Jose A. Lopez

October 7, 2002

This concerns the review of the subject Guidelines. Comments are sent on behalf of Mr. Harry A. Capers, Jr., New Jersey State Bridge Engineer.

Review of the Guidelines was based on how the Guidelines may impact the design of pedestrain bridge structures in New Jersey. As such, my comments are only three.

1. When the rise of ramp approaches is greater than 60 inches, it is stated in the Guidelines that elevators should be provided for pedestrian overpasses. An important issue that should be consider with this requirement is the future aspect of maintenance of the elevators. State agencies, as owners of pedestrian bridge structures, will be required to maintain elevators. Financial obligations will have to be committed to enable this. There is also the concern of vandalism that is always an issue. We understand that maneuvering a wheelchair up a ramp will be difficult and installation of elevators would seem to be an appropriate remedy. However, if elevators are not operational, no one will be served.

We recommend that other means to deal with this circumstance be studied.

2. We recommend that the Guidelines be finalized in Customery U.S. Units instead of metric units.

3. The Guidelines state that alternate pedestrian routes, on the same side as the existing route, be provided when the designated route is shut down. Consideration must be allowed for available right of way with this requirement. Pedestrian traffic must always be accommodated when construction projects impact such traffic. However, the temporary path cannot always match the same features as the existing path.

We hope that these comments are useful with your work.

Jose A. Lopez
New Jersey Department of Transportation
Bureau of Structural Engineering