Nearest Nav. Vert. Nav. Hor. Opening Regulation Number Built FTI Station Clearance. Clearance. (m) (m) 1 720005 1927 72-0188 2.7 16.1 No special regulations 2 720068 1949 72-0062 11.2 27.4 No special regulations 3 720069 1949 72-0062 11.2 27.4 No special regulations 4 780074 1927 78-0114 7.6 23.1 B/n 7am -6pm opens only on :00, :30, Need not open at 8:00 am, 12 noon and 5:30 pm 5 860011 1966 86-0311 4.0 18.3 B/n 7am &6pm opens :00,: 15, :30, :45 6 860060 1967 86-0482 8.5 27.0 B/n 7am &6pm opens: 15,: 45 7 930004 1956 93-0756 7.6 29.0 Weekdays b/n 7-9am &4-7pm opens :00 &: 30, Weekends b/n 8am-6pm opens :00, :20, :40. 8 930064 1952 93-0681 2.7 24.4 Open on signal 9 930157 1938 93-0087 5.2 2.4 Open on signal 10 150050 1962 15-3075 9.3 13.4 B/n 7am &7pm opens :00, :20,: 40 11 150027 1971 15-0017 7.0 18.3 Open on signal 12 150076 1971 15-0017 6.0 18.3 Open on signal

Table 3.7 Vessel Traffic Data on Potential Study Bridge Sites*

Monthly Volume Bridge No. Avg. Daily Avg. Daily Peak Period L-lowest YEAR Vessels Openings

H-Highest 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1 720005 L 743 830 968 99 861 Mar-Nov H 1874 1953 1916 1696 1780 45 31 2 720068 L 148 132 114 61 59 Apr-May, Oct-Nov H 710 664 752 536 406 9 7 3 720069 L 148 132 114 61 59 Apr-May, Oct-Nov H 710 664 752 536 406 9 7 4 780074 L 509 347 391 411 369 Apr-May, Oct-Nov 26 15 H 1252 1309 1417 1381 1219 5 860011 L 1070 1966 2101 2502 2038 All Year 109 44 H 4070 4988 4369 4519 5312 6 860060 L 1392 1099 1396 1408 1146 Nov-May 68 30 H 3041 2551 2700 2584 2693 7 930004 L 432 558 522 518 446 Nov-May 33 21 H 1296 1327 1300 1436 1278 8 930064 L 499 511 502 716 537 Oct-May 36 23 H 1183 1471 1647 1516 1669 9 930157 L 454 706 585 600 571 Oct-May 38 22 H 1842 1784 1884 2016 2112 10 150050 L 447 485 692 669 375 32 19 Oct-Nov, Mar-May H 1499 2024 1345 1271 1426 11 150027 L 583 594 691 691 630 34 26 Oct-Nov, Mar-May H 1607 1304 1433 1515 1381 12 150076 L 583 594 691 691 630 34 26 Oct-Nov, Mar-May H 1607 1304 1433 1515 1381 *Based on the summary of the available vessel traffic data for five (5) years; the lowest and highest monthly vessel traffic volume for each year have been indicated.

780074

150027&150076

150050

930004

860060

Figure 3.5 Final Selected Study Sites for Movable Bridge Survey

3.2.3 The Intracoastal Waterway The Movable bridge inventory report indicated that more than half the movable bridges in Florida carry roadways over the Intracoastal Waterway, a brief description of which is given in the following paragraphs. The Intracoastal Waterway (ICCW) is a 2,640-mile federally and locally maintained system of natural water bodies and connecting canals paralleling the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States. The purpose of the waterway is to provide a protected environment for vessels moving coastwise, particularly shallow-draft commercial and recreational vessels. It was originally envisioned as a continuous navigable waterway that would stretch from Trenton, New Jersey through Miami, Florida, to Brownsville, Texas but the channel through northwest Florida that was needed to join the two coasts was never completed. Therefore the ICCW is now in two separate sections: the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW). The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway is a 1,391-mile channel between Trenton, New Jersey, and Miami, Florida. The channels from Trenton to the St. Johns River in Florida are 12 feet deep, 90 feet wide through lands and generally 150 or 300 feet wide in open waters. The channel south from the St. Johns River was authorized to be constructed as a 12-foot by 125-foot channel throughout, but was modified to a 10-foot depth from Fort Pierce south to Miami. By way of this waterway, one can travel the length of the Atlantic coast without ever actually venturing out into the Atlantic. Boats pass along rivers and streams and sounds and bays and swamps, all interconnected, and dredged to a close to constant depth.

The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway is a 1,100-mile long channel between Brownsville, Texas and St. Marks, Florida, south of Tallahassee. The channel is 150 feet wide and 12 feet deep. From Tarpon Springs to south to Fort Myers, a distance of 150 Miles, there is 9-foot channel that is officially known as the Intracoastal Waterway but generally considered as part of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. The construction of the waterway from St. Marks to Tarpon Springs was never constructed and as a consequence, boats operating between the two places must enter the open waters of the Gulf for 135 miles. From Fort Myers on Florida’s west coast to Stuart on the east coast, the 8-foot deep Okeechobee waterway provides a linkage between the GIWW and the AIWW. Maintenance of the State of Florida’s portion of the ICWW is provided by the Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers in cooperation with the Florida Inland Navigation District (www.aicw.org), which was created in 1927 by the Florida Legislature as the local sponsor of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway project from Jacksonville to Miami. 30

Figure 3.6 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway

3.2.4 Vessel Height Measuring Equipment

The equipment selected for collection of vessel height data was the Impulse Laser Range Finder. The rangefinder is a lightweight distance, angle and height-measuring device and could be operated either hand-held or fixed to a bracket and mounted on a tripod. The device uses a laser beam to determine distances and angles and calculates the height of the object above a chosen reference point as illustrated in figure 3.7 below. It was found appropriate for measuring vessel heights due to its lightweight and ease of operation and handling. It can be used to accurately measure distances and heights from distances up to over 500 feet from the object. It can also be effectively used to measure heights and distances of moving objects. These attributes made the Impulse ideal for taking the heights of the vessels, most of which may be in motion through the bridge, at the time of height measurement. The equipment provided a versatile, economical and accurate measurement within the requirements of this study. A calibration test was performed on the instrument to determine its level of accuracy by taking the height of a known object repeatedly at various distances from the object.

Figure 3.7 Laser Level Operation (Laser Technology, 1998)

Figure 3.8 Laser Level [ASC Scientific, 2002]

3.3 Vehicular and Vessel Characteristics Data

As discussed earlier, five geographically spread locations were selected for data collection, with one of the locations having twin bridges. The data collected included primarily vehicular and vessel characteristics relevant to the development of the user cost models, including vessel count in queue, vessel heights, vehicular count in queue, and bridge opening times and duration of each opening. At one of the locations -- Bridge ID 780074 (Bridge of Lions), very little vessel traffic was observed during the data collection period of January 10, to January 12, 2003. The data for this location is therefore not reported but the site is briefly described. Reasonable size of data were collected at the other four sites, listed as follows:

1. Bridge ID 860060 (N.E. 14th Street Causeway) for Study Period 12/13/02 – 12/19/02. 2. Bridge ID 930004 (Parker) for Study Period: 1/17/03 – 1/19/03. 3. Bridge IDs150027 & 150076 (Johns Pass) for Study Period: 3/28/03 – 3/29/03. 4. Bridge ID 150050 (Pinellas Bay Way) for Study Period: 5/8/03 – 5/11/03.

This section has been organized to first present for each site, a site description, a brief report on the survey and then graphical summaries of collected data. 33

3.3.1. Bridge ID 860060 (N.E. 14th Street Causeway) for Study Period 12/13/02 – 12/19/02

Bridge No. 860060, locally named as the 14th street Causeway Bridge, is a double leaf bascule bridge that carries the four-lane divided SR 844, locally named as N.E. 14th Street, across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW) at Pompano Beach in Broward County, FL. The street connects SR A1A and US1. SR A1A is located about 800 feet to the east of the bridge whiles US1 is about 2000 feet to the west of the bridge. There is a boat building and repair yard located about 800 feet north of the bridge. On the north west section of the bridge is a recreational park and a parking lot with a boat ramp. There is another movable bridge, No. 860157, about a Mile south of the 14th street causeway and this carries SR 814, Atlantic Boulevard, across the ICWW. Opening times of the two bridges are staggered at 15 minutes intervals to allow vessels traversing one to arrive at the other in time for an opening. The 14th street causeway bridge has the following opening regulations: 7am – 6pm: Bridge opens on the quarter hour and on the three-quarter hour. It also opens on demand for US Public Vessels, Tugs in Tow and Vessels in Distress. 6pm – 7am: Bridge opens on demand. The Atlantic Boulevard Bridge opens on the hour and on the half-hour. During the period of the data collection at the bridge, under clearance for the vessels using the waterway were recorded to be between 14 and 16 feet depending on the rise and fall of the tide. The waterway serves both recreational and commercial vessels. A lot of small vessels such as personal watercrafts, Rowing Dinghies, canoes, ski boats and small fishing boats that needed no opening were observed to use the waterway. Coast Guard and the local Sheriff Patrol boats were on regular patrols. Barges with heavy construction equipment and materials were observed to travel upstream and back for 3 days of the seven-day study. The bridge was usually opened on at their approach and stayed open for longer periods than the average for each of the openings due to the slow movement of the barges. The 14th N. E. Street is classified as a functional class 17 roadway, and is a collector for the minor arterial SR- A1A. It has an estimated Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) of 13500.Queue lengths observed ranged from 500 feet to over 1200 feet. Vehicles at several times in the day backup all the way onto SR A1A, which being a two- lane highway have through vehicles being delayed by turning vehicles which have also been held up due to the bridge opening. Some vehicles traveling south on SR-A1A and initially intending to turn onto the N.E.

14th Street were seen backing out of the queue and rerouting back onto SR- A1A to use the Atlantic Boulevard as a detour route.

An annual boat parade is held along the waterway every year and this year’s event was held on the Sunday of the data collection week. Sundays are usually one of the busiest days for vessel traffic but the scheduled boat parade resulted in relatively low vessel traffic. An interaction with the bridge tender revealed that most boats were waiting upstream to join the parade. The bridge opened for the parade at 6 pm and stayed open for duration of about 75 minutes. A total of 52 vessels were observed as part of the parade out of an expected number of 150 vessels. The summaries of recorded data from the boat survey are shown in Figures 3.9,3.10 and 3.11. Detailed daily data are given in Appendix A.

100 90 80 70

60 50 40

No. Vessels of 30 20 10

15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 Height (ft)

Figure 3.9 Distribution of Vessel Heights – 860060

No. of Vessels 20

0 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7

Time Interval

Figure 3.10 Hourly Distribution of vessels – Bridge 860060

100 90

80 70 60

50 40 Vessel Height (ft) Vessel Height 30

20 10 0

8-9 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 9-10 12-1

10-11 11-12 Time Interval

Figure 3.11 Hourly Distributions of Tallest Vessel Heights - Bridge 860060

3.3.2. Bridge ID 780074 (Lions) for Study Period 1/10/03 – 1/12/03

Bridge 780074, named as the Bridge of Lions is a single leaf bascule that carries SR A1A in St. Augustine in St. Johns County, across the Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW). It is about a 1500 ft long bridge with a two-lane undivided roadway over the bridge section, which opens up into four-lane divided sections on either side of it. Long high fixed bridges can be seen up north and down south of the bridge. The northern bridge carries SR A1A back across the ICWW at nearby town of Vilano, whiles the southern bridge carries SR 312 across the ICWW.

During the period of the data collection at the bridge, under clearance for the vessels using the waterway was recorded to be between 23 and 27 feet depending on the rise and fall of the tide. Generally, vessels under 23 feet required no opening but a couple of vessels with heights well below the under clearance available at their time of arrival at the bridge waited for the bridge opening. This resulted in extra or unnecessary delay to vehicles using the roadway.

The bridge is regulated to open on the hour and on the half-hour between 7 am and 6pm each day but opens on demand for Coast Guard vessels, Tugboats with Barges and for Commercial Vessels. It does not have to open at 8 am, 12pm and 5pm.It is manned 24 hours each day. It has a wide holding area for vessels and 45 vessels south of the bridge and 15 vessels north of the bridge were anchored for the entire the 3-day study period. There’s also a marine bay on the south side of the bridge. Information obtained from the bridge tenders indicated that vessel traffic was usually low at the time of year due to the cold weather. Sailors preferred to stay down south of the Intracoastal Waterway where it is warmer. This the researchers found out to be true, from the very low number of vessels and number of openings recorded during the study period. The temperature during the study days ranged between 370 and 430 F. Pedestrian traffic was quite high throughout each day; the walkway at the sides of the bridges seemed to be a favorite route for strollers and joggers. A lot of cyclists were also observed.

SR A1A, which is carried by the bridge, is classified as functional class 16,minor arterial roadway. It has an estimated Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) of 13500.Queue lengths observed ranged from 700 feet to over 1500 feet.

3.2.3. Bridge ID 930004 (Parker) for Study Period 1/17/03 – 1/19/03 Bridge No. 930004, locally named as the Parker Bridge, is located in North Palm Beach, Florida and carries SR-5 (US-1), which is a 4-lane divided roadway, across the Intracoastal Waterway. It is a double leaf bascule bridge with a maximum under clearance of about 25 feet. The bridge is about 500 feet long with a waterway of about 350 feet wide. Peak season of boat traffic on the waterway is between November and April and special opening regulations have been set up for that period as follows: Monday – Friday: Bridge opens at 7:00, 7:30, 8:00,8:30 am B/n 9:00am –4:30 pm, every 20 minutes on the hour At 4:30 pm, 5:30pm, 6:00pm, 7:00pm Weekends and Holidays: Bridge opens b/n 8:am –6:00pm, every 20 minutes.

A notice posted on the bridge cautions sailors to lower their antennae and out rigs in order avoid unnecessary openings. A possible imposition of a $1,000 fine may be set against violators of this order. The researchers observed a strict compliance of this order by sailors and the frequency of openings were greatly reduced. During the period of the data collection at the bridge, under clearance for the vessels using the waterway were recorded to be between 21 and 25 feet depending on the rise and fall of the tide. Weather forecasted for the period of the study indicated a not to favorable weather for sailing and this resulted in a fewer boats on the water than anticipated for a weekend in that period of the year. The weather turned out to be much warmer than predicted but the previous warning had obviously resulted in a change of plans for the regular weekend sailors. SR-5 (US-1) is classified as a functional class 14 roadway, a principal arterial and has a high estimated Average Annual Daily Traffic of 24500. Numbers of vehicles that were affected at each bridge opening ranged from 60 at periods of low flows, to over 200 at high flows. There is an intersection about 600 feet north of the bridge and the traffic signal was observed to be coordinated with the traffic signal at the bridge. Through and southbound vehicles wishing to go over the bridge therefore experience an extended red time when the bridge is open. This results in very few vehicles occupying the roadway section between the bridge and the intersection and the intersection is free from any blockade by stopped vehicles. Vehicles turning into the intersection from the east and west are then coordinated to use the intersection.

Between 1:21 pm and 2: 30 pm on the Friday of the survey period, the researchers observed an irregular happening; on five different occasions the bridge opening signal gates dropped and stopped vehicles for periods ranging between 37 seconds to 3 minutes but the bridge did not open on all of those occasions. 2 vessels were held up all this while. Then at 2:41 pm the gates signals dropped again but this time only one leaf on the south side of the bridge was raised. The other leaf on that same south side was raised after about 7 minutes. The two leafs on the north side stayed down, so the vessels held up in the holding area had to use the half-opening on the south side. It took a total of over 15 minutes from the dropping of the gates to get the vessels to pass and to reopen the roadway for vehicles to resume their travel. Flow in the south direction resumed to normal after about 7 minutes but the north bound traffic completely broke down and normal flow did not resume till after the next opening about 25 minutes later. This was due to the extended delay period coupled with the presence of the signalized intersection located about 600 ft from the bridge. This caused another extended delay during the next opening because vehicles had backed up from the intersection all the way onto the bridge and beyond. Therefore at the drop of the gates, the bridge tender had to wait for a couple of minutes to allow stopped vehicles on the bridge to be cleared before the bridge was opened. The summaries of recorded data from the boat survey are shown in Figures 3.12,3.13 and 3.14. Detailed daily data are shown in Appendix A.

14 12 10

8 No. of Vessels 6

4 2 0

20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60 60-65 Height (ft)

Figure 3.12 Distribution of Vessel Heights – Bridge 930004

No.of Vessels 5

1 -2 2 -3 3 -4 4 -5 5 -6 12 -1 10 9 - 10 - 11 10 - 12 11 - Time Interval

Figure 3.13 Hourly Distribution of vessels – Bridge 930004

Vessel Height (ft) 20

10 0

1 -2 2 -3 3 -4 4 -5 5 -6 12 -1 12 9 - 10 10 - 11 10 - 12 11 Time Interval

Figure 3.14 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessel Heights -Bridge 930004

3.2.4. Bridge IDs 150027 & 150076 (Johns Pass) for Study Period 3/28/03 – 3/29/03

Bridge Nos. 150027 &150076, locally named as the Johns Pass Bridge are located at Madeira Beach in Pinellas County, FL. They are a set of twin-span bascule bridges that carries the four-lane divided SR 699, locally named as the Gulf Boulevard, across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), at its outlet into the Gulf of Mexico Ocean. The Gulf Boulevard, classified as a functional class 16 roadway, is a coastal route serving several beaches along the Gulf of Mexico in the Pinellas County. It has an estimated Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) of 10500 in each direction. The Johns Pass Bridge is regulated to open on demand at all times in the day. Vessels are therefore not usually held up in the bridges holding area as the bridge is opened on their approach. During the period of the data collection at the bridge, under clearance for the vessels using the waterway were recorded to be between 23 and 25 feet depending on the rise and fall of the tide. The waterway was observed to serve a lot of recreational vessels such as personal watercrafts, Rowing Dinghies, canoes, water-ski boats and small fishing boats which needed no opening The bridges’ opening regulations gives no priority to vehicles even at peak hours and this results in long queues ranging from 1000 feet to over 2000 feet. At peak hours of vessel traffic the bridges were observed to stay closed for periods as short as five minutes in between openings. These scenarios resulted in some vehicles being delayed by two consecutive bridge openings. The summaries of recorded data from the boat survey are shown in Figures 3.15, 3.16 and 3.17. Detailed daily data are shown in Appendix A.

15 No. of Vessels of No. 10

20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60 Height (ft)

Figure 3.15 Distribution of Vessel Heights – 150027/150076 41

20 18 16

14 12 10 8

No.Vessels of 6 4 2 0 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6

Time Interval

Figure 3.16 Hourly Distribution of vessels – Bridge 150027&150076

(ft) Height Vessel 20

0 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 Time Interval

Figure 3.17 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessel Heights – Bridge 150027&150076

3.2.5. Bridge ID 150050 (Pinellas Bay Way) for Study Period: 5/8/03 – 5/11/03

Bridge No. 150050, is a double leaf bascule bridge that carries the two-lane SR 682, locally named as Pinellas BayWay across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway at St. Pete Beach in Pinellas County, FL. The Pinellas BayWay is classified as a functional class 16 roadway and it has an estimated Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) of 15800. There is a Toll Plaza located about 550 feet to the west end of the bridge. The 14th street causeway bridge has the following opening regulations: 7am – 7pm: Bridge opens on the hour, 20 minutes on the hour and 40 minutes on the hour. It also opens on demand for US Public Vessels, Tugs in Tow and Vessels in Distress. 7pm – 7am: Bridge opens on demand. During the period of the data collection at the bridge, under clearance for the vessels using the waterway were recorded to be between 21 and 22 feet. The waterway serves both recreational and commercial vessels. A lot of small vessels that needed no opening were observed to use the waterway. One barge with heavy construction equipment and materials was observed during the survey period. Queue lengths observed ranged from 800 feet to over 2000 feet. During peak periods stopped vehicles backed up into the signalized intersection located about 2500 feet to the east of the bridge and affected the operation of the intersection. Operation at the Toll Plaza was also affected during the extended bridge openings when vehicular traffic backed up to the entrance of the plaza. The summaries of recorded data from the boat survey are shown in Figures 3.18, 3.19 and 3.20. Detailed daily data are shown in Appendix A.

40 35 30 25

15 No.Vessels of

10 5 0 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 Height (f t)

Figure 3.18 Distribution of Vessel Heights – 150050 43

No. ofVessels 10

8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7

Time Interval

Figure 3.19 Hourly Distribution of vessels – Bridge 150050

80.00

70.00

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

Vessel Height (ft) Height Vessel

20.00

10.00

0.00

8-9 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 9-10 12-1 10-11 11-12 Time Interval

Figure 3.20 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessel Heights – Bridge 150050

Sample photographs from the data collection exercise are presented in the following pages.

Figure 3.21 Vessel Height Measurement at Bridge 860060

Figure 3.22 Barge with Construction Equipment at Bridge 860060

Figure 3.23 Vessel Passage at Bridge 860060

Figure 3.24 Vessel Passage at Bridge 930004

Figure 3.25 Initial Auto Queue at Bridge 930004

Figure 3.26 Initial Vessel Queue at Bridge 930004

Figure 3.27 Auto Queue at Bridge 780074

Figure 3.28 Auto Queue at Bridge 860060

48 3.4 Formulation of Models The operation of movable bridge openings involves the interaction of two types of traffic, vessel and vehicular traffic. The extent of vessel delay at each bridge primarily depends on the bridge’s regulated opening times. The extent of vehicular delay at each bridge on the other hand is primarily dependent on the vessel queue present at each bridge opening. The formulation of the model for estimation of user delay cost to vehicular traffic therefore first required the modeling and estimation of delay parameters from the vessel traffic such as the number of vessels in queue and the average time required to service each vessel at each bridge opening.

3.4.1. Vessel Service Flow Rate The duration of roadway traffic blockage time is comprised of three elements: the amount of time taken for the mechanical operation of the movable spans of the bridge, the amount of time taken to operate the traffic control devices such as traffic signals and drop gates prior to and after opening and closing of the movable spans of the bridge and the time taken by vessels to move through the bridge opening. The total of these time elements is the service time for all vessels passing through the bridge at the opening. The average of this service time per vessel is termed as the vessel service flow rate. The vessel service flow rate was estimated from data obtained during the bridge survey and is given by the following formula: DurationDailyOpenings Vessel service flow rate, t = ∑ (3.1) ∑ NumberDailyVessels Where: DurationDailyOpenings is the recorded total duration of bridge openings for the day. NumberDailyVessels is the total number of vessels serviced through the openings.

The average service time calculated for each bridge site widely varied for each of the days. The values obtained for weekend days were however always lower than for weekdays. These different service times probably result from the lower vessel volumes on weekdays. The same amount of time is needed to raise and lower the movable bridge span and the traffic control devices regardless of the number of vessels passing underneath. The lower number of weekday vessels allocates this time to fewer vessels thus increasing the average service times.

