Below: Mr. William Nickas, P.E. - State Structures Design Engineer; Mr. Steve Moore, P.E. - FDOT District Four Project Development & Environmental Management Engineer; Captain Greg Shapley - U.S. Coast Guard - District 7, Miami; Ms. Laura Kammerer, Florida Department of State - Bureau of Historic Preservation; Mr. Mike Guy - Staff Director, Sarasota/Manatee MPO; and, Mr. George Hadley from the Federal Highway Administration. (picture below)

 

Introduction to the Issues

Over the next 50 years, Florida will be faced with the need to repair and replace many bridges throughout the state. Bridge replacement often becomes a contentious issue, as local residents sometimes prefer to maintain their existing bridge, or seek the replacement with design alternatives that vary significantly in both cost and effectiveness. Areas of contention vary and may involve numerous stakeholders such as local citizens and interests within a community, the Coast Guard, FHWA, inland navigation districts, MPOs, FDOT, local governments and other citizen-based groups. Though not exhaustive, the list below indicates some of the issues and associated stakeholders in bridge replacement/rehabilitation projects:

• Concerns over the aesthetic impacts of a fixed span bridge (local government and citizens);
• Impacts of proposed high level bridges to existing communities at either end of the proposed bridge's landing area (local government and citizens);
• Replacement of bridges of recognized local/state/national historic significance (local, state and national historic community, local government and citizens);
  
• Protection of channel navigation attributes (Coast Guard and inland navigation districts, boating interests);
• The level of coordination and consistency with the local government's comprehensive plan and land use policies (local governments and citizens);
• Public safety issues (FDOT, Coast Guard, FHWA, local governments, etc.);
• A desire for greater citizen input into the decision-making process (local government and citizens); and,
• Wise and equitable use of state/federal bridge building funds to meet statewide bridge rehabilitation and replacement needs (FDOT, FHWA).

As a result of differences in perspective and the needs between groups, some projects are drawn out for years, costing all concerned parties considerable time and money to arrive at solutions.

Further, it is important to note that the FDOT and the Coast Guard have specific regional and statewide transportation concerns as a part of their missions. From their perspectives, bridge replacement and rehabilitation must often focus on factors such as efficient movement of vehicular and/or boat traffic along regional and statewide transportation networks, and maximizing the use of limited public monies for both the construction and long-term operation and maintenance of a bridge. Additionally, in response to encouragement from existing federal regulations on bridge rehabilitation and replacement, the FDOT may often move in the direction of replacing older low level movable bridges with fixed spans, high level bridges (see FHWA, 23CFR, Section 650.809).

At the local level, these circumstances have drawn opposition and even litigation because the focus of concern there is on community enhancement, logical networking and integration of local streets and neighborhoods and, the preservation of historic and aesthetic community features. From their perspective, though part of a larger overall transportation network, each bridge is local by nature and must fit within existing parameters of the community's historic design and general aesthetic character.

Given the weighing of multiple factors, the multiple stakeholders and the real need to eventually either repair or replace each bridge, a balanced and equitable process of alternative analyses and decision-making must be made available. To work toward such a balanced and equitable process the FDOT, the FDOS, the MPOAC and the National Trust for Historic Preservation contracted with 1000 Friends of Florida to plan and conduct a bridge replacement/rehabilitation symposium.

To be successful, The effort to plan and hold this symposium would have to bring together a diverse group of interests involved in bridge replacement and rehabilitation, examine how decisions are presently made an suggest improvements to the process where sticking points have been identified. The Bridge Symposium would look at issues associated with the bridge decisions, particularly those associated with the construction of high profile bridges, including the rehabilitation or replacement of those with a historical component, which cross coastal navigable waters.

The goal of the symposium was to work toward formulating suggestions for specific policy or procedural recommendations to correct issues identified as sticking points in the current bridge rehabilitation and replacement process.

Methodology

A. Preliminary Identification Issues and Likely Participants
To identify likely symposium participants, 1000 Friends held a series of meetings with the various symposium sponsors to develop an outline of the issues and issue stakeholders. In addition, upon contact with these stakeholders and follow-up interviews and correspondence, other important interests were identified and subsequentially contacted. Due to meeting space limitations and an aim of keeping the symposium manageably productive, the number of participants was kept to around 50 to 60 persons.

B. Development of Pre-meeting Survey
To better define and refine specific issues of importance prior to the symposium, a pre-meeting survey was developed and mailed out to a variety of interests and stakeholders. The survey was developed with the input and advice of the symposium sponsors and interviews and correspondence with others identified as likely participants. Many important issues and personal insights regarding the bridge replacement and rehabilitation process were derived from the survey responses and various follow-up interviews with the likely symposium participants.

C. Research & Development of Bridge Processes Notebook
A pre-meeting informational package was developed which involved researching the existing policy and procedures that guide bridge replacement and rehabilitation in Florida and then organizing and presenting this research in an understandable format. These informational packages were sent to all identified participants a week prior to the symposium so that everyone would have a chance to develop a common understanding of the existing policies and procedures that govern bridge development and rehabilitation processes.

