When the word bridge comes up, there is really nothing exciting about the thought of a structure over a ditch, a stream or a river. Yes, if the thought is of the beautiful Golden Gate Bridge, then it stimulates better
When the word bridge comes up, there is really nothing exciting about the thought of a structure over a ditch, a stream or a river. Yes, if the thought is of the beautiful Golden Gate Bridge, then it stimulates better visions. But that won’t happen on Kaua‘i.
However, when one realizes that our bridges are costing taxpayers millions of dollars and there are choices in what bridges are built with extreme differences in prices, then I believe that the people will pay careful attention.
Two years ago the county chose to replace a wooden bridge on Olohena Road (over a ditch) at a cost of $4.8 million. A steel truss or Acrow type or even a culvert type (seen all over the island, some 60 years or older) could have been installed at a cost of under $1 million, but this administration refused to consider that option.
At 4:30 in the morning in 2005, the County Council was still in session deliberating on a money bill for $500,000 to further fund the Olohena Bridge. The federal government was to pay up 80 percent and the county 20 percent. The county needed this money bill to build this cement bridge.
Three council members wisely voted against this money bill, but four others voted for it and thus the $4.8 million “Taj Mahal” was built.
Many citizens from the Wailua Homesteads testified before the council, saying not only that the price for this bridge was outrageous but the three and a half months of 15- to 20-mile detours was unacceptable. The Acrow-type bridge could have been installed in one to two days, as this structure is modular and pre-fabricated. Two are in Wainiha and one is on the northern section of the Kapa‘a bypass road.
This administration made the case then and makes the case now that :
1) These Acrow or Bailey bridges are temporary and the federal government will not give its 80 percent funding to them.
2) They have to be replaced because there are weight limits on the bridges.
3) In Hawai‘i, Acrow bridges are not considered permanent.
Let me give you a quote from the director of Federal Highway Works Administration of the Office of Bridge Technology in Washington, D.C., regarding whether or not Acrow bridges can be funded as a permanent structure:
“… Permanent structures designed in accordance with the latest AASHTO Specifications (LRFD October 2007 or thereafter) should qualify for HBP funds. Many Acrow or similar bridges have been designed and installed as permanent bridges. The main bridge members, connections and the deck panels should be designed for fatigue and durability and the AASHTO Live Loads.
“The deck panels and their connections to the flooring system should be detailed for truck loadings and speeds. Galvanizing should provide good long-term performance.
“If much longer is desired, the galvanized surfaces can be given an additional coating of paint of the color desired by owner. This will slightly increase the cost, but buy longer life and esthetics.”
This should answer No. 1.
The weight limits that are manufactured into any bridge are those weights asked for by the client and can be made to whatever specifications that are needed.
No. 2 answered.
Since the feds say Acrow can be permanent, and the state gets funding from the feds for their bridge programs, the state of Hawai‘i may be missing out on some funding dollars — if No. 3 is the position!
The point here is that these steel truss bridges will last as long as any others, they are FAR cheaper and they can be put up much quicker than concrete ones.
The mayor has said that the new bridge over the Wailua River will be Acrow. And since federal documentation has said that Acrow can be permanent, there is no logical reason to believe that the feds, state and county would pay $15 million for a “temporary” bridge, remo ve it and pay another $20 to $25 million for a cement one!
The Kilauea bridge is on the radar screen to be replaced with a cement one for $13 million, and the same old non-truths are being told to justify cement over an Acrow. The administration is even trying to make the case that the bridge must be cement as the state requirements for maintenance are more stringent than the feds, even though the feds would approve the bridge.
Wait a minute. The Kilauea bridge is on a county road and the state has nothing to do with maintaining it.
Since Acrow and steel truss bridges are used around the world and many of them have been in place for 50 years or more, don’t the people of Kaua‘i have the right to know why we are spending millions of dollars more building cement ones?
• Glenn Mickens is a resident of Kapa‘a.