49 Table 3.8 Calculated Daily Average Service Times (minutes/vessel) Bridge ID Day of week Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 860060 2.26 2.61 2.22 2.47 1.80 1.42 1.95 930004 - - - - 3.83 2.98 2.51 150027/76 - - - - 3.54 2.74 - 150050 - - - 1.97 2.45 1.80 1.74

The lowest values, 1.42 minutes (85 seconds) for the weekend and 2.21 (133 seconds) minutes for the weekday, were obtained from data collected at Bridge 860060 and this can be attributed to the higher volume of vessel traffic and the longer survey period over which the data was collected. The average service time of 1.42 minutes per vessel was therefore selected for use in the development of the user cost model. A regression analyses was also conducted with the values of the average roadway blockage duration versus the number of vessels serviced during the opening to obtain a model for the prediction of average service time for each bridge opening based on the number of vessels in queue. The best fitting curve obtained was that of a power function equation given as follows:

− .0 8261 t = 265.79 ∗ N q (3.2)

Where:

Nq is the number of vessels in queue t is the service time for each vessel in queue 265.79 is a constant coefficient obtained from the regression analyses

50 300

250

200

150

(Seconds) 100

Average Service Timeper Vessel 50

0 024681012 No. of Vessels Figure 3. 29 Predicted average service time (Power Function Model)

During the survey there were openings for up to 10 queued vessels. However most of the openings were for between 1 to 5 vessels. Analysis of the data obtained from the survey also indicated that the duration of bridge opening, for more than half of the times, was 5 minutes or less and it was mostly for the passage of between 1 and 5 vessels through the bridge opening. The results for Bridge ID 860060 are shown in figures 3.30 and 3.31 below. Results for the other bridge sites are shown in appendix D.

45 40 35 30 25

15 openings of No. 10

0 12345678910 Number of vessels per opening

Figure 3.30 Distribution of vessel count per bridge opening- Bridge ID 860060

20 No. openings. of

240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 Opening Time- (Seconds)

Figure 3.31 Distribution of Roadway blockage duration –Bridge ID 860060

This means that during times of low vessel traffic, such as weekday AM period, the duration of each bridge opening will be about the same for both the existing bridge and any higher-level movable bridge option. The frequency of bridge openings would however be reduced in the case of the higher-level movable option. To reflect actual operating characteristics in the analysis, five (5) minutes, which was the mode of the roadway blockage durations obtained from the analysis was used as the default roadway blockage duration for the passage of 5 or fewer vessels.

3.4.2 Estimation of Total Roadway Blockage time The total duration of roadway blockage during the bridge opening was formulated in the following two different ways, which are based on the service flow rates discussed above: 1. Use of a combination of the estimated average service time and the default five (5) minutes of minimum bridge opening duration for 5 or fewer vessels for which the total duration of roadway blockage will then be calculated as:

r = 5 minutes, Nq ≤ 5 (3.3)

r = Nq * t, Nq > 5

52 Where:

Nq is the number of vessels in queue t is the service time for each vessel in queue 2. Use of the formulated power function model for which the total duration of roadway blockage will be calculated as:

− .0 8261 r = N q ∗ 265 .79 ∗ N q (3.4)

Where:

Nq is the number of vessels in queue

The use of the average service time for more than 5 queued vessels gave estimated roadway blockage times that did not reflect the actual operating characteristics observed during the survey. This is attributable to the high average vessel service time of 1.42 minutes (85 seconds) obtained for the survey period, which is in turn also attributable to the low total number of vessels and openings recorded during the survey period. A previous related study conducted in 1991 gave an average service time of 0.98 minutes, from a higher vessel volumes and more frequent openings. One result of using a minimum opening time was that vehicle queues per bridge openings for the existing low-level movable bridge and any proposed high-level movable bridge during any off-peak hour opening were identical even though vessel queues were not. The actual daily total number of bridge openings will however be less for the higher replacement movable bridge. Bridge opening durations obtained from using the power function gave comparatively more realistic values than the other two service time formulations.

3.4.3. Directional Factor Most vessels were usually serviced at different periods during the bridge opening, however there were times when two vessels moving in opposite directions were serviced at about the same period. For simplicity in the analysis however, directional factor was not considered to estimate vessels delays. The service time for the total number of vessels held up on both sides of the bridge is assumed to be the same as would have been for the same total number of vessels held up on only side of the bridge.

53 3.4.4 Projected Vessel Traffic An analysis of existing data on bridge opening logs, which included data on the number of vessels serviced for each month, was made to determine the growth rate of vessels serviced by various movable bridges. The results of the analysis for the 20- year period, between 1981 and 2001, however did not reveal a uniform growth pattern. The analysis was however noted to be incomplete due to missing data on some of the bridges. A further analysis was therefore carried out by eliminating bridges with incomplete data for any of the years over the narrowed down period of 1991-2001. This resulted in the elimination of all but twenty (20) bridges, which had complete data for the period. All of the 20 bridges were in district four (4), which had the highest number of movable bridges in the state. Analysis was then made based on the projected linear growth rate formula: n Yf =Yp (1+ r) (3.5) Where:

Yf, is the forecasted number of vessels (after n years)

Yp, is the present number of vessels r, is the growth rate expressed as a fraction of 100. n, is the number of years of for which growth is projected

The above formula can be expressed as a linear equation by the introduction of logarithmic functions:

Log (Yf) = Log (Yp) + n *Log (1+r) (3.6)

A plot of Log (Number of Vessels) versus year yields straight-line graph with intercept

Log (Yp) and gradient Log (1+r). An antilog of the gradient minus (one) 1, gives the estimated growth rate, expressed as fraction of 100. The use of this procedure on the on the 20 bridges with complete data gave a range of growth rates of between –2.5% and +4 %. For the purpose of the study however a positive growth rate was assumed for all bridge sites. A previously related study carried out in 1991,also in district 4, reported estimated vessel growth rates of a low 1% and high 3%, based, among other things, on the feedback obtained from the interaction with professionals in the Marine industry. From the existing data and from observations made during data collection survey for this study the range 1% - 3%, was estimated

54 to be representative of the growth of vessel traffic. Projections of the hourly vessel traffic volumes obtained at each of the survey sites are given in Appendix C.

3.4.5 Estimation of Vessel Delay As discussed above, vessels traveling under bridges that open on signal experience almost no delays. These bridges make up about 29% of the Florida’s inventory of movable bridges. On the other hand however vessels that travel under bridges that open at preset times of the day and make up about 68% of the state’s inventory of movable bridges. These vessels experience significant delays the estimation of which is discussed as follows: Vessel delay is a function of time waiting for the bridge to open and the time spent clearing the queue. Assuming vessels arrive randomly at the bridge, the average vessel delay as a result of the bridge closure would be ½ of the bridge opening cycle length, or 15 minutes in the case of a 30-minute bridge opening cycle. The average vessel delay resulting from the vessel queue clearance for each vessel would be ½ of the duration of the bridge opening minus the time it would take for it to pass under the bridge, which is the estimated average service time. Total vessel delay per bridge opening would therefore be calculated as the sum of the delays from (1) the bridge opening cycle and (2) the queue clearance, multiplied by the number of the vessels in the queue. Vessel delay per bridge opening cycle = [(½ bridge opening cycle) + (queue clearance delay)] x (number of boats per cycle) (3.7)

Queue clearance delay = (½ bridge opening time – average service time) (3.8)

3.4.6 Vehicular Delay The methodology used in this study for the estimation of vehicular delay was an adoption and modification of the Dehghani et al’s empirical analysis method for estimating delays to boats and vehicular traffic caused by movable bridge openings, described in the literature review. The vehicular delay was estimated by applying a bottleneck concept developed by Adolf May. The concept assumes a bottleneck occurrence on the roadway during which the service flow rate of vehicles is reduced due to a blockade, which in this case would be the opening of the bridge and would be equal to zero since no vehicle is serviced by the bridge during the opening. The model

55 was formulated as a deterministic queue model with deterministic vehicle arrival and service rates, with a single service channel. The following equations were formulated: (sr − s ) Duration of queue, t = r (3.9) q s − q

Number of vehicles affected, N = q * tq (3.10)

r(q − s ) Average number of minutes of vehicle delay, d = r (3.11) 2q

r * N Total vehicle minutes of delay, D v = (3.12) 2

Where, q = average arrival rate of traffic (vehicles per minute) upstream of bottleneck s = saturation flow rate or capacity of uninterrupted flow in vehicles/ hour/lane sr = flow rate at bottleneck during blockade, = 0, when bridge is open to vessel traffic r = duration of roadway blockade (in minutes)

to = time for the queue to dissipate after the blockade is removed in minutes

tq = total elapsed time from when start of the blockade until free flow resumes. [t + to]

A summarized equation for the total vehicular delay is as follows: q ∗ r 2 ∗ s D = (3.13) v (2 s − q ) Vehicles are assumed to arrive at a uniform rate. The hourly vehicular volume Q was converted to vehicle arrivals per minute (q). The saturation flow rate, s, is the flow rate of interrupted traffic on the roadway and is estimated from the capacity of uninterrupted flow developed tables for the Generalized Level of Service and the number of lanes in each direction of travel over the bridge. The total number of vehicles affected by the opening includes vehicles that arrive when the bridge is open and are therefore forced to queue on the approach roads to the bridge and vehicles that arrive when the bridge is closed but are forced to reduce their speed due to the clearance of the initial built up queue. The period of delay for each vehicle varies from a

56 minimum of zero, for the last vehicle to arrive before normalization of flow, to a maximum of the total duration of the queue, for the first vehicle to be stopped when the traffic control gates drop. For the model however due to the random arrival of vehicles an average individual delay period for each affected vehicle is estimated be half of the roadway blockage time, r.

3.4.7 Estimating Total Daily Vehicular Delay Two methods were used to estimate the total daily delay at each bridge site: (1) peak hour method and (2) average hour method. Peak hour method: The peak hour method estimates the worst delay scenario and involves the estimation of the vessel queue per bridge opening cycle within the vehicular peak hour, which is then used in vehicular delay per bridge opening cycle. The result is converted into peak hour delay by first multiplying it by the number of openings within the peak hour and then dividing it by the total number of minutes accumulated during the peak hour openings including delay while the bridge is opened. The peak hour delay is then factored into an average daily delay by dividing by the roadway’s vehicular traffic peak hour factor.

The arrival rate at peak hour, qp is calculated is estimated from the peak hour factor, K and directional distribution factor, D, as follows:

qp = ADT *K*D, for traffic in the major direction of travel over the bridge (3.14) qp = ADT *K*(100-D), for traffic in the minor direction of travel over the bridge (3.15)

Where: K is the vehicular peak hour factor D is the directional distribution factor

Delay at each peak hour opening, Dp and the total daily delay, Dd, were calculated as:

2 5.0 ∗qp ∗ r ∗ s Dp = (3.16) s − qp

Bo ∗ Dp Dd = (3.17) (60+ Bo ∗r)(K /100)

57 Where: r is the duration of roadway blockage, in minutes

Bo is the number of openings during vehicular peak hour 60, 100 are constants

Table 3.9 Vehicular Traffic Characteristics for ADT Bridge No. Peak Hour factor, Directional K Distribution Factor, D 150027 9.88% 59.18% 150076 9.88% 59.18% 150050 9.88% 59.18% 780074 9.35% 58.25% 860060 9.39% 56.32% 930004 10.19% 58.4%

Average hour method: In the average method, average hourly vessel queue is used to determine delay on the average hourly vehicular traffic. The total average daily delay is then obtained as a product of the estimated average hourly delay and the average number of daily openings. Most of the movable bridges are manned 24 hours daily but observations made during the survey period and from interaction with bridge tenders and locals indicated that most of the daily bridge openings, over 90%, occur during the daylight period of between 7am and 7pm. Vehicles traveling on the bridge during daylight hours will therefore be most affected by the bridge openings. An analysis effort was therefore undertaken to develop a diurnal distribution of roadway vehicles using existing data of hourly traffic volumes from various traffic monitoring sites in the State of Florida. The percentage of vehicular traffic volume between 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. was calculated for each of the selected sites. It must be noted that the routes for which the traffic volumes were obtained for the analysis of the diurnal distribution were not necessarily routes that go over movable bridges. They were however randomly selected and in a way to reflect a fair geographical distribution within the state of Florida. The results indicated that a range of between 70 and 80 percent of the total daily vehicular traffic were recorded during the daylight period of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Typical results for two of the selected traffic monitoring sites are shown in the figures 3.32 and 3.33 below.

East-Bound Traffic 800 West-Bound Traffic

700

600 500 400 Volume 300 200

100

1am-2am 2am-3am 3am-4am 4am-5am 5am-6am 6am-7am 7am-8am 8am-9am 1pm-2pm 2pm-3pm 3pm-4pm 4pm-5pm 5pm-6pm 6pm-7pm 7pm-8pm 8pm-9pm 12am-1am 9am-10am 12pm-1pm 9pm-10pm 10am-11am 11am-12pm 10pm-11pm 11pm-12am Time Interv al

Figure 3.32 Hourly Distribution of Vehicular Traffic on I-10 near Marianna, Florida

3000 North-Bound Traffic South-Bound Traffic 2500

2000

1500

Volume 1000

500

Figure 3.33 Hourly Distribution of Vehicular Traffic on US-19 near Newport Richey, Florida

59 Based on the above analysis the following assumption was made for the estimation of the average daily: • Approximately 75% each day’s ADT travel over the movable bridges during daylight hours and are affected by approximately 90 % of the daily bridge openings.

The average hourly arrival rate of vehicles in the major and minor directions of travel over the bridge was estimated from the proportion of vehicular volume traveling over the bridge within the 12-hour daylight period and was calculated as:

ADT * D 75.0* q = , For traffic in the major direction of travel over the bridge (3.18) a 12 ADT (* 100 − D 75.0*) q = , For traffic in the minor direction of travel over the bridge (3.19) a 12

The number of daily openings affecting daylight vehicular traffic, Bo, was also calculated as:

B o = 9.0 ∗ B avg (3.20)

Where:

Bavg is the average number of daily openings estimated from bridge opening logs

Average delay at each opening, Da and the total daily delay, Dd, were calculated as:

2 5.0 ∗ qa ∗ r ∗ s Da = (3.21) s − qa

D d = D a ∗ B o (3.22)

3.4.8 Projected Vehicular Traffic Roadway performance modeling was estimated to follow the existing logic in Pontis. For the traffic volume estimation for a given analysis year, Pontis uses a non-linear function fit between two ADT points: observed and future.

60 ( −YY 0 ) ( −YY 01 )  ADT (Y1 )  ADT (Y ) = ADT (Yo )∗   (3.23)  ADT (Y0 )

Where: ADT (Y0) is the most recent actual traffic volume estimate (NBI item 29)

Y0 is the year of the most recent traffic volume estimate (NBI item 30)

ADT (Y1) is the forecast future traffic volume (NBI item 114)

Y1 is the year of forecast traffic volume (NBI item 115)

Y is the year of the simulation

The Directional Hourly Volume (DHV) used for the analysis was estimated from peak hour factor, K and directional distribution factor, D, factors given in the Florida Traffic Information (FTI) annual average daily traffic (AADT) database. The values used for the bridge sites selected for data collection are given in the table below.

DHV major = AADT ∗ K ∗ D (3.24)

DHV min or = AADT ∗ K ∗ (100 − D ) (3.25)

Where

DHV major is the hourly volume in the major direction of travel, and

DHV min or is the hourly volume in the minor direction of travel.

Table 3.10 Existing and Projected Vehicular Traffic for the Study Sites

Existing Year -2002 Projected Year - 2020 Average Annual Directional Design Average Annual Directional Design Bridge No. Daily Traffic Hourly Volume Daily Traffic Hourly Volume (AADT) (DDHV) (AADT) (DDHV) 150027 21000 1228 32984 1929 150076 21000 1228 32984 1929 150050 15800 924 24817 1452 780074 22000 1199 34555 1882 860060 15100 799 23717 1253 930004 25000 1488 39267 2337

61 3.4.9 Sample Calculation of Vehicular and Vessel Delay A sample calculation to estimate vessel and vehicular queues and delays is presented as follows. The example shows the steps that were taken to calculate both vessel and vehicle queues for a 15-minute bridge opening cycle. Vessels are assumed to be arrival at a uniform rate and the vessel arrival rate is estimated from the total hourly volume. For example, if vessel traffic during peak hour was 24 vessels per hour, then the arrival rate will be given by 24/60 = 0.4 vessels per minute arriving at the bridge. For a 15 minute cycle we have, 0.4 × 15mins = 6 vessels in queue. Vessel service flow rate = (Say) 1.42 minutes per vessel. For a 6 vessel queue therefore the duration of roadway blockage, r = 1.42 x 6 = 8.52 minutes. Vehicles are assumed to also arrive at a uniform rate. Assuming a peak hour traffic count of 2190 vehicles per hour, the arrival rate is estimated as, qp = 2190/60 or 36.5 vehicles per minute. Therefore the vehicle queue length = 36.5vehicles/minute × 8.52 minutes = 320 vehicles, or 160 vehicles per lane for a 2-lane roadway.

Vessel delay per bridge opening cycle = (bridge opening cyclea) × (Number of boats per cycle) + (queue clearance delayb) x (number of boats per cycle)

= 7.5 minutes × 6 boats + [5.4 – 1.42] × 6 boats

= 69 boat minutes.

Note that (a) this is the average bridge opening cycle delay and (b) this is the average queue clearance delay.

From the Adolf May bottleneck model, q, average arrival rate of vehicle traffic = 36.5 vehicles/minute

1850× 2Lanes s, saturation flow rate = = 61.7 vehicles/minute 60 sr, flow rate at bottleneck during blockade = 0 r, duration of blockade = 6 vessels × 1.42 vessels / minute = 8.52 minutes tq = total elapsed time from when start of the blockade (bridge opening) until free flow resumes.

62 52.8 × ( 7.61 − )0 = = 20.86 minutes 7.61 − 5.36 to = time for the queue to dissipate after the blockade is removed in minutes

=20.86 – 8.52 = 12.34 minutes.

52.8 Average vehicle delay in minutes, d = = 4.26 minutes 2

Total number of vehicles affected, N = 36.5 × 20.86 = 761 vehicles

52.8 ×761 Total vehicle delay, D = = 3242 vehicle minutes 2

3.5. User Cost Rates

Roadway user costs are cost incurred by highway users traveling on that facility and those who cannot use the facility because of either agency or self-imposed detour requirements. User costs usually have three components: Vehicle Operating Costs (VOC), Crash Costs, and User Delay Costs. For an analysis of User Costs due to movable openings the most relevant will be User Delay Costs. These are the cost of increased travel time incurred by the motoring public who are delayed on either side of a movable bridge during its opening times for the passage of vessels. User cost rates, which are dollar values, are assigned to each of the user cost components. The cost rate for user delay is the dollar value of an hour of delay or travel time. The current Pontis model does not have any Florida specific data (Thompson et al, 1999). Default values are currently used. Based on the results of some previous research on travel time models, values of time were obtained and updated for the current year. The existing time models reviewed included the following: The Highway Economic Requirement System (HERS) Model, which is being used by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); and the MicroBENCOST, which is a model developed under the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NHCRP). Other sources of good information were the Florida Trucking Association (FTA), the AASHTO Red Book, the North Carolina BMS and the Indiana BMS.

63 Thompson et al, (1999), in their final study report to the FDOT recommended the FTA vehicle operating costs and the HERS value of time, for user cost estimation on the Florida network. These values were adopted for the study. The table below gives the values of travel times estimated from these sources for August 1996.

Table 3.11 Listing Of Travel Time Values, August 1996

Source Units Autos Single Unit-Trucks Combination Trucks MicroBENCOST $/Vehicle-Hour 11.37 17.44 24.98 HERS $/Vehicle-Hour 14.30 25.99 31.30

Based on the consideration of these potential sources, the ranges of the value of travel time per vehicle recommended for use in typical analyses, where distribution data on trip purpose and type are not known, are as given below:

Table 3.12 Recommended Values Of Time ($/Vehicle-Hour), August 1996

Passenger Cars Trucks Single-Unit Combination $ 10- $13 $17 - $20 $21 - $24

A time value of $12.00 per vehicle-hour was assigned to passenger cars and $18.5 per vehicle-hour to trucks for the year 1996. The FHWA requires that previous year vehicular operating costs be updated to the year of analysis by the transportation component of the consumer price index (CPI) and the value of time be updated to the analysis year by the “all components” of the CPI (Thompson et al, 1999). The value for the analysis year was calculated as follows:

BT ∗T (CPI) CT = (3.26) B(CPI)

Where:

CT = Estimated travel time cost for the year of analysis

BT= Cost of travel time cost for base year T (CPI) = Consumer Price Index for the year of analysis B (CPI) = Consumer Price Index for the base year

64 The 1996 value of travel time was updated to the year 2002, using the “all component” of the CPI for the current year as per the FWHA requirements. The value of time is then multiplied by the values obtained in equations 3.13 and 3.18 to obtain the cost of daily user delay.

UCdelay = Dd * CT (3.27) Where:

UCdelay is the cost of daily user delay and

Dd is the total daily delay estimated from equations 3.17 or 3.22.

CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

4.1 Overview

Data analysis was conducted on the existing and field data obtained using the formulated model and other relevant data analysis methods. The analysis involved individual analysis on the bridges for which data was collected during the survey and a network analysis of Florida’s movable bridges. Individual spreadsheet models were developed to conduct project level user delay and user cost analysis for the individual bridges for the present and the future year, 2020. A general spreadsheet model was developed for network level analysis of Florida’s inventory of movable bridges for the present year and the future year, 2020. The project level analysis involved the consideration of various replacement alternatives, which included movable bridges with greater vertical underclearance and high-level fixed bridges, and how they compare with the existing movable bridges. The difference in the estimated user delay cost for the existing bridge and each of the replacement alternatives represented the benefit of the replacement for that alternative. The network level analysis involved the estimation of bridge strength deficiencies based on the fraction of detouring trucks due to inadequate bridge load carrying capacity and the estimation of user delays resulting from bridge openings. The total user cost incurred by the detoured truck traffic and the delayed traffic are summed up as the benefit of replacing the movable bridge. A functional form analysis was also conducted to fit the best function to the reverse cumulative frequency distributions obtained for the vessel heights data collected during the study. The objective of this step was to develop a prediction model for the prediction of the proportion of reduced bridge openings for higher movable bridge alternatives. A bridge replacement feasibility analysis was also undertaken to determine the maximum height of replacement alternatives based on the physical conditions at and around each of the existing movable bridge sites in the Florida Inventory. This was done with the aid of maps, plans and aerial photographs. A bridge replacement cost evaluation matrix was also developed for use in life cycle cost analysis for the comparison of various bridge replacement alternatives.

66 4.2 Individual Bridge User Delay Analysis Vehicular and Vessel queues were analyzed under the existing and proposed replacement options for each of the bridges for the current year and the future year of 2020. Queue analyses were carried out for only the movable bridge options since the fixed bridge options would experience no queues. A growth rate of 3% was used to project vessel traffic for the year 2020 and to conduct queuing and delay analysis on the waterway. The peak hour method of analysis was used as this estimates the worst delay scenario, which is appropriate for a project level analysis. Findings and comments based on the results of the analysis are as follows:

4.2.1 Bridge ID 860060 (N.E. 14th Street Causeway Bridge) Findings of the queuing analysis due to the bridge opening are summarized below for both the no-build option (i.e. the existing 15-foot movable bridge) and a 55-foot replacement movable bridge option. No-Build Condition: Estimated total delay to vehicular traffic at each bridge opening are expected to increase up to about 250 percent, by the year 2020, for both the weekday and weekend operations, if the existing bridge is not replaced. Both Weekday and weekend delays to vessels are also expected to increase by about 100 percent by 2020. Build Condition (55-foot movable bridge): Estimated total weekday delay to vehicular traffic at each bridge opening are expected to increase by over 100 percent by the year 2020, under the 55-foot replacement option movable bridge, primarily due to the increase in total vehicular traffic demand on the roadway. Weekend vehicular traffic delay at each bridge opening will however be expected to decrease or at least remain unchanged. The frequency of weekend bridge openings is however expected to reduce; hence the total weekend day delay will be greatly reduced. Based on physical and geometric limitations the tallest possible replacement option for the N.E. 14th Causeway Bridge would be a 65-foot fixed bridge. However to accommodate all vessels (the tallest height recorded during the survey was just less than 90 feet), the fixed span bridge option does not seem to be a viable option for the N.E. 14TH Street. A 55-foot movable option was therefore recommended.