D. Key Issue Identification
Prior to the symposium, four major issue areas and related key questions evolved based on: results from the survey, discussions with the symposium sponsors and interviews with potential participants and speakers; and, from the research and development of the pre-meeting informational package. The four areas and related key questions are:

COMMUNITY INPUT AND HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE. How can community input for bridge projects/improvements be enhanced in terms of quality and timing? How can aesthetics and historic significance be better incorporated into the overall review process?

LONG-RANGE PLANNING. How can the long range planning process for identifying the need for bridge work and for determining which bridge projects/improvements are to be funded be improved and better coordinated with the various agencies?

EVALUATING BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES. How can the range of bridge alternatives and the measures and procedures used to evaluate those alternatives be improved and enhanced in the bridge replacement/rehabilitation process?

DESIGN AND COORDINATION. How can the bridge design process for bridge projects/improvements be improved and better coordinated with the various public
agencies and the public?

E. The Symposium
The goal of the symposium, as previous stated, was to identify policy or procedural sticking points in the current bridge rehabilitation and replacement process and use the assembled symposium participants and their differing backgrounds and experiences to recommend possible improvements or solutions. Organizationally, the symposium was divided into two segments, the first being informational with several speakers presenting and a panel discussion on the bridge replacement/rehabilitation process as it presently exists. The second segment concentrated on facilitated work sessions aimed at using the talents and diverse backgrounds of the symposium participants. In these facilitated sessions, The Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium and staff of 1000 Friends of Florida facilitated the different focus groups covering the identified issues. The focus groups identified problems or sticking point within the scope of their issue area, and then suggested specific solutions. Though on a tight time schedule, each focus group reviewed the issue and associated key question, added additional ones if necessary, and debated and sought consensus on propositions responding to the issues and questions.

By the end of the second day, each focus group succeeded in hammering out a variety of propositions for improvements to the existing process (see Appendix 2 - Focus Group Reports).

F. Arriving at Final Consensus Propositions
The members of all the focus groups then reconvened and together, through a process of consensus and ranking, selected specific propositions they deemed most workable overall. From the varied propositions individually drafted and discussed by the four focus groups, eleven were eventually selected in the reconvened session. By a show of hands, participants either: a.) whole-heartedly supported the proposition (score of 3); b.) could live with it, but might have suggestions for improvement (score of 2); or, c.) just could not accept the proposition as stated (score of 1).

Propositions included in the final group either had no scores of "1" (i.e., no participants opposed it) or, have an overall 70% or greater approval score from the entire group of participants (i.e., those opposed or those with questions about a particular proposition did not account to more than 30% of the participants raising their hands).

G. Final Consensus Propositions

Community Input and Historic Significance

Proposition 1. The historic preservation/management plan should be more available to the public. It should contain an inventory of historic bridges that is developed by FDOT, FDOS and, the local communities. The plan and the list should be revised and distributed periodically.

Proposition 2. The public should be informed of potential construction impacts at the appropriate time and before the final commitment.

Long-range Planning

Proposition 3. Identify constrained bridges (based on community, historical, environmental limitations or values) for special consideration of repair/rehabilitation as an alternative to replacement. Existing surveys/inventories would be one source of information for identifying constrained bridges. For such constrained bridges, develop a rating system that focuses on preservation through repair/rehabilitation.

Bridge Design and Coordination

Proposition 4. FDOT and MPOs should inform communities as early as possible in the PD&E process about opportunities for aesthetic design details compatible with community character and the possibility of cost-sharing and joint maintenance agreements and the availability of inventories that can assist in the process. FDOT should encourage those receiving advance notification to provide information to potential affected interests and stakeholders.

Proposition 5. FDOT should use appropriate visual communication tools early, and throughout the design process to both inform and engage the public in bridge design decisions.

Proposition 6. During the course of the bridge review process, especially on controversial bridge projects, FDOT should seek to provide specific feedback to the public detailing how the Department responded to various concerns expressed in the public workshop process in terms of revision to the draft report, etc. This may require additional resources for providing this level of feedback.

Proposition 7. The Coast Guard should get involved early-on in the PD&E process to provide important input to others and to work with other agencies and the public to approach flexibly the bridge review process as one entity seeking substantial compliance with various regulations. FDOT and the Coast Guard should work to bring channel and geometric considerations more clearly into the bridge PD&E and design process.

Proposition 8. Those organizations and agencies collecting and maintaining key inventories (e.g., Coast Guard regarding bridges, channels design criteria currents, etc., Preservation Community regarding bridges worthy of attention due to historic value) should work to develop a coordinated and accessible data base for use in bridge review efforts.

Evaluating Alternatives

Proposition 9. Work early on with the Coast Guard to run alternatives and get affirmations or negations of germane variables relative to the alternatives being presented. Also work with the Coast Guard to develop a statewide boating survey format.

