Innerbelt Bridge Subcommittee Meeting 1 Meeting Minutes

Transcription

1 CLEVELAND INNERBELT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT GROUP 1 CUY , PID No Meeting Minutes Project: Central Viaduct Date: Subject: Innerbelt Bridge Subcommittee Time: 1:00pm - 3:00pm By: AMC/JWB Place: NOACA Attendees: (ODOT D12) Craig Hebebrand Ohio Department of Transportation District 12 Joseph Seif Ohio Department of Transportation District 12 Dave Lastovka Ohio Department of Transportation District 12 Lora Hummer Ohio Department of Transportation District 12 Keri Welch Ohio Department of Transportation District 12 James Calanni Ohio Department of Transportation District 12 John Motl Ohio Department of Transportation District 12 (ODOT C.O.) Scott Phinney Ohio Department of Transportation Central Office Jeff Crace Ohio Department of Transportation Central Office (City of Cleveland) Bob Brown City of Cleveland Planning Commission Scott Frantz City of Cleveland Planning Commission Debbie Berry City of Cleveland Rob Mavec City of Cleveland Traffic Engineering (Cuyahoga County) Brendan Finn Cuyahoga County Engineers Office Paul Alsenas Cuyahoga County Planning Commission Marvin Hayes Cuyahoga County Planning Commission (FHWA) Matt Shamis Federal Highway Administration (Other Organizations) Bill Beckenbach Quadrangle Colleen Gilson Tremont West Development Corp. Thomas Starinsky Historic Gateway and Warehouse District Howard Maier Northeast Ohio Area Coordinating Agency Ron Eckner Northeast Ohio Area Coordinating