67 4.2.2 Bridge ID 930004 (Parker Bridge) Findings of the queuing analysis due to the bridge opening are summarized below for the no-build option (i.e. the existing 25-foot movable bridge) and a 55-foot replacement movable bridge option. The third option of a 70-foot fixed bridge would need no queuing analysis, as it would eliminate all queues. No-Build Condition: Estimated total daily delays to vehicular traffic, due to the bridge openings, are expected to increase by between 200-300 percent and between 600-700 percent by the year 2020 for the weekday and weekend operations, respectively, if the existing bridge is not replaced. Build Condition (55-foot movable bridge): Estimated total daily delays to weekday vehicular traffic, due to the bridge openings, are expected to increase by over 200 percent by the year 2020, under the 55-foot replacement option movable bridge, primarily due to the increase in vehicular traffic demand on the roadway. Weekend delays to vehicular traffic will however be expected to increase by only about 20 percent. Weekday delays to vessels are expected to remain constant over time, in spite of the increased bridge under-clearance, primarily due to increased volume of vessel traffic. Weekend delays are however expected to decrease under the 55-foot replacement option. The tallest vessel height recorded during the survey was just less than 65 feet. Providing a 5-foot buffer from the bottom of a replacement option would therefore make a 70-foot fixed bridge the most justified fixed bridge replacement option, based on the survey data obtained. The bridge height of 70 feet was also estimated to be the geometrically tallest possible option considering the physical limitations beyond and around the bridge location. A fixed bridge of this height would completely eliminate all delays to both vehicular and vessel traffic.

4.2.3 Bridge IDs150027 & 150076 (Johns Pass Bridge) Findings of the queuing analysis due to the bridge opening are summarized below for the no-build option (i.e. the existing 25-foot movable bridge) and a 55-foot replacement movable bridge build option. The third option of a 65-foot fixed bridge would need no queuing analysis, as it would eliminate all queues. No-Build Condition: Estimated total delay to weekday vehicular traffic at each bridge opening is expected to increase by over 100 percent and about 200 percent by the year 2020 for the

68 weekday and weekend operations, respectively, if the existing bridge is not replaced. This primarily will be due to the increase in vehicular traffic demand on the roadway and also due to the increase in vessel traffic on the waterway. Build Condition (55-foot movable bridge): Estimated vehicular delay to weekday vehicular traffic at each bridge opening is expected to at least remain the same by the year 2020, under the 55-foot replacement option movable bridge. The reason for this is that even though the number of vessels requiring bridge opening will be greatly reduced under the higher replacement movable bridge, a minimum roadway blockage duration will be effective at each bridge opening irrespective of the number of vessels in the holding area. On the average however the total weekday delays would be greatly reduced due to the reduced frequency in bridge openings. Estimated vehicular delay to weekend vehicular traffic at each bridge opening is expected to decrease by about 20 percent even with the projected increased vehicular traffic volume due to fewer vessels that may be held in queue at the bridge opening times. The frequency of weekend bridge openings is also expected to reduce; hence the total weekend day delay will be greatly reduced. The tallest vessel height recorded during the survey was just less than 60 feet. Providing a 5-foot buffer would make a 65-foot fixed bridge the most economically justified fixed bridge replacement option, based on the survey data obtained. A bridge height of over 65 feet is however geometrically feasible but will require more right-of-way acquisition since the bridge is located in a heavily developed area. There are plans underway to replace the existing bridges, details of which are given below:

• The proposed improvements involve replacing the existing bascule bridges with low- level, twin-span bascule bridges on the same alignment. The new bridges will increase the horizontal navigational clearance from 60 feet to 100 feet in width and will provide a 27-foot vertical clearance over the channel without acquiring additional right-of-way. The profile grade will be 5.6 percent and will meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The typical section includes two lanes of travel in each direction, 8-foot sidewalks, 10-foot outside shoulders, and 4-foot inside shoulders. • Projected start date: Fall 2005 • Projected cost: $49.8 million

69 4.2.4 Bridge ID 150050 (Pinellas Bay Way Bridge) Findings of the queuing analysis due to the bridge opening are summarized below for the no-build option (i.e. the existing movable bridge) and a 55-foot replacement movable bridge build option. The third option of a 75-foot fixed bridge would need no queuing analysis, as it would eliminate all queues. No-Build Condition: Estimated total delay to weekday vehicular traffic at each bridge opening is expected to increase by over 200 percent and about 500 percent by the year 2020 for the weekday and weekend operations, respectively, if the existing bridge is not replaced.

Build Condition (55-foot movable bridge): Estimated vehicular delay to weekday vehicular traffic at each bridge opening is expected to at least remain the same by the year 2020, under the 55-foot replacement option movable bridge. The reason for this is that even though the number of vessels at each bridge opening will be greatly reduced under the higher replacement movable bridge, the minimum roadway blockage duration will be effective irrespective of the number of vessels serviced during the bridge openings. On the average however the total weekday delays would be greatly reduced due to the reduced frequency in bridge openings. Estimated vehicular delay to weekend vehicular traffic at each bridge opening is expected to decrease by about 100 percent even with the projected increased vehicular traffic volume. This will be due to the fewer number of vessels for which openings will be required. The frequency of weekend bridge openings is also expected to reduce; hence the total weekend day delay will be greatly reduced. The tallest vessel height recorded during the survey was just less than 70 feet. Providing a 5-foot buffer would make a 75-foot fixed bridge the most economically justified fixed bridge replacement option, based on the survey data obtained. A bridge height of up to and over 85 feet is however geometrically feasible considering the physical limitations beyond and around the bridge location. This option would completely eliminate all delays to both vehicular and vessel traffic. The number of lanes on the placement bridge, either a movable or fixed bridge, should be increased to 4 lanes. This would provide a better level of service and would also adequately accommodate future traffic volumes.

70 There currently are plans to replace the existing bridge, details of which are given below: SR 682 (Bayway) from west of SR 679 to the west toll plaza • This project will construct a high level bridge (four lanes) to replace the existing two-lane drawbridge over the Intercoastal Waterway. • Projected start date: Spring 2004 • Projected cost: $37 million

Height (ft) 55-Foot Moveable Bridge,<10%, exceeding Ht

65-Foot Fixed Span Bridge,<2.5 % exceeding Ht 100 85-Foot fixed Span Bridge,< 1% exceeding Ht 90

40 (ft) Vessel Height

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Sequence No.

Figure 4.1 Bridge 860060 – Survey Results and Bridge Replacement options

Measured Height 55-Foot Moveable Bridge, <15% exceeding Ht 65-Foot Fixed Bridge, < 2% may exceed Ht 80 70- Foot Fixed Bridge, all vessels below Ht

Height (ft) Height 30

0 102030405060708090

Sequence No.

Figure 4.2 Bridge 930004 - Survey Results and Bridge Replacement options

Vessel Height 45-Foot Movable Bridge Option, < 32% exceeding Ht 55 Foot Movable Bridge Option, <9% exceeding Ht 65 Foot Fixed Bridge option, All vessels accomodated 70

Height (ft) 30

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 101 105 109 Sequence No.

Figure 4.3 Bridge 150027&150076 – Survey Results and Bridge Replacement options

Boat Height 55-foot movable bridge option - < 23% exceeding Ht 65-foot Fixed Bridge Option < 4% exceeding Height 80.00 70-foot Fixed Bridge

70.00

60.00

50.00

40.00

(ft) Height 30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Sequence No.

Figure 4.4 Bridge 150050 – Survey Results and Bridge Replacement options

Table 4.1 Results of Vehicular Delay Analyses at Bridge ID 860060 (N.E. 14th Street Causeway)

N.E. 14TH STREET CAUSEWAY BRIDGE VEHICLE DELAY ANALYSIS (Due to bridge Opening)

YEAR 30-minute Vessel Westbound Eastbound Westbound Westbound Westbound Eastbound Eastbound Eastbound Total Bridge Queue Average Average Total vehicle Peak "Hour" Average Total vehicle Peak "Hour" Average Daily Operating vehicle vehicle delay Daily delay Daily Delay Scheme Delay Delay Delay per cycle Delay Delay per cycle Delay (minutes) (minutes) (minutes) (minutes) (hours) (minutes) (minutes) (hours) (hours) Existing 16-foot Bridge 2003 Weekday 5 2.5 2.5 184 368 56.0 136 272 41.4 97.4 2003 Weekend 9 3.5 3.5 416 832 119.7 304 608 87.5 207.2

2020 Weekday 9 3.5 3.5 739 1478 212.7 516 1032 148.5 361.2 2020 Weekend 15 5 5 1508 3016 401.5 1054 2108 280.6 682.1

55-foot Movable Option 2020 Weekday 3 2.5 2.5 377 754 114.7 263 526 80.0 194.7 2020 Weekend 5 2.5 2.5 377 754 114.7 263 526 80.0 194.7

Table 4.2 Results of Vehicular Delay Analyses at Bridge ID 930004 (Parker)

PARKER BRIDGE

VEHICLE DELAY ANAYSIS (Due to bridge Opening)

YEAR 30 / 20 -minute Vessel Northbound Southbound Northbound Northbound Northbound Southbound Southbound Southbound Total Bridge Queue Average Average Total vehicle Peak "Hour" Average Total vehicle Peak "Hour" Average Daily Operating vehicle vehicle delay Daily delay Daily Delay Scheme Delay Delay Delay per cycle Delay Delay per cycle Delay (minutes) (minutes) (minutes) (minutes) (hours) (minutes) (minutes) (hours) (hours) Existing 16-foot Bridge

2003 Weekday (30min) 3 2.5 2.5 518 1036 145.2 309 618 86.6 231.9 2003 Weekend (20 min) 3 2.5 2.5 518 1554 203.3 309 927 121.3 324.6

2020 Weekday (30min) 5 2.5 2.5 1215 2430 340.7 595 1190 166.8 507.5 2020 Weekend (20 min) 5 2.5 2.5 1215 3645 476.9 595 1785 233.6 710.5

55-foot Movable Option 2020 Weekday (30min) 4 2.5 2.5 2546 5092 713.9 930 1860 260.8 974.6 2020 Weekend (20 min) 4 2.5 2.5 2546 7638 999.4 930 2790 365.1 1364.5

Table 4.3 Results of Vehicular Delay Analyses at Bridge IDs 150027 & 150076 (Johns Pass)

JOHN'S PASS BRIDGE VEHICLE DELAY ANAYSIS (Due to bridge Opening)

YEAR 20-minute(Weekday) Vessel Northbound Southbound Northbound Northbound Northbound Southbound Southbound Southbound Total 15-minute(Weekend) Queue Average Average Total vehicle Peak "Hour" Average Total vehicle Peak "Hour" Average Daily Bridge vehicle vehicle delay Daily delay Daily Delay Operating Delay Delay Delay per cycle Delay Delay per cycle Delay Scheme (minutes) (minutes) (minutes) (minutes) (hours) (minutes) (minutes) (hours) (hours) Existing 21-foot Bridge 2003 Weekday 3 2.5 2.5 383 1149 155.1 229 687 92.7 247.8 2003 Weekend 5 2.5 2.5 383 1532 193.8 229 687 86.9 280.7

2020 Weekday 3 2.5 2.5 827 2481 334.8 428 1284 173.3 508.1 2020 Weekend 6 2.82 2.82 1047 4188 513.4 524 1572 192.7 706.1

55-foot Movable Option 2020 Weekday 2 2.5 2.5 827 2481 334.8 428 1284 173.3 508.1 2020 Weekend 2 2.5 2.5 827 3308 418.5 428 1284 162.4 581.0

Table 4.4 Results of Vehicular Delay Analyses at Bridge ID 150050 (Pinellas Bay Way)

PINELLAS BAYWAY BRIDGE VEHICLE DELAY ANAYSIS (Due to bridge Opening)

YEAR 20-minute Vessel Westbound Eastbound Westbound Westbound Westbound Eastbound Eastbound Eastbound Total

Bridge Queue Average Average Total vehicle Peak "Hour" Average Total vehicle Peak "Hour" Average Daily Operating vehicle vehicle delay Daily delay Daily Delay Scheme Delay Delay Delay per cycle Delay Delay per cycle Delay (minutes) (minutes) (minutes) (minutes) (hours) (minutes) (minutes) (hours) (hours) Existing 24-foot Bridge 2003 Weekday 3 2.5 2.5 384 1152 175.3 203 609 92.7 267.9 2003 Weekend 6 2.75 2.75 465 1395 198.1 245 735 104.4 302.4

2020 Weekday 5 2.5 2.5 1219 3657 556.4 424 1272 193.5 749.9

2020 Weekend 10 3.75 3.75 2744 8232 1168.9 955 2865 406.8 1575.7

55-foot Movable Option 2020 Weekday 3 2.5 2.5 1219 3657 556.4 424 1272 193.5 749.9 2020 Weekend 5 2.5 2.5 1219 3657 556.4 424 1272 193.5 749.9

79 4.3 Estimate of Network User Costs for Movable Bridge Replacement

Bridges are generally replaced with the objective of correcting or eliminating strength, under clearance or width deficiencies. The scope of the network analysis for this study was however focused on only the strength and under clearance deficiencies. A bridge’s strength deficiency is based on its insufficient load carrying capacity. An under clearance deficiency of a movable bridge is based on its insufficient navigable vertical clearance for the passage of vessels which results in delays to vehicular traffic when the bridges are opened for the passage of vessels. A replacement model for a movable bridge for this study will be therefore aimed at addressing its strengthening needs and the delays it causes to vehicular traffic during the bridge openings. Strengthening the bridge will allow it to accommodate trucks which otherwise will be forced to detour onto longer routes. Raising or increasing the underclearance of the bridge will allow it to accommodate all or at least a greater number of vessels when in the closed position, thereby reducing delay experienced by motorists traveling on the roadway carried by the bridge. The user Benefit of Replacement of a movable bridge is estimated as the sum of the benefits from reduced costs of detours incurring on the bridge’s roadway due to the insufficient load rating and the reduced delays due to the opening of the bridge for the passage of vessels.

4.3.1 Benefit of Strengthening As discussed earlier, Pontis assumes that user benefits of strengthening a bridge incur through the reduction of the number of vehicles that have to bypass a bridge. The fraction of the truck traffic that has to make detours on the movable bridge is estimated by comparing the bridge’s bridge operating rating (NBI Item 64) with the distributions of truck weights in the traffic stream traveling on the bridge. Pontis currently uses a default general 4-segment piecewise truck weight distribution for all roadway functional classes. For purpose of comparison two other truck weight distribution models, a 4-segment piecewise linear model and a 3-segment piecewise curvilinear model, which were developed from truck weight data collected on non-interstate roadways as part of a recent truck weight study for the State were also used in determining the fraction of detouring trucks on each bridge. All the movable bridges in the state carry non-interstate roadways. The equations used for the truck weight models are summarized in the following tables.

80 Table 4.5 Default Pontis Piecewise Linear Model

Bridge Operating Rating Fraction of Detouring Trucks Range ( Lbs) (x = Trucks weight in tons) x <5065 1 5065 < x < 39636 1-0.031576*(x -2.3) 39636< x <90282 0.50425-0.02192*(x -18) x > 90282 0

Table 4.6 Truck Weight Piecewise Linear Data (Pontis) for Non-Interstate Roadways

Weight Limit (lbs) Percent Detoured Linear Regression R2 x < 3552.94 100.00 1.000 3552.94 82056.67 0

Table 4.7 Truck Weight Piecewise Curves for Non-Interstate Roadways

Weight Range (lb.) Percent Detoured Regression R2 x < 3,700 100.00 1.000 3,700< x < 85,000 107.26 – (1.97E-03) x + (6.53E-09) x2 + (2.23E-14) x3 0.986 x > 91,000 0.00

81 120%

100%

r 80%

cks Heavie Non-Interstates (165,415 trucks) 60% Interstates (319,712 trucks) all roadways (485,127 trucks)

Tru of Proportion 40%

20%

0% 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000 110000 120000 Truck Weight (lbs)

Figure 4.5 Truck Weight Reverse Cumulative Curves for Florida Highway Types

120

100

original data (165415 trucks) cks Heavier (%) 60 fitted piecewise functions Pontis Piecewise Linear Functions

40 Proportion of Tru

0 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000 110000 120000 Truck Weight (lbs)

Figure 4.6 Truck Weight Models for Florida Non-Interstate Highway

The distributions of movable bridges by operating and inventory ratings are depicted in the following graphs.

15 10 Number of Bridges 5

20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000

100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 160,000 170,000 180,000 190,000 200,000 210,000 220,000 Operating Rating (Lbs)

Figure 4.7 Distribution of Movable Bridges by operating ratings

35 30 25

Number ofBridges 10 5

10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 Inventory Rating(Lbs) Figure 4.8 Distribution of Movable Bridges by Inventory rating

83 Other NBI items used in the estimation are: bypass/detour length (NBI Item 19), the percentage of daily truck traffic (NBI Item 109) and the total average daily traffic (ADT) (NBI Item 29). The product of estimated fraction of detoured trucks, the percentage of daily truck traffic and the ADT gives the number of detoured trucks. Non-NBI items required for cost estimation are the detour speed on each functional class, the vehicle operating cost and the unit cost of travel time. They are given in Pontis as follows: Speed on detour route (DetourSpeed), cost per one kilometer of detour (KmDetourCost) and cost per hour of detour (HrDetourCost). The detour cost per vehicle is calculated as: DetourCost perVehicle = (HrDetourCost*BypassLength/DetourSpeed) + KmDetourCost*BypassLength (4.2) The total annual user benefit of strengthening is calculated as:

Ustr = 365.25 *ADT * (τ /100) * Fd *DetourCost perVehicle (4.3) Where:

Ustr is the annual user benefit of strengthening τ is the truck percent

Fd is the fraction of trucks that have to make a detour

4.3.2 Benefit of Raising (User Delay Costs) The benefit of raising a movable bridge, as discussed earlier, is assumed to incur through the reduction of delays to road users during bridge openings. About 85% of Florida’s movable bridges have navigable underclearance of 25 feet or less. A distribution of the underclearance of the state’s network of movable bridges is shown in the figure below:

No of bridges 20

0 0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 Under clearance (ft)

Figure 4.9 Distribution of Movable Bridge Under Clearance

84 The average method of determining delay, which reflects the average effect of bridge openings on the daily traffic, was used for the estimation of user costs for the network model. The NBI items used as variables for the network model are the ADT (NBI Item 29) and number of bridge roadway lanes (NBI Item 28A). The fraction of ADT used in the queue model will be the difference of the total roadway ADT and the estimated number of detoured trucks. Non-NBI user inputs required were the estimated average number of daily openings of the bridge, the average duration of each opening. Default inputs of 5 minutes of roadway blockage duration and 24 daily daytime openings, based on an assumed 30-minute bridge opening cycle, for all the bridge sites were used for the analysis. The unit average cost of vehicle travel time was obtained by weighting the cost of travel time for passenger-cars and the cost of travel time for trucks by their respective percentages in the traffic stream on the roadway.

The total annual user benefit of strengthening is calculated as:

Uraising = 365.25 *Dd * Ctw (4.4)

Where: Uraising is the annual user benefit of raising

Dd is the estimated daily delay

Ctw is the weighted cost of travel time

Roadway vehicle delay costs were computed for the 147 movable bridges in the 2002 Florida Inventory data using the above-described methodology. The results of the analysis for years 2002 and 2020 are shown in the figures below. The total estimated user delay for all the movable bridges in Florida for the year 2002 was approximately $ 70 Million and about $ 157 Million for 2020, an increase of over 100%. The 2002 annual cost of user delay per bridge site ranged from $377 at bridge no. 360800 with an AADT of 15 vehicles/day to about $1,628,000 at bridge no. 720022 with an AADT of 41,500. The average per bridge site was $ 475,000. The range for the year 2020 was from $1,278 to over $5,000,000 and the expected average per bridge site was $1,068,000.

20 15

10 Number of Sitess

100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000 1,100,000 1,200,000 1,300,000 1,400,000 1,500,000 1,600,000 1,700,000 Annual Cost ($)

Figure 4.10 Estimated Statewide Annual User Delay Costs -2002

40 35 30

25 20 15

Number of Sites 10

5 0

100,000 200,000 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 Annual Cost ($)

Figure 4.11 Estimated Statewide Annual User Delay Cost – 2020

60 Delay Cos t f or Y ear 2002 A A DT 50 Delay Cos t f or Y ear 2022 A A DT

Number of Sites 20 10

0-100

100-200 200-500 500-1000 1000-1500 1500-2000 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 5000-6000 Annual Cost (x 1000) $

Figure 4.12 Comparisons of Estimated Statewide User Delay Costs – 2002 and 2020

From the distribution of operating ratings of the State’s movable bridges approximately 20% of movable bridges will require strengthening to accommodate trucks with weights up to the Legal Gross Weight limit of 80,000 Lbs. The benefit of strengthening obtained for each bridge varied for each truck weight distribution model due to the different break points of the piecewise curves used in each of the models. The values obtained from the default Pontis model was relatively high for all the functional classes because the same break points were used for all the classes, whiles they varied for the other two models. Each of the truck weight distribution models however gave significant estimated benefits for bridges on roadways with functional classes 16 and 17, which make up over 50% of the total number of movable bridges. For the total benefit of replacement, the most significant amounts were for bridges on functional classes 14, 16 and 17, which together make up over 80% of the total number of movable bridges in the State of Florida. A comparison of the total benefit of replacement to the benefit of raising the bridges revealed that, for all functional classes, approximately 90% or more of the total bridge replacement benefit will be contributed by the savings from reduced or eliminated delays due to bridge openings.

