Craigie Clair Bridge Design
from Jane Sokolow November 3, 2004

The County has submitted the attached as the final design alternative for the Craigie Clair Bridge.After talking to Eric Hamerstrom (Bridge Chair), we emailed the County re: two points:

1-No mention was made of the finished surface - our consensus was that painting it green would be historically accurate as well as helping to mask the increased dimensions of the structure by better blending with background foliage.

2-The look of the replicated "dry laid-up stone" abutments - we asked if a design most closely resembling stone found elsewhere on the Beaverkill would be possible.


The picture above was taken in the summer of 2002 looking downstream.

Bridge Replacement
Craigie Clair Road ( Town Highway No. 30)
Over the Beaverkill

Town of Rockland ,

Sullivan County


The purpose of this Newsletter is to provide the general public with an update to the comments received from the June 12, 2004 Public Information Meeting and to update the public on the continued design of the new bridge.


Project Objective

  • Provide a bridge that is environmentally sound, similar to the existing, and will accommodate emergency, commercial, and recreational vehicles.
  • Remove structural deficiencies, correct functional obsolescence, and increased load capacity (HS-25).
  • Continue to provide a single-lane bridge.
  • Eliminate horizontal and vertical clearance restrictions.


What's next?

  • The Final Draft Design Report was sent to Sullivan County and NYSDOT on September 22, 2004 for their review and comments.
  • Detailed Design plans of the new bridge will be submitted to New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (SHPO) for their review. SHPO will then prepare a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to address the “Adverse Effects” that is associated with the demolition/removal of a National Register eligible resource.
  • The existing bridge will be advertised in an attempt to donate the bridge to an agency, organization, group or individual that is interested in preserving and using the bridge.


Summary from the June 12, 2004 Public Information Meeting

The purpose of the June 12, 2004 Public Information Meeting was to provide the general public with an opportunity to review the alternatives being considered and provide Sullivan County and NYSDOT with comments regarding these alternatives. The following summarizes the comments received from the Public Information Meeting along with a response:

  • C – The public would like the design of the new bridge be similar to the existing bridge. The overwhelming choice by the public was Alternative 2: Replacement on Existing Alignment – Through Truss.
  • R – The Through Truss is the preferred alternative being progressed in final design. The new Through Truss will have a similar appearance as the existing bridge. Member sizes will need to be larger to accommodate the required loading.
  • C – The public would like to see the ornamental steel work that is on the existing bridge placed on the new bridge.
  • R – The new bridge will be designed with ornamental lattice details similar to the details found on the existing bridge at both the portal ends and on the interior vertical members.
  • C – The public would like to see the new abutment have a dry laid-up stone face similar to the original bridge abutments.
  • R – Form liners will be used on the faces of the new abutments to give the appearance of dry laid-up stone to match the original existing bridge.
  • C – The public would like the new bridge to handle larger vehicles and greater loads.
  • R – The new bridge will be designed to provide a load capacity to eliminate all load restrictions on the bridge. Sullivan County wanted the design of the new bridge to handle their largest dump truck with a snowplow. The lane width (curb-to-curb) of the bridge will also increase from 3.9 m (12.75 ft.) to 4.9 m (16.0 ft.). The vertical clearance will be increased from 3.4 m (11.2 ft.) to 4.9 m (16.0 ft), which is the same clearance used on highways with an overhead bridge. Also, the new bridge will be designed to allow a 12.0 m (39.4 ft.) bus or recreational vehicle or a single axle truck with a 9.1 m (30.0 ft.) trailer to make the approach and exit turns to the bridge from both ends.


New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (SHPO) Involvement

Due to the historic qualities of the bridge and the adjacent Dundas Castle property, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (SHPO) has been involved with this project since the early planning stages. The following is a summary of SHPO's involvement/activities.


Planning/Scoping Phases:

  • Based on their review of all of the alternatives considered for the project (i.e. bridge rehabilitation, bridge at a new location, and bridge replacement at the existing location) SHPO concluded that the bridge rehabilitation was not a reasonable alternative. (June 2002)
  • SHPO could most readily support the bridge replacement on the existing alignment with a Through Truss similar to the existing bridge. (June 2002).


Preliminary Design Phases:

  • Based on SHPO's review of the feasible alternatives, the Pony Truss and the Through Truss on existing alignment, presented in the Draft Design Report, they supported the Through Truss. (June 2004)
  • SHPO agreed with the Phase I Archaeology Survey Prepared by the consultant that the project would have no adverse effect on the archaeological resources. (June 2004)
  • SHPO required the following mitigation efforts for replacing the bridge. (June 2004)
  • Preparation of a Level 2 HABS recordation, which provides a permanent documentation of the existing bridge.
  • Effort on the part of Sullivan County to donate the existing bridge to any municipality, group, agency or individual that would be interested in the taking the bridge.


Description of the Preferred Alternative –Through Truss
  • The new bridge will be a one-lane through truss bridge built on the existing alignment and on new substructures.
  • Ornamental steel will be curved to replicate the appearance of the existing bridge.
  • The new bridge will provide a 4.9 m (16.0 ft.) curb-to-curb and a 5.15 m (16.9 ft.) rail-to-rail clear roadway width.
  • The lateral bracing system will be high enough to provide a vertical clearance of at least 4.9 m (16.0 ft.).
  • The top of the new truss will be approximately 6.4 m (21 ft.) above the proposed bridge deck, which is about 1.8 m (6 ft.) higher than the top of the existing truss.
  • The preferred alternative will look similar to the existing bridge except the members sizes will be larger and the trusses will be taller and farther apart.
  • Since the height of the truss is increasing, the truss member sizes will also increase:
  • The top chord and portal end members will change from having 2 - 0.150 m (6 in.) deep channels with a 0.300 m (12 in.) wide plate on top to 2 - 0.300 m (12 in.) deep channels with a 0.400 m (16 in.) wide plate on top.
  • The vertical members will change from having 2 - 0.100 m (4 in.) deep channels to having one 0.200 m (8 in.) deep I-beam.
  • The bottom truss members will change from having 2 - 0.025 m x 0.051 m (1 in. x 2 in.) bars to having 2 - 0.380 m (15 in.) deep channels.
  • The existing diagonal members will be changed from thin back-to-back bars and single metal rods to having 2 - 0.127 m (5 in.) wide angles back-to-back.
  • The estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is $1.2 million.


Text Box:

Above is a computer generated picture of the bridge to be, looking upstream.

Detours during Construction

During the construction period pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle traffic will be detoured around the project site. There will be two different detours. Since the existing bridge is currently posted for a 4.5 metric tons (5 tons) weight limit, vehicles weighing more than the posted limit are already detouring around the site, using Detour A, which is 11.2 miles. Local vehicles weighting less than 2.7 metric tons (3 tons) will make use of Detour B, which will be 6.4 miles long.


Further comments regarding the project are welcome. These comments can be made in any of the following ways:

  • Mail enclosed comment form to Sullivan County .
  • E-mail comment to Sullivan County .
  • Call Sullivan County .
  • County contact person, address, e-mail address and phone number are noted on lower left of the first page of this newsletter.

home | calendar | headlines & happenings | milestones | church

about us | maps | photos| stories | archives

© Friends of Beaverkill Community 1998-2012.  All rights reserved.