Proposition 10. Both short and long range planning processes must clearly define and state the need for project.

Proposition 11. At initiation of the PD&E there needs to be an inter-agency and public meeting to discuss criteria and all requirements for the full range of alternatives and evaluation measures to be used.

Summary and Next Steps

Parting Statements by Symposium Sponsors

As a follow-up to the symposium, sponsors along with the Coast Guard (an active Symposium participant but not a sponsor) have agreed to move forward to work toward implementing the suggested policy or procedural recommendations to correct issues identified as sticking points in the current bridge rehabilitation and replacement process. For those moving forward to pursue follow-up actions it is important not to overlook each proposition offered by the four focus groups (including those not receiving consensus support). All the suggested propositions likely contain elements of needed procedural or policy changes. As noted in the executive summary, there were recurrent themes in a number of the propositions such as the need for the FDOT, Coast Guard and the MPOs to involve and inform all stakeholders as early as possible in the planning and PD&E processes about all available options and limitations without deference toward any particular alternative. Further, information/data dealing with environmental or system relative constraints (e.g., historical, navigation, natural or community aspects) must be researched and presented early-on in the process and differences resolved prior to decisions being made favoring any particular design alternative.

At the end of the symposium each of the sponsors was given a brief opportunity to indicate what the next step may be, now that symposium has culled-out particular issue areas and offered specific propositions for action. After the parting comments from the symposium sponsors there are provided four sections covering each focus group's efforts and recommended suggestions.

Ken Morefield, FDOT, Assistant Secretary to Policy & Planning

At the end of the Bridge Symposium, Assistant Secretary Ken Morefield thanked all the participants for their participation, saying that the process has been excellent effort to get improvement suggestions. Further Mr. Morefield offered the following points:

• FDOT likes input from the public and stakeholders;
• The more input the more chance FDOT's actions will be accepted by the public;
• If you are affected or interested in a bridge project, the more FDOT needs to hear from you to allow for good opportunities for dissemination and exchange of information.

As to the results of the Symposium, FDOT will take these improvements and work with the district offices. These offices are decentralized by statute, not policy, but district level
policies and procedures are developed in a coordinated fashion by the Central Tallahassee office. The PD& E and State Structures and Design Offices are located there. Nevertheless, FDOT depends on you to make sure what they are doing is correct for projects. Mr. Morefield noted, "keep on us on track to make sure we don't miss a step or two." It may be a good idea to come back in a year and let people know what we have done as some changes may take a year to develop and implement.

Laura Kammerer, Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources

Thanks to all for engaging in this symposium. Many of you took two days out of your normal life to come and provide input. The State Preservation Office needs to continue to educate preservation the community about its role in process and work with FDOT on the inventory and management plan for historic bridges

From this symposium I hope you take back to your community the good ideas and try to implement changes in communities on an individual basis.

Howard Glassman, Metropolitan Planning Advisory Council (MPOAC)

Mr. Glassman thanked the state's twenty-five MPOs for helping to co-sponsor the symposium through the MPOAC. 1000 Friends approached the MPOAC and they agreed with the goal and objectives for having such a symposium. At an upcoming MPOAC meeting of MPO Staff Directors, 1000 Friends of Florida has agreed to join the meeting to provide a summary of the Symposium outcomes and the resultant suggestions for future actions. Issues directly affecting MPOs will be addressed.

Daniel Carey- National Trust For Historic Preservation (NTHP)

The interest and focus of the symposium was very helpful, (for the broader issues of bridge replacement/rehabilitation) rather than fighting individual fires. Though the symposium was limited in terms of resources and time it was looking to affect policy and procedures.

The Southern Office of the National Trust for Historic Preservation in Charleston sees this as a great opportunity to affect more than a single project. Mr. Carey indicated that he would take the ideas developed from the symposium to other regional offices to find groups within their states willing to set up something similar.

Regarding their national publications, Mr. Carey felt that there should be a concerted effort to get a summary of the meeting into Forum, the National Trust's journal for professionals in the field of historic preservation. Mr. Carey also noted that the National Trust for Historic Preservation has lots of Florida representation.

Finally, Mr. Charles Pattison, Executive Director of 1000 Friends of Florida and Mr. Bob Jones, Executive Director of The Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium each offered their thanks to the participants for their time and efforts.

The final Report has been completed by 1000 Friends of Florida and the Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium. For more information please contact 1000 Friends of Florida at (850) 222-6277.

---

Focus Group Reports

I. Community Input and Historic Preservation

From the survey results and input from the various symposium sponsors, the following specific
key questions were developed.

Key Questions Addressed - Community Input and Historical Significance.

1. How can community input for bridge projects/improvements be enhanced in terms of quality and timing?

2. How can aesthetics and historic significance be better incorporated into the overall review process?

Below are the principal results from this focus group with preliminary propositions and questions
followed by the second day final propositions for change from the group. Comments from the full
plenary group about the results after the first day session are also provided.

