Martin luther king jr blvd viaduct portland
Download
1 / 48

Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Viaduct, Portland - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 56 Views
  • Uploaded on

Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Viaduct, Portland. Project Background and Today’s Design Status. Location – Looking Southeast. Closer View - Looking Southeast. Historic Background - MLK. MLK (Union Ave.) built 1938 H-15 Design Live Load. Historic Background – Grand. Grand Ave. built 1964

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Viaduct, Portland' - julius


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Martin luther king jr blvd viaduct portland
Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Viaduct, Portland

  • Project Background and Today’s Design Status




Historic background mlk
Historic Background - MLK

  • MLK (Union Ave.) built 1938

    • H-15 Design Live Load


Historic background grand
Historic Background – Grand

  • Grand Ave. built 1964

    • HS-20 Design Live Load







Early problems
Early Problems

  • Crosses Filled-In Slough

    • Wood Waste

  • Timber Piles Not Driven Deep Enough

  • Partial Structure Settlement

  • ACWS Added to Raise Grade

  • Jacking Attempt after cutting columns. Instead of raising the structure, it lowered the footings.



Today s conditions
Today’s Conditions

  • Structure Settlement, Translation & Deterioration

  • Sufficiency Ratings

    • MLK 19, Grand Ave. 60 (out of 100)

  • SB Weight Restrictions (50,000 lb)

  • Ongoing Maintenance







Stakeholder architectural goals 1
Stakeholder & Architectural Goals 1

  • Environmental Assessment & 4(f) Evaluation Process 2001-2002

  • Design Review Advisory Committee (DRAC)

  • Improved Vehicular Access

  • Improved Ped. & Bike Access

  • Traffic Calming

  • Landscaping, Planters on Structure


Stakeholder architectural goals 2
Stakeholder & Architectural Goals 2

  • Access to Springwater Trail

  • Gateway to SE Portland

  • Appearance Reminiscent of Existing Structure

    • Shorter, Haunched Spans 24 m (80 ft)

    • Deck Overhangs

    • Historic Lighting Fixtures

  • Historic Interpretive Signs (in pylons)

  • Improved Ped. & Bike Access


Stakeholder architectural goals 3
Stakeholder & Architectural Goals 3

  • Architectural Rails

    • Open for Outward Visibility

    • “Not like the Ross Island Bridge”

    • Must meet LRFD Strength & Performance

    • Similar to FHWA Crash-Tested Rail

    • FHWA Concurrence

  • Keep Adjacent Businesses Open

  • Cross Existing UPRR

  • Future Light Rail Transit Beneath





Bridge replacement concept studies 1999 2001
Bridge Replacement Concept Studies (1999-2001)

  • Replace MLK Structure on Existing Alignment

  • Highway Standards

    • 45 mph, 3.6 m Lanes, Std. Metal Rails

  • Prestressed Concrete Girders

    • Approx. 36 m (120 ft.) Spans


New alignment alternatives
New Alignment Alternatives

  • Boulevard (35 mph) Standards

    • Grade Separated Alternative (Chosen)

    • Signalized Alternative (Not Chosen)

    • 3.3 m Lanes, 1.2 m & 1.8 m Shoulders

    • Tight Curves: Shorter Bridge, Less Skew

    • Substandard Horizontal Alignment

      • Accepted By City of Portland via IGA

      • Ownership Transfers to Portland Upon Completion




Engineering solutions
Engineering Solutions

  • Replace MLK Struct., Rehab Grand

  • TS&L (Sept. 2003): Replace Grand?

    • Approx. $3 million extra

    • Best time to replace during this project

    • Wouldn’t have to remove rails, etc. later

    • But, existing structure didn’t meet criteria to replace (SR > 50)

    • Not in original scope

    • Not in the budget


Stage construction challenges
Stage Construction Challenges

  • Narrow Lanes & Shld. on New Struct.

  • Restricted Right-of-Way

  • Traffic Volumes (60,000+ ADT)

  • Maintain 4 Lanes During Construction

  • Temporary Detour Structure (partial)



Superstructure
Superstructure

  • Precast P/S Slab/Box Girders

    • Fits Desired Span Lengths (75’-80’)

    • Haunched for Architectural Appearance

    • Quicker to Build, No Falsework Req’d.

    • Good Structure Economy

    • Spread Boxes w/ Cast Deck

    • Has Been Done Before

  • North 3 Spans CIP P/T Box Girder

    • Flared, Curved, Skewed




Span layout issues
Span Layout Issues

  • Repetitive Spans Promote Economy

  • Try To Avoid Existing Bents

  • Many Utilities, Buried and Overhead

  • Resulting Spans Weren’t Equal



Foundation conditions
Foundation Conditions

  • Silt Overburden Layer

  • Seismic Settlement & Amplification

  • Use Steel H-Piles

    • Driven into Troutdale Gravel Layer

    • Approx. 15-20 m deep North & South

    • Approx. 25-30 m deep at wood waste

  • MSE Wire Retaining Walls

    • CIP Architectural Facing, After Settlement


Logistical challenges during design
Logistical Challenges During Design

  • Decentralization of ODOT in 2004

  • Designers/Drafters in:

    • Region 1, Portland

    • Region 2, East Salem

    • ODOT HQ, Salem

  • Minimal Traffic Control Design Begun

  • DEA, Inc. Recruited for Traffic Control Design, Drafting, Lead Structure Design


Evolving bid schedule
Evolving Bid Schedule

  • November 2005: Change of Course

    • Cost of Grand rehab approached replacement cost

    • Decision to Replace Grand Ave.

    • Split Contracts

      • March 9, 2006 bid for earthwork, drainage, utilities ($5 million)

      • Nov. 2006 bid for structure and retaining walls





Innovative contracting methods
Innovative Contracting Methods

  • Complex Project with Significant Risk Elements

    • Want an experienced contractor with innovative abilities

    • Think it through ahead of time


Innovative contracting cont 1
Innovative Contracting, cont. 1

  • Best Value Bid Process (A+C+D) on Structure Work

    • “A” Component: Price (40%)

    • “C” Component: Qualifications (40%)

    • “D” Component: Tech. Approach (20%)

    • Not Used: “B” Component (Time)


Innovative contracting cont 2
Innovative Contracting, cont. 2

  • ODOT Experience with Best Value Contracting:

    • I-5 Interstate Bridge Lift Span Trunnion Replacement (1997)

    • St. Johns Bridge Rehabilitation (2003-05)

    • Both Were A+C

    • Procedure now in place at Office of Procurement to streamline Best Value Contracting


Philosophical considerations
Philosophical Considerations

  • Budget Limitations

    • $32 million available from Bridge Program

  • Scope creep

    • Project now approx. $50 million range

  • Unfunded Stakeholder Demands

  • Awareness of Project Scope

    • Grand Ave. not part of original scope


Philosophical considerations cont
Philosophical Considerations cont.

  • Context Sensitive Solutions

    • Was the original scope realistic considering the setting?

    • Old industrial area vs. redevelopment visions

    • Transportation impacts on communities

    • Cause urban blight vs. enhancement