7,000,000 Non-Interstate Piecew ise Linear Truck Weight Model 6,000,000 Non-Interstate Piecew ise Curvilinear Truck Weight Model Default Pontis Piecew ise Linear Truck Weight Model

5,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000

($) Cost Annaul 2,000,000

1,000,000

0 26791214161719 Functional Class of Bridge Roadway

Figure 4.13 Estimate of Network User Cost of Strengthening by Roadway Functional Class

35,000,000 30,000,000

25,000,000 20,000,000

15,000,000

($) Cost Annaul 10,000,000

5,000,000

0 2 6 7 9 12 14 16 17 19 Functional Class of Bridge Roadw ay

Figure 4.14 Estimate of Network User Delay Cost by Roadway Functional Class

Total Replacement Benefit (Non-Interstate Linear Model) Total Replacement Benefit (Non-Interstate Curvilinear Model) 40,000,000 Total Replacement Benefit (Default Pontis Linear Model) Us er Delay Cost 35,000,000

30,000,000

25,000,000

20,000,000

15,000,000 Annaul Cost ($) Cost Annaul 10,000,000 5,000,000

0 2 6 7 9 1214161719

Functional Class of Bridge Roadway

Figure 4.15 Total Bridge Replacement Benefit vs. User Delay Cost

89 Table 4.8 Bridge Replacement Benefits

Functional Annual Benefit of Replacement User Delay Benefit of Strengthening Class Non-Interstate Linear Non-Interstate Curvilinear Default Pontis Linear Cost Non-Interstate Linear Non-Interstate Curvilinear Default Pontis Linear 2 3,593,557 3,609,201 3,757,486 3,487,222 106,335 121,979 273,848 6 1,462,184 1,462,184 1,462,184 1,459,805 2,379 2,379 0 7 990,948 1,018,937 1,185,981 920,558 70,390 98,378 267,010 9 442 452 477 377 66 76 102 12 1,166,075 1,166,075 1,166,075 1,166,075 0 0 0 14 22,621,417 22,659,435 22,920,255 22,618,172 3,245 41,263 311,118 16 32,478,037 32,930,134 36,282,742 30,261,323 2,216,714 2,668,811 6,092,001 17 8,492,129 8,654,836 9,540,390 7,855,862 636,267 798,974 1,696,098 19 2,152,255 2,204,614 2,516,619 2,038,364 113,891 166,250 490,061

90 4.4 Bridge Replacement Analysis

Bridge replacement analysis was made using data obtained from the survey and existing data on the bridges. The analysis involved the development of a model to predict the number of bridge openings for raised or replaced movable bridges of various under clearances. An analysis was also made to determine the feasibility of possible replacement options for each movable bridge in Florida’s inventory, based on existing physical conditions at the bridge sites. An evaluation matrix was also developed to evaluate and compare the costs and impacts of selected bridge replacement alternatives. The matrix includes costs for design, construction, construction engineering and inspection (CEI), additional right-of-way and user delay costs.

4.4.1 Prediction of Bridge Openings for Replacement Movable bridges

To obtain the total benefit of proposed movable bridge replacement options there will be the need to estimate or predict the user delay cost that may be incurred under the replacement option. The difference between these estimated values and those obtained under existing conditions would be the savings in user delay cost for the various replacement options. Fixed bridge options are assumed to result in zero user delay cost since there will be no openings. The benefit of a fixed bridge option will therefore be equal to the total estimated user delay cost under the existing bridge conditions. A model for the prediction of the reduced number of bridge openings of the replacement bridges’ underclearance was obtained by a selecting the best curve from a curve fitting regression analysis, which was performed on the vessel height data obtained from the surveys. The best prediction was given by the 3rd order polynomial (equation 4.1). The polynomial model developed was used for the prediction of the expected openings for each replacement movable bridge, by comparing the new or proposed vertical bridge under clearance against the developed vessel height model. The predicted proportion is then applied to the existing bridge’s current average daily openings to calculate the expected number of openings for any replacement bridge based on the new underclearance. Movable bridges in the state of Florida are limited to a maximum underclearance of 55 feet. Replacement bridge options of heights equal to or greater than 55 feet are therefore assumed to be fixed bridges that would require no openings for the passage of vessels.

91 The predicted number of openings was calculated as:

2 -6 3 Bpo = Bavg* (1.8457 + 0.0008x - 0.0669x -3*10 x ), if x<55 feet, (4.1)

Bpo = 0, if x> 55 feet

Where:

Bavg is the average number of bridge openings estimated from bridge opening logs

Bpo is the predicted bridge openings x is the bridge underclearance (feet)

1.000 0.900

0.800 Data Points 0.700 Polynomial Prediction Model

0.600

0.500

0.400

Proprtion of Openings 0.300 0.200

0.100 0.000 0 102030405060708090100 Bridge Under Clearance (ft)

Figure 4.16 Bridge Opening Prediction Model

92 4.4.2 Feasibility of Bridge Raising Options

Analysis was made for the feasibility of replacing each of the state’s movable bridges with various movable and fixed replacements. The feasibility of each bridge’s replacement was based on the existing physical conditions at and around the bridge sites. NBI data on all the movable bridges in the state of Florida was used for the study. Other sources of information used were: 1. Florida Traffic Information (FTI) Maps 2. Geographic Information System (GIS) Maps for the State of Florida Highway Network 3. Roadway Maps and Aerial View Photographs, sourced from Mapquest.com 4. As-built plans of the bridges, sourced from FDOT district (two and four) offices. Existing conditions at and near each bridge including bridge height, bridge span and the approach roadway were noted. Lengths of roadway from each end of the existing bridge over which the bridge span could be extended without a realignment of the existing roadway were estimated. These were termed as “available lengths”. The touchdown points for the replacement alternatives were limited to the nearest signalized intersections on either side of the existing bridge and that defined the extent of the available lengths assumed for the analysis. Some of the maps used in the analysis are shown in figures 4.17 - 4.24. Additional Bridge spans required for each of the various replacement alternatives was estimated assuming a gradient of between 5% for each bridge approach span. The tallest replacement option under existing right of way and geometric conditions was selected for each bridge. The results for some selected bridge sites are given in table 4.9 below.

Assumption: In the analyzing the available lengths for each of the bridges it was assumed that the proposed replacement alternative was to have the same approach roadway and bridge alignment as the existing. The available lengths may therefore have been limited due to the presence of some physical features along the existing alignment of the approach roadway.

The approach roads to about twenty-three percent (23%) of the bridges analyzed had existing driveways located between the end of the bridge span and the nearest signalized intersection which, may no longer be used as access points to and from properties fronting the existing approach roadway. Some replacement alternatives may however be geometrically

93 designed to overpass these driveways. A few of the bridges have their existing touchdown points intersecting with coastal roads and therefore no extension beyond the estimated available lengths was deemed geometrically feasible. Some of the existing bridge touchdown points also had close proximity to major roadways and any higher replacement alternative would require the design of an overpass over these intersecting major roadways. As discussed earlier, movable bridge underclearance is limited to maximum of 55-feet; higher alternatives would have to be fixed span bridges. The state of Florida by design and other policies also limits fixed bridge replacement alternatives to a height of 65-feet. For the purpose of this study however the fixed bridge alternatives considered were limited to a height of 85-feet. This was based on the distribution of vessel heights obtained during the survey. Bridge heights of at least 85-foot across most of the waterways would accommodate almost all vessels, recreational and commercial, traveling on the state’s waterways.

Table 4.9 Sample List of Feasible Bridge Replacement Options

Bridge Available Length (m) Additional Required Length (m) Feasible Bridge ID Approach Approach 45-ft 55-ft 65-ft 85-ft Replacement 1 2 Movable Movable Fixed Fixed Height Option Option Option Option 150044 50 380 107 159 211 314 0 790172 120 800 117 169 221 325 45 930453 110 250 55 107 159 263 55 170036 270 500 107 159 211 315 65 124043 450 500 115 167 219 323 85 1500271 1000 1000 134 186 238 342 85 1500761 1000 1000 134 186 238 342 85 1500501 700 600 79 131 183 287 85 7800741 750 80 107 159 211 315 0 8600601 300 930 157 209 261 364 65 9300041 500 230 107 159 211 315 65 1

1 Bridges at which data were collected for the study.

Figure 4.17 Map Layouts for Bridge 860060

Figure 4.18 Aerial Photo Map Layouts for Bridge 860060

Figure 4.19 Map Layouts at Bridge 930040

Figure 4.20 Aerial Photo Map Layouts for Bridge 930040

Figure 4.21 Map Layouts for Bridge 150027/150076

Figure 4.22 Aerial Photo Map Layouts for Bridges 150027/150076

Figure 4.23 Map Layouts for Bridge 150050

Figure 4.24 Aerial Photo Map Layouts for Bridge 150050

98 4.4.3 Bridge Replacement Evaluation Matrix

The evaluation matrix, as mentioned earlier, was developed to evaluate and compare the costs and impacts of selected bridge replacement alternatives. One focus of this evaluation was to determine the minimum level of vertical bridge clearance of movable bridge alternatives for which there would be a substantial decrease in vehicular user delay due to openings of the bridge. Components of the matrix are the user delay costs and the initial costs of each replacement alternative, which include the cost of construction, design, right-of-way and Construction and Engineering Inspection (CEI). The FDOT in a year 2002 Bridge Development Report on Cost Estimating outlined a three-step concept for estimating the cost of planned or proposed bridges. The first step is to utilize the average unit material costs provided to develop a cost estimate based on the completed preliminary design. The second step is to adjust the total bridge cost for the unique site conditions by use of given site adjustment factors. The third and final step is to review the computed total bridge cost on a cost per square foot basis and compare this cost against the historical cost range for similar structure types. This three-step process should produce a reasonably accurate cost estimate for structure type selection. However, if a site has a set of odd circumstances, which will affect the bridge cost, further adjustments are made to account for these unique site conditions in the estimate. For the evaluation matrix however the developed average unit cost of construction will be used for uniformity of estimates. Table 4.10 Cost Estimate for Bridge Construction

Bridge Type Average Cost Per Square foot of Deck area Fixed $ 53 Movable $935 Approach Spans to Movable $ 53

This process will develop costs for the bridge superstructure and substructure from beginning to end bridge. Costs for all other items including but not limited to the following are excluded from the costs estimated with the above values: mobilization, operation costs for existing bridge(s); removal of existing bridge or bridge fenders; lighting; walls; deck drainage systems; embankment; fenders; approach slabs; maintenance of traffic; load tests; bank stabilization.

99 A linear model with the bridge height, width and gradient as the variables was formulated to estimate the average construction cost of bridge alternative. Analysis of recent cost estimates presented in the St. John’s Pass Movable Bridge Replacement report together with the FDOT unit costs for bridge construction was used to estimate a fixed cost to represent the cost of design, construction and engineering inspection and other items such as mobilization, operation costs for existing bridge(s); removal of existing bridge or bridge fenders; lighting; walls; deck drainage systems; embankment; fenders; approach slabs; maintenance of traffic; load tests; bank stabilization. Values of $19 Million and $28 Million were obtained for movable and fixed bridge replacement options respectively. The derived equations are as follows: Cm = 935*10-6(X*W)/S + 19 (16) Cf = 53*10-6 (X*W)/S + 28 (17) Where: Cm is the average cost of design, construction and CEI for a replacement movable bridge, ($ M) Cf is the average cost of construction, design and CEI for a replacement fixed bridge ($M) X is the bridge height (feet) W is the total bridge width comprising of the roadway pedestrian walkway and median. (feet); and S is the gradient of the bridge expressed as a fraction (e.g. .05 for 5% slope)

The costs from the formulated equations were validated against the estimates from the St. John’s Pass report. The results show that the formulated equation can be effectively used as a cost model in estimating bridge construction costs, assuming site and other conditions similar to the St John’s Pass bridge site. Table 4.11 Validation of cost model

Bridge Cost of Construction ($M illion) Height Model St. John's Report 21 50.416 50.8 26.5 58.644 56.8 29 62.384 59.6 32 66.872 65.6 32.5 67.62 66.6 35 71.36 78.6 39 77.344 76.8 45 86.32 90.1 50 93.8 89.8 60 108.76 107.2 65 33.512 34.3 74 34.2752 34.5

100

120 Estimate from St. John's Pass Report Model Cost 100 80 60

($) Cost Total 40

- 21 26.5 29 32 32.5 35 39 45 50 60 65 74

Bridge Height (ft)

Figure 4.25 Bridge Construction Costs –Model Costs vs. Estimates from Johns Pass’ Project

Additional right-of-way may be required in some cases for the construction of the replacement alternative. The cost involved is usually for the value of property to be purchased to make way for the replacement structure. A linear model was again formulated from the right-of- way estimates given in the Johns Pass report is as follows:

Ro = 1.3465*Xd (19) Where:

Ro is the average cost estimate of the required right-of-way

Xd is the increase in bridge height or underclearance.

80 Ro = 1.3465*Xd 70 2 R = 0.9599 60

50 40 30

20 Cost ($ Millions ) CostMillions ($ 10 0 0 102030405060 Additional Bridge height,Xd (feet)

Figure 4.26 Formulation of Equation for Estimation of Right-of-Way Cost

101 The Peak Hour and Average methods described in chapter 3 were used in estimating the user delay costs. The prediction of future average and peak hour openings was based on vessel data obtained during the boat height survey and an assumed vessel traffic growth rate of 3%. For the simplicity of analysis the number of vessels at the openings and therefore the duration of openings were assumed to remain the same throughout the life of each movable bridge alternative. The reduced frequencies of openings were however determined using the developed bridge opening models. The user delay cost for each of the next 20 years was estimated, with the annual average vehicular traffic and the corresponding unit cost of travel time as changing variables. An economic assessment to estimate the present equivalent worth of user cost delay over the life of the bridge was then made by discounting all projected 20-year annual user delay costs to the present year. This was done by formulating the annual user costs obtained over the 20-year period into a two-component series as follows: (1) A uniform series with value equal to the annual user delay cost for year one, and (2) An arithmetic gradient uniform series with gradient value equal to the total annual user delay for the first year. The total present worth was then calculated as the sum of the discounted uniform series and the arithmetic gradient series.

25000 Gradient Series (Total Cost minus Cost in year one)

t Uniform Series (Cost in year one) 20000

15000

10000

5000 AverageDaily User DelayCos

0 1234567891011121314151617181920 Year

Figure 4.27 Formulation of Cost Series from 20-year Average Daily User Delay Cost (Using Values Obtained from Peak Hour Method)

102

7000 Gradient Series (Total Cost minus Cost in year one) Uniform Series (Cost in year one) 6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000 Average Daily Delay User Cost($)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Year

Figure 4.28 Formulation of Cost Series from 20-year Average Daily User Delay Cost (Using Values Obtained from Average Method)

A benefit-cost analysis was conducted to determine the ratio of increased benefit to increased cost for each alternative. Each alternative was compared to the existing bridge in terms of the initial costs as well as the user delay costs. The reduction in user delay costs was defined as the ‘benefit” in constructing a bridge with a higher vertical clearance. The incremental difference in user delay costs was then compared to the incremental increase in initial costs to obtain a benefit-cost ratio for each alternative. The existing bridge served as the benchmark for the analysis. The results of the evaluation for bridge 150027 are shown in the following tables. Results for the other bridge sites are given in appendix F.

103 Table 4.12 Bridge Replacement Evaluation Matrix - Bridge 150027 (Peak Hour Method)

Bridge Bridge Geometrics Bridge Openings Initial Costs User Delay Cost Life Cycle Cost Type Predicted Predicted Predicted Annual User Estimated Average Average Average Annual Delay Cost of Delay Construction/ User Delay Height Width Grade Percentage Weekday Weekend Peak Hour in Base Year in Base Year Design Right-of Way Total Delay Savings Benefit/Cost Total Benefit/Cost (ft) (ft) (%) Reduction Openings Openings Openings (Vehicle-hrs) ( $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ratio ( in MIL $) ratio Movable 21 80 5 N/A 24 36 5 112988 1492671 50.42 0.00 50.42 58.65 0.00 0.00 109.07 N/A

Movable 45 80 5 40 8 10 3 90390 1194137 86.32 32.32 118.64 28.15 30.50 0.26 146.79 0.45

Movable 55 80 5 70 5 5 1 64564 852955 101.28 45.78 147.06 10.05 48.60 0.33 157.12 0.50

Fixed 65 80 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 33.51 59.25 92.76 0.00 58.65 0.63 92.76 1.39

Fixed 90 80 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 35.63 92.91 128.54 0.00 58.65 0.46 128.54 0.75

Table 4.13 Bridge Replacement Evaluation Matrix - Bridge 150027 (Average Method)

Bridge Bridge Geometrics Bridge Openings Initial Costs User Delay Costs Life Cycle Cost Type Predicted Predicted Average Delay Annual Estimated Average Average per opening Annual Delay Cost of Delay Construction/ User Benefit/ Benefit/ Height Width Grade Percentage Weekday Weekend in Base Year in Base Year in Base Year Design Right-of Way Total Delay Savings Cost Total Cost (ft) (ft) (%) Reduction Openings Openings (Vehicle-hrs) (Vehicle-hrs) ( $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ratio ( in MIL $) ratio Movable 21 80 5 N/A 24 36 5.59 55811 737257 50.42 0.00 50.42 28.97 0.00 0.00 79.39 N/A

Movable 45 80 5 40 8 10 5.59 17441 230393 86.32 32.32 118.64 9.05 19.92 0.17 127.69 0.29

Movable 55 80 5 70 5 5 5.59 10174 134396 101.28 45.78 147.06 5.28 23.69 0.16 152.34 0.25

Fixed 65 80 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 33.51 59.25 92.76 0.00 28.97 0.31 92.76 0.68 Fixed 90 80 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 35.63 92.91 128.54 0.00 28.97 0.23 128.54 0.37

104

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSIONS

The developed user delay cost model is to be implemented in Pontis to help make complete an economic analysis for the justification of movable bridge replacement projects. Recommendation for this implementation is discussed. A discussion of the significance of the results obtained from the developed model is also is also presented.

5.1 Implementation of User Delay Cost Model in Pontis

Pontis simulates the functional improvement needs of bridges from considerations of functional standards and improvement feasibility. The following types of Improvement models in Pontis are used in establishing the rules that are used in these considerations: Widening, Raising, Strengthening and Replacement. All of the above-mentioned improvements rely on a common technique, described as the following sequence of operations: • Modeling of the roadway; • Evaluation of the width, strength, and underclearance deficiencies; • Evaluation of the feasibility of the required improvements; • Calculation of the improvement cost; and • Calculation of the improvement benefit. Roadway performance modeling for movable bridges should follow the existing logic in Pontis given by equation 3.23. For the evaluation of bridge deficiencies, the following procedures and requirements currently in Pontis should be adhered to with proposed changes made for the evaluation of raising deficiencies: Pontis considers widening of a bridge if the following conditions are met: • The service type on the bridge belongs to the list for which widening can be considered; and • At least one on-roadway of the bridge is width deficient.

105 Pontis considers strengthening of a bridge if the following conditions are met: • The service type on the bridge belongs to the list for which strengthening can be an option; and • The load rating on at least one of the on-roadway of the bridge is below the legal standard Pontis can be set to consider raising a movable bridge based on any of the following conditions: • A list of bridge service type for which raising can be an option and either • A minimum threshold of Average Daily Traffic or • A minimum threshold of vessel volume or • A minimum threshold of monthly or annual average bridge opening frequencies

Pontis assumes that any of the 3 types of improvements is generally feasible if the bridge’s superstructure and substructure ratings are equal or greater than the minimum value established for improvements. To be eligible for a widening improvement, the design code of the main span (NBI Item 43B) must be less than 9. Eligibility for a raising improvement requires the design code to be less than 11 but not equal to 7. A strengthening improvement eligibility requires the bridges design load code (NBI Item 31) to either be equal to 9 or between 4 and 6 and for the roadway over the bridge to be any of the following functional classes: 7,8,9,17,19. The design codes for the three types of movable bridges; 15 (Lift), 16 (Bascule) and 17(Swing) however do not meet the criteria set for the feasibility of bridge raising and bridge widening improvements. Movable bridges can therefore be considered either for only strengthening improvements or a complete bridge replacement.

The procedure for determining the cost of strengthening or replacing a movable bridge should follow the existing logic in Pontis. Pontis calculates the cost of strengthening based on the area of the bridge deck as follows: Strengthening Cost = Deck Area * StrengtheningUnitCost (5.1)

Where: StrengtheningUnitCost is the unit cost of strengthening a unit area of bridge deck and is extracted from the Cost Matrix in Pontis. The cost of replacement is calculated as:

106 Replacement Cost = DesignDeckArea * Unit Cost of Replacement *SwellFactor (5.2)

Where: DesignDeckArea is the area of the deck of the replacement bridge. Unit Cost of Replacement is the unit cost of building a bridge of the same functional class as the existing and is retrieved from the Policy Matrix in Pontis. SwellFactor is a cost-increase coefficient that is also retrieved from the Policy Matrix

As discussed earlier in section 4.3.1, Pontis assumes that user benefits of strengthening a bridge incur through the reduction of the number of vehicles that have to bypass a bridge. The estimated user benefit is given by equation 4.3 The user benefit of replacement is the sum of the benefits from the reduced accidents rates, the reduced detours of trucks traveling on the bridge roadway and the reduced delays to all vehicular traffic traveling over the bridge. The following roadway and vehicular traffic parameters will be required in Pontis for the user delay cost model: • The annual average daily traffic (AADT) on the bridge for the year of analysis, which is estimated under the roadway performance • The number of lanes on the roadway (NBI Item 028A) • Saturation Flow Rate of roadway (Generalized Level of Service Tables) Waterway and vessel traffic parameters that would have to be kept and updated in the Pontis database for the estimation of user delay include: • Average daily vessel traffic (Bridge opening Logs) • Average daily bridge openings (Bridge opening Logs) The cost of travel time is already available in Pontis Cost Matrix.

107 5.2 Benefit of Bridge Replacement

The benefits of movable bridge replacement were measured in terms of the savings of additional operational costs and travel time incurred by trucks that have to detour due to the bridges inadequate load carrying capacities and the savings in additional travel time incurred by vehicles whose weight limits allow then to travel over the bridge but may be held in queues during the bridges’ openings for the passage of vessels. The operational costs and traffic delay costs, unlike the direct bridge construction and rehabilitation costs and traffic management costs that are borne by the bridge replacement operation, are indirect costs to commerce and the public at large caused by enforced truck weight restrictions and the blockage of the roadways over the bridges at bridge openings. The dollar values obtained from the network analysis of benefits of movable bridge replacements in Florida indicated that the benefit of replacing most of Florida’s movable bridges would be derived from the benefit of increasing the underclearance of the bridges to accommodate more vessels. The option of replacement with a higher movable bridge would result in reduced delays to both vessels and vehicles. The option of replacement with a fixed bridge would on one hand result in the elimination of the delays to vehicles and on the other hand limit the heights of vessels traveling on the waterways. The analysis revealed that more than 65% of Florida’s movable bridges currently do not have load-carrying capacity deficiencies, based on the truck weight equations used in the network analysis. It also showed that bridge- strengthening benefits were far less than user delay savings for about 80% of bridges with strength deficiencies. The results of this analysis were however based solely on technical considerations and do not incorporate considerations such as social and environmental impacts, community acceptance, politics etc., which are beyond the scope of this study. The replacement of some movable bridges in Florida have been and are being resisted some members of the community in which the bridges are situated for various reasons. In one instance a movable bridge replacement with another movable bridge option of about the same underclearance as the existing has been proposed due to community acceptance and other considerations. In such an instance the benefit of replacement will be estimated from bridge strengthening only.

