Quechee Covered Bridge

Tropical Storm Irene had a devastating impact on significant portions of Vermont.  The flooding caused by this storm resulted in at least three deaths and considerable damage to roads, bridges, and buildings.  Nearly a dozen towns were cut-off and supplies had to be brought in by helicopter.  One hundred eighteen stretches of state highway and thirty-four bridges were closed due to damage sustained by the tropical storm.  This storm was the sixth costliest hurricane in US History, and estimates are over $700 million to repair the damage in Vermont.  Ten covered bridges in Vermont were either significantly damaged or destroyed by Tropical Storm Irene.  The covered bridge in downtown Quechee was among them.

DuBois & King was hired to prepare a study regarding the Quechee Covered Bridge.  After detailed examination, it was determined that the best option was to demolish what remained of the existing covered bridge and build a new one in its place.  The new bridge would be designed with a concrete deck and a timber-framed cover over it.  This design allows for the rapid construction of a new bridge in a cost-efficient manner, while maintaining the character of the historic district that it is located in.  The hydraulic opening from the bridge was expanded, and if a flood of equal size were to occur the water and debris would be able to pass safely underneath the new bridge.  Dubois & King engaged Pais architects for the design of the cover of the new bridge.

It was determined that community approval for the new bridge was essential, and public feedback has been received and influenced the design at every step of the way.  The design team, Pais Architects and Dubois & King) first presented a survey of covered bridges and their main design features to the residents to get a sense of their preferences.   From this information, three different bridge design were presented to the public for their feedback.

After reviewing the feedback from the public, the design team decided to move forward with the modified saltbox design style.  Roofing materials and siding colors were also evaluated for for compatibility with the area.  After consideration by the town Selectboard, it was decided that the bridge would have a natural hemlock siding, and cedar shake for roofing.  The construction of the new bridge is scheduled to be complete by December 2012.

Charlotte Covered Bridges

I recently visited three covered bridges located in Charlotte.  The three bridges are the Holmes Bridge, Quinlan Bridge, and the Seguin Bridge.



Holmes Bridge
Other names: Lake Shore Bridge
Municipality: Charlotte
Crossing: Holmes Creek and Lake Road
Built: 1870
Type: Kingpost Arch
Length: 40.5 feet
Width: 11.6 feet
Height at truss: 8.5 feet
Height at center: 11.5 feet

This bridge was extensively repaired in 1994 and the 7-layer laminated arch was added at this time.  At approximately 100 feet above sea level, it is at the lowest elevation of any covered bridge in Vermont.  This bridge is one of only three remaining tie arch truss bridges remaining in Vermont, the other are the Bowers and Bests bridges in West Windsor.

Quinlan Bridge
Other names: Lower Bridge and Sherman Bridge
Municipality: Charlotte
Crossing: Lewis Creek and Lewis Creek Road
Built: 1849
Type: Burr Arch
Length: 86 feet
Width: 13 feet
Height at truss: 9.4 feet
Height at center: 11 feet

This bridge had two steel beams located under the bridge to help support it.  As the design of this bridge with its unusual lateral roof bracing is similar to the Sequin Bridge, these bridges were likely built by the same builder.  On a sunny day in the afternoon, the light coming through the siding can create spectacular patterns.  The Burr Arch truss is the third most common covered bridge truss type, behind the Town Lattice and Queenpost trusses.  There are nine remaining Burch Arch truss bridges remaining in Vermont.

Sequin Bridge
Other names: Sequin Bridge, Upper Bridge, and Brown's Bridge
Municipality: Charlotte
Crossing: Lewis Creek and Roscoe Road
Built: 1850
Type: Burr Arch
Length: 70.6 feet
Width: 13 feet
Height at truss: 9 feet
Height at center: 12 feet

This bridge had extensive repairs in 1949 and 1994.  As the design of this bridge with its unusual lateral roof bracing is similar to the Quinlan Bridge, these bridges were likely built by the same builder.  The Burr Arch truss is the third most common covered bridge truss type, behind the Town Lattice and Queenpost trusses.  There are nine remaining Burch Arch truss bridges remaining in Vermont.

Note: Different sources provide different measurements and dates, I have not verified the accuracy of these.

2010 ADA and Safe Harbor

New construction and alterations that are currently occurring may be constructed in accordance with the 1991 or the 2010 Standards, but this transitional phase will be ending shortly.  If the building permit application is received on or after March 15, 2012 or if a permit is not required construction starts on or after this date, the 2010 ADA Standards will be mandated.  Start of construction does require more than razing of existing structures or a ceremonial groundbreaking.

