# Pedestrian bridges



## Bryant (Nov 12, 2019)

Having some discussion around the office when an application came in for basically repairs and
improvements to a few bridges that appear, are not regulated by the building code, specifically
section 3104 VCC/IBC or the existing building code for repairs. The point in contention appears
to be the fact that there are no connecting buildings, egress path route or the likes, simply a
bike/pedestrian pathway with a bridge connecting the path.

I would be hard pressed to enforce even the guard rail requirements per the building code since I cannot find a bridge (sorry for the pun) over into other sections of the code, if by defining the main term(s) in the building code definitions of chapter 2. The only other information that I could possibly think of would be the highway department (VDOT) of who would have design criteria of the sort or some federal parks where there could be guidelines as well.


Appears the code doesn’t have any footing with this one, any thoughts?


Thanks in advance


----------



## cda (Nov 12, 2019)

Agree

Should be your city public works/ engineering 


Should fall under some other city department, code, ordinance, maintenance. 

If not regulated by the state or fed.


----------



## Rick18071 (Nov 12, 2019)

Depends if it is privately owned.


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 12, 2019)

Hmm, is the pathway accessible? If so the bridge must comply with the ADA as to width, cane detection, height of railings, etc.


----------



## Bryant (Nov 12, 2019)

cda said:


> Agree
> 
> Should be your city public works/ engineering
> 
> ...


----------



## Bryant (Nov 12, 2019)

Let me lay it out more clearly, since my first information was a bit fuzzy.


Existing pathway bridges are used by pedestrians/cyclists, nothing more. Begs the question, how would one know if for example a medical event could cause one these atv’s to cross over, possible, an extra load, but the bridge is there for the past 20 years and we have no record of it being built, and nothing on the original site plan indicating otherwise, so no permit.


Making repairs to the structure, as in replacing rotten deck boards, and balusters, actually replacing all vertical 2x2 pickets, with horizontal pipe railing.


Renovations if to be called such if Doubling up the existing 2 x 8 joists are considered as Reno. Spans in today’s codes have been reduced in some instances by 2 feet. Still is this a repair? What if one or more joists were cracked and sistered it with another, repair or renovation?


And since this is water (flooding possible), the Chesapeake water shed act comes into play. They want to add more shielding around the 6 x 6 posts or in this case, more rip rap to prevent it from undermining the supporting post, like it did before. This one is on the environmental folks, but we kind of congeal on projects.


This is not a public way, federal park or one of the exclusions in the existing building code by definition of structure, purely in a residential community, though the bridges if a permit would have been obtained, would certainly go to the commercial codes, gravity loads being one of the big drivers.

Coming back around the horn, my BO believes this can Segway over to the commercial code and therefore achieve compliancy down this path. I fail to see it, simply because of the nature of repair as defined in chapter 5 501.1 & 501.2

My problem is if this is truly an existing building code dilemma, how can a pathway be had to the commercial construction code based on the intent of the project at hand?

  Some thoughts, if the repairs are making it better than it was before, and no structural changes as in changing out supporting members or altering it in any way to make it less than it is now. How can one find a pathway way to the new commercial building codes?


----------



## cda (Nov 12, 2019)

Not there

public works, engineering or whatever that dept is called 

or some other Dept code enforcement


----------



## cda (Nov 12, 2019)

So if someone wants build a brand new one of these somewhere else in the city,,?

They just go build it??? Since no other city Dept regulates it?


----------



## cda (Nov 12, 2019)

Ok U occupancy

Call it a retaining  wall


----------



## Mark K (Nov 12, 2019)

If it is on public property suggest you refer to appropriate local, state, or federal entity.

If it is on private property then we need to understand what would give you authority to regulate.  The scope of the IBC would not appear to cover bridges not connected to a building.  Also note that the IBC does not address many issues that are considered in bridge design

Look at the statutes that authorized the adoption of the building code.  They may cover more than what the IBC covers.  Does the city have any authority over roads on private property?  But if this bridge does not support vehicles that may not solve your concern.

If it was constructed in violation of zoning or land use laws you could probably call for it to be removed but this does not address the question of what construction code applies.

