Search fhwa.dot.gov

IA, Hwy 1, Keosauqua Bridge

Project Abstract

Replace a deteriorating historic bridge quickly reaching its intended lifespan (1939 was the last structural improvement) located in a unique setting that includes a nearby historic hotel and scenic river front area.



IA, Hwy 1, Keosauqua Bridge 1: Replace a deteriorating historic bridge quickly reaching its intended lifespan (1939 was the last structural improvement) located in a unique setting that includes a nearby historic hotel and scenic river front area.
Replace a deteriorating historic bridge quickly reaching its intended lifespan (1939 was the last structural improvement) located in a unique setting that includes a nearby historic hotel and scenic river front area.

CSS Qualities

Project Team (make up)
A District Engineer served as the Team Leader and the team included: a cultural resource specialist, multiple environmental experts, a road designer, a bridge architectural designer, and multiple bridge engineers.

Stakeholders (make up, utilization, interaction)
A “Bridge Committee” was established that consisted of 15 individuals including community leaders and citizen representatives.  The committee answered an extensive questionnaire focusing on preferences, provided critical review of design proposals and other issues and provided as a mechanism for distributing information to the community-at-large. Stakeholders included: Department of Natural Resources, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, the State Historic Preservation Officer and the local utility companies.

Public Involvement (types, documentation)
The public involvement program included informal meetings with local citizens to determine bridge design preferences.  A primer on bridge design terms was prepared along with the use of visualization techniques, perspective renderings and finally a scale model was built for display.

Design Solution (process, modes and alternatives examined)
A full range of alternatives for the replacement of the bridge were considered.  A participatory design approach involving team members and stakeholders/public was carried out.  The solution reached also accommodated bike and pedestrian use.

CSS Concepts by Project Phase
CSS was used throughout the project’s development.

Lessons Learned as Expressed by Members of the Project Team Included
CSS takes more effort, but the result is more satisfying to most; when we listened and addressed concerns, local pride and ownership grew; given adequate opportunity the public will temper wants in face of budget constraints; additional time is required to investigate options; guidelines are needed to help future CSS projects; public partnering needs to start as early as possible; roles of stakeholders must be clearly identified; the structure type and budget limits needs early identification.

CSS Principles 

CSS Principle

Project Team

Use of interdisciplinary teams

3.2

Involve stakeholders

3.7

Seek broad-based public involvement

3.5

Use full range of communication methods

3.2

Achieve consensus on purpose and need

3.2

Utilize full range of design choices

3.2

Address alternatives and all modes

3.5

Maintain environmental harmony

3.2

Address community & social issues

3.3

Address aesthetic treatments & enhancements

3.7

Consider a safe facility for users & community

3.8

Document project decisions

3.2

Track and meet all commitments

3.2

Create a lasting value for the community

3.8

Use all resources effectively (time & budget)

3.2

Note: The project team and stakeholder scores are based on the survey results of a 4.0 scale (4: strongly agree; 3: agree; 2: disagree; and 1: strongly disagree).

Discussion on CSS principles

Project team’s perspective
In the project team’s expert opinion several CSS principles were strongly pursued including:  Consider a safe facility for users & community; Create a lasting value for the community; Involve stakeholders; and Address aesthetic treatments & enhancements.  It was agreed that the remaining principles were also pursued albeit not quite as strongly.

CSS Benefits 

 

CSS Benefit

Measured

Stakeh.

Team

Improved stakeholder/public feedback

NA

3.6

Increased stakeholder/public participation compared to other projects

NA

3.8

Increased stakeholder/public participation

3.0

3.2

Increased stakeholder/public ownership

3.1

3.4

Increased stakeholder/public trust

3.3

3.2

Decreased costs for overall project delivery

NA

2.2

Decreased time for overall project delivery

NA

2.6

Improved predictability of project delivery

2.2

2.8

Improved project scoping

NA

2.7

Improved project budgeting

NA

2.6

Increased opportunities for partnering or shared funding or in-kind resources

2.8

3.0

Improved opportunities for joint use and development

3.0

3.2

Improved sustainable decisions and investments

NA

3.2

Improved environmental stewardship

NA

3.2

Minimized overall impact to human environment

3.3

3.0

Minimized overall impact to natural environment

3.0

3.2

Improved mobility for all users

3.3

3.5

Improved walkability

3.4

3.7

Improved bikeability

3.7

3.7

Improved safety (vehicles, pedestrians, and bikes)

3.6

3.7

Improved multi-modal options

3.6

3.2

Improved community satisfaction

3.4

3.4

Improved quality of life for community

3.1

3.2

Fit with local government land use plan

3.1

3.2

Improved speed management

3.0

2.8

Design features appropriate to context

3.6

3.5

Optimized maintenance and operations

NA

3.2

Minimized disruption

2.8

3.2

Increased risk management and liability protection

NA

3.3


Discussion on Benefit Values

Semi-Quantitative Benefits
The project team’s expert opinion indicated rather strongly that several benefits accrued including: Increased stakeholder/public participation compared to other projects; Improved walkability; Improved bikeability; Improved safety (vehicles, pedestrians, and bikes); Improved stakeholder/public feedback; Improved mobility for all users; and Design features appropriate to context. Stakeholders also strongly indicated that several benefits accrued including: Improved bikeability; Improved safety (vehicles, pedestrians, and bikes); Improved multi-modal options; and Design features appropriate to context.  In the stakeholders’ view the least benefit was minimized disruption and from the project team’s view the least benefit was decreased costs for overall project delivery.