Key Question 1

How can community input for bridge projects / improvements be enhanced in terms of
quality and timing? and, how can the community be best aided to give educated and effective input? (italics added by focus group)

Initial Propositions and Questions

2. Give guidelines to local constituency as to where and how they can influence the process for a specific project.
3. FDOT should go into the affected community at the beginning of a project and make presentations to council and civic meetings and allow time to listen to residents and answer questions.

4. FDOT should advertise and conduct a public information workshop at the outset of the PD&E process explaining how the process will proceed.
5. Lead agencies should give the ground rules (e.g., inclusive of Section 4F, Section106, NEPA, Coast Guard Permitting Process) to the community.
6. Identify a communication media, i.e.,TV or newspaper that would inform the public of a project and its potential impacts.
7. Maintain a website with status updates and current pertinent available documents. Tell what is available and where.
8. FDOT should conduct analyses identified in the PD&E manual or required by NEPA during PD&E study and make information available to the public prior to public hearing (draft document) (this may already be happening).
9. FDOT should develop and distribute a video to the local Chamber of Commerce, library, local government, and local access TV on specific projects.
10. Create local aesthetic and historic preservation boards to inform the public of historic preservation laws and their requirements.
11. The community should be informed of all necessary and valid data to support the need and purpose for the proposed bridge construction and have a consensus on the purpose for the bridge (this may already happing).
12. How can local government help citizens become familiar with proposed state or federal projects?
13. What are the project constraints? When and who establishes them? Where is the flexibility?
14. How do you communicate these?
14. How can community input be weighed against cost and design considerations?
15. When, where, and how should community input be initiated?
16. How can the DOT and MPO's better inform the public regarding the distinctions between the planning process and the environmental regulatory permitting process and coast guard permitting?
17. Who defines the community and how is the community defined?
18. Why doesn't the Coast Guard give information on height and width at the beginning of the process?
19. How can state agencies obtain information on preservation objectives and the identification of important historic properties from the local communities?
20. How can you bring in the most affected members of the community in a way that all parties understand the perception of need?

Other Issues noted

1. What is the extent of the information regarding elements and factors that will be considered in the process and at what point in the process should a summary thereof be made available to the public most affected?
2. How do you involve the public in bridge rehabilitation projects?
3. Can FDOT publish a consumer document of standard practice for bridge replacement and hold public workshops as soon as the project gets on the MPO work plan?
4. How can agencies communicate in a timely manner with new and seasonal residents?
5. At what time in the process will community input be most useful to the lead agency as well as cooperating agencies?

Key Question 2 - Historical Considerations

How can aesthetics and historic significance be better incorporated into the overall review process?

Questions and Issues Identified

1. When in the process should the aesthetics be considered and the costs associated with them?
2. Has Florida produced a historic bridge preservation/management plan and should it be considered?
3. What importance is given to local opinion on aesthetics and how can local opinion be added to the planning process?
4. How do you weigh safety considerations with historic and aesthetic considerations?
5. How can state agencies obtain information on preservation aesthetic objectives and the identification of important historic properties from the local communities?
6. What weight should be given to aesthetic considerations?
7. What is the standard for aesthetics?
8. Should a local government take on the potential added costs of aesthetics and the maintenance for a historic resource?
9. What has Florida done to inform the public of the states historic bridges?
10. What is the monetary value of a significant historical resource?
11. What are the responsibilities of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the historic preservation community in the process?

Plenary Session Comments (End of day one)

1. A community design element should be adopted into local comprehensive plans.
2. What are the appropriate time and the meaningful time for getting public input?
3. Awareness and perception are a problem.
4. A subcommittee from the MPO and FDOT should keep track of bridge questions and get information into the community.
5. People need to tell the agencies what they need to know so that the agencies can respond accordingly.
6. Clarify FHWA funding, requirements, and any possible flexibility.
7. What are the mandates and is there flexibility?
8. People don't know where they can influence the process.
9. Local governments need to identify important projects in their comprehensive plans.

Final Propositions - Community Input & Historic Significance (Day two)

Proposition A: If DOT proposes to replace a bridge, it should be determined if aesthetics may be an issue and it should be addressed at the beginning of the PD&E process.(Attention should be given to proposed changes of low level bridges to high level bridges.)

Plenary Consensus Rankings
Approval Ranking: High >Mid> Low
26 - 18 -1

Comments on #1 Rankings (Serious Concerns)
This assumes the nature of the bridge project. This should be framed and dealt with as a time to develop a shared problem statement.

Proposition B: The historic preservation / management plan should be more available to the public. It should contain an inventory of historic bridges that is developed by DOT and the local communities. The plan and the list should be revised and distributed periodically.

Plenary Consensus Rankings
Approval Ranking: High >Mid> Low
33 - 13 -0

Proposition C: Local governments should form partnerships with the lead agency and target affected stakeholders and help inform the public. Local governments should help distribute informational videos and other information to chambers, libraries, and local access tv.

