Architectural board tells consultants to coordinate 10‑foot railroad fence for Green Bay Road bridge, seeks refined elevations

The Architectural Board of Review directed consultants to begin coordinating with the railroad on a 10‑foot fence across the Green Bay Road bridge and asked for detailed elevations and topo-based sections to resolve how the fence, concrete parapet and guardrail will transition at the bridge ends.

Dan Shug, the project manager for the Green Bay Road bridge, told the board that the railroad has a requirement “that the fence on the bridge be at least 10 feet high,” a standard the team said is meant to improve safety and to keep large snow chunks from being launched onto the tracks. Shug said consultants can pursue a lower fence, but that would likely require additional time and several rounds of railroad review.

The board and consultants discussed how to satisfy both safety and aesthetic goals. Consultants proposed a short concrete parapet (roughly 2–3 feet) with a metal fence on top to meet crash-worthiness and railroad standards; they said guardrail terminals must be placed at the four bridge corners to meet crash-test requirements. Commissioners pressed for clearer drawings showing the 60‑foot railroad right‑of‑way line, the length of the 10‑foot fence across the bridge span and elevations that show where a decorative wall could end and transition to shorter railings.

Ken Horinko, landscape architect with Baxter & Woodman, presented five roadside‑exhibit alternatives to satisfy mitigation required by the State Historic Preservation Office and FHWA because the bridge is eligible for the National Register. The exhibit options range from small sculptural uses of individual outriggers and truss relics to larger interactive groupings of historic outriggers; preliminary cost estimates Horinko gave the board ranged from about $31,000 to $94,000 depending on materials and complexity.

Board members repeatedly said they preferred preserving the historic patina of the steel outriggers rather than sandblasting and repainting them. Several members also urged the consultants to study ways to integrate the historic outriggers into the parapet or seat wall so they read as intentional elements of the new bridge rather than isolated relics. Consultants cautioned that some integration options would increase cost and require structural details from their engineers.

Rather than delay the project by seeking variances, the board signaled it was comfortable allowing design to proceed on the assumption that the 10‑foot fence will be required over the railroad right‑of‑way so the project can remain on the critical path for a hoped‑for 2027 construction start. The board asked staff and the consultant team to produce plan overlays and elevation sections (including topo at both ends), to explore finish/material options that meet the state crash and performance standards, and to return with refined drawings and cost implications. A public workshop or charette was recommended to refine aesthetic choices and community input before the next design submission.