The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDocumentation_Emergency_Tab 03 _02/07/2006 i ��5 , Ft�STER F► agler CcEucE• To�ver. Suite i i00 Nlurlir+,�,� Ad�l+ess J�JHNSTC�N �«5 Soufl� l�l��;�ter I3rive Pc�st Of`Iic:e Box 3475 p, �� pbC ��. West C'aim [3eacti, }�lorida ;i3=1t)! West Palm $eacft, I'lorida 33=1t)2-3475 CX l V.I.�D�7 Tetepl�one tS(11659-3000 11ttOPtIByS Blld CflURS�1DP5 Saott G. Mawkins, Esquire Board Certified in Business Litigatian Law by the Florida Bar ��,,G�,jVed Direct Dial: 561-650-0460 Direct Fax: 561-650-0436 E-Maif: shawkins@jones-foster.com �� O �j �(�6 Fsbruary 6, 2006 �� IgP" Off Bv E-Mai1/PDF Mike Couzzo Viltage Manager, Village af Tequesta 250 Tequesta Drive Teques#a, F{orida 33469 Re: Village of Tequesta Dear Mike: Pursuant ta the Speciai Council meeting that was conducted (ast Thursday, February 2, 2QQ6, in connection with the bridge f�reclosure, you asked that ! undertake cettain research in this regard. Specifical[y, yau inquired as �o whether the Viliage may tempararily restrict access to the Tequesta Drive bridge to daylight haurs only and � whether it could likewise regulate traffic on the bridge with ce�tain weight restrictions. . Pursuant to your request, we undertaok the necessary research and have prepared a written analysis in this regard. Attached is a copy of a mem�randum fram Sterling Clarke ta me dated �ebruary 3, 20Q6 which adciresses the questions raised. The analysis supports aur views as expressed at the Spe�ial Council meeting that the proposed restricti�ns as to daylight hour usage and weight limitations were reasanahle and aElowable under the law. [f ,you have any quesfiions regarding the memorandum or the underlying analysis, please confiact me. Please note that I am sending this letter to yau withaut review #c� ex�edite your consideration. Ptease nate also that f will be in Mar�in County on Monday afternoon in cannecfion with another matter but will be in my o�ce all day Tuesday, www.joties faster.cor�e � Mike Couzzo Fet�ruary 6, 2006 Page 2 We are refaining al! of the documents on the bridge issue in a separate sub-fr[e titfed "bridge closure° and wil! thus have them available for future ce#erence. Very truly yours, JONES, FOSTER, JOHNSTON & S7UBBS, P.A. s � . ',�'`+�' � �� ` + � ' � B � . . ��iYiy' . . Y Scatt G. Hawkins SGH:Io Enciosure N:1SCaH11 3 1 53-1111r1couuo-054-5gh-02-08•08 doC JoNFs FOST�ER J�I-�NSTON �. STLIBBS, I'.A. Attorneys and Counseiors � emo � To. Scatt G. Hawkins, Esquire From: Stirling E. Clarke �ate: February 3, 20�6 Subject: Tequesta Drive Bcic�ge Village of Tequesta �ur File Na. 13153.1 I. lssue: Whether the Village may tempararify restrict access tc� the Tequesta Drive Bridge to daylight hours �nly, prohibit certain types or classes of vehic;les firom having access ta the bridge, and lQwer the weight and spead limits on the bridge. It. Short Answec: Yes, pursuant ta § 316.Q0$ and § 316.555, Flarida Statu#es, the Village has the authori#y ta make such restrictions. lI1. Discussion: First, municipalities are granted broad authority under the general police pawer to reguEate stree#s and highways within their jurisdiction, § 316.008. For example, muniaipali�ies may designate particular highways or roadways for use by traffc moving in one directiAn; restrict the use of streets; aiter or es#ablish speed fimits; prohibit ar regufafe the use pf heavily #raveled streets by any class ar kind af traffic f�und to be incompatible with the norma( and safe movernent of traffic, and adopt and enforce suah temporary or experimental regulatians as may be necessary to cover emergencies or special conditions, § 316.QA8(d),(g),(j),(n),{t). As lang as suGh traffic regulations are within the "reasc�nable exercise" of the municipality's palice power tc� ensure �he healfh, safety arid wellbeing of its citizens, such regulafiions will be valid. . � February 3, 2d06 Page 2 The current bridge si#uatian in Tequesta would certainiy qualify as an "emergency or special ac�ndition.° Therefore, #he Viflage has the authority fa adopt and anforce temporary regu[ations to deal with this probfem. Limiting bridge acaess to day(ight hours only would be a reasonable exercise of the poliae ppwer because of the safety isswes that would arise for bath drivers and flagmen in traversing and direating #raffic on the one-larre bridge at night in the dark. Limiting access based �n the weight of Gertain vehicles would also be reasonab(e given the safety cnncerns for the bridge's load capacity. In addition, sectians 316.A08(m}-(n) authorize a munici�aliiy to prohibit ar regu(ate the use of streets by "any cfass or kind pf traffir.." Therefare, it wauld be permissible for the Vi[lage to limit acaess to the bridge to "residentiaP' or "local" traffic only. Afternativefy, the Village cAUld limit access ta "passenger vehicles only." !n addition, § 316.555 expressly au#horizes a municipality to lower weight and speed limits whenever in its juclgment any road ar bridge "by reason of its design, deteric�ration, rain, or other climatic or natural causes be liable to be damaged or destroyed by motor vehiafes, trailsrs, or