108

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Conclusions

The study developed a relationship that quantified the delay time experienced by the motorist because his right-of-way is obstructed by the opening of the movable bridges for the passage of vessels. These delay times experienced by the motorists are as a result of navigable underclearance deficiencies presented by the bridges to vessels traveling on waterways. An economic analysis places a monetary on the estimated delay time and is termed as the roadway user cost. The user cost represents part of the economic benefit of a bridge replacement project that involves increasing the bridge’s navigable vertical underclearance. The existing Pontis user cost model estimates the benefit of raising a fixed bridge in terms of the reduced fraction of truck traffic that has to detour due to the bridges’ vertical clearance deficiencies. The developed user model is proposed to measure the benefit of a raising a movable bridge in terms of the delays experienced by vehicles traveling on the bridge. These delays, which are as a result of roadway blockages experienced by the vehicles, were formulated as a function of the vessel queues for which the bridges are opened. Vessel count and height data as well as roadway blockage durations, from which the model was developed, were obtained at selected movable bridge sites within the state of Florida. The sites were selected in a way so as to make the collected data geographically unbiased. The data site selection process also considered areas within the state with dense movable bridge concentration and where the impact of movable bridges on vehicular traffic was significant. Sub-models for estimating the duration of roadway blockage to allow the passage queued vessels through the bridge opening were developed from roadway blockage times recorded during the data collection efforts. The total duration of roadway blockage included the time taken for the mechanical opening and closing of the bridge, the time taken by traffic control elements such as drop gates and signal lights and the time taken by the queued vessels to pass through the bridge opening. The results of these sub-models were used as delay input parameters for the user

109 cost model to estimate the delays to vehicular traffic traveling over the bridge. User cost rates for vehicular travel times were then applied to the estimated delay times to obtain the monetary values of the delay. The queuing analysis used for the development of the model was based on deterministic arrival and service distributions with a single service channel (D/D/1). This led to a simplified analysis of the queue build up at the bridge opening and queue dissipation at when the road blockage is removed. It is however recognized that this model is simple and does not consider the probabilistic characteristics of traffic flow and site-specific geometrics. The simplistic approach was however deemed adequate for the study due to the consideration that the analysis of traffic flow in the Pontis BMS, in which the model is to be incorporated, is currently based on a deterministic demand-service process. The developed model was used on the network of Florida’s movable bridges in a replacement benefit analysis that was aimed at correcting bridge strength and eliminating bridge opening delays experienced by motorists. Default Pontis and other developed truck weight models were used in determining the strengthening needs of the movable bridges, the results of which indicated that fewer than 35% of the movable bridges have strength deficiencies. All movables are however assumed to cause delays to motorists due to their insufficient underclearance for the passage of vessels; over 85% of the movable bridges in Florida have navigable underclearance of less than 25 feet. The results obtained showed that the total annual savings in delays to vehicular traffic would contribute to about 90% of the total benefit of replacing the state’s movable bridge. Fewer than 20% of the bridges with strengthening needs have bridge-strengthening benefits that exceed their savings in user delay costs. These results reinforce the relevance for the consideration of user delay costs from bridge openings in the economic justification for a movable bridge replacement.

6.2 Recommendations The average vessel service time of 1.42 minutes per vessel obtained from the analysis and used in the model gave unrealistic roadway blockage durations for the passage of 4 or more queued vehicles. The high value was primarily attributed to the low number of vessels passing through each bridge openings during data collection. The total time taken to open the movable spans of the bridge and to operate the traffic control elements on the bridge is about the same

110 irrespective of the number of vessels requiring passage. A greater number of queued vessels on the waterways would therefore better maximize the use of this fixed time period and give lower and more representative average vessel service time values for use in a statewide model. It is therefore recommended that a future survey be conducted at more weather favorable times of the year, preferably between May and November, when vessel traffic is relatively heavy. The distribution of the heights of vessel passing through the bridge should also be kept and updated through periodic vessel height surveys. This together with the information on vessel volumes and bridge opening frequencies would best help in decision making for various replacement bridge alternatives. Analysis of existing data on vessel traffic from the bridge opening logs and from observations made during the bridge survey show that pattern of vessel traffic on the waterways changes significantly with the seasonal changes. The highest vessel traffic on the waterways occurs during the summer months. This decreases at the winter and gradually increases through the spring season into summer. The daily number of vessels requiring bridge openings will therefore vary significantly with the seasonal changes, as well as the resulting delay durations and frequencies of bridge openings. Analyzing the effect of bridge openings on vehicular traffic by monthly averages of vessel traffic volumes instead of by one annual average value would help detail the effects of the movable openings on vehicular traffic at various times of the year and would give more accurate estimations of the total annual delay. Vehicles arrive before, at and after the periods of bridge openings in a random manner. They are also serviced at varying rates during each of the periods. It is therefore recommended for any future studies to research into the development of stochastic models for the analysis of queue occurrences at movable bridge openings.

111

APPENDIX A

SUMMARY OF BOAT SURVEY DATA AT BRIDGE STUDY LOCATIONS

1. Bridge ID 860060 (N.E. 14th Street Causeway) for Study Period: 12/13/02 – 12/19/02. 2. Bridge ID 930004 (Parker) for Study Period: 1/17/03 – 1/19/03. 3. Bridge IDs150027 & 150076 (Johns Pass) for Study Period: 3/28/03 – 3/29/03. 4. Bridge ID 150050 (Pinellas Bay Way) for Study Period: 5/8/03 – 5/11/03.

112

LIST OF TABLES

Table A.1 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 860060 for Friday, 12/13/2002 ...... 116 Table A.2 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 860060 for Saturday, 12/14/2002...... 118 Table A.3 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 860060 for Sunday, 12/15/2002...... 120 Table A.4 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 860060 for Monday, 12/16/2002...... 122 Table A.5 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 860060 for Tuesday, 12/17/2002 ...... 124 Table A.6 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 860060 for Wednesday, 12/18/2002...... 127 Table A.7 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 860060 for Thursday, 12/19/2002...... 128 Table A.8 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 930004 for Friday, 01/17/2003 ...... 130 Table A.9 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 930004 for Saturday, 01/18/2003...... 131 Table A.10 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 930004 for Sunday, 01/19/2003 ...... 132 Table A.11 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 150027 for Friday, 03/28/03 ...... 135 Table A.12 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 150027 for Saturday, 03/29/03...... 137 Table A.13 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 150050 for Thursday, 05/08/2003 ...... 139 Table A.14 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 150050 for Friday, 05/09/2003...... 141 Table A.15 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 150050 for Saturday, 05/10/2003...... 143 Table A.16 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 150050 for Sunday, 05/11/2003 ...... 145

113

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure A.1 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 For Friday, 12/13/2002 ...... 117 Figure A.2 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 For Friday, 12/13/2002 ...... 117 Figure A.3. Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 For Saturday, 12/14/2002...... 119 Figure A.4 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 For Saturday, 12/14/2002...... 119 Figure A.5 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 For Sunday, 12/15/2002...... 121 Figure A.6. Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 For Sunday, 12/15/2002...... 121 Figure A.7 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 For Monday, 12/16/2002...... 123 Figure A.8 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 For Monday, 12/16/2002...... 123 Figure A.9 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 For Tuesday, 12/17/2002 ...... 125 Figure A.10 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 For Tuesday, 12/17/2002 ...... 125 Figure A.11 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 For Wednesday, 12/18/2002...... 127 Figure A.12 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 For Wednesday, 12/18/2002...... 129 Figure A.13 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 For Thursday, 12/19/2002...... 129 Figure A.14 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 for Thursday, 12/19/2002...... 129 Figure A.15 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 930004 For Friday, 01/17/2003 ...... 130 Figure A.16 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 930004 for Friday, 01/17/2003 ...... 130 Figure A.17 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 930004 for Saturday, 01/18/2003...... 132 Figure A.18 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 930004 for Saturday, 01/18/2002...... 130 Figure A.19 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 930004 for Sunday, 01/19/2003...... 135 Figure A.20 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 930004 for Sunday, 01/19/2003...... 134

114 Figure A.21 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 150027 for Friday, 03/28/03 ...... 136

Figure A.22 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 150027 for Friday, 03/28/03 ...... 136 Figure A.23 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 150027 for Saturday, 03/29/03...... 138 Figure A.24 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 150027 for Saturday, 03/29/03...... 138 Figure A.25 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 150050 for Thursday, 05/08/2003...... 140 Figure A.26 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 150050 for Thursday, 05/08/2003...... 140 Figure A.27 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 150050 for Friday, 05/09/2003 ...... 142 Figure A.28 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 150050 for Friday, 05/09/2003 ...... 142 Figure A.29 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 150050 for Saturday, 05/10/2003...... 144 Figure A.30 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 150050 for Saturday, 05/10/2003...... 144 Figure A31. Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 150050 for Sunday, 05/11/2003...... 146 Figure A.32 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 150050 for Sunday, 05/11/2003...... 146 Figure A.33 Distribution of vessel count per bridge opening – Bridge 930004...... 147 Figure A.34 Distribution of bridge opening duration – Bridge 930004 ...... 147 Figure A.35 Distribution of vessel count per bridge opening – Bridge 150027...... 148 Figure A.36 Distribution of bridge opening duration – Bridge 150027 ...... 148 Figure A.37 Distribution of vessel count per bridge opening – Bridge 150050...... 149 Figure A.38 Distribution of bridge opening duration – Bridge 150050 ...... 149

115 Table A.1 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 860060 for Friday, 12/13/2002

Time of Duration of No. of vessels Tallest Vessel Bridge Opening Opening(secs) Height (ft) 8:15 300 1 24.5 8:45 360 5 45 9:16 330 3 45.36 9:45 300 3 24.65 10:15 375 5 53.61 10:45 375 5 51.7 11:15 300 2 27.56 11:25 475 4 73.49 11:46 240 1 16.17 12:16 375 4 36.93 12:46 600 3 32.3 13:15 270 1 25.68 13:45 360 8 42.81 14:15 300 2 74.8 14:45 360 5 48.25 15:15 400 7 29.18 15:45 300 1 31.67 16:14 360 2 31.33 16:45 300 1 39.63 17:15 300 3 47.28 17:45 270 1 31.5

116 12

No. OfVessels 4

0 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 Time Interval

Figure A.1 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 for Friday, 12/13/2002

80 70

60 50

40 30

HeightVessel (ft) 20 10

9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6

------

1 1 1

8 - - - 2 1 2 3 4 5

9 0 1 1 1 1 Time Interval

Figure A.2 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 for Friday, 12/13/2002

117 Table A.2 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 860060 for Saturday, 12/14/2002

Time of Duration of No. of Tallest Vessel Bridge Opening Opening(secs) vessels Height (ft) 7:45 300 1 35.4 8:15 285 3 66.87 9:15 275 1 22.42

9:45 305 1 20.23 10:15 285 1 28.87 10:44 270 1 21.34 11:15 300 5 50.5 11:45 345 3 29.8 12:15 420 5 32.86 12:45 450 4 67.9 13:15 370 3 52.31 13:45 260 3 32.86 14:15 360 5 43.04 14:45 480 7 65.83 15:15 420 10 63.59 15:46 420 8 35.17 16:15 360 4 65.62 16:46 410 9 49.03 17:15 405 7 42.15 17:45 380 3 30.79 18:01 360 3 46.17 18:13 390 4 29.55 18:24 330 2 21.71

118 20

18 16

14 12

10 8 No. of Vessels 6

0 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 Time Interval

Figure A.3 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 for Saturday, 12/14/2002

80 70

60 50

40 30

HeightVessel (ft) 20

8-9 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 9-10 12-1

10-11 11-12 Time Interval

Figure A.4 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 for Saturday, 12/14/2002

119 Table A.3 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 860060 for Sunday, 12/15/2002

Time of Duration of No. of vessels Tallest Vessel Bridge Opening Opening(secs) Height (ft) 8:15 270 2 26 8:45 250 1 36.55 9:15 300 2 19.16 9:45 315 3 57.16 10:15 335 4 30.89 11:15 300 2 54.69 11:45 370 1 15.65 12:15 360 7 37.67 12:44 420 5 62.32 13:15 300 2 41.22 13:46 255 1 32.12 14:14 300 4 42.32 14:44 315 3 42.18 15:15 255 1 27.81 15:53 330 1 22.56 16:15 345 3 51.43 16:45 380 4 36.51 17:15 330 3 29.65

120

12 10

No. Of Vessels 4

8-9 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 9-10 12-1

10-11 11-12 Tim e Interval

Figure A.5 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 for Sunday, 12/15/2002

70 60

40 30

Vessel(ft) Height 20

8-9 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 9-10 12-1

10-11 11-12 Time Interval

Figure A.6 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 860060\ for Sunday, 12/15/2002

121 Table A.4 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 860060 for Monday, 12/16/2002

Time of Duration of No. of Vessels Tallest Vessel Bridge Opening Opening(secs) Height (ft) 8:45 300 1 18.31 9:15 375 3 53.57 9:45 310 2 43.25 10:15 435 5 57.7 10:47 300 3 43 11:16 275 1 17.17 12:16 300 1 50.27 13:15 310 2 26.65 13:46 350 5 60.37

14:15 300 1 23.13

14:46 315 1 29.37

15:45 273 1 55.42

16:16 300 2 39.24 16:45 255 1 45.56 17:15 350 6 62.21

122

8 7 6 5 4

3 No. of Vessels 2 1 0

8-9 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 9-10 12-1 10-11 11-12 Time Interval

Figure A.7 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 for Monday, 12/16/2002

30 20 (ft) Height Vessel 10 0

8-9 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6

9-10 12-1 10-11 11-12 Time Interval

Figure A.8 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 for Monday, 12/16/2002

123 Table A.5 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 860060 for Tuesday, 12/17/2002

Time of Duration of No. of vessels Tallest Vessel Bridge Opening Opening(secs) Height (ft) 8:15 300 1 26.24 8:45 253 1 18.19 8:52 350 1 25 9:15 315 3 51.05 9:45 300 2 42.28 10:15 275 1 57.04 10:45 290 3 40.08 11:15 300 2 48.61 12:15 350 2 30.12 12:30 540 3 61.32 12:45 300 1 44.86 13:15 380 4 30.12 13:45 293 1 38 14:45 360 3 48.73 15:17 300 1 19.48 15:46 300 4 57.19 16:16 300 1 22.23 16:46 340 3 35.34 17:16 420 3 37.29

124

No. of Vessels 2

8-9 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 9-10 12-1 10-11 11-12 Tim e Interval

Figure A.9 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 for Tuesday, 12/17/2002

70 60

40 30

Height (ft)Vessel 10

8-9 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 9-10 12-1

10-11 11-12 Tim e Interval

Figure A.10 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 for Tuesday, 12/17/2002

125 Table A.6 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 860060 for Wednesday, 12/18/2002

Time of Duration of No. of vessels Tallest Vessel Bridge Opening Opening(secs) Height (ft) 8:16 300 2 33.18 8:46 277 1 20.05 9:16 265 1 38.41 9:45 301 1 57.31 10:16 270 2 22.31 10:45 357 5 48.89 11:15 275 1 19.29 11:45 295 4 30.55 12:15 302 3 27.97 12:45 335 5 43.02 13:45 387 2 39.93 14:15 342 2 42.04 14:32 399 3 84.4 14:45 283 2 36.9 15:15 277 1 26.47 15:46 301 4 39.71 16:15 308 3 59.59 16:46 298 1 22.34 17:16 300 1 23.39

126

7 6

4 3

No. of Vessels 2

1 0

8-9 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 9-10 12-1 10-11 11-12 Time Interval

Figure A.11 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 for Wednesday, 12/18/2002

90 80 70 60 50

40 30 20

HeightVessel (ft) 10 0

8-9 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6

9-10 12-1 10-11 11-12 Time Interval

Figure A.12 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 for Wednesday, 12/18/2002

127 Table A.7 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 860060 for Thursday, 12/19/2002

Time of Duration of No. of vessels Tallest Vessel Bridge Opening Opening(secs) Height (ft) 8:15 285 2 23.81

8:45 325 2 50.81

8:53 349 1 60.16 9:48 265 1 21.34 10:45 346 3 33.05

11:16 375 2 43

11:45 258 1 36.72 11:52 361 1 18.35 12:16 360 5 37.89 12:45 350 3 60.07

13:15 377 5 38.27 14:15 388 4 86.41 14:46 355 4 82.26 15:15 520 3 50.34

15:45 340 2 45.02 16:18 299 3 56.58 16:49 284 2 26.51 17:15 287 3 44.15

17:46 270 2 37.6

128

5 4

No. of Vessels 3

8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 Time Interval

Figure A.13 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 for Thursday, 12/19/2002

100 90

80 70 60

50 40 30

(ft) Height Vessel 20

10 0

8-9 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 9-10 12-1 10-11 11-12 Tim e Interval

Figure A.14 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 860060 for Thursday, 12/19/2002

129 Table A.8 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 930004 for Friday, 01/17/2003

Time of Duration of No. of vessels Tallest vessel

Bridge Opening Opening(secs) Height (ft) 11:20 300 1 34.48 12:01 350 1 36.73 12:50 345 1 57.46 14:41 905 4 53.96 15:20 485 4 60.43 15:40 314 1 23.21 16:33 291 1 30.63

No. ofvessels 2

0 11 - 12 12 -1 1 -2 2 -3 3 -4 4 -5 Time Interval

Figure A.15 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 930004 for Friday, 01/17/2003

No. of vessels 20

1 -2 2 -3 3 -4 4 -5 12 -1

- 11 12 Time Interval

Figure A.16 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 930004 for Friday, 01/17/2003

130 Table A.9 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 930004 for Saturday, 01/18/2003

Time of Duration of No. of vessels Tallest vessel Bridge Opening Opening(secs) Height (ft) 9:00 290 1 49.18

9:40 367 2 54.78 11:00 318 2 53.84 11:20 298 1 29.15

12:00 300 1 38.38

12:40 305 1 35.48 13:40 307 3 44.93 14:20 252 3 35.86

15:00 246 2 25 15:20 376 4 64.81 15:40 259 1 32.78 16:00 330 1 29.34

16:20 362 1 60.31 17:20 286 1 53

131

3 No. of Vessels 2

0 9 - 10 10 - 11 11 - 12 12 -1 1 -2 2 -3 3 -4 4 -5 5 -6

Time Interval

Figure A.17 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 930004 for Saturday, 01/18/2003

No. ofVessels 20

1 -2 2 -3 3 -4 4 -5 5 -6 12 -1 9 - 10

10 - 11 11 - 12 Tim e Interval

Figure A.18 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 930004 for Saturday, 01/18/2003

132 Table A.10 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 930004 for Sunday, 01/19/2003

Time of Duration of No. of vessels Tallest vessel

Bridge Opening Opening(secs) Height (ft) 10:00 300 1 28.26 10:20 310 2 31.77 10:40 310 1 51.99 11:00 330 1 36.59 11:20 328 1 60.74

12:20 370 4 52.47

12:40 352 2 45.3 13:20 382 2 42.47 13:40 290 1 38.37 14:00 386 4 51.81 14:40 292 1 27.41 15:00 380 3 39.44 15:20 297 2 32.47

15:40 412 4 47.26

16:00 392 5 59.11 16:40 391 4 64.38 17:20 340 1 46.34

133

9 8

4 Vessels of No. 3

0 10 - 11 11 - 12 12 -1 1 -2 2 -3 3 -4 4 -5 5 -6 Time Interval

Figure A.19 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 930004 for Sunday, 01/19/2003

No. of Vessels 20

10 - 11 - 12 -1 1 -2 2 -3 3 -4 4 -5 5 -6 11 12 Time Interval

Figure A.20 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 930004 for Sunday, 01/19/2003

134 Table A.11 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 150027/150076 for Friday, 03/28/03

Time of Duration of No. of Tallest Vessel Bridge Opening Opening(secs) vessels Height (ft) 7:20 285 1 34.86 8:01 260 2 35.44 8:23 245 1 45.64 9:09 258 1 54.67 10:31 300 1 32.28 10:45 375 1 48.88 10:54 300 1 35.65 11:10 261 1 45.1 11:22 264 1 56.31 11:37 325 1 45.68 12:03 280 1 54.91 12:10 287 1 38.38

12:25 255 1 36 13:13 270 1 37.19 13:24 333 3 59.06 13:58 425 2 32.71 14:10 366 3 49.17 14:41 317 2 45.34 15:20 225 1 58.64 15:31 185 1 24.53 15:51 298 1 56.59 16:00 252 1 58.44 16:31 255 1 53.21 16:40 300 2 36.42 16:51 290 1 46.5 17:07 381 2 54.82 17:18 227 1 44.76

17:25 235 1 32.65 17:55 438 3 43.61

135

Number of Vessels 2

7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6

Time Interval

Figure A.21 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 150027/150076 for Friday, 03/28/03

Vessel Height (ft) Height Vessel 20

7-8 8-9 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 9-10 12-1

10-11 11-12 Time Interval

Figure A.22 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 150027/150076 for Friday, 03/28/03

136 Table A.12 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 150027/150076 for Saturday, 03/29/03

Time of Bridge Duration of Tallest Vessel opening Opening (secs) No. of Vessels Height (ft)

7:00 255 1 42.26

7:22 325 2 36.41

7:45 260 1 34.18 8:16 264 1 34.95 10:10 276 1 43.04 10:18 265 2 44.04 10:28 255 1 35.43 10:38 263 1 31.37 10:49 265 1 36.93 11:15 261 1 37.1 11:24 268 1 40.24 11:39 368 3 41.99 11:47 263 1 42.21 11:58 280 2 38.91

12:13 285 1 42.94

12:20 287 1 34.16

12:48 323 5 50.82 12:57 317 3 57.38 13:07 264 1 42.12 13:23 262 1 30.76 13:32 296 1 46.18 13:39 306 1 38.4 13:50 267 1 44.07 14:04 255 1 23.04 14:20 248 1 46.24 14:37 345 3 59.17 14:50 322 3 42.1 15:00 312 2 42.44

15:12 250 1 38.23

15:25 371 5 46.31

15:40 242 2 41.32 15:48 360 2 56.38 15:58 320 3 50.01 16:08 242 1 54.56 16:30 252 1 57.29 16:49 330 3 40.81 17:01 300 2 51.43 17:10 326 2 36.53 17:33 243 1 47.93 17:42 250 1 33.55 17:52 245 3 54.36

137

Number of Vessels 4

7-8 8-9 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 9-10 12-1

10-11 11-12 Time Interval

Figure A.23 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 150027/150076 for Saturday, 03/29/03

Height(ft)Vessel 20

7-8 8-9 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 9-10 12-1

10-11 11-12 Time Interval

Figure A.24 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 150027/150076 for Saturday, 03/29/2003

138 Table A.13 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 150050 for Thursday, 05/08/2003

Time of Duration of No. of Vessels Tallest Vessel Bridge Opening Opening(secs) Height (ft) 11:20 261 3 53.51 12:40 252 2 48.00 13:00 195 2 51.45 13:40 165 1 55.48 14:40 202 2 47.47 15:00 192 2 32.86 15:20 172 1 36.65

15:40 185 1 29.02

16:00 205 2 50.02

17:00 248 2 52.69 17:20 200 1 52.56 18:00 200 2 32.55

139

2 Number ofVessels 1

1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 12-1

11-12 Time Interval

Figure A.25 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 150050 for Thursday, 05/08/2003

20 HeightVessel (ft)

1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 12-1 11-12 Time Interval

Figure A.26 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 150050 for Thursday, 05/08/2003

140 Table A.14 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 150050 for Friday, 05/09/2003

Time of Duration of No. of Vessels Tallest Vessel Bridge Opening Opening(secs) Height (ft) 10:00 253 1 54.28 10:20 216 1 42.31

10:40 246 1 51.32 11:00 258 3 38.5 11:20 246 1 52.34

11:40 246 1 52.53

12:00 213 1 57.81 12:20 228 1 38.24 12:40 272 2 52.93

13:00 240 2 58.67 13:20 202 2 49.07 13:40 203 1 63.3 14:20 250 2 54.97

14:40 192 1 38.24 15:00 248 1 53.67 15:20 268 3 58.67

15:40 192 1 53.3

17:00 247 2 53.64

141

2 Number of Vessels

0 10-11 11-12 12-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 Time Interval

Figure A.27 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 150050 for Friday, 05/09/2003

