1 / 48

Revitalizing MLK Jr. Blvd. Viaduct: History, Challenges, and Future Vision

Explore the history, challenges, and goals of the MLK Jr. Blvd. Viaduct revitalization project in Portland. Learn about the stakeholder objectives, architectural enhancements, engineering solutions, construction challenges, and the innovative methods used in the project.

julius
Download Presentation

Revitalizing MLK Jr. Blvd. Viaduct: History, Challenges, and Future Vision

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Viaduct, Portland • Project Background and Today’s Design Status

  2. Location – Looking Southeast

  3. Closer View - Looking Southeast

  4. Historic Background - MLK • MLK (Union Ave.) built 1938 • H-15 Design Live Load

  5. Historic Background – Grand • Grand Ave. built 1964 • HS-20 Design Live Load

  6. Viaduct – looking SE (late 1930’s)

  7. Viaduct – Below (late 1930’s)

  8. Grand Ave. w/ MLK Looking SW

  9. Grand Ave. Looking N. at Caruthers

  10. Stairway, N. Side of Caruthers

  11. 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.

  12. Sunken Area – Looking NW

  13. 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

  14. MLK Sunken Span & Concrete

  15. Bent 26 – Before Repair Apr. ‘02

  16. Beam Support Repairs

  17. Column Repairs 2001-2002

  18. Column Repairs 2001-2002 cont.

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. 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

  22. Near Ivon St. Looking North (1930’s)

  23. Gateway Rendering 2001

  24. Rail Mockup w/ Light Pole

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. At-Grade Signalized Alternative

  28. MLK/Grand Selected Alternative

  29. 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

  30. 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)

  31. Stage Construction Sections

  32. 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

  33. Haunched Beam – Half Elevation

  34. Haunched Beam – Sections

  35. Span Layout Issues • Repetitive Spans Promote Economy • Try To Avoid Existing Bents • Many Utilities, Buried and Overhead • Resulting Spans Weren’t Equal

  36. Layout – w/ Grand Ave. Rehab.

  37. 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

  38. 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

  39. 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

  40. Layout – Grand Ave. Rehab.

  41. Layout – Grand Ave. Replace

  42. General Layout

  43. Innovative Contracting Methods • Complex Project with Significant Risk Elements • Want an experienced contractor with innovative abilities • Think it through ahead of time

  44. 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)

  45. 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

  46. 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

  47. 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

  48. Questions?

More Related