It would not surprise me to  find that you have no jurisdiction.  In such a situation I believe the cities option would be to claim that the deficient bridge was a public nuisance.  Refer it to the City Attorney

Prior to the adoption of building codes nuisance law was the mechanism for  addressing these issues so if there is no specific authorization then it would be governed by common law.


----------



## Builder Bob (Nov 12, 2019)

should be regulated by dot if it crosses a state maintained ROW


----------



## Bryant (Nov 13, 2019)

In my State (VA), we use the VCC first, specifically VCC 103.1.1, existing building code. this is the Segway over to that existing building code document. Once there, the confusion begins, simply and this is more relevant in the IEBC commentary, building, building, building, nothin about bridges period. Now you could make an argument for repairs of what this is being called, but it is sketchy at best, replace like for like as an example, or even double joists for example, perhaps one is cracked and sistering one to another, as an example. This is in my opinion is a wide open gap in the VEBC IEBC for theses types of structures.
Oh that word structure comes back around and gives it some meat on the bone, however where do you start?
IMHO there is no Segway for this into the existing building code that is readily applicable. If it was state owned, public spaces such as federal lands and parks & rec, there is no jurisdiction from the building code.
However, private land in this case common land in a subdivision with pedestrian trails running thru out the woods, then there are two choices, ignore it until some one gets hurt or enforce it as a building structure as defined in the VCC/IBC. The existing building code reeks with building terminology, walls, door, windows, etc., not structure.
Being defined as a structure then I have two choices again, Remember that the deck was absent from the code for many years and we relied on the span charts that basically were for the dwelling, but we fudged it until the deck language came out in the codes. But this has fault too, most decks are residential with the exception of commercial applications of balconies and platforms in the commercial code, so this is potentially a dead end to. The only option relevant is treating it under the commercial code as a structure,  specifically Chapter 16 for loading factors and unfortunately engineering calculations.
This I know is a long way from doing a simple repair.

Any thoughts?

Thank you

Bryant


----------



## Rick18071 (Nov 13, 2019)

I am a building inspector and did a plan review and inspections for a private golf course for golf carts, and pedestrians that went over a creek because it was all private and was not for motor vehicles. It was all wood and had no accessibility concerns because it was level all the way across.


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 13, 2019)

No railing? Clear width?


----------



## VillageInspector (Nov 19, 2019)

I'm just thinking out loud here but if this were a pedestrian bridge over a roadway connecting two buildings we would be looking at this as a corridor, etc so I'm just curious, assuming this is enclosed or covered if there's not room for a discussion in terms of it being a corridor of sorts?


----------



## cda (Nov 19, 2019)

Nope 

Not a corridor 

Unless you build a building around it


----------



## my250r11 (Nov 19, 2019)

Would fall under D.O.T. here if over County or State R.O.W. If private would most likely use IBC or IEBC as best as possible. There must be some sort of standard somewhere.? Have not had to deal with this situation.


----------



## Builder Bob (Nov 20, 2019)

Look under Chapter 31 for Special Construction - JUST FYI


----------



## Bryant (Nov 21, 2019)

Builder Bob said:


> Look under Chapter 31 for Special Construction - JUST FYI



Went there, but no fish on the hook. We beat this one so bad that it became a choice of looking at it as a repair and replace like for like in IEBC/VEBC terminology or kick it over to the IBC/VCC for Structural design. One thing is obvious, at least to me, it is in no way a residential project, nor are the gravity loads applicable in that light. The reason why I say that, is, this particular pedestrian bridge is nothing more than a free standing deck between two abutments and probably designed with in my opinion on face value at 40 PSF whereas other criteria push it up to 100 PSF, for people only. If you goggle around you will find resources from the federal government and state requirements, but very little beyond this unless like you said, becomes an egress pathway between two buildings, not necessarily structures IMHO.
I went with the repair scenario and required a pedestrian sign. They didn't want to tear in down in pieces, after being edified...


----------



## north star (Nov 21, 2019)

*% ~ %*

*1st,* ...check the Property Maintenance Code, if there is one
adopted in your applicable location......Regardless if this
property is in a residential area or not, the property owner
has legal obligations to maintain it in safe, proper and
non-hazardous condition  [  *RE:*  the `18 IPMC  ].