Vessel HeightVessel (ft) 20

1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6

12-1 10-11 11-12 Time Interval

Figure A.28 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 150050 for Friday, 05/09/2003

142 Table A.15 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 150050 for Saturday, 05/10/2003

Time of Duration of No. of Vessels Tallest Vessel

Bridge Opening Opening(secs) Height (ft) 8:00 232 1 51.36 8:20 235 1 45.07 8:40 228 1 57.64 9:20 270 1 40.08 9:40 233 1 49.78 10:00 338 5 65.97 10:20 235 1 46.37 10:40 240 2 35.63 11:00 235 1 47.48 11:20 285 4 60.8 11:40 282 3 58.89 12:00 265 2 46.66 12:20 256 1 48.95 12:40 245 3 52.63 13:20 586 6 51.63 13:40 226 2 54.64 14:00 208 2 51.67 14:20 240 2 38.5 14:40 195 1 53.25 15:00 195 2 52.31 15:20 202 2 54.42 15:40 212 3 56.32 16:00 220 1 45.25 16:20 215 3 68.49 16:40 195 2 54.8 17:00 200 4 59.62 17:20 220 2 47.46 17:40 213 3 56.02 18:00 320 3 56.24 18:20 240 4 48.68

143

7 6

Number of Vessels 3

0 8-9 9-10 10- 11- 12-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 11 12

Time Interval

Figure A.29 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 150050 for Saturday, 05/10/2003

80.00

70.00

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

Height(ft)Vessel 20.00

10.00

0.00

8-9 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 9-10 12-1

10-11 11-12 Tim e Interval

Figure A.30 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 150050 for Saturday, 05/10/2003

144 Table A.16 Summary of Data Collected on Bridge ID 150050 for Sunday, 05/11/2003

Time of Duration of No. of Vessels Tallest Vessel Bridge Opening Opening(secs) Height (ft) 9:40 240 2 58.77

10:00 313 2 48.26 11:00 318 3 63.47 11:20 290 4 65.25

12:20 240 2 48.33 12:40 213 1 44.51 13:20 360 2 68.31

13:40 240 4 59.46

14:00 296 4 58.56 14:20 340 5 56.47 15:00 325 4 58.49

15:20 276 2 60.08 15:40 240 2 58.64 16:00 315 3 63.47

16:20 198 2 59.37 16:40 323 4 64.05 17:00 240 2 46.54

17:40 289 1 49.41

18:00 270 2 59.86

145 10 9

6 5

Number of Vessels 3

0 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6

Time Interval

Figure A.31 Hourly Distribution of Vessels on Bridge ID 150050 for Sunday, 05/11/2003

HeightVessel (ft) 20

1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6

9-10 12-1 10-11 11-12 Time Interval

Figure A.32 Hourly Distribution of Tallest Vessels on Bridge ID 150050 for Sunday, 05/11/2003

146

No. of openings

0 12345 Number of Vessels per opening

Figure A.33 Distribution of vessel count per bridge opening – Bridge 930004

4 No. of openings

270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 Opening Time (Seconds)

Figure A.34 Distribution of bridge opening duration – Bridge 930004

147

45 40 35 30 25

Openings of No. 15 10 5 0 1235

No. of vessels

Figure A.35 Distribution of vessel count per bridge opening – Bridge 150027

30 25

No.openings of 10

180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480

More Opening Time(Seconds)

Figure A.36 Distribution of bridge opening duration – Bridge 150027

148

No. of Openings 10

123456

No. of vessels at Opening

Figure A.37 Distribution of vessel count per bridge opening – Bridge 150050

No. of openings 10

180 210 240 270 300 330 360 Opening Time (Seconds)

Figure A.38 Distribution of bridge opening duration – Bridge 150050

149

APPENDIX B

Movable Bridge Replacement Analysis

150

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure B.1 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 860060 (Monday, 12/16/2002)...... 152 Figure B.2 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 860060 (Tuesday, 12/17/2002) ...... 152 Figure B.3 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 860060 (Wednesday, 12/18/2002) ...... 153 Figure B.4 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 860060 (Thursday, 12/19/2002)...... 153 Figure B.5 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 860060 (Friday, 12/13/2002) ...... 154 Figure B.6 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 860060 (Saturday, 12/14/2002)...... 154 Figure B.7 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 860060 (Sunday, 12/15/2002)...... 155 Figure B.8 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 930004 (Friday, 01/17/2003) ...... 155 Figure B.9 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 930004 (Saturday, 01/18/2003)...... 156 Figure B.10 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 150027 (Friday, 03/28/03109) ...... 156 Figure B.11 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 150027 (Saturday, 03/29/03)...... 157 Figure B.12 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 150050 (Thursday, 05/08/2003 ...... 157 Figure B.13 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 150050 (Friday, 05/09/2003) ...... 158 Figure B.14 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 150050 (Saturday, 05/10/2003)...... 158 Figure B.15 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 150050 (Sunday, 05/11/2003)...... 159

151

Vessel ht. (ft) 20 Tallest Vessel At Opening 10 55-foot Moveable Bridge Option 45-foot Movable Bridge Option 0 8:00 9:12 10:24 11:36 12:48 14:00 15:12 16:24 17:36 Time of Opening

Figure B.1 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 860060 for Monday, 12/16/2002

(ft) ht. Vessel

20 Tallest vessel at Opening 45-foot Movable Bridge option 10 55-foot Movable bridge option

0 8:00 9:12 10:24 11:36 12:48 14:00 15:12 16:24 17:36 Time of Opening

Figure B.2 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 860060 for Tuesday, 12/17/2002

152

90 Tallest Vessel at opening 45-foot Movable Bridge option 80 55-foot Movable bridge Option

70 60 50 40

Vessel ht. (ft) 30 20 10 0 8:00 9:12 10:24 11:36 12:48 14:00 15:12 16:24 17:36 Time of Opening

Figure B.3 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 860060 for Wednesday, 12/18/2002

100 Tallest Vessel at opening 90 45-foot Movable Bridge Opening 55-foot Movable Bridge opening 80 70

50 40 (ft) ht. Vessel 30 20

0 8:00 9:12 10:24 11:36 12:48 14:00 15:12 16:24 17:36 Time of Opening

Figure B.4 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 860060 for Thursday, 12/19/2002

153 80

(ft) ht. Vessel 30

20 Tallest Vessel at Opening 55-foot Movable bridge Option 10 45-foot Movable Bridge option

0 8:00 9:12 10:24 11:36 12:48 14:00 15:12 16:24 17:36 Time of Opening

Figure B 5 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 860060 for Friday, 12/13/2002

Vessel ht. (ft) 30

20 Tallest Vessel at opening 45-foot movable bridge option 10 55-foot Movable bridge option

0 7:30 8:42 9:54 11:06 12:18 13:30 14:42 15:54 17:06 18:18

Time of Opening

Figure B.6 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 860060 for Saturday, 12/14/2002

154

Vessel (ft) ht.

20 Tallest Vessel at opening 10 55-foot movable bridge option 45-foot Movable Bridge option 0 8:00 9:12 10:24 11:36 12:48 14:00 15:12 16:24 17:36 Time of Opening

Figure B.7 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 860060 for Sunday, 12/15/2002

Tallest Vessel Height (ft) 20 Tallest vessel at bridge Opening 45-foot movable bridge option 10 55-foot movable bridge option

0 8:00 9:12 10:24 11:36 12:48 14:00 15:12 16:24 17:36 Time

Figure B.8 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 930004 for Friday, 01/17/2003

155

20 (ft) Height Vessel Tallest Tallest Vessel at opening 10 45-foot movable bridge option 55-foot movable bridge option 0 8:00 9:12 10:24 11:36 12:48 14:00 15:12 16:24 17:36 18:48 Ti m e o f O pe n i n g

Figure B.9 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 930004 for Saturday, 01/18/2003

Vessel Height (ft) Height Vessel 20 Tallest vessel at opening 45-foot movable option 10 55-foot movable option

0 7:00 8:12 9:24 10:36 11:48 13:00 14:12 15:24 16:36 17:48 Time of Opening

Figure B.10 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 150027/150076 for Friday, 03/28/03

156

30 ]

Height (ft) Vessel 20 Tallest Vessel at Opening 45-foot movable option 10 55-foot movable option

0 7:00 8:12 9:24 10:36 11:48 13:00 14:12 15:24 16:36 17:48 Time of Opening

Figure B.11 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 150027/150076 for Saturday, 03/29/03

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00 height Vessel (ft) Tallest Vessel At opening 55-foot movable option 10.00 45-foot Movable bridge option

0.00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00

Time of opening

Figure B.12 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 150050 for Thursday, 05/08/2003

157

(ft)Vessel Height 20 Tallest vessel at Opening 55-foot movable option 10 45-foot movable bridge option

0 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00

Time of Opening

Figure B.13 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 150050 for Friday, 05/09/2003

50 40

30 Vessel (ft) Height Tallest vessel at Opening 20 55-foot movable bridge option 10 45-foot movable bridge option

0 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00

Time of Opening

Figure B.14 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 150050 for Saturday, 05/10/2002

158

30 Vessel Height (ft) Tallest Vessel at opening 20 55-foot movable bridge option 45-foot movable bridge option 10

0 9:30 10:30 11:30 12:30 13:30 14:30 15:30 16:30 17:30 Time of opening

Figure B.15 Movable Bridge Replacement Options on Bridge ID 150050 for Sunday, 05/11/2

159

APPENDIX C

Vessel Volume Projections

160

LISTOF TABLES

Table C.1 Projection of Weekday Vessel Volume for Bridge ID 860060……………………162 Table C.2 Projection of Weekend Vessel Volume for Bridge ID 860060……………………162 Table C.3 Projection of Weekday Vessel Volume for Bridge ID 930004……………………163 Table C.4 Projection of Weekend Vessel Volume for Bridge ID 930004……………………163 Table C.5 Projection of Weekday Vessel Volume for Bridge ID 150027……………………164 Table C.6 Projection of Weekend Vessel Volume for Bridge ID 150027……………………164 Table C.7 Projection of Weekday Vessel Volume for Bridge ID 150050……………………165 Table C.8 Projection of Weekend Vessel Volume for Bridge ID 150050……………………165

161 Table C.1 Projection of Weekday Vessel Volume for Bridge ID 860060

Low Estimate (2020) High Estimate (2020) Bridge Survey (2003) (1% per year) (3% per year) Time of day < 45 feet > 45 feet Total < 45 feet > 45 feet Total < 45 feet > 45 feet Total 8-9 5 1 6 6 2 8 9 2 11 9-10 5 1 6 6 2 8 9 2 11 10-11 6 4 10 8 5 13 10 7 17 11-12 4 3 7 5 4 9 7 5 12 12-1 7 0 7 9 0 9 12 0 12 1-2 9 0 9 11 0 11 15 0 15 2-3 5 2 7 6 3 9 9 4 13 3-4 8 0 8 10 0 10 14 0 14 4-5 3 0 3 4 0 4 5 0 5 5-6 4 1 5 5 2 7 7 2 9 Total 56 12 68 70 18 88 97 22 119

Table C.2 Projection of Weekend Vessel Volume for Bridge ID 860060

Low Estimate (2020) High Estimate (2020) Bridge Survey (2003) (1% per year) (3% per year) Time of day < 45 feet > 45 feet Total < 45 feet > 45 feet Total < 45 feet > 45 feet Total 8-9 2 1 3 3 2 5 4 2 6 9-10 2 0 2 3 0 3 4 0 4 10-11 2 0 2 3 0 3 4 0 4 11-12 7 1 8 9 2 11 12 2 14

12-1 7 2 9 9 3 12 12 4 16

1-2 5 1 6 6 2 8 9 2 11

2-3 11 1 12 14 2 16 19 2 21

3-4 17 1 18 21 2 23 29 2 31

4-5 10 3 13 12 4 16 17 5 22

5-6 9 1 10 11 2 13 15 2 17

72 11 83 91 19 110 125 21 146 Total

162 Table C.3 Projection of Weekday Vessel Volume for Bridge ID 930004

Low Estimate (2020) High Estimate (2020) Bridge Survey (2003) (1% per year) (3% per year) Time of day < 45 feet > 45 feet Total < 45 feet > 45 feet Total < 45 feet > 45 feet Total 8-9000000000

9-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10-11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11-12 1 0 1 2 0 2 2 0 2

12-1112224224 1-2000000000 2-3224336448 3-4145257279 4-5101202202 5-6000000000 Total 6 7 13 11 10 21 12 13 25

Table C.4 Projection of Weekend Vessel Volume for Bridge ID 930004

Low Estimate (2020) High Estimate (2020) Bridge Survey (2003) (1% per year) (3% per year) Time of day < 45 feet > 45 feet Total < 45 feet > 45 feet Total < 45 feet > 45 feet Total 8-9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9-10 2 1 3 3 2 5 4 2 6 10-11 3 1 4 4 2 6 5 2 7 11-12 1 1 2 2 2 4 2 2 4 12-1 4 2 6 5 3 8 7 4 11 1-2 3 0 3 4 0 4 5 0 5 2-3 4 1 5 5 2 7 7 2 9 3-4 8 1 9 10 2 12 14 2 16 4-5 2 7 9 3 9 12 4 12 16 5-6 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 2 2

Total 27 15 42 36 24 60 48 28 76

163 Table C.5 Projection of Weekday Vessel Volume for Bridge ID 150027

Low Estimate (2020) High Estimate (2020) Bridge Survey (2003) (1% per year) (3% per year) Time of day < 45 feet > 45 feet Total < 45 feet > 45 feet Total < 45 feet > 45 feet Total 7-8 1 0 1 2 0 2 2 0 2 8-9 2 1 3 3 2 5 4 2 6 9-10 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 2 2 10-11 2 1 33 254 2 6 11-12 0 3 30 440 5 5

12-1 2 1 3 3 2 5 4 2 6 1-2 5 1 6 6 2 89 211 2-3 1 4 5 2 5 7 2 7 9 3-4 1 3 4 2 4 6 2 5 7 4-5 2 2 4 3 3 6 4 4 8 5-6 6 1 7 8 2 10 10 2 12 Total 22 18 40 32 28 60 41 33 74

Table C.6 Projection of Weekend Vessel Volume for Bridge ID 150027

Low Estimate (2020) High Estimate (2020) Bridge Survey (2003) (1% per year) (3% per year) Time of day < 45 feet > 45 feet Total < 45 feet > 45 feet Total < 45 feet > 45 feet Total 7-8 4 0 4 505707

8-9 1 0 1 202202 9-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-11 6 0 6 8 0 8 10 0 10 11-12 8 0 8 10 0 10 14 0 14 12-1 6 4 10 8 5 13 10 7 17 1-2 4 1 5 527729 2-3 4 4 8 5 5 10 7 7 14 3-4 12 3 15 15 4 19 20 5 25 4-5 3 2 5 437549 5-6 5 4 9 6 5 81 9 7 16 Total 53 18 71 68 24 162 91 32 123

164 Table C.7 Projection of Weekday Vessel Volume for Bridge ID 150050

Low Estimate (2020) High Estimate Bridge Survey (2003) (1% per year) (3% per year) Time of day < 50 feet > 50 feet Total < 50 feet > 50 feet Total < 50 feet > 50 feet Total 8-9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-11 1 2 3 2 3 5 2 4 6 11-12 3 2 5 4 3 7 5 4 9 12-1 2 2 4 3 3 6 4 4 8

1-2 2 3 5 3 4 7 4 5 9 2-3 1 2 3 2 3 5 2 4 6 3-4 1 4 5 2 5 7 2 7 9 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-6 1 1 2 2 2 4 2 2 4 Total 11 16 27 18 23 41 21 30 51

Table C.8 Projection of Weekend Vessel Volume for Bridge ID 150050

Low Estimate (2020) High Estimate Bridge Survey (2003) (1% per year) (3% per year) Time of day < 50 feet > 50 feet Total < 50 feet > 50 feet Total < 50 feet > 50 feet Total 8-9123235246 9-10202303404 10-11 6 2 8 8 3 11 10 4 14 11-12 4 4 8 5 5 10 7 7 14 12-15166289211 1-2 5 3 8 6 4 10 9 5 14 2-3325437549 3-4 3 4 7 4 5 9 5 7 12 4-5 3 3 6 4 4 8 5 5 10 5-6 7 2 9 9 3 12 12 4 16 Total 39 23 62 51 32 83 68 42 110

165

APPENDIX D

Data Analysis

166

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure D.1 Distribution of Number of vessels per Bridge Opening – Bridge ID 930004 ...... 168 Figure D.2 Distribution of Bridge Opening Durations – Bridge ID 930004...... 168 Figure D.3 Distribution of Number of vessels per Bridge Opening – Bridge ID 150027 ...... 169 Figure D.4 Distribution of Bridge Opening Durations – Bridge ID 150027...... 169 Figure D.5 Distribution of Number of vessels per Bridge Opening – Bridge ID 150050 ...... 170 Figure D.6 Distribution of Bridge Opening Durations – Bridge ID 150050...... 170 Figure D.7 Regression Analysis for Average Service Time Prediction Model – Bridge 860060 ...... 171 Figure D.8 Regression Analysis for Average Service Time Prediction Model – Bridge 930004 ...... 171 Figure D.9 Regression Analysis for Average Service Time Prediction Model – Bridge 150027&150076...... 172 Figure D.10 Regression Analysis for Average Service Time Prediction Model – Bridge 150050 ...... 172 Figure D.11 Comparison of Hourly Openings by Day – Bridge 860060 ...... 173

Figure D.12 Comparison of Hourly Tallest Vessels by Day – Bridge 860060...... 173

Figure D.13 Comparison of Hourly Openings by Day – Bridge 930004 ...... 174

Figure D.14 Comparison of Hourly Tallest Vessels by Day – Bridge 930004...... 174

Figure D.15 Comparison of Hourly Openings by Day – Bridge 150027&150076...... 175

Figure D.16 Comparison of Hourly Tallest Vessels by Day – Bridge 150027&150076 ...... 175

Figure D.17 Comparison of Hourly Openings by Day – Bridge 150050 ...... 176

Figure D.18 Comparison of Hourly Tallest Vessels by Day – Bridge 150050...... 176

167

Number of Opening 5

0 12345

Number of Vessels at Bridge opening

Figure D.1 Distribution of Number of vessels per Bridge Opening – Bridge ID 930004

12 100.00%

90.00% 10 80.00%

70.00% 8 60.00% 6 50.00%

40.00%

Number of Openings 4 30.00%

20.00% 2 10.00%

0 .00% 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 540 More

Duration of Bridge Opening (Seconds)

Frequency Cumulative %

Figure D.2 Distribution of Bridge Opening Durations – Bridge ID 930004

168

50 45 40

30 25 20 15 openings of Number 10 5 0 1235

No. of vessels

Figure D.3 Distribution of Number of vessels per Bridge Opening – Bridge ID 150027

35 100.00% 90.00% 30 80.00%

25 70.00%

60.00% 20 50.00% 15 40.00%

Number of Openings 10 30.00% 20.00% 5 10.00%

0 .00% 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 Duration of Bridge Opening (Seconds)

Frequency Cumulative %

Figure D.2 Distribution of Bridge Opening Durations – Bridge ID 150027

169 35 30

20 15

10 Number ofNumber openings

0 123456 No. of vessels at Opening

Figure D.5 Distribution of Number of vessels per Bridge Opening – Bridge ID 150050

30 100.00%

90.00% 25 80.00%

70.00% 20 60.00% 15 50.00%

40.00% 10 Number of Openings 30.00% 20.00% 5 10.00%

0 .00%

180 210 240 270 300 330 360 Duraton of Bridge opening (Seconds)

Frequency Cumulative %

Figure D.6 Distribution of Bridge Opening Durations – Bridge ID 150050

170 350

300 290

250 y = 289.32x-0.8522 R2 = 0.9938

200

(secs) 150 156

118 100 91 Average Service Time per vessel 74 58 59 50 45 46 42

0 024681012 No. of vessels Data Points Pow er Function Average Service Prediction Model

Figure D.7 Regression Analysis for Average Service Time Prediction Model – Bridge 860060

350

311 300

250 y = 298.43x-0.844 R2 = 0.9785 200

162 (secs) 150

g 100 104 101 78 Average Service Time per vessel 50

0 0123456 No. of vessels

Data Points Pow er Function Average Service Time Prediction Model

Figure D.8 Regression Analysis for Average Service Time Prediction Model – Bridge 930004

171 300 267 250

y = 273.29x-0.8324

200 R2 = 0.9968

157 150 (secs) 113 100

69 50 vessel Time per Service Average

0 0123456 No. of Vessels

Data Points Power Function Average Service Time Prediction Model

Figure D.9 Regression Analysis for Average Service Time Prediction Model – Bridge 150027

250

221 200

y = 210.6x-0.7624 R2 = 0.9802 150

118 (secs) 100 88 69 68 50

Average Service Time per Vessel

0 0123456 No. of Vessels

Data Points Pow er Fucntion Average Service Time Prediction Model

Figure D.10 Regression Analysis for Average Service Time Prediction Model – Bridge 150050

172

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 20 18

14 12 10 8

No. of Openings 6 4 2 0

8-9 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7

9-10 12-1 10-11 11-12 Time Interval

Figure D.11 Comparison of Hourly Openings by Day – Bridge 860060

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 100

90 80 70

50 40

Vessel Height (ft) Height Vessel 30

10 0

8-9 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 9-10 12-1

10-11 11-12 Time Interval

Figure D.12 Comparison of Hourly Tallest Vessels by Day – Bridge 860060

173

10 9 Friday Saturday Sunday 8 7 6 5 4 3 No. of Openings 2 1 0

1 -2 2 -3 3 -4 4 -5 5 -6 12 -1 9 - 10 10 - 11 11 - 12 Time Interval

Figure D.13 Comparison of Hourly Openings by Day – Bridge 930004

10 Friday Saturday Sunday 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 Vesel Height (ft) 2

1 -2 2 -3 3 -4 4 -5 5 -6 12 -1 9 - 10

10 - 11 11 - 12 Time Interval

Figure D.14 Comparison of Hourly Tallest Vessels by Day – Bridge 930004

174

14 Friday Saturday 12

10 8 6

No. of Openings 4 2 0

7-8 8-9 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6

9-10 12-1 10-11 11-12 Time Interval

Figure D.15 Comparison of Hourly Openings by Day – Bridge 150027&150076

16 Friday Saturday 14 12 10

8 6

(ft) Height Vessel 4

2 0

7-8 8-9 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 9-10 12-1

10-11 11-12 Time Interval

Figure D.16 Comparison of Hourly Tallest Vessels by Day – Bridge 150027&150076

175 Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 10 9 8 7 6 5

3 No. of Openings 2 1 0

8-9 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 9-10 12-1 10-11 11-12 Time Interval

Figure D.17 Comparison of Hourly Openings by Day – Bridge 150050

80 Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

70 60 50

40 30

Vessel Height (ft) 20

10 0

8-9 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7

9-10 12-1 10-11 11-12 Time Interval

Figure D.18 Comparison of Hourly Tallest Vessels by Day – Bridge 150050

176

APPENDIX E

User Cost Spreadsheet Models

177

BRIDGE OPENING USER COST MODEL QUEUING ANALYSES

I. Analyses Based On The Peak Hour Method II. Analyses Based On Average Method III. Analyses Based On Power function Service time Equation

