[Ord. No. 06-11 Part R §1, 5-4-2006; Ord. No. 06-14 Part R §1, 7-13-2006; Ord. No. 07-01 Part R §1, 2-1-2007; Ord. No. 07-02 Part R §1, 3-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-03 Part R §1, 7-1-2008; Ord. No. 08-05 Part R §1, 10-2-2008]
It is the goal of the County of Cass to promote public safety
and to enhance the quality of life for all its citizens. The failure
or closure of a bridge can be more disruptive to the traveling public
than that of any other roadway element and its effect can be life
threatening. Bridges are the single most expensive element within
our transportation system; therefore, it is imperative that we develop
a systematic program to upgrade these deficient structures if we are
to meet our goal.
[Ord. No. 06-11 Part R §2, 5-4-2006; Ord. No. 06-14 Part R §2, 7-13-2006; Ord. No. 07-01 Part R §2, 2-1-2007; Ord. No. 07-02 Part R §2, 3-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-03 Part R §2, 7-1-2008; Ord. No. 08-05 Part R §2, 10-2-2008]
To provide a formal written procedure for selecting and programming
County bridges for rehabilitation or replacement. To provide a policy
that will maximize the use of available Federal and local funds for
the betterment of our County bridges.
[Ord. No. 06-11 Part R §3, 5-4-2006; Ord. No. 06-14 Part R §3, 7-13-2006; Ord. No. 07-01 Part R §3, 2-1-2007; Ord. No. 07-02 Part R §3, 3-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-03 Part R §3, 7-1-2008; Ord. No. 08-05 Part R §3, 10-2-2008]
A.
The
establishment of priorities for any capital improvement program is
a sensitive, important and necessary process. Priorities are required
because funding is limited and in fact insufficient to meet all our
bridge needs. It is necessary that we establish our priorities by
a rational process rather than by subjective judgments. The Missouri
Department of Transportation (MoDOT) has developed a complete inventory
of all major bridges (with spans greater than twenty (20) feet) within
the State. This inventory will be utilized along with the following
factors in establishing priorities for our County bridges (County
controlled bridges are less than twenty (20) feet in length):
1.
Traffic factor. The average daily traffic (ADT)
is a measure of the demand or use of a bridge in its present condition.
Thus, traffic volume will be a prime indicator of priorities. It should
be noted that a bridge improvement can itself generate traffic.
2.
Route classification factor. Roads can be classified
several ways. Functional classification indicates the character of
use and purpose. The major types of roadway classifications for Cass
County are as follows:
a.
Type I — minor arterials. Connect center of
population and economic activity with each other and State or municipal
highway systems. Occur at reasonably regular intervals to collect
traffic from roads of lesser importance. Carry the relatively heavy
corridor traffic movements, either present traffic or potential traffic
awaiting proper improvements to the route. Generally have an ADT of
four thousand (4,000) to ten thousand (10,000) vehicles.
b.
Type II — collectors. Occur at reasonably
regular intervals to collect traffic local roads and channels it to
the arterial road system. Serve minor population centers not feasibly
served by the arterial route. Generally have ADT of one thousand (1,000)
to three thousand nine hundred ninety-nine (3,999) vehicles.
c.
Type III — local roads. Provide direct access
to the abutting properties. Route is either a dead end or, if continuous,
short and serves areas of low population. Generally have an ADT of
nine hundred ninety-nine (999) vehicles or less. Functional classification
is a very useful factor in establishing priorities because it is an
indicator of the relative importance of a route to the overall transportation
network. Another route classification which will be used in establishing
priorities is the school route.
3.
Structural condition factor. The structural condition
of a bridge is a prime indicator of its ability to safely accommodate
both present and projected traffic demands. Bridge failures are an
inconvenience to the traveling public at best and can result in the
loss of life; structural condition will be the major factor in establishing
bridge priorities.
4.
Flood hazard factor. The County recognizes that
public safety must be a consideration in establishing priorities for
bridge improvements. Therefore, the systematic elimination of flood
hazard areas (i.e., low water crossings) will be an important part
of our bridge program.
5.
Alignment factor. Roadway geometrics (horizontal
and vertical) is an important safety consideration and will be incorporated
in our priority index equation. Budgeting for improvements will be
based on the values established by the priority index equation and
as set forth in the County's ten (10) year capital improvements program.
6.