semitrailers, if the grASS w�ight or speed limi# , thereof shall exceed the limits prescribed." Fu�ther provided in § 316.555, a municipality may also regulafe ar prohibit, in whofe or in part, "the operation af any specifred class ar size c�f motor vehicfes, trailers, �r semitrailers" whenever necessary to provide for the pubfic safeiy and convenience by reason of traffic density, intensive use, or ather reas�ns �f public safiety and convenience. � These provisions wauld apply ta the Viflage's bridge situation. Pi�rsuant to § 316.555, the Village is authorized to reduce the weighf and speed limits on the bridge befow the limi#s recommended by #he DOT. �n additian, the Village is autharized to prahibit or regutate any class or siz� of motor vehicle having access to fihe bridge. It would be permissible for the Vil(age to limit access #o "passenger vehicles on[y" ar to limit access ta vehicles weighing 5 tons or less. The Village rnust provide ncs#ice of fhese restrictions.. SeGtion 316,555 pravides that noti�e must be posted in a canspicuaus p[ace at terminals of alf intermediate crossroads and road junctions with the section of highway ta which the noti�e shalf apply. N:1SGH113153-11Researchlrch-bridge regulation-001-sec.doc 02t06106 04:30pm P. 001 ` � . ` �l(s��p(; rV1 G�. BRfDGE L1ESItaN ASSC�CIATES, iNi�. 1 C O N S U L T f N G E N G t N E E R S BRIAN C. RH&AULT, P.E. President T�LLC�MMUNICAT{ON C�VER SHEET Date: e�ru .�,� �� Total number of pages inciuding cover �_ Piease detiver tt�e foNowing informa6on ta _� �' �_ �•� .� �: � �('. �c� u z zd ,.J��_ Company t Department .,� �' .' �� r ,� �.�, c� �: �{ �' �� Fax Number: TelePhone Number. From: � !` ; � N C - �� .. � t� , /� � �� 3 ��' 7 9 7 � Fax Number: �,561) 6$�-3��4 , TeJephone Number. (561) fi86-3660 Comments: 2035 Vista Parkway, Su�te 200 • West Palm Beach, Ftorida 334ll {561) 68b-3660 • Fax: (561} 686-3664 FEB-�6-2��6 04:23PM FA�: ID:� PACE:001 R=94� 02J061Ob Q4:�0pm P. 002 BRIDGE DESIGN ASSf�C1ATE5, INC. CONS�ILTING ENGINEERS BKIAN C. RHEAULT, P.E. President February 6, 2006 Vitlage of Tequesta 250 Tequesta Drive, Suite 300 7equesta, Florida 33469 ATTENTION: Michael R. Couzza, Jr., Vil4age Manager REGARDING: Tequesta Bridge Inspection PROJECT NO.: 06-517 Dear Mr. Couuo, We have reviewed the available bridge inspection reports and as-built constructian plans for the Tequesta Drive Bridge over the narth prong of the Loxahatchee River. The bridge has been cfosed to traffic due ta concerns regarding the superstructure, in particular, the deck slabs in Span #3. Based on our review of the inspection reports and our field invesfigafion an February 3, 2006, we recommend that the eastbound lane remains closed. The deck unit 3-7, the seventh deck unit starting wifh the narth sidewalk deck unik on the third span, has last alf live load structural carrying capacity and is unsafe. Units 3-4 and 3-5, the farth and fifth unit on #he third span, have lost at least 25% of their capacity. These units are located in the westbound traffic lane. Our calculations indicate that a 5-ton capaci#y for the westbound lanes should be posted and regulated if the bridge is open to traffic. During our site visit we also observed the condition of the piles and pile caps. 1Ne found repairs are required �n lwo piles and three of the pile caps. These repairs are not critical to reopening the bridge. However, they should be addressed within a�2-18 manth fiime frame. We alsa recommend placing a carban fiber safety net beneath span #3 to protect the boaters from falling concrete and temporary bracing for unit 3-7 until it can be removed or replaced. As we have discussed, we wifl begin the preparation of a cost vs life-span table for the varrous optians to reopen the bridge. 2035 Vista Paz�kway; Suite 200 • West Palrn Beach, Florida 33411 {561) 68b-36b0 • Fax: {561) 68(r3b64 FEB-�b-2�06 �4:23PM FASC: ID: PAGE:002 R=92� bc�btirrau b4:�bpm P. 003 , � If yau have any questions, please give me a ca{L Respectfully, • BRIDGE DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. Brian C. Rheauit, P.E., #38797 BCR:kedA:lreport 06-517.wpd FEB-06-2006 04:23PM FAX: ID: PAGE:003 R=92� Page 1 of 1 -; . x _ Anne Koch From: Ggenco@aol.com Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 7:18 PM To: akoch@tequesta.org; JRH33469@aol.com; watkins_william@bellsouth.net; tpaterno@bellsouth.net Cc: mcouzzo@tequesta.org Subject: Re: Tequesta Engineering report After review of the recent report form the Viilage engineers, it appears that they did a thorough visuai inspection. They also reviewed the load test that the DOT performed as well as the structural design drawings of the bridge. Although they appear to have re-calculated the DOT numbers and confirmed the DOT calculations they did not state they performed an independent load test. Based upon the load test performed by the DOT the DOT stated an 11 ton capacity, our engineers appear to be more conservative, altfiough they did not note any disagreement with the DOT load test or calculations. Would you please confirm this asap. Thanks �4 1-t�pet-I.�wle: ��+e� cc@a�l,.ccv�. 2/7/2006