The general model inputs are as follows: 1. Bridge cycle length - the regulated period bridge is kept closed. 2. The peak or average hourly vessel traffic held up in holding area. 3. The average service time 4. The base year (Current year of analysis) 5. The base year AADT 6. Future year (Future year of analysis) 7. The saturation flow rate, which is the expected maximum hourly rate of vehicular flow across the bridge assuming the bridge is open at all times. 8. The flow rate at bottleneck; this is equal to zero when bridge is open to vessels. 9. Peak and Directional Hour factors K and D 10. Traffic growth rate for roadway 11. Average number bridge openings in a day

Source of cost index data: US Department of Labor (Bureau of Labor Statistics) www.bls.gov

178

LIST OF TABLES

Table E.1 Peak-Hour Method Analyses for Bridge ID 860060...... 180 Table E.2 Peak-Hour Method Analyses for Bridge ID 930004...... 181 Table E.3 Peak-Hour Method Analyses for Bridge ID 150027...... 182 Table E.4 Peak-Hour Method Analyses for Bridge ID 150050...... 183 Table E.5 Average Hour Method Analyses for Bridge ID 860060 ...... 184 Table E.6 Average Hour Method Analyses for Bridge ID 930004 ...... 185 Table E.7 Average Hour Method Analyses for Bridge ID 150027 ...... 186 Table E.8 Average Hour Method Analyses for Bridge ID 150050 ...... 187 Table E.9 Power Function Service Time Analyses for Bridge ID 860060 ...... 188 Table E.10 Power Function Service Time Analyses for Bridge ID 930004 ...... 189 Table E.11 Power Function Service Time Analyses for Bridge ID 150027 ...... 190 Table E.12 Power Function Service Time Analyses for Bridge ID 1500050 ...... 191

179 Table E.1 Peak-Hour Method Analyses for BRIDGE ID 860060 TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Base year 2002 2002 Future year 2002 2020 Base yr AADT 15100 15100 Peak Hour Factor -k 9.39 9.39 Directional Factor - D 56.32 56.32 Traffic Growth rate 0.025 0.025 BRIDGE OPENING INPUT BRIDGE CYCLE LENGTH (minutes) 30 30 PEAK. HRLY VESSEL TRAFFIC (vess/hr) 18 30 AVG. SERVICE TIME (minutes) 1.42 1.42 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS NUMBER OF LANES ON ROADWAY (ONE DIRECTION) 2 2 SATURATION FLOW RATE (veh/hr/ln) 1850 1850 FLOW RATE AT BOTTLENECK (veh/min) 0 0 COST INPUT CPI - BASE YEAR - (1990) 127.90 127.90 CPI - CURRENT YEAR - (2002) 173.30 173.30 VALUE OF TRAVEL TIME IN BASE YEAR ($/Vehicle-Hour) 9.75 9.75 MODEL OUTPUT AADT 15100 23551 PEAK HRLY VEHICLE TRAFFIC (veh/hr)- Dir 1 799 1245 PEAK HRLY VEHICLE TRAFFIC (veh/hr) -Dir 2 619 966 VESSEL QUEUE - vessels 9 15 BRIDGE OPENING TIMEa -minutes 12.78 21.30 VEHICLE QUEUE -Dir 1 - vehicles 170 442 VEHICLE QUEUE -Dir 2 - vehicles 132 343 VESSEL DELAYb -Boat minutes 179.73 363.45 Duration of vehicle queue -Dir 1 (minutes) 16.30 32.11 Number of vehicles affected 217 666 Duration of vehicle queue Dir 2 (minutes) 15.35 28.83 Number of vehicles affected 158 464 DELAY PER VEHICLE - Dir 1 per cycle (minutes) 6.39 10.65 DELAY PER VEHICLE - Dir 2 per cycle (minutes) 6.39 10.65 DELAY PER VESSEL (minutes) 19.97 24.23 VEHICLE DELAY -Dir 1 per cycle (vehicle minutes) 1386 7098 VEHICLE DELAY - Dir 2 per cycle (vehicle minutes) 1012 4942 "PEAK HOUR" DELAY-Dir 1 (Vehicle minutes) 2772 14196 "PEAK HOUR" DELAY-Dir 2 (Vehicle minutes) 2025 9885 Daily Average Delayc -Dir 1 (Vehicle Hours) 345 1,474 Daily Average Delay -Dir 2 (Vehicle Hours) 252 1,026 Total Daily Average User Delay Cost $ 7,888 $ 45,997 Annual Average User Delay Cost $ 2,879,062 $ 16,788,988 a. A minimum opening time of 5 minutes is set for when 5 or fewer vessels are in queue. bBoat delay obtained as a sum of 1/2 bridge cycle period and 1/2 the bridge opening time MINUS the service flow rate per vessel, all multiplied by the number of vessels serviced during the opening. c"peak hour" delay factored into daily average delay.

180 Table E.2 Peak-Hour Method Analyses for BRIDGE ID 930004 TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Base year 2002 2002 Future year 2012 2020 Base yr AADT 25000 25000 Peak Hour Factor -k 10.19 10.19 Directional Factor - D 58.4 58.4 Traffic Growth rate 0.025 0.025 BRIDGE OPENING INPUT BRIDGE CYCLE LENGTH (minutes) 20 20 PEAK. HRLY VESSEL TRAFFIC (vess/hr) 9 15 AVG. SERVICE TIME (minutes) 1.42 1.42 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS NUMBER OF LANES ON ROADWAY (ONE DIRECTION) 2 2 SATURATION FLOW RATE (veh/hr/ln) 1850 1850 FLOW RATE AT BOTTLENECK (veh/min) 0 0 COST INPUT CPI - BASE YEAR - (1990) 127.90 127.90 CPI - CURRENT YEAR - (2002) 173.30 173.30 VALUE OF TRAVEL TIME IN BASE YEAR ($/Vehicle-Hour) 9.75 9.75 MODEL OUTPUT AADT 32002 38991 PEAK HRLY VEHICLE TRAFFIC (veh/hr)- Dir 1 1904 2320 PEAK HRLY VEHICLE TRAFFIC (veh/hr) -Dir 2 1357 1653 VESSEL QUEUE - vessels 3 5 BRIDGE OPENING TIMEa -minutes 5.00 5.00 VEHICLE QUEUE -Dir 1 - vehicles 159 193 VEHICLE QUEUE -Dir 2 - vehicles 113 138 VESSEL DELAYb -Boat minutes 33.24 55.40 Duration of vehicle queue -Dir 1 (minutes) 10.30 13.41 Number of vehicles affected 327 519 Duration of vehicle queue Dir 2 (minutes) 7.89 9.04 Number of vehicles affected 178 249 DELAY PER VEHICLE - Dir 1 per cycle (minutes) 2.5 2.5 DELAY PER VEHICLE - Dir 2 per cycle (minutes) 2.5 2.5 DELAY PER VESSEL (minutes) 11.08 11.08 VEHICLE DELAY -Dir 1 per cycle (vehicle minutes) 818 1296 VEHICLE DELAY - Dir 2 per cycle (vehicle minutes) 446 622 "PEAK HOUR" DELAY-Dir 1 (Vehicle minutes) 2453 3889 "PEAK HOUR" DELAY-Dir 2 (Vehicle minutes) 1339 1867 Daily Average Delayc -Dir 1 (Vehicle Hours) 321 509 Daily Average Delay -Dir 2 (Vehicle Hours) 175 244 Total Daily Average User Delay Cost $ 7,985 $ 13,861 Annual Average User Delay Cost $ 2,914,386 $ 5,059,218 a A minimum opening time of 5 minutes is set for when 5 or less vessels are in queue. bBoat delay obtained as a sum of 1/2 bridge cycle period and 1/2 the bridge opening time MINUS the service flow rate per vessel, all multiplied by the number of vessels serviced during the opening. c"peak hour" delay factored into daily average delay.

181 Table E.3 Peak-Hour Method Analyses for BRIDGE ID 150027 TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Base year 2002 2002 Future year 2002 2020 Base yr AADT 21000 21000 Peak Hour Factor -k 9.88 9.88 Directional Factor - D 59.18 59.18 Traffic Growth rate 0.025 0.025 BRIDGE OPENING INPUT BRIDGE CYCLE LENGTH* (minutes) 15 15 PEAK. HRLY VESSEL TRAFFIC (vess/hr) 15 25 AVG. SERVICE TIME (minutes) 1.42 1.42 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS NUMBER OF LANES ON ROADWAY (ONE DIRECTION) 2 2 SATURATION FLOW RATE (veh/hr/ln) 1850 1850 FLOW RATE AT BOTTLENECK (veh/min) 0 0 COST INPUT CPI - BASE YEAR - (1990) 127.90 127.90 CPI - CURRENT YEAR - (2002) 173.30 173.30 VALUE OF TRAVEL TIME IN BASE YEAR ($/Vehicle-Hour) 9.75 9.75 MODEL OUTPUT AADT 21000 32753 PEAK HRLY VEHICLE TRAFFIC (veh/hr)- Dir 1 1228 1915 PEAK HRLY VEHICLE TRAFFIC (veh/hr) -Dir 2 847 1321 VESSEL QUEUE - vessels 4 7 BRIDGE OPENING TIMEa -minutes 5.00 9.94 VEHICLE QUEUE -Dir 1 - vehicles 102 317 VEHICLE QUEUE -Dir 2 - vehicles 71 219 VESSEL DELAYb -Boat minutes 34.32 77.35 Duration of vehicle queue -Dir 1 (minutes) 7.48 20.60 Number of vehicles affected 153 658 Duration of vehicle queue Dir 2 (minutes) 6.48 15.46 Number of vehicles affected 92 340 DELAY PER VEHICLE - Dir 1 per cycle (minutes) 2.5 4.97 DELAY PER VEHICLE - Dir 2 per cycle (minutes) 2.5 4.97 DELAY PER VESSEL (minutes) 8.58 11.05 VEHICLE DELAY -Dir 1 per cycle (vehicle minutes) 383 3269 VEHICLE DELAY - Dir 2 per cycle (vehicle minutes) 229 1691 "PEAK HOUR" DELAY-Dir 1 (Vehicle minutes) 1531 13074 "PEAK HOUR" DELAY-Dir 2 (Vehicle minutes) 915 6766 Daily Average Delayc -Dir 1 (Vehicle Hours) 194 1,326 Daily Average Delay -Dir 2 (Vehicle Hours) 116 686 Total Daily Average User Delay Cost $4,090 $37,042 Annual Average User Delay Cost $ 1,492,671 $ 13,520,414 *A 15-minute cycle has been assumed for the analysis. (The bridge is regulated to open on demand) aBridge Opening Duration obtained from power function derived from survey data. bBoat delay obtained as a sum of 1/2 bridge cycle period and 1/2 the bridge opening time MINUS the service flow rate per vessel, all multiplied by the number of vessels serviced during the opening. c"peak hour" delay factored into daily average delay.

182 Table E.4 Peak-Hour Method Analyses for BRIDGE ID 150050 TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Base year 2002 2002 Future year 2002 2020 Base yr AADT 15800 15800 Peak Hour Factor -k 9.88 9.88 Directional Factor - D 59.18 59.18 Traffic Growth rate 0.025 0.025 BRIDGE OPENING INPUT BRIDGE CYCLE LENGTH (minutes) 20 20 PEAK. HRLY VESSEL TRAFFIC (vess/hr) 9 15 AVG. SERVICE TIME (minutes) 1.42 1.42 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS NUMBER OF LANES ON ROADWAY (ONE DIRECTION) 2 2 SATURATION FLOW RATE (veh/hr/ln) 1850 1850 FLOW RATE AT BOTTLENECK (veh/min) 0 0 COST INPUT CPI - BASE YEAR - (1990) 127.90 127.90 CPI - CURRENT YEAR - (2002) 173.30 173.30 VALUE OF TRAVEL TIME IN BASE YEAR ($/Vehicle-Hour) 9.75 9.75 MODEL OUTPUT AADT 15800 24643 PEAK HRLY VEHICLE TRAFFIC (veh/hr)- Dir 1 924 1441 PEAK HRLY VEHICLE TRAFFIC (veh/hr) -Dir 2 637 994 VESSEL QUEUE - vessels 3 5 BRIDGE OPENING TIMEa -minutes 5.00 5.00 VEHICLE QUEUE -Dir 1 - vehicles 77 120 VEHICLE QUEUE -Dir 2 - vehicles 53 83 VESSEL DELAYb -Boat minutes 33.24 55.40 Duration of vehicle queue -Dir 1 (minutes) 6.66 8.19 Number of vehicles affected 103 197 Duration of vehicle queue Dir 2 (minutes) 6.04 6.84 Number of vehicles affected 64 113 DELAY PER VEHICLE - Dir 1 per cycle (minutes) 2.5 2.5 DELAY PER VEHICLE - Dir 2 per cycle (minutes) 2.5 2.5 DELAY PER VESSEL (minutes) 11.08 11.08 VEHICLE DELAY -Dir 1 per cycle (vehicle minutes) 257 492 VEHICLE DELAY - Dir 2 per cycle (vehicle minutes) 160 283 "PEAK HOUR" DELAY-Dir 1 (Vehicle minutes) 770 1475 "PEAK HOUR" DELAY-Dir 2 (Vehicle minutes) 481 849 Daily Average Delayc -Dir 1 (Vehicle Hours) 104 199 Daily Average Delay -Dir 2 (Vehicle Hours) 65 115 Total Daily Average User Delay Cost $2,230 $5,772 Annual Average User Delay Cost $ 813,845 $ 2,106,730 a A minimum opening time of 5 minutes is set for when 5 or less vessels are in queue. bBoat delay obtained as a sum of 1/2 bridge cycle period and 1/2 the bridge opening time MINUS the service flow rate per vessel, all multiplied by the number of vessels serviced during the opening. c"peak hour" delay factored into daily average delay.

183 Table E.5 Average Hour Method Analyses for BRIDGE ID 860060

TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Base year 2002 2002 Future year 2002 2020 Base yr AADT 15100 15100 Directional Split - (Peak direction) 0.5632 0.5632 Traffic Growth rate 0.025 0.025 Fraction of Daylight Traffica 0.75 0.75 BRIDGE OPENING INPUT BRIDGE CYCLE LENGTH (minutes) 30 30 AVG. HRLY VESSEL TRAFFIC (vess/hr) 9 15 AVG. SERVICE TIME (minutes) 1.42 1.42 SATURATION FLOW RATE (veh/hr) 1850 1850 FLOW RATE AT BOTTLENECK (veh/min) 0 0 DAILY No. of OPENINGS 24 24 COST INPUT CPI - BASE YEAR - (1990) 127.90 127.90 CPI - CURRENT YEAR - (2002) 173.30 173.30 VALUE OF TRAVEL TIME IN BASE YEAR ($/Vehicle-Hour) 9.75 9.75 MODEL OUTPUT AADT 15100 23551 AVG. HRLY Daylight VEHICLE TRAFFIC (veh/hr)- Dir 1 532 829 AVG. HRLY Daylight VEHICLE TRAFFIC (veh/hr) -Dir 2 412 643 VESSEL QUEUE - vessels 5 8 BRIDGE OPENING TIME -minutes 7.10 11.36 VEHICLE QUEUE -Dir 1 - vehicles 63 157 VEHICLE QUEUE -Dir 1 - vehicles 49 122 VESSEL DELAYb -Boat minutes 85.65 154.08 Duration of vehicle queue -Dir 1 (minutes) 8.29 14.64 Number of vehicles affected 73 202 Duration of vehicle queue Dir 2 (minutes) 7.99 13.75 Number of vehicles affected 55 147 VEHICLE DELAY -Dir 1 (vehicle minutes) 261 1149 VEHICLE DELAY - Dir 2 (vehicle minutes) 195 837 DELAY PER VEHICLE - Dir 1(minutes) 3.55 5.68 DELAY PER VEHICLE - Dir 2(minutes) 3.55 5.68 DELAY PER VESSEL (minutes) 17.13 19.26 Daily Average User Delay Cost $ 2,408 $ 14,617 Annual Average User Delay Cost $ 878,801 $ 5,335,214 a Fraction of daylight vehicular traffic mostly affected by bridge openings. bBoat delay obtained as a sum of 1/2 bridge cycle period and 1/2 the bridge opening time MINUS the service flow rate per vessel, all multiplied by the number of vessels serviced during the opening.

184 Table E.6 Average Hour Method Analyses for BRIDGE ID 930004 TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Base year 2002 2002 Future year 2002 2020 Base yr AADT 25000 25000 Directional Split - (Peak direction) 0.584 0.584 Traffic Growth rate 0.025 0.025 Fraction of Daylight Traffica 0.75 0.75 BRIDGE OPENING INPUT BRIDGE CYCLE LENGTH (minutes) 20 20 AVG. HRLY VESSEL TRAFFIC (vess/hr) 5 8 AVG. SERVICE TIME (minutes) 1.42 1.42 SATURATION FLOW RATE (veh/hr) 1850 1850 FLOW RATE AT BOTTLENECK (veh/min) 0 0 DAILY No. of OPENINGS 24 24 COST INPUT CPI - BASE YEAR - (1990) 127.90 127.90 CPI - CURRENT YEAR - (2002) 173.30 173.30 VALUE OF TRAVEL TIME IN BASE YEAR ($/Vehicle-Hour) 9.75 9.75 MODEL OUTPUT AADT 25000 38991 AVG. HRLY Daylight VEHICLE TRAFFIC (veh/hr)- Dir 1 913 1423 AVG. HRLY Daylight VEHICLE TRAFFIC (veh/hr) -Dir 2 650 1014 VESSEL QUEUE - vessels 2 3 BRIDGE OPENING TIME -minutes 2.84 4.26 VEHICLE QUEUE -Dir 1 - vehicles 43 101 VEHICLE QUEUE -Dir 1 - vehicles 31 72 VESSEL DELAYb -Boat minutes 20.00 32.13 Duration of vehicle queue -Dir 1 (minutes) 3.77 6.92 Number of vehicles affected 57 164 Duration of vehicle queue Dir 2 (minutes) 3.45 5.87 Number of vehicles affected 37 99 VEHICLE DELAY -Dir 1 (vehicle minutes) 81 350 VEHICLE DELAY - Dir 2 (vehicle minutes) 53 211 DELAY PER VEHICLE - Dir 1(minutes) 1.42 2.13 DELAY PER VEHICLE - Dir 2(minutes) 1.42 2.13 DELAY PER VESSEL (minutes) 10.00 10.71 Daily Average User Delay Cost $ 710 $ 4,129 Annual Average User Delay Cost $ 259,247 $ 1,507,090 a Fraction of daylight vehicular traffic mostly affected by bridge openings. bBoat delay obtained as a sum of 1/2 bridge cycle period and 1/2 the bridge opening time MINUS the service flow rate per vessel, all multiplied by the number of vessels serviced during the opening.

185 Table E.7 Average Hour Method Analyses for BRIDGE ID 150027 TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Base year 2002 2002 Future year 2002 2020 Base yr AADT 21000 21000 Directional Split - (Peak direction) 0.5918 0.5918 Traffic Growth rate 0.025 0.025 Fraction of Daylight Traffica 0.75 0.75 BRIDGE OPENING INPUT BRIDGE CYCLE LENGTH (minutes) 30 30 AVG. HRLY VESSEL TRAFFIC (vess/hr) 7 12 AVG. SERVICE TIME (minutes) 1.42 1.42 SATURATION FLOW RATE (veh/hr) 1850 1850 FLOW RATE AT BOTTLENECK (veh/min) 0 0 DAILY No. of OPENINGS 24 24 COST INPUT CPI - BASE YEAR - (1990) 127.90 127.90 CPI - CURRENT YEAR - (2002) 173.30 173.30 VALUE OF TRAVEL TIME IN BASE YEAR ($/Vehicle-Hour) 9.75 9.75 MODEL OUTPUT AADT 21000 32753 AVG. HRLY Daylight VEHICLE TRAFFIC (veh/hr)- Dir 1 777 1211 AVG. HRLY Daylight VEHICLE TRAFFIC (veh/hr) -Dir 2 536 836 VESSEL QUEUE - vessels 4 6 BRIDGE OPENING TIME -minutes 5.68 8.52 VEHICLE QUEUE -Dir 1 - vehicles 74 172 VEHICLE QUEUE -Dir 1 - vehicles 51 119 VESSEL DELAYb -Boat minutes 65.68 107.04 Duration of vehicle queue -Dir 1 (minutes) 7.19 12.67 Number of vehicles affected 93 256 Duration of vehicle queue Dir 2 (minutes) 6.64 11.01 Number of vehicles affected 59 153 VEHICLE DELAY -Dir 1 (vehicle minutes) 264 1090 VEHICLE DELAY - Dir 2 (vehicle minutes) 168 653 DELAY PER VEHICLE - Dir 1(minutes) 2.84 4.26 DELAY PER VEHICLE - Dir 2(minutes) 2.84 4.26 DELAY PER VESSEL (minutes) 16.42 17.84 Daily Average User Delay Cost $ 2,287 $ 12,826 Annual Average User Delay Cost $ 834,678 $ 4,681,646 a Fraction of daylight vehicular traffic mostly affected by bridge openings. bBoat delay obtained as a sum of 1/2 bridge cycle period and 1/2 the bridge opening time MINUS the service flow rate per vessel, all multiplied by the number of vessels serviced during the opening.

186 Table E.8 Average Hour Method Analyses for BRIDGE ID 150050 TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Base year 2002 2002 Future year 2002 2020 Base yr AADT 15800 15800 Directional Split - (Peak direction) 0.5918 0.5918 Traffic Growth rate 0.025 0.025 Fraction of Daylight Traffica 0.75 0.75 BRIDGE OPENING INPUT BRIDGE CYCLE LENGTH (minutes) 20 20 AVG. HRLY VESSEL TRAFFIC (vess/hr) 7 11 AVG. SERVICE TIME (minutes) 1.42 1.42 SATURATION FLOW RATE (veh/hr) 1850 1850 FLOW RATE AT BOTTLENECK (veh/min) 0 0 DAILY No. of OPENINGS 24 24 COST INPUT CPI - BASE YEAR - (1990) 127.90 127.90 CPI - CURRENT YEAR - (2002) 173.30 173.30 VALUE OF TRAVEL TIME IN BASE YEAR ($/Vehicle-Hour) 9.75 9.75 MODEL OUTPUT AADT 15800 24643 AVG. HRLY Daylight VEHICLE TRAFFIC (veh/hr)- Dir 1 584 911 AVG. HRLY Daylight VEHICLE TRAFFIC (veh/hr) -Dir 2 403 629 VESSEL QUEUE - vessels 3 4 BRIDGE OPENING TIME -minutes 4.26 5.68 VEHICLE QUEUE -Dir 1 - vehicles 41 86 VEHICLE QUEUE -Dir 1 - vehicles 29 60 VESSEL DELAYb -Boat minutes 32.13 45.68 Duration of vehicle queue -Dir 1 (minutes) 5.06 7.54 Number of vehicles affected 49 114 Duration of vehicle queue Dir 2 (minutes) 4.78 6.84 Number of vehicles affected 32 72 VEHICLE DELAY -Dir 1 (vehicle minutes) 105 325 VEHICLE DELAY - Dir 2 (vehicle minutes) 68 204 DELAY PER VEHICLE - Dir 1(minutes) 2.13 2.84 DELAY PER VEHICLE - Dir 2(minutes) 2.13 2.84 DELAY PER VESSEL (minutes) 10.71 11.42 Daily Average User Delay Cost $ 916 $ 3,892 Annual Average User Delay Cost $ 334,396 $ 1,420,679 a Fraction of daylight vehicular traffic mostly affected by bridge openings. bBoat delay obtained as a sum of 1/2 bridge cycle period and 1/2 the bridge opening time MINUS the service flow rate per vessel, all multiplied by the number of vessels serviced during the opening.

