Committee members in attendance: J. B. McCarthy, David Hoyne, Warren Tripp, Bob McCullough, Eric Gilbertson, Nancy Boone, Scott Newman and Sue Scribner. Project Manager Roger Whitcomb and Project Engineer Todd Sumner were also in attendance as was Joe Nelson representing the Vermont Covered Bridge Society and Michael Canavan from the Federal Highway Administration.

This meeting was a follow-up to the last meeting held on November 26, 2001 where it was agreed that Scott Newman would further pursue whether it might be possible to consider installing glulam beams underneath the structure, considering approach grade and hydraulics.

Scott presented some Power-Point slides where 5-foot deep glulam beams installed underneath the structure had been superimposed. This demonstrated that, with the present approach grade, no impacts would be made below the Q100 level. It was questioned whether it might be preferable to install steel beams underneath as they would not need to be as deep and could be concealed by extending the siding. Discussion ensued relative to steel beams being more flexible than wood with different deflections resulting. The properties of glulam are much more compatible with wood than steel. The likely impact on the abutments was discussed. Both are laid-up stone and at one end in particular, a fair amount of stone would need to be removed to accommodate auxiliary support beams under the structure. It was agreed that the following three alternatives seem most reasonable for consideration:

1. Remove the 8" high glulam beams currently in place, perform minimal but necessary repairs/ replacement of members, and then use glulam beams underneath the structure as a supplemental system. Much of the structure has had changes, reinforcements, etc. made to date and much of this would remain.
2. Remove the 8" high glulam beams currently in place and use glulam beams underneath the structure as a supplemental system but strive for an in-kind (same dimension, species and joinery) replacement of deteriorated members. It is recognized that a significant percentage of the members may require replacement but replicating the original engineering and craftsmanship is the objective.
3. Replace most, and possibly all, of the existing members with new timber of larger size (and possibly species) to accommodate the desired loadings. No auxiliary support system would be used.

Discussion was suspended to discuss another covered bridge that was originally scheduled for this meeting. While available time was short, it was suggested at the end of the meeting that a vote be taken by those present on their preference of the above 3 options. All but 2 present voted for Option 2 above. It was agreed by those with the dissenting votes that direction could be provided to the Project Manager to move forward with Option 2. J. B. McCarthy, the Structures Program Manager, expressed possible concerns with the costs that might be associated with Option 2. We agreed that it would be left that the Committee recommendation will be to move forward with Option 2, but that if the Project Manager, during the course of project development, developed cost estimates that in his opinion render this option unreasonable, he will request another meeting of the Committee.

Respectfully submitted, Susan Scribner

Return to top

Committee members in attendance: David Hoyne, Warren Tripp, Eric Gilbertson, Scott Gurley (for Scott Newman) and Sue Scribner. Project Manager Roger Whitcomb and Project Engineer Todd Sumner were also in attendance as was John Weaver representing the Vermont Covered Bridge Society.

This meeting was a follow-up to the meeting held with the Newfane Selectboard on June 28, 2001 in Newfane. The Town had been clear at this meeting that they were looking for either a rehabilitation of the historic covered bridge or a new covered bridge, but they were not interested in any rehabilitation that maintained the glulam beams currently in place.

1. Remove the 8' high glulam beams currently in place, perform necessary repairs/ replacement of members, and then use glulam beams underneath the structure as a supplemental system.
2. Repair the historic bridge, recognizing that a large percentage of the members will need to be replaced.
3. Construct a new covered bridge on the same location.

The town will support any of the above scenarios as long as the finished product is aesthetically pleasing once completed. Discussion on the present condition of the bridge. All agreed it is in very poor condition. All the lattices have been spliced. It was questioned whether the dead load can be reduced enough to allow some members to either be saved or replaced with same size members. There was a lot of discussion relative to possibly using a FRP floor system. Because of the present condition of the bridge and the loads/ traffic it carries, this may be a good place to experiment with this. It may allow for the top chord and some other members to be retained and repaired and any replacement of members to be of the same size as the originals.

Option #1 was discussed but it was felt that the abutments would need to be changed to accommodate glulam beams underneath -- this was felt not to be a viable option here. The committee was in favor of moving forward with Option #2. Project Manager Whitcomb is to investigate the use of an experimental floor system with the goal being to retain as many members as possible and replace any necessary ones with members of the same size. The committee should be updated on this as the plans progress.