Right-of-way factor. Required ROW shall be sixty
(60) feet minimum.
|
|
PRIORITY INDEX EQUATION (PI)
The equation for the priority index is:
PI = TF + RCF + SCF + FHF + AF + ROW
|
|
|
TF = TRAFFIC FACTOR
ADT Range Traffic Factor (TF)
0 — 100 = 0
101 — 400 = 2
401 — 850 = 4
851+ = 6
|
|
|
RCF = ROUTE CLASSIFICATION FACTOR
(Note: Add 4 points for school route)
Type I = 2
Type II = 1
Type III = 0
|
|
|
SCF = STRUCTURAL CONDITION FACTOR
Structural Condition SCF
Closed bridge = 12
Very Poor = 8
Poor = 6
Fair = 4
Good = 2
Excellent = 0
|
|
|
FHF = FLOOD HAZARD FACTOR
Condition (FHF)
Flooding (high velocity — no outlet) = 5
Flooding (high velocity) = 4
Flooding (low velocity — no outlet) = 3
Flooding (low velocity) = 2
No flooding = 0
|
|
|
AF = ALIGNMENT FACTOR
Alignment Factor (AF)
Very Poor = 4
Poor = 3
Fair = 2
Narrow = 1
Good = 0
|
|
|
ROW = RIGHT-OF-WAY FACTOR
Donated = 4
Non-donated = 0
|
7.
Other considerations. The danger of using a mathematical
calculation for establishing priorities is that it will be taken too
literally. Therefore, other considerations will be taken into account
in establishing priorities. They are as follows: combination of sections.
There may be significant savings to the County from combining bridges
along the same route into a single project. Additionally, the replacement
of only one (1) deficient structure may not provide for the continuity
we desire in our system.
8.
Regional balance. A program which has regional balance
is desirable; therefore, balancing expenditures to the maximum extent
possible between the districts of Cass County will be given fair consideration.
[Ord. No. 06-11 Part R §4, 5-4-2006; Ord. No. 06-14 Part R §4, 7-13-2006; Ord. No. 07-01 Part R §4, 2-1-2007; Ord. No. 07-02 Part R §4, 3-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-03 Part R §4, 7-1-2008; Ord. No. 08-05 Part R §4, 10-2-2008]
A.
Each
project will be designed by a professional engineer experienced in
bridge engineering utilizing the following standards:
1.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Design Criteria.
2.
Federal-Aid Highway Off-System Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation
Program (for all Federal aid projects).
3.
Design standards for replacing low water crossings (vented or non-vented)
shall be in accordance with all Sections of this BMP.
[Ord. No. 06-11 Part R §5, 5-4-2006; Ord. No. 06-14 Part R §5, 7-13-2006; Ord. No. 07-01 Part R §5, 2-1-2007; Ord. No. 07-02 Part R §5, 3-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-03 Part R §5, 7-1-2008; Ord. No. 08-05 Part R §5, 10-2-2008]
A.
Due
to availability of funds, County policy regarding right-of-way acquisition
is as follows:
1.
The County is requesting that required right-of-way be donated so
that all available funding can be utilized for bridge rehabilitation
or replacement.
2.
Bridge projects where property owners have donated the necessary
rights-of-way will be given preference in the bridge rehabilitation
and replacement program.
3.
On those bridge projects that effect large numbers of the traveling
public or where safety factors warrant, the County of Cass does reserve
the right to acquire right-of-way in accordance with the Missouri
Revised Statutes.
[Ord. No. 06-11 Part R §6, 5-4-2006; Ord. No. 06-14 Part R §6, 7-13-2006; Ord. No. 07-01 Part R §6, 2-1-2007; Ord. No. 07-02 Part R §6, 3-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-03 Part R §6, 7-1-2008; Ord. No. 08-05 Part R §6, 10-2-2008]
Current funding levels warrant an economy analysis be completed
for those structures where replacement costs greatly exceed other
factors in the priority index equation. The decision to rehabilitate,
replace or eliminate a given structure will be based in part upon
the findings of each study.
[Ord. No. 06-11 Part R §7, 5-4-2006; Ord. No. 06-14 Part R §7, 7-13-2006; Ord. No. 07-01 Part R §7, 2-1-2007; Ord. No. 07-02 Part R §7, 3-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-03 Part R §7, 7-1-2008; Ord. No. 08-05 Part R §7, 10-2-2008]
The County's Road and Bridge Department will provide the road
and bridge task force with a complete priority listing of County bridges
for their review. After thorough consideration of all factors, the
committee will submit its recommendation in writing to the County
Commission for their review and approval.
[Ord. No. 06-11 Part R §8, 5-4-2006; Ord. No. 06-14 Part R §8, 7-13-2006; Ord. No. 07-01 Part R §8, 2-1-2007; Ord. No. 07-02 Part R §8, 3-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-03 Part R §8, 7-1-2008; Ord. No. 08-05 Part R §8, 10-2-2008]
The County Commission will direct the Road and Bridge Department
to include their recommendations in a ten (10) year capital improvements
program (CIP). Each year prior to budget hearings the Road and Bridge
Task Force Committee will review the current capital needs and recommend
to the County Commission any modifications required to the capital
improvements program.