Plenary Consensus Rankings
Approval Ranking: High >Mid> Low
17 - 27 - 2

Comments on #1 Rankings (Serious Concerns)
Concern that local government will become a propaganda arm of FDOT. Not clear whether the recommendation deals with either or both counties and municipalities.

Proposition D: On potentially controversial projects, DOT should use charettes to inform the public at appropriate times in the process.

Plenary Consensus Rankings
Approval Ranking: High>Mid> Low
5 - 27 - 12

Comments on #1 Rankings (Serious Concerns)
Charrettes are used for informing vs. receiving information
Problem of representation of affected interests in charettes.
Duplicate of other procedures
Can be used of a part of the project vs. the entire project.
Haven't had good experience with charettes- facilitators/sponsors have had their own agenda.

Proposition E: The public should be informed of potential construction impacts at the appropriate time and before the final commitment.

Plenary Consensus Rankings
Approval Ranking: High>Mid> Low
38 - 8 -1

Comments on #1 Rankings (Serious Concerns)
Won't know the impacts till later in the project

Proposition F: FDOT should create a citizen advocate position whose role is to advise citizens of how to have input into the process and inform the Dept. of how they might refine the process.

Plenary Consensus Rankings
Approval Ranking: High >Mid> Low
6 - 26 - 9

Comments on #1 Rankings (Serious Concerns)
This should really be what all FDOT employees are doing.
This may be duplicative of public information/ public participation officers within FDOT central and districts.
Advocate may imply that FDOT is hiding something from the public.
The public is not a single or clear concept to advocate for.

Proposition G: Kick-Off Meetings (Scoping Meetings/PD&E) The lead agency should contact local government to identify local stakeholders and inform them of the kick off meeting(s). The Kick off meeting(s) needs better advertising. The kick of meeting Scoping Meetings/PD&E)) should include:

• An explanation of the PD&E and public input process
• A discussion of public expectations
• Explanation of how public can be involved
• Definition of problems that need attention
• Design constraints
• An opportunity to identify additional stakeholders.

The Kick off meeting should involve several meetings with a number of groups over time as the process progresses.

Plenary Consensus Rankings
Approval Ranking: High >Mid> Low
25 - 19 -2

Comments on #1 Rankings (Serious Concerns)

No known solutions may be hard to deliver
Explain how the public may be involved.
This assumes the nature of the bridge project. This should be framed and dealt with as a time to develop a shared problem statement.

II. Long-Range Planning

From the survey results and input from the various symposium sponsors the following specific key
questions were developed for the Long-Range Planning focus group.

Key Question Addressed - Long-Range Planning Focus Group

How can the long-range planning process for identifying need for bridge work and for determining which bridge projects/improvements are to be funded be improved and better coordinated with the various agencies?

Below are the principal results from this focus group's efforts with preliminary propositions and
questions followed by the second day final propositions. Focus Group comments about their
results are also provided along with the full plenary sessions comments on the first day's results.

Questions and Issues
1. How should the process go about including a mechanism(s) for getting local, state, community buy-in before inclusion in the long-range plan (including community goals and impacts) ?
2. In the long range planning process how do you evaluate replacement vs. rehabilitation of a bridge over navigable waters (in terms of historic bridges or bridges for barrier islands)?
3. How to get long range plans more specific to provide guidance for project decisions? 4. How to get better balance in spending between state maintained and local highways (federal eligible) (FDOT keeps 80%)?
5. How do we get better coordination between state and MPO in terms of need identification
regarding state looking at structurally deficient and MPO looking at functionally obsolete bridges?
6. How to get better coordination with permitting agencies up front (conceptual buy in)?
7. How to better incorporate screening surveys, etc., into the long range process?
8. How is concept of use or lose used by FDOT?

Preliminary Propositions and Questions of the Long-range Planning Group

Proposition A. As part of long range planning, create an MPO process for evaluating specific
projects of concern to bring citizens, local, federal and state agencies together to identify issues
and obtain community input to develop guidelines and/or parameters for the project. These would be incorporated into the MPO long range plan.

Proposition B. FDOT should initiate better communication with MPO or local government regarding bridge ratings and those being targeted for inclusion in work program. FDOT districts should forward this information to the MPO and local governments.

Proposition C. For constrained bridges focus on a rating system that encourages repair or rehabilitation (constrained community, historical, environmental limitation). Amend constrained roadway policy or create a policy vehicle to include bridges and then use inventory/surveys etc., to identify constrained bridges for special consideration for repair/rehabilitation.

Plenary Session Comments (End of Day One)

1. The Coast Guard has a list of "constrained bridges" based on navigation.
2. It is important to know how the local community feels about historically significant bridges.
3. Educational opportunities need to follow the building of inventories so that citizens know what tools they may access.