*2nd,* ...check with the United States Access Board
and ADA.gov for guidance on pulic use trails & components.
Also, this Link is for Small Towns \ communities that need
assistance in the Accessibility requirements.......It has a
section for Parks and Recreation Areas [  Refer to Page 17
as a starting point   ]. *https://www.ada.gov/smtown.pdf*

IMO, ...the trails and the bridge will required to be
Accessibility compliant.......Your experienced Accessibility
lawyer may have a different view.

*% ~ %*


----------



## Bryant (Nov 21, 2019)

north star said:


> *% ~ %*
> 
> *1st,* ...check the Property Maintenance Code, if there is one
> adopted in your applicable location......Regardless if this
> ...


I did follow the trails ,sorry for the pun ! But I agree with the protocol, problem for us, we have not adopted the property maintenance code and the bridges have been there for about 20 years. Its a wonder there still standing, but standing they are. What triggered this was a repair and off we go looking for the scoping requirements. One school of thought is, is it  better than before. On the accessibility aspect, it is pretty straight forward , no hoops or hurdles to cross, flat as a pancake.

thanks


----------



## north star (Nov 21, 2019)

*% ~ %*

O.K., ...are there any local ordinances, covenants
or stipulations in the original property deed regarding
upkeep, maintenance, general liability, property
conditions, etc. ?.......If nothing in these areas, it
may be time to discuss this with a lawyer [ i.e. - what
liabilities are there ?  ]

Another way to look at this is, if \ when an accident
happens on the questionable bridge or trails, who will
the plaintiff or plaintiffs go after ?.........That's who
discussions should be with [ i.e. - their financial
exposure  ].

Also, whether anyone has actually verbalized it not,
there is already financial exposure to the property
owner.

*% ~ %*


----------



## jar546 (Nov 21, 2019)

If any of the repairs involve the support system and touches the water up to BFE, since it is in a flooday (more than likely) this is a significant issue and will have to be reviewed by your floodplain manager.  Any repairs that affect waterflow in the slightest will have to be addressed, especially in a floodway.


----------



## Bryant (Nov 22, 2019)

north star said:


> *% ~ %*
> 
> O.K., ...are there any local ordinances, covenants
> or stipulations in the original property deed regarding
> ...


From the records that I can find, it appear this was an afterthought after the houses were built, no record of a permit. This is unpermitted work, however that it may be, there may have been no any adoption policy or even the thought of having to get a permit back then.  I do not disagree with your legal analysis as to who the culpable party may be in that ownership. I have found out the hard way politics influence the outcome regardless  of the  correct interpretation, doesn't make it right in the game of pawns...


----------



## Bryant (Nov 22, 2019)

jar546 said:


> If any of the repairs involve the support system and touches the water up to BFE, since it is in a flooday (more than likely) this is a significant issue and will have to be reviewed by your floodplain manager.  Any repairs that affect waterflow in the slightest will have to be addressed, especially in a floodway.



That was the easy part!


----------



## iarkitek (Nov 10, 2021)

does NFPA 502 cover pedestrian bridges?


----------



## Rick18071 (Nov 11, 2021)

The golf club bridge I did the plan review and inspections on was designed by an engineer as required by the IBC. I would call this repair structural and if this type of repair was needed on this bridge the code would require an engineer to design the repair.


----------



## iarkitek (Nov 11, 2021)

The question is does NFPA 502 cover these pedestrian skywak bridges?


----------



## Paul Sweet (Nov 12, 2021)

It appears to be written for vehicular highways rather than short pedestrian bridges.

1.1.1 Scope says: "This standard provides fire protection and fire life safety requirements for limited access highways, road tunnels, bridges, elevated highways, depressed highways, and roadways that are located beneath air-right structures."

6.2.1 says Chapter 6 (Bridges and Elevated Highways) does not apply if they are less than 1000 ft. long.

You can view the standard at:




__





						NFPA 502: Standard for Road Tunnels, Bridges, and Other Limited Access Highways
					

<p>1.1 Scope.<br />1.1.1 This standard provides fire protection and fire life safety requirements for limited access highways, road tunnels, bridges, elevated highways, depressed highways, and roadways that are located beneath air-right structures.<br />1.1.2 This standard establishes minimum...



					www.nfpa.org


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 24, 2021)

as usual, "it depends" when in doubt doesn't it fall to the City engineer to determine?


----------