It is important to note that when the new standards take effect, buildings that were constructed prior to the March 15, 2012 deadline and in accordance with the 1991 Standards do not need to be brought up to the 2010 Standards.  For example, the 1991 Standards allows for a side approach to a water fountain but in the 2010 Standards for adults only front approaches are permissible.  If the water fountain was installed or permitted, prior to the March 15 deadline, with a side approach, this will be considered as compliant under the Safe Harbors provisions of the 2010 ADA Standards.

"If a private entity has constructed or altered required elements of a path of travel at a place of public accommodation or commercial facility in accordance with the specifications in the 1991 Standards, the private entity is not required to retrofit such elements to reflect the incremental changes in the 2010 Standards solely because of an alteration to a primary function area served by that path of travel."     36.403 (a) 2

"If existing elements, spaces, or common areas are altered, then each such altered element, space, or area shall comply with the applicable provisions of appendix A to this part."     36.402 (b) 2

The 2010 Standards require access for facilities that did not have access requirements under the 1991 Standards, such as recreation facilities.  Since there were no standards for the additional facility types under the previous ADAAG regulations, these are not considered as having been constructed in accordance with them.  Therefore, they are not protected under the 2010 Standards Safe Harbor provisions, and the architectural barriers must be removed when readily achievable.

As the 2010 Standards are generally more restrictive than the 1991 Standards, it could be valuable for many businesses to have an ADA Compliance Audit performed soon.  There are two benefits for this.  First, the business will have paperwork documenting that they were evaluated by a third party professional company to be in compliance with 1991 ADA Standards.  With the ADA being a Civil Rights law rather than a building code, this documentation may provide greater protection.  The second benefit would be, providing the business an opportunity to decide to perform the necessary modifications under the 1991 ADA standards.

LEED AP Legacy

I am currently a LEED Accredited Professional with Legacy or without specialty status. I had planned on maintaining that status and not migrating into a Specialty track. However, yesterday I changed my mind and will shortly be making the switch.

First, I would like to explain why I was not planning on making the switch. When United States Green Building Council (USGBC) first announced the option of the Specialty tracks, it stated that all LEED AP's had the option to migrate into the new system or remain under the old system with Legacy status. Legacy AP's would remain valid and would continue to be eligible for the AP point under all rating systems. These benefits would not be revoked. The benefits of the new system seemed to be primarily marketing. I can advertise myself as an expert in a particular focus of green building such as Building Design and Construction and would get a fancy color logo that I can use by my name. As part of the specialty track, I would need to pay regular maintenance fees and meet continuing education requirements. The continuing education requirements are nearly identical to the ones that I take to maintain my architecture license, but are approved by a different organization and would have a different renewal period. I decided the color logo was not worth the additional fees and paperwork.

About a month ago, I attended an USGBC event. As I had recently receiving an email saying that the time to upgrade from LEED AP Legacy to a specialty track was about to expire, I asked several other attendees about their thoughts on upgrading to the specialty track. For the most part, the answers that I received were basically marketing purposes and reassuring the public about standards through continuing education. Those are both points that I believe are easily addressed in a brief conversation. One individual said that the USGBC was planning on devaluing the Legacy status and make it not longer eligible for points under the LEED rating system. We discussed how this was against what they said and agreed upon, but they were planning on doing it anyway. I filed this away, but felt that the agreement that LEED Legacy AP would be eligible for a LEED rating systems point for life would not be broken.

A couple of days ago, I realized that is not the case. On the Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) FAQ site, I saw this.

"Are LEED APs without specialty still eligible for ID credit 2 on a LEED project?

LEED APs with and without specialty are all currently eligible to earn ID credit 2 on a LEED project. Since USGBC makes the LEED Rating Systems, it is USGBC’s decision if or when to change the Innovation & Design credit."

As the GBCI is a spinoff from the USGBC, this statement implies backtracking on the commitment that Legacy AP's would remain eligible for that credit. Reading the draft 2012 LEED rating standards, shows that the USGBC is planning on no longer permitting Legacy AP's from utilizing this point. This is the proposed language for utilizing this credit. It is from page 12 of the clean version of the Building Design and Construction standards.

"At least one (1) principal participant of the project team shall be a LEED Accredited Professional (AP) with a specialty most appropriate for the project."

My deadline for upgrading from Legacy to specialty track is in September. If I maintain my Legacy status, I will need to prepared to not only provide comments on every LEED rating system for the next 25 years of my career, but to raise enough outcry from other Legacy AP's to force the USGBC to honor their agreement with the Legacy AP's. I have decided to make the switch and upgrade to a specialty track. I also encourage other Legacy AP's to take this under consideration before their two year "enrollment window" closes.