Final Propositions - Long-range Planning Group

Proposition A. As part of long range planning in MPO areas, MPOs should use the MPO process to evaluate specific projects of concern and bring citizens, local, federal and state agencies together to identify issues and obtain community input to develop guidelines and/or parameters for the project. These would be incorporated into the MPO long range plan. For non-MPO areas, this evaluation would be done by a city/county or a multi-jurisdictional entity, (e.g., a Regional Planning Council or a body created by inter-local agreement).

Plenary Consensus Rankings
Approval Ranking: High >Mid> Low
27 - 15 - 2

Comments
This assumes the nature of the bridge project. This should be framed and dealt with as a time to develop a shared problem statement.
Concern was expressed regarding the capacity of MPOs in various parts of the state to assist with this task.

Proposition B. FDOT should initiate better communication with MPOs and affected local governments regarding bridge rating and those being targeted for inclusion in work program. FDOT districts should forward this information to the MPO and local governments to be used in making project selection decisions in cooperation and consultation with MPOs and local governments.

Plenary Consensus Rankings
Approval Ranking: High >Mid> Low
30 - 18 - 1

Comments
The process is good enough as is.

Proposition C. Identify constrained bridges (based on community, historical, environmental limitations or values) for special consideration of repair/rehabilitation as an alternative to replacement. Existing surveys/inventories would be one source of information for identifying constrained bridges. For such constrained bridges, develop a rating system that focuses on preservation through repair/rehabilitation.

Plenary Consensus Rankings
Approval Ranking: High >Mid> Low
37 - 13 - 2

Comments
This assumes the nature of the bridge project. This should be framed and dealt with as a time to develop a shared problem statement.
Concerned that this may be done in a vacuum, e.g. will it factor in evacuation issues?

III. Design and Coordination

From the survey results and input from the various symposium sponsors the following specific key
questions were developed for the Design and Coordination focus group.

Key Question addressed by the Design and Coordination Focus Group

How can the bridge design process for bridge projects/ improvements be improved and better coordinated with the various public agencies and the public?

A. Questions and Issues Identified

1. What part of design and coordination are we focusing on?
2. The group should take a broad view looking at design in the various steps- planning, PD&E and final design.
3. In the PD&E Process the focus is on establishing the type size and location and complete the alternatives analysis.
4. Coordination suggests a focus on clarifying, explaining and defining roles and responsibilities, including decision making, of various actors and the public at different steps.
5. The planning process focuses on need vs. design issues.

B. Clarifying the Current Design Process

1. How and when is public input currently sought on design issues? FDOT has backed it into the PD&E process.
2. The current bridge process is presented as multi-year and linear but in practice features
circular loops at various steps with stakeholder engagement that can take greater or lesser time to complete.
3. The demand and expectation for good bridge design is a common thread among all involved in the bridge process.

C. Design Sticking Points and Suggestions - PD&E Process

1. In the early PD&E public involvement efforts, don't lead with cost effective analysis. Factor
this into the dialogue process.
2. Identify as early as possible the stakeholders (e.g., those directly impacted, those responsible
for decision making, those with an interest in the outcome of the bridge process. For
decision-makers, ask who has final sign off at the end and bring them into the PD&E
process early.
3. After identifying the stakeholders, find ways to improve and sustain constructive
engagement so that all relevant inputs have been brought to the table. Utilize stakeholder
task forces, citizen advisory groups from MPOs or consulting parties (using the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for example).
4. Use visual communications tools as a regular part of public input and education in the
early PD&E process (i.e., from the kick-off meeting on). For example, consider using
tethered balloons on bridges to get sense of height alternatives for the public to graphically
see.
5. Make sure and encourage public agencies that participate in the advance notification
process to brief private and non-profit interests so they can provide input as appropriate
(e.g., Department of State advising local historic associations on a bridge project in their area).
6. Create a capacity to jointly identify projects with stakeholders that have the potential for
significant conflict or controversy. For those projects, jointly identify data needs and an
agreed upon data collection and analysis plan.
7. Encourage FDOT, especially on controversial bridge projects, to provide specific feedback
to the public detailing how the Department responded to various concerns expressed in the
public workshop process in terms of revision to the draft report, etc. This may require
additional resources for providing this level of feedback.

D. Coast Guard Guide Clearances and the Design Process

1. Problems: the public is not clear on what the purpose is, or what drives the process and that these are minimum starting points.
2. Get Coast Guard involved very early on in the PD&E process to provide input to others. This should happen as hard numbers are produced on vessel characterization.
3. The Coast Guard should work with the public agencies and the public to approach the process as one seeking substantial compliance with some flexibility. Help to transform win-lose moments into solutions that feature some compromises.

