HAER Report

Recent Modifications

The Woodland Place Viaduct was extensively rehabilitated in 1995 by the engineering firm Volmer Associates. The four main ribs were rehabilitated with fiber wrap encasements. To improve safety, the new road deck was widened and superelevated. A reinforced concrete barrier was also placed between opposing traffic lanes. A shallow ornamental relief in the new bridge parapet was intended to evoke elements of the original parapet design.

A New York State DOT inspection of the Harney Road Bridge in 1993 identified severe deterioration in two of the structure’s girders as well as scouring in the abutments and footings. Designed by Stoughton and built in 1924, the single-span bridge was constructed of reinforced-concrete t-beams and faced in stone. Concrete abutments and walls were also faced in stone. Engineers concluded that the bridge needed corrective or protective action and reduced its posted weight limit capacity to 12 tons. Compounding the bridge’s structural problems, increased traffic had rendered its vehicle capacity inadequate. During peak traffic hours, queued vehicles extended onto the parkway drive in both the northbound and southbound lanes. Observation and accident reports revealed that the bridge was too short to sufficiently store vehicles. The Westchester County Department of Public Works (DPW) contracted Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. to study the situation and provide recommendations to alleviate the problems. The study determined that the only feasible way to correct the situation and meet DOT requirements was to replace the existing structure with a new bridge. The proposed new bridge would be four lanes wide rather than three and include a sidewalk. The bridge parapets would be faced in stone. The new design was intended to provide an economical, easily constructed structure that maintained the scale of the existing bridge and was compatible with the parkway’s established architecture and landscaping instead of duplicating the appearance of the original bridge.(302)

A 1998 historic resource study examined Westchester County’s options regarding the Harney Road Bridge. It concluded that widening the existing bridge to accommodate increased traffic loads was not feasible because modifying the structural members was an expensive and inappropriate means of dealing with such an aging structure. Widening the structure would also significantly alter the appearance of the historic bridge and affect its waterflow capacity. Another alternative was to preserve the existing bridge and build a replacement next to it. Constructing a new bridge in this location would require realigning Harney Road, which was ruled unacceptable. A replacement bridge was also rejected as a solution because it would severely alter the appearance and compromise the integrity of the parkway’s historic landscape. If the new bridge were built on the north side of the old Harney Road Bridge, the non-historic structure would impact one of the most significant views in the BRPR. If the bridge were constructed on the south side, the small dam near the bridge, which was an original parkway feature, would have to be altered or removed. The report concluded that the only feasible solution to the Harney Road Bridge problem was to replace it with a new bridge. Architectural historian Damon Tvaryanas noted that it was "unfortunate that circumstances require that the Harney Road Bridge be replaced." He observed, however, that "the currently proposed preliminary plans present a design which is as historically and visually sensitive as is possible."(303) The bridge was replaced in the late 1990s with a structure similar in appearance to other parkway bridges.