187 Table E.9 Power Function Service Time Analyses for BRIDGE ID 860060 TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Base year 2002 2002 Future year 2002 2020 Base yr AADT 15100 15100 Peak Hour Factor -k 9.39 9.39 Directional Factor - D 56.32 56.32 Traffic Growth rate 0.025 0.025 BRIDGE OPENING INPUT BRIDGE CYCLE LENGTH (minutes) 30 30 PEAK. HRLY VESSEL TRAFFIC (vess/hr) 18 30 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS NUMBER OF LANES ON ROADWAY (ONE DIRECTION) 2 2 SATURATION FLOW RATE (veh/hr/ln) 1850 1850 FLOW RATE AT BOTTLENECK (veh/min) 0 0 COST INPUT CPI - BASE YEAR - (1990) 127.90 127.90 CPI - CURRENT YEAR - (2002) 173.30 173.30 VALUE OF TRAVEL TIME IN BASE YEAR ($/Vehicle-Hour) 9.75 9.75 MODEL OUTPUT AADT 15100 23551 PEAK HRLY VEHICLE TRAFFIC (veh/hr)- Dir 1 799 1245 PEAK HRLY VEHICLE TRAFFIC (veh/hr) -Dir 2 619 966 VESSEL QUEUE - vessels 9 15 BRIDGE OPENING TIMEa -minutes 6.67 7.20 VEHICLE QUEUE -Dir 1 - vehicles 89 149 VEHICLE QUEUE -Dir 2 - vehicles 69 116 VESSEL DELAYb -Boat minutes 165.02 278.97 Duration of vehicle queue -Dir 1 (minutes) 8.51 10.85 Number of vehicles affected 113 225 Duration of vehicle queue Dir 2 (minutes) 8.01 9.74 Number of vehicles affected 83 157 DELAY PER VEHICLE - Dir 1 per cycle (minutes) 3.34 3.59 DELAY PER VEHICLE - Dir 2 per cycle (minutes) 3.34 3.59 DELAY PER VESSEL (minutes) 18.34 18.59 VEHICLE DELAY -Dir 1 per cycle (vehicle minutes) 378 810 VEHICLE DELAY - Dir 2 per cycle (vehicle minutes) 276 564 "PEAK HOUR" DELAY-Dir 1 (Vehicle minutes) 756 1620 "PEAK HOUR" DELAY-Dir 2 (Vehicle minutes) 552 1128 Daily Average Delayc -Dir 1 (Vehicle Hours) 110 232 Daily Average Delay -Dir 2 (Vehicle Hours) 80 161 Total Daily Average User Delay Cost $2,508 $7,239 Annual Average User Delay Cost $ 915,424 $ 2,642,413 aBridge Opening Duration obtained from power function derived from survey data. bBoat delay obtained as a sum of 1/2 bridge cycle period and 1/2 the bridge opening time MINUS the service flow rate per vessel, all multiplied by the number of vessels serviced during the opening. c"peak hour" delay factored into daily average delay.

188

Table E.10 Power Function Service Time Analyses for BRIDGE ID 930004 TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Base year 2002 2002 Future year 2002 2020 Base yr AADT 25000 25000 Peak Hour Factor -k 10.19 10.19 Directional Factor - D 58.4 58.4 Traffic Growth rate 0.025 0.025 BRIDGE OPENING INPUT BRIDGE CYCLE LENGTH (minutes) 20 20 PEAK. HRLY VESSEL TRAFFIC (vess/hr) 9 15 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS NUMBER OF LANES ON ROADWAY (ONE DIRECTION) 2 2 SATURATION FLOW RATE (veh/hr/ln) 1850 1850 FLOW RATE AT BOTTLENECK (veh/min) 0 0 COST INPUT CPI - BASE YEAR - (1990) 127.90 127.90 CPI - CURRENT YEAR - (2002) 173.30 173.30 VALUE OF TRAVEL TIME IN BASE YEAR ($/Vehicle-Hour) 9.75 9.75 MODEL OUTPUT AADT 25000 38991 PEAK HRLY VEHICLE TRAFFIC (veh/hr)- Dir 1 1488 2320 PEAK HRLY VEHICLE TRAFFIC (veh/hr) -Dir 2 1060 1653 VESSEL QUEUE - vessels 3 5 BRIDGE OPENING TIMEa -minutes 5.90 6.39 VEHICLE QUEUE -Dir 1 - vehicles 146 247 VEHICLE QUEUE -Dir 2 - vehicles 104 176 VESSEL DELAYb -Boat minutes 38.86 65.98 Duration of vehicle queue -Dir 1 (minutes) 9.87 17.15 Number of vehicles affected 245 663 Duration of vehicle queue Dir 2 (minutes) 8.27 11.56 Number of vehicles affected 146 318 DELAY PER VEHICLE - Dir 1 per cycle (minutes) 2.95 3.19 DELAY PER VEHICLE - Dir 2 per cycle (minutes) 2.95 3.19 DELAY PER VESSEL (minutes) 12.9 13.19 VEHICLE DELAY -Dir 1 per cycle (vehicle minutes) 723 2120 VEHICLE DELAY - Dir 2 per cycle (vehicle minutes) 431 1018 "PEAK HOUR" DELAY-Dir 1 (Vehicle minutes) 2168 6359 "PEAK HOUR" DELAY-Dir 2 (Vehicle minutes) 1294 3053 Daily Average Delayc -Dir 1 (Vehicle Hours) 274 788 Daily Average Delay -Dir 2 (Vehicle Hours) 163 378 Total Daily Average User Delay Cost $ 5,776 $ 21,466 Annual Average User Delay Cost $ 2,108,205 $ 7,835,189 aBridge Opening Duration obtained from power function derived from survey data. bBoat delay obtained as a sum of 1/2 bridge cycle period and 1/2 the bridge opening time MINUS the service flow rate per vessel, all multiplied by the number of vessels serviced during the opening. c"peak hour" delay factored into daily average delay.

189 Table E.11 Power Function Service Time Analyses for BRIDGE ID 150027 TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Base year 2002 2002 Future year 2002 2020 Base yr AADT 21000 21000 Peak Hour Factor -k 9.88 9.88 Directional Factor - D 59.18 59.18 Traffic Growth rate 0.025 0.025 BRIDGE OPENING INPUT BRIDGE CYCLE LENGTH* (minutes) 15 15 PEAK. HRLY VESSEL TRAFFIC (vess/hr) 15 25 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS NUMBER OF LANES ON ROADWAY (ONE DIRECTION) 2 2 SATURATION FLOW RATE (veh/hr/ln) 1850 1850 FLOW RATE AT BOTTLENECK (veh/min) 0 0 COST INPUT CPI - BASE YEAR - (1990) 127.90 127.90 CPI - CURRENT YEAR - (2002) 173.30 173.30 VALUE OF TRAVEL TIME IN BASE YEAR ($/Vehicle-Hour) 9.75 9.75 MODEL OUTPUT AADT 21000 32753 PEAK HRLY VEHICLE TRAFFIC (veh/hr)- Dir 1 1228 1915 PEAK HRLY VEHICLE TRAFFIC (veh/hr) -Dir 2 847 1321 VESSEL QUEUE - vessels 4 7 BRIDGE OPENING TIMEa -minutes 5.75 6.31 VEHICLE QUEUE -Dir 1 - vehicles 118 201 VEHICLE QUEUE -Dir 2 - vehicles 81 139 VESSEL DELAYb -Boat minutes 41.49 74.59 Duration of vehicle queue -Dir 1 (minutes) 8.60 13.08 Number of vehicles affected 176 418 Duration of vehicle queue Dir 2 (minutes) 7.45 9.82 Number of vehicles affected 105 216 DELAY PER VEHICLE - Dir 1 per cycle (minutes) 2.87 3.15 DELAY PER VEHICLE - Dir 2 per cycle (minutes) 2.87 3.15 DELAY PER VESSEL (minutes) 10.37 10.65 VEHICLE DELAY -Dir 1 per cycle (vehicle minutes) 506 1318 VEHICLE DELAY - Dir 2 per cycle (vehicle minutes) 302 682 "PEAK HOUR" DELAY-Dir 1 (Vehicle minutes) 2023 5271 "PEAK HOUR" DELAY-Dir 2 (Vehicle minutes) 1209 2728 Daily Average Delayc -Dir 1 (Vehicle Hours) 247 626 Daily Average Delay -Dir 2 (Vehicle Hours) 147 324 Total Daily Average User Delay Cost $ 5,207 $ 17,476 Annual Average User Delay Cost $ 1,900,518 $ 6,378,637 *A 15-minute cycle has been assumed for the analysis. (The bridge is regulated to open on demand ) aBridge Opening Duration obtained from power function derived from survey data. bBoat delay obtained as a sum of 1/2 bridge cycle period and 1/2 the bridge opening time MINUS the service flow rate per vessel, all multiplied by the number of vessels serviced during the opening. c"peak hour" delay factored into daily average delay.

190 Table E.12 Power Function Service Time Analyses for BRIDGE ID 1500050

TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Base year 2002 2002 Future year 2002 2020 Base yr AADT 15800 15800 Peak Hour Factor -k 9.88 9.88 Directional Factor - D 59.18 59.18 Traffic Growth rate 0.025 0.025 BRIDGE OPENING INPUT BRIDGE CYCLE LENGTH (minutes) 20 20 PEAK. HRLY VESSEL TRAFFIC (vess/hr) 9 15 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS NUMBER OF LANES ON ROADWAY (ONE DIRECTION) 2 2 SATURATION FLOW RATE (veh/hr/ln) 1850 1850 FLOW RATE AT BOTTLENECK (veh/min) 0 0 COST INPUT CPI - BASE YEAR - (1990) 127.90 127.90 CPI - CURRENT YEAR - (2002) 173.30 173.30 VALUE OF TRAVEL TIME IN BASE YEAR ($/Vehicle-Hour) 9.75 9.75 MODEL OUTPUT AADT 15800 24643 PEAK HRLY VEHICLE TRAFFIC (veh/hr)- Dir 1 924 1441 PEAK HRLY VEHICLE TRAFFIC (veh/hr) -Dir 2 637 994 VESSEL QUEUE - vessels 3 5 BRIDGE OPENING TIMEa -minutes 4.56 5.14 VEHICLE QUEUE -Dir 1 - vehicles 70 124 VEHICLE QUEUE -Dir 2 - vehicles 48 85 VESSEL DELAYb -Boat minutes 36.84 62.86 Duration of vehicle queue -Dir 1 (minutes) 6.07 8.43 Number of vehicles affected 94 202 Duration of vehicle queue Dir 2 (minutes) 5.50 7.03 Number of vehicles affected 58 117 DELAY PER VEHICLE - Dir 1 per cycle (minutes) 2.27 2.57 DELAY PER VEHICLE - Dir 2 per cycle (minutes) 2.27 2.571 DELAY PER VESSEL (minutes) 12.27 12.57 VEHICLE DELAY -Dir 1 per cycle (vehicle minutes) 213 521 VEHICLE DELAY - Dir 2 per cycle (vehicle minutes) 133 300 "PEAK HOUR" DELAY-Dir 1 (Vehicle minutes) 639 1562 "PEAK HOUR" DELAY-Dir 2 (Vehicle minutes) 400 899 Daily Average Delayc -Dir 1 (Vehicle Hours) 88 210 Daily Average Delay -Dir 2 (Vehicle Hours) 55 121 Total Daily Average User Delay Cost $ 1,885 $ 6,076 Annual Average User Delay Cost $ 688,193 $ 2,217,801 aBridge Opening Duration obtained from power function derived from survey data. bBoat delay obtained as a sum of 1/2 bridge cycle period and 1/2 the bridge opening time MINUS the service flow rate per vessel, all multiplied by the number of vessels serviced during the opening. c"peak hour" delay factored into daily average delay

191

APPENDIX F

Bridge Replacement Evaluation Matrixes

192

LIST OF TABLES

Table F.1 Bridge Replacement Evaluation Matrix - Bridge 860060 (Peak Hour Method) ...... 194 Table F.2 Bridge Replacement Evaluation Matrix - Bridge 930004 (Peak Hour Method) ...... 194 Table F.3 Bridge Replacement Evaluation Matrix - Bridge 150050 (Peak Hour Method) ...... 195 Table F.4 Bridge Replacement Evaluation Matrix – Bridge 860060 (Average Method)...... 195 Table F.5 Bridge Replacement Evaluation Matrix – Bridge 930004 (Average Method)...... 196 Table F.6 Bridge Replacement Evaluation Matrix – Bridge 150050 (Average Method)……...196

193

Table F.1 Bridge Replacement Evaluation Matrix - Bridge 860060 (Peak Hour Method)

Bridge Bridge Geometrics Bridge Openings Initial Costs User Delay Cost Life Cycle Cost Type Predicted Predicted Predicted Annual User Estimated Average Average Average Annual Delay Cost of Delay Construction/ User Delay Height Width Grade Percentage Weekday Weekend Peak Hour in Base Year in Base Year Design Right-of Way Total Delay Savings Benefit/Cost Total Benefit/Cost (ft) (ft) (%) Reduction Openings Openings Openings (Vehicle-hrs) ( $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ratio ( in MIL $) ratio Movable 15 80 5 N/A 20 24 2 217931 2879120 41.44 0.00 41.44 113.13 0.00 0.00 154.57 N/A

Movable 45 80 5 60 8 10 2 40880 538740 86.32 40.40 126.72 8.48 104.65 0.83 135.19 1.23 Movable 55 80 5 75 5 5 1 40880 538740 101.28 53.86 155.14 5.30 107.83 0.70 160.44 0.95

Fixed 65 80 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 33.51 67.33 100.84 0.00 113.13 1.12 100.84 1.90

Fixed 90 80 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 35.63 100.99 136.62 0.00 113.13 0.83 136.62 1.19

Table F.2 Bridge Replacement Evaluation Matrix – Bridge 930004 (Peak Hour Method

Bridge Bridge Geometrics Bridge Openings Initial Costs User Delay Cost Life Cycle Cost Type Predicted Predicted Predicted Annual User Benefit/Cost Estimated Average Average Average Annual Delay Cost of Delay Construction/ User Delay ratio Height Width Grade Percentage Weekday Weekend Peak Hour in Base Year in Base Year Design Right-of Way Total Delay Savings Benefit/Cost Total (ft) (ft) (%) Reduction Openings Openings Openings (Vehicle-hrs) ( $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ratio ( in MIL $) Movable 25 80 5 N/A 16 30 3 118603 1566859 56.40 0.00 56.40 61.57 0.00 0.00 117.97 N/A

Movable 45 80 5 50 8 15 3 118603 1566859 86.32 26.93 113.25 30.78 30.78 0.27 144.03 0.54

Movable 55 80 5 65 5 10 2 84717 1119185 101.28 40.40 141.68 15.39 46.17 0.33 157.07 0.54

Fixed 65 80 5 100 0 0 0 0 0.00 33.51 53.86 87.37 0.00 61.57 0.70 87.37 1.99

Fixed 70 80 5 100 0 0 0 0 0.00 33.94 60.59 94.53 0.00 61.57 0.65 94.53 1.61

194 Table F.3 Bridge Replacement Evaluation Matrix – Bridge 150050 (Peak Hour Method)

Bridge Bridge Geometrics Bridge Openings Initial Costs User Delay Cost Life Cycle Cost Type Predicted Predicted Predicted Annual User Benefit/Cost Estimated Average Average Average Annual Delay Cost of Delay Construction/ User Delay ratio Height Width Grade Percentage Weekday Weekend Peak Hour in Base Year in Base Year Design Right-of Way Total Delay Savings Benefit/Cost Total (ft) (ft) (%) Reduction Openings Openings Openings (Vehicle-hrs) ( $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ratio ( in MIL $) Movable 23 80 5 N/A 24 30 3 61604 813845 53.41 0.00 53.41 31.98 0.00 0.00 85.39 N/A

Movable 45 80 5 30 16 20 3 61604 813845 86.32 29.62 115.94 22.38 9.59 0.08 138.33 0.15

Movable 55 80 5 60 8 12 2 44003 538740 101.28 43.09 144.37 8.83 23.15 0.16 153.19 0.25

Fixed 65 80 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 33.51 56.55 90.07 0.00 31.98 0.36 90.07 0.87

Fixed 70 80 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 33.94 63.29 97.22 0.00 31.98 0.33 97.22 0.73

Table F.4 Bridge Replacement Evaluation Matrix – Bridge 860060 (Average Method)

Height Width Grade Percentage Weekday Weekend in Base Year in Base Year in Base Year Design Right-of Way Total Delay Savings Cost Total Cost (ft) (ft) (%) Reduction Openings Openings (Vehicle-hrs) (Vehicle-hrs) ( $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ratio ( in MIL $) ratio Movable 15 80 5 N/A 20 24 3.77 29014 383274 41.44 0.00 41.44 15.06 0.00 0.00 56.50 N/A

Movable 45 80 5 60 8 10 3.77 11762 155381 86.32 40.40 126.72 6.11 8.95 0.07 132.82 0.11

Movable 55 80 5 75 5 5 3.77 6861 90639 101.28 53.86 155.14 3.56 11.50 0.07 158.70 0.10

Fixed 65 80 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 33.51 67.33 100.84 0.00 15.06 0.15 100.84 0.25

Fixed 90 80 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 35.63 100.99 136.62 0.00 15.06 0.11 136.62 0.16

195

Table F.5 Bridge Replacement Evaluation Matrix - Bridge 93004 (Average Method) Bridge Bridge Geometrics Bridge Openings Initial Costs User Delay Costs Life Cycle Cost Type Predicted Predicted Average Delay Annual Estimated Average Average per opening Annual Delay Cost of Delay Construction/ User Benefit/ Benefit/ Height Width Grade Percentage Weekday Weekend in Base Year in Base Year in Base Year Design Right-of Way Total Delay Savings Cost Total Cost (ft) (ft) (%) Reduction Openings Openings (Vehicle-hrs) (Vehicle-hrs) ( $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ratio ( in MIL $) ratio Movable 25 80 5 N/A 16 30 6.94 50523 667411 56.40 0.00 56.40 26.23 0.00 0.00 82.63 N/A Movable 45 80 5 50 8 15 6.94 25262 333706 86.32 26.93 113.25 13.11 13.11 0.12 126.36 0.23

Movable 55 80 5 65 5 10 6.94 16240 214525 101.28 40.40 141.68 8.43 17.80 0.13 150.10 0.21

Fixed 65 80 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 33.51 53.86 87.37 0.00 26.23 0.30 87.37 0.85

Fixed 70 80 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 33.94 60.59 94.53 0.00 26.23 0.28 94.53 0.69

Table F.6 Bridge Replacement Evaluation Matrix - Bridge 150050 (Average Method)

Bridge Bridge Geometrics Bridge Openings Initial Costs User Delay Costs Life Cycle Cost

Type Predicted Predicted Average Delay Annual Estimated Average Average per opening Annual Delay Cost of Delay Construction/ User Benefit/ Benefit/ Height Width Grade Percentage Weekday Weekend in Base Year in Base Year in Base Year Design Right-of Way Total Delay Savings Cost Total Cost (ft) (ft) (%) Reduction Openings Openings (Vehicle-hrs) (Vehicle-hrs) ( $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ( in MIL $) ratio ( in MIL $) ratio Movable 23 80 5 N/A 24 30 3.98 37253 492109 53.41 0.00 53.41 19.34 0.00 0.00 72.75 N/A

Movable 45 80 5 30 16 20 3.98 24835 328073 86.32 29.62 115.94 12.89 6.45 0.06 128.83 0.10

Movable 55 80 5 60 8 12 3.98 13245 174972 101.28 43.09 144.37 6.88 12.46 0.09 151.24 0.14

Fixed 65 80 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 33.51 56.55 90.07 0.00 19.34 0.21 90.07 0.53

Fixed 70 80 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 33.94 63.29 97.22 0.00 19.34 0.20 97.22 0.44

196

REFERENCES

1) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (1994) AASHTO Pontis Technical Manual, AASHTO, Washington, DC.

2) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (2000), Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

3) Dehgani, Youssef, Arnold, Paul B., and Pereira, Richard L., (1993), “Estimation of Delays to Boats and Vehicular Traffic Caused by Movable Bridge Openings: An Empirical Analysis”, Transportation Research Record 1262, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, 2000, pp 31-38.

4) Ellis R., and Herbsman Z., (1997) Development for Improved Motorist User Cost Determinations for FDOT Construction Projects, Report No. 0510748, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

5) Florida Department of Transportation, (2002). FTI2001. [CD-ROM]. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL

6) Laser Technology Inc., (1998) Impulse Laser Rangefinder, User’s Manual, Laser Technology Inc., Englewood, CO.

7) May, A.D, (1990) Traffic Flow Fundamentals, Prentice Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ

8) Roess, L.R., McShane, W., and Prassas, E.S., (1998) Traffic Engineering (2nd Edition), Prentice-Hall Inc., Salt Lake City, UT.

9) Ryan T. (1990), “Roadway Vehicle Delay Costs at Rail-Highway Grade Crossings”, Transportation Research Record 1262, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, 2000, pp 31-38.

10) Son, Youngtae, and Sinha, Kumares C., (1997) “Methodology For Estimating User Costs in Indiana Bridge Management System” Transportation Research Record 1597, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC., p 43-51.

11) SR 699 (Gulf Boulevard) John’s Pass Bridge Replacement Project Development and Environment Study (2002), Florida Department of Transportation, District Seven.

197 12) Thompson, Paul D., Najafi, Fazil T., Soares, Roberto, and Choung, Hong Jae, (1999) Florida DOT Pontis User Cost Study, Final Report, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL.

13) Thompson, P. D., Soares, R., Najafi, F., Kerr, R., and Choung, H.J. “User Cost Model For Bridge Management Systems,” Transportation Research Record 1697, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, 2000, pp 6-13.

14) Traffic and Transportation Traffic Engineering Handbook”, ITE, 2nd Edition, 1982, Pages 467-469

15) Vandervalk, Anita (1999) “The Florida Department of Transportation Asset Management Process, Preservation and Improvements Tradeoff”.

16) Walls, James, and Smith, Michael R., (1998) Life-Cycle Analysis in Pavement Design- Interim Technical Bulletin, Report No. FHWA-SA-98-079, Office of Engineering, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

198

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Bernard Buxton-Tetteh was born in Tema, Ghana on March 11, 1973. He obtained his early education in Accra, Ghana and obtained his General Certificate of Education (GCE)

Ordinary Level and Advanced Level from Achimota School, Achimota, Ghana. In 1998 he received his Bachelor of Science (Hons) degree in Civil Engineering from the University of

Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.

He taught courses in general engineering and construction at the Accra Polytechnic for a year, as part of his voluntary national service assignment. He then worked in the civil engineering design and construction industries before enrolling in the Civil Engineering Masters degree at Florida State University in the spring of 2002. He completed all course requirements for his Masters degree in the spring of 2004. His research work involved data collection and analysis of vessel and vehicular traffic and the development of a user delay cost model for

Florida’s inventory of movable bridges.

Bernard’s interests are in the fields of civil infrastructure planning and design and project management. His other interests include Soccer and Tennis.

199