E. Final Design Phase

1. FDOT uses the C.A.P. to brief local leaders, solicit reality checks on design issues. Balances equity/consistency, financial accountability, etc.
2. Public input and negotiation on aesthetic design detail issues should be undertaken with a clearer understanding of FDOT's ability to contribute and the local community's willingness to commit local sources or secure others (e.g., TEA21 enhancement funding for pedestrian improvements.): Consider stating that FDOT, as a matter of policy will contribute up to 10% of aesthetic improvements if there is local commitment to cover remaining resources needed.
3. FDOT should articulate the safety and structural needs in terms of bridge and be flexible and creative to help address desired community aesthetic design details.
4. Channel considerations should be more clearly treated in the design phase. Inventory of channel design criteria for use in future bridge rehabilitation.
5. Consult with communities to consider compatible uses for areas under bridge structures consistent with community needs (e.g., lighting, landscaping).
6. Those organizations and agencies collecting and maintaining key inventories (e.g., Coast Guard re bridges, channels, currents etc.; Preservation Community regarding bridges worthy of attention in the future due to historic value) should work to develop a coordinated and accessible data base for use in bridge review efforts.

Plenary Session Comments (End of Day One)

1. Consider talking about locals sharing in the costs of aesthetics and maintenance.
2. Address any design implications of the design build and risk management approach and any suggestions for improvements of the process.
3. The Design group should attempt to identify who makes decisions and what constraints and roles different agencies play.
4. Coast Guard maintains a comprehensive docket for each bridge.
5. Local communities need to be proactive with FDOT and they will be responsive (e.g. the successful City of Venice experience.)

Bridge Design and Coordination Final Propositions

Proposition A. FDOT and MPOs should inform communities as early as possible in the PD&E process about opportunities for aesthetic design details compatible with community character and the possibility of cost-sharing and joint maintenance agreements and the availability of inventories that can assist in the process. FDOT should encourage those receiving advance notification to provide information to potential affected interests and stakeholders.

Plenary Consensus Rankings
Approval Ranking: High >Mid> Low
38 - 12 -0

Proposition B. FDOT should use appropriate visual communication tools early and throughout the design process to both inform and engage the public in bridge design decisions.

Plenary Consensus Rankings
Approval Ranking: High>Mid> Low
41 - 8 - 2

Proposition C. The design group supports the Long-Range Planning Proposition A-1 which says,

"As part of long range planning in MPO areas, MPOs should use the MPO process to evaluate specific projects of concern and bring citizens, local, federal and state agencies together to identify issues and obtain community input to develop guidelines and/or parameters for the project. These would be incorporated into the MPO long range plan. For non-MPO areas, this evaluation would be done by a city/county or a multi-jurisdictional entity, (e.g., the regional planning council or a body created by inter-local agreement)."

This suggests that those groups utilize relevant bridge inventories. For projects identified as needing special attention task forces of affected stakeholders, local leadership and transportation entities should be formed at the earliest point in the PD&E process and work throughout the PD&E and final design phase.

Plenary Consensus Rankings
Approval Ranking: High >Mid> Low
24 - 24 - 2

Comment
FDOT should start the bridge review process (PD&E) with a proposed problem statement for public input and steer clear of labels such as rehabilitation, etc.

Proposition D. During the course of the bridge review process FDOT, especially on controversial bridge projects, should seek to provide specific feedback to the public detailing how the Department responded to various concerns expressed in the public workshop process in terms of revision to the draft report, etc. This may require additional resources for providing this level of feedback.

Plenary Consensus Rankings
Approval Ranking: High >Mid> Low
17 - 29 - 2

Proposition E. The Coast Guard should get involved early on in the PD&E process to provide important input to others and work with agencies and the public to approach flexibly the bridge review process as one seeking substantial compliance with various regulations. FDOT and the Coast Guard should work to bring channel and geometric considerations more clearly into the bridge PD&E and design process.

Plenary Consensus Rankings
Approval Ranking: High >Mid> Low
38 - 12 - 0

Proposition F. Those organizations and agencies collecting and maintaining key inventories (e.g., Coast Guard regarding bridges, channels design criteria currents etc., Preservation Community regarding bridges worthy of attention in the future due to historic value) should work to develop a coordinated and accessible data base for use in bridge review efforts.

Plenary Consensus Rankings
Approval Ranking: High >Mid> Low
23 - 26 - 0

IV Evaluating Alternatives

From the survey results and input from the various symposium sponsors the following specific key
questions were developed for the Evaluating Alternatives focus group.

Key Question addressed by the Evaluating Alternatives Focus Group

How can the range of bridge alternatives and the measures and procedures used to evaluate those alternatives be improved and enhanced in the bridge replacement/rehabilitation process?

Questions and Issues Identified

1. Perception at the start of the process is that high level is preference of FDOT and Coast Guard.
2. Need to communicate that all alternatives are to be considered.
3. FDOT representative to Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) needs to have authority to effect change at FDOT and communicate information to senior management levels and should have a broad knowledge base of the relevant technical areas involved in bridge replacement and rehabilitation.
4. Environmental permitting needs to be done as early as possible - at the same time as the Coast Guard conceptual approvals.
5. With categorical exclusions, public review not as extensive as may be needed.
6. Cooperating agency agreements should be signed in the infancy stage of the PD&E.
7. Consistency across the state in the bridge replacement/rehabilitation process.
8. At initiation of the PD&E agency meeting and public meeting to discuss the full (large) range of alternatives and evaluation measures to be used.
9. Public meetings as open house sessions throughout the PD&E process. Rather than formal public hearings. Open to all.
10. Implement Community Impact Analyses process now being drafted by FDOT (Tallahassee EMO Office).
11. Commitments in planning stage and PD&E stage need to be carried to and included in the implementation (construction) phase.
12. What is magic about the 65 foot vertical clearance? Needed even if no demand?
13. What is the real bottom line for criteria? (Federal, State, etc.)