Quantitative Benefits
There was no additional information provided to the research team to be utilized in the development of quantifiable benefits.

Arnstein comparison

Arnstein Questions Part 1

Stakeh.

Team

I  am satisfied with the relationship we had with project team

3.4

NA

I am satisfied with the relationship I had with the stakeholders

NA

3.5

I am satisfied with the relationship I had with the interested public

NA

3.3

I am satisfied with the procedures and methods that allowed input to project decisions

3.4

3.0

Note: The project team and stakeholder scores are based on the survey results of a 4.0 scale (4: strongly agree; 3: agree; 2: disagree; and 1: strongly disagree). 

Arnstein Questions Part 2

Stakeh.

Team

My relationship with the project team was best described as

2.5

NA

My relationship with the stakeholders was best described as

NA

2.5

My relationship with the interested public was best described as

NA

2.3

Note: The project team and stakeholder rankings are based on the survey results of a 4.0 scale (4: They allowed us to provide direction; 3: We established a partnership; 2: We established a consultation relationship; and 1: We established an informational relationship).

It is notable that in the first question pair (satisfaction with the relationship) that the perspective of both the project team members and the stakeholders was relatively high.  The stakeholders were even more satisfied with the procedures that allowed them input than the project members themselves.  The responses to the last three items suggest that there was a consensus on the nature of the relationship between the project team and stakeholders being viewed at some where between a consultant and partner relationship.  This speaks very highly of the CSS process established for this project.

Case Summary

Major principles
Along with considering a safe facility and creating a lasting value for the community two other CSS principles were applied successfully.

The Iowa Des Moines River Bridge project at Keosauqua exemplifies the CSS principle – utilize a full range of design choices.  Extensive consideration was given to restoration of the existing bridge which was listed on the Historic Register.  The nature of the piers and the limited vertical and horizontal clearance of the truss structure as well as the need to close the bridge to traffic for an extended period made the restoration option unacceptable to the community.  The need to maintain some traffic capability, the desire to keep the new structure as near as possible to the exiting bridge’s footprint, the desire to maintain the general appearance of the existing bridge and the desire to maintain the view sheds from the bridge and toward the bridge became part of the design criteria.  The final design balanced the historical and cultural factors (employing a bridge aesthetic specialist) with the need to provide a roadway, the traffic calming of the old narrow lane bridge while providing enhanced facilities for pedestrians and a new bikeway.  A local Bridge Committee was formed that included 15 community leaders and citizen representatives to work with the project design staff to review concepts and scenarios which included use of visualization techniques. This facilitated the development of options and selection of the design solution in a timely manner.  Samples of the textured concrete and painted steel railings, along with a scale model of the near final design, was presented to the community for review. 

The Iowa Des Moines River Bridge project at Keosauqua also exemplifies the CSS principle – provide aesthetic treatments and enhancements.  The word ‘keosauqua’ means ‘stream bearing a floating mass of ice’ in a Native American language.  The community placed a high importance on the historical significance of the bridge and scenic river front area for the City of Keosauqua.  While this would be the third bridge to be build crossing the river in this location – enhancing the design and providing aesthetic treatments was agreed to be the best way to provide lasting value to the community.  Designers assessed the features of the bridge to be replaced and chose the most pleasing features while eliminating most negative aspects with the help of the local Bridge Committee.  Weathering steel was chosen for the superstructure and the Committee chose a red-brown color for the railings which are of a unique design that reflects the truss design of the replaced bridge.  The sheer size of the earlier piers with their steel icebreaker plates on the upstream surfaces are dramatized in the new design and small pedestrian over looks are centered above each pier.  Bridge lighting is of the same design as that incorporated into nearby streetscapes.  Both sides of the river offer uninterrupted views of the bridge from the shoreline; one side has the Lacey Keosauqua State Park while the other has a small city park and the nearby historic Hotel Manning.

Major Benefits (semi-quantitative only)
From the stakeholder perspective the top major benefits were:
Improved bikeability

  • Improved safety (vehicles, pedestrians, and bikes)
  • Improved multi-modal options
  • Design features appropriate to context

(the above four benefits accrued high tied scores of 3.6)

From the team member perspective the top major benefits were:

  • Increased stakeholder/public participation compared to other projects
  • Improved walkability
  • Improved bikeability
  • Improved safety (vehicles, pedestrians, and bikes) (the above four benefits accrued high tied scores of 3.7)

Lessons Learned
The lessons learned included:
CSS takes more effort, but the result is more satisfying; additional time is required to investigate options; public partnering needs to start as early as possible; given adequate opportunity, the public will temper wants in face of budget constraints and guidelines are needed to help future CSS projects.

Overall Level of Success
This project is judged to be very successful in terms of CSS process and resulting benefits. 



Replace a deteriorating historic bridge quickly reaching its intended lifespan (1939 was the last structural improvement) located in a unique setting that includes a nearby historic hotel and scenic river front area.     
Info Icon
Replace a deteriorating historic bridge quickly reaching its intended lifespan (1939 was the last structural improvement) located in a unique setting that includes a nearby historic hotel and scenic river front area.     
Info Icon


Related Content:

Feedback, questions, comments, or problems?
email info@contextsensitivesolutions.org

Copyright © 2005 Context Sensitive Solutions.org. All rights reserved.
About Us | Site Map | Privacy Policy

United States Department of Transportation - logo
Privacy Policy | Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) | Accessibility | Web Policies & Notices | No Fear Act | Report Waste, Fraud and Abuse | U.S. DOT Home |
USA.gov | WhiteHouse.gov

Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000