Monday, 30 June, 7:30 p.m.

Dear Friend of Chandler Mill Bridge:
Important progress is being made on the Chandler Mill bridge project and now we need your help!
The bridge and surrounds have received encouragement from the National Park Service on its eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places.  And, the County and PennDOT are becoming more comfortable with a one lane bridge, yield controlled each way (vs. their two lane preferred option to date).  
PLEASE ATTEND the public meeting Monday, 30 June, 7:30 p.m., at the Kennett Township Building to learn more and to express your support for the 16’ two-way yield-controlled option.  It is critical that we have an excellent turnout and broad support for the one-lane two-way bridge option.  We look forward to seeing you there on the 30th.

Tom & Sandy Mills             Tom & Margaretta Brokaw
Tim & Hillary Jones     Gwen Lacy & Kennett Twp Land Trust

Meeting Notes:

Summary: 
The consensus was that the Consortium could support a bridge replacement provided it 1.) was one-lane, operated two-ways with yield traffic control, 2.) with the stone work of the wing walls and abutments replicating the current appearance, and 3.) that the Consortium was actively involved in the aesthetic design of a replacement bridge.
      Mr. Mills opened the meeting and thanked Mr. Fromnick for the opportunity to meet and            provide the Consortium’s input into the project.  He distributed an agenda prepared by           the Consortium.  A summary of the discussion is as follows:

1. Introductions

Mr. Mills explained that the Consortium was formed to work with the Township, County and PennDOT on producing a project that was sensitive to the context of the area and included over 100 individuals and several agencies, including the Kennett Township Land Trust, Kennett Township Historic Commission, and S.A.V.E. (Safety, Agriculture, Villages and Environment, Inc.).

1. Background

      Mr. Mills reported on a June 9, 2006 meeting with Representative Chris Ross where                   an agreement was made to make a “good faith effort to preserve the bridge”.  He             stated that the residents felt that this was not achieved and the Consortium was                                    formed.  They hired an engineering firm, Lichtenstein Consulting Engineers, Inc.                                    (LCE), in March, 2007 to evaluate a bridge rehabilitation.  LCE recommended                                     replacing the deck and floorbeams and repairing the girders, stone abutments,                           wingwalls and stream channel.
      Ms. Martin stated the County reviewed the LCE report and found several unresolved                   issues as outlined in her February 5, 2008 letter.  Mr. DeNadai summarized those         issues as:

1. The LCE rehabilitated deck and floorbeams does not meet legal loads.
2. The load bearing capacity of the stone abutments remains unknown.
3. The bridge is, and would remain, fracture critical.
4. The hydraulic analysis is not yet available.

Mr. Mills asked if the Township could reduce the load limit posting and/or limit trucks on Chandler Mill Road in order to operate the bridge at the 22 ton limit of the LCE design.  Mr. Fromnick replied that this would not be legal.
Mr. DeNadai asked if a “carrier beam” concept had been evaluated in order to address the fracture critical and abutment load bearing issues.  Ms. Martin replied that a similar approach was taken on the Mill Road Bridge rehabilitation in Marlborough Township. She reported that the attempt was not successful because the excavation necessary behind the abutments disturbed the area to the extent that one of the wingwalls subsequently collapsed.
Ms. Durham reported that she received information on June 13, 2008 that there is definitely potential for a National Register historic district and the bridge as a contributing element.  A letter should be forthcoming soon from the National Park Service to that effect.  Ms. Martin stated that historic designation had little impact on the practical decision-making process for the bridge.
Mr. Fromnick reported that the only design work done on the bridge to date is some field surveys and wetlands investigations by Johnson, Miriman & Thompson (JMT).  Ms. Martin stated that the wetlands investigation did not reveal any major impact.

1. Design Data

      Mr. DeNadai asked if the type of environmental document had been decided.  Mr.       Stevenson replied that it would most likely be a Level 1b or Level 2, Categorical       Exclusion.
Mr. DeNadai asked if there was any crash data available for the bridge. Ms. Martin replied that there was not, however, she reported on an apparent hit on the wingwalls.  Mr. Mills reported that, as living next to the bridge for 46 years, he has not witnessed any accidents on the bridge.
Mr. DeNadai asked the status of the hydraulic studies for the bridge.  Ms. Martin replied that they had not yet been initiated.  Mr. Mills gave a report on the flood history of the bridge based on his experience.
      Mr. DeNadai asked if there were any records of the maintenance activities for the bridge.       Ms. Martin replied that hand-written, field logs exist and are stored in the Facilities office;     however, the organization of those logs may make it cumbersome to find a specific        bridge.  Ms. Lacey asked permission to go through the logs.  Ms. Martin will make    arrangements with Ms. Lacey to go through the logs.
      Mr. DeNadai asked if a Project Purpose & Need Statement had been prepared for the       project.  Mr. Stevenson replied that it was available online.
      Mr. Fromnick asked if a bridge rehabilitation would be eligible for PennDOT/FHWA       funding.  Mr. Stevenson replied that it would be eligible for funding provided it met the       requisite design criteria. Ms. Durham added that a design exception could be obtained       and still maintain PennDOT/FHWA funding.  Mr. Stevenson concurred.

1. Alternatives Being Considered

Mr. Fromnick reported that Kennett Township had sent the County a letter supporting the one-lane, one-way option and subsequently changed their support to the two-lane (24’), two-way option.  Members of the consortium pointed out that the township undertook such actions without communication or discussion with the stakeholders who compose the consortium after promising the consortium that it would make no decisions without benefit of public meeting(s).          
Ms. Martin stated that the County was committed to stone facing and not form liners for the new abutments and wingwalls in an attempt to aesthetically match the existing condition.
In response to a question regarding attachments to new, stone faced wingwalls, Mr. Stevenson stated that guide rails would not be necessary.   
There was considerable discussion regarding the traffic operation on the bridge.  The Consortium would like to preserve the current one-lane, two-way operation.  Ms. Durham stated that the Smithbridge Road bridge over the Brandywine in New Castle County is a one-lane, two-way bridge that is operated using yield sign control on both approaches.  She reported this was done by DelDOT with FHWA funding.  Examples of other such bridges, all using federal funds, were mentioned in a letter to Chris Ross, a copy of which was given to Mr. Fromnick at the meeting.
There was discussion about meeting safety standards for the bridge and Bucktoe Road intersection.  The consortium would like to review accident data for the bridge as it knows of no reported accidents on or near the bridge in many decades. The current configuration of the bridge and the intersection function extremely well and approximately 42’ exists to allow stacking of several cars heading north across the bridge or heading south after crossing the bridge and stopped at the T-intersection stop sign (thereby allowing free flow on the roadway perpendicular to the bridge even while cars might be yielding, waiting their turn to cross the bridge).
There was discussion regarding a 24’ width being the minimum allowed width under the guidelines of the “Baby Bridge” Strike Off letter, and whether a design exception could then be utilized to decrease the width further on this bridge with volumes under 900 ADT and no history of accidents.
The consortium also mentioned the possibility of private funding in partnership with the public project if certain aspects of the project elevated costs, i.e. decisions at this stage of the project should not be made based on cost.
      Mr. Stevenson reported that PennDOT suggested the one-lane, one-way option at the                   January 7, 2008 Pro-Team meeting and the decision is at their Central Office level in                   Harrisburg, not the District office in King of Prussia.  Any reconsideration for a one-lane,                 two-way operation with yield sign control must be made at that level. He suggested                    contacting the PennDOT Central Office.
Ms. Durham reported that Representative Chris Ross has stated his support for exploring the two-way yield-controlled option.
            Mr. Jones stated that a one-lane, two-way, bridge replacement represented an option he        could agree with.        
Ms. Lacy expressed that the main concern of the land trust is the negative impact a new two-lane two-way bridge would have on the conservation corridor and that this may be a test case for establishing conservation values as a consideration in addition to historic resources for project criteria.

1. Upcoming Meetings

      Mr. Fromnick reported that the public meeting was scheduled for Monday, June 30,       2008, 7:30PM, at the Kennett Township Building. Mr. Phillips showed a copy of the       meeting announcement he received in the mail.  Ms. Martin stated the presentation       would be classroom style, oral with support by presentation boards.  Mr. DeNadai asked        if a rehabilitation alternative would be presented.  Ms. Martin replied that it would not. 

1. Summary/Actions Necessary

      Mr. Mills summarized the position of the Consortium was to achieve a one-lane, two-way            bridge by either;

1. New replacement bridge operated two-way with yield sign traffic control, or
2. Rehabilitation of the existing bridge;

                        and for the Consortium to be actively involved in the design.
Mr. DeNadai stated he hoped a response from PennDOT Central Office allowing one-lane, two-way stop/yield sign traffic control could be received prior to the scheduled June 30th, 2008 public meeting so that this option can be presented to the public as a viable alternative.                   

ACTION STEPS:
The Consortium will contact Mr. Rick Hogg, PennDOT, Deputy Secretary, regarding a two-way, yield controlled operation on a one-lane bridge.
Mr. Mills agreed to contact the Township and advise of the new interest in the one lane, yield controlled option.
Ms. Lacey will contact Ms. Martin to review the maintenance logs.
            Mr. DeNadai will contact Mr. Stevenson to review the Purpose & Need Statement online.