Labeled Top HOT Buttons

2. Public Apathy: (assumed "Done-deal" is often the case.)
3. FDOT will do the right thing on my behalf.
4. How to ensure that both sides of the public sentiment is heard?
5. How to ensure the Public understand the process of decision-making?
6. Coast Guard process needs to change!
7. Sometimes the attitude from the start of the agencies is that "This is the bridge you are going to have."
8. Add pre-PD&E evaluation of each project. Should be a partnership of MPO and FDOT.
9. Performed by the use of the relevant technical staff from these groups.
10. Address need for improvement, for replacement.
11. Address federal mandates/limits/requirements for the proposed improvements.
12. Public input at these stages: State Long Range Transportation Plan - every 5 years; MPO prior to public hearing - every year; PD&E; and, Design Public Hearing.
13. MPO, other locals host public meeting(s) before PD&E is initiated to transition from long range Plan to more specific PD&E alternatives. Need to define community desires, i.e., what it should look like.
14. Clear definition of Public - fully inclusive, everyday reasonable person type definition.
15. Wording of public advertisement(s) for meetings or hearings needs to use everyday language. Describe the proposed project in terms that can be easily understood by the person on the street.
16. What are the minimum Coast Guard requirements/constraints in defining alternative?
17. Clearly define the need for the project, i.e., marine traffic, road capacity, structural deficiencies, etc.

Evaluation Criteria

1. Decide on the list of criteria to be used.
2. Decide on the ranking/importance of these criteria.
3. Decide on the information to be used in evaluations.

Evaluating Bridge Alternatives - Draft Propositions

Proposition A. Proactively involve the Coast Guard at the early PD&E stage resulting in a conceptual permit.

Proposition B. Streamlining environmental permitting resulting in conceptual approval.

Proposition C. Planning process must clearly define and state need for project. Both short and long range planning processes must clearly define and state need for project.

Proposition D. At initiation of the PD&E there needs to be an interagency and public meeting to discuss criteria and all requirements of full range of alternatives and evaluation measures to be used.

Proposition E. Provide for a level of consistency of bridge rehabilitation/replacement process across state.

Plenary Session Comments (End of Day One)

1. Elaborate on intent of conceptual permit. This may go against current Coast Guard policy.
Careful to link to NEPA process. Coast Guard could give guide clearance information for
vertical and horizontal distances.
2. Minimum requirements may not be appropriate at the end of the process.
3. The Coast Guard is willing to participate actively earlier in the process.
4. Could the Coast Guard develop a standardized vessel inventory?
5. Evaluation matrices will show inconsistency.

Evaluating Alternatives - Focus Group - Final Propositions
Proposition A: Work early on with the Coast Guard to run alternatives to get affirmations or negations of germane variables relative to the alternatives being presented. Also work with the Coast Guard to develop a statewide survey format (boating surveys)

Plenary Consensus Rankings
Approval Ranking: High >Mid> Low
42 -8 -1

Comments on Rankings from Those Offering #1 Ranks
Concerned that this might be pre-approving projects

Proposition B: Develop an efficient environmental permitting process resulting in
conceptual affirmations or negations of proposed alternatives early in the process.

Plenary Consensus Rankings
Approval Ranking: High >Mid> Low
29 - 18 - 3

Comments on Rankings from Those Offering #1 Ranks
Concerned regarding the amount of evaluation needed to comply
with this proposition. At this point in the project, evaluation decisions
may be too subjective.

Proposition C: Both short and long range planning processes must clearly define and state need for project.
Plenary Consensus Rankings
Approval Ranking: High >Mid> Low
41 - 9 - 0

Proposition D: At initiation of the PD&E there needs to be an inter-agency
and public meeting to discuss criteria and all requirements of full range of
alternatives and evaluation measures to be used.

Plenary Consensus Rankings
Approval Ranking: High >Mid> Low
36 - 12 - 0

Proposition E: Create greater consistency of bridge rehabilitation/replacement
process around state and provide enhanced means for public involvement and
information.

Plenary Consensus Rankings
Approval Ranking: High >Mid> Low
34 - 16 0- 2

Proposition F: When in a local community, the MPO or State needs to identifies a transportation need in its relevant plan (e.g. comprehensive plan, long range plan, Transportation Implementation Plan (TIP) etc.) they also need to identify the community values/characteristics that should be considered in implementing
the project.

Plenary Consensus Rankings
Approval Ranking: High >Mid> Low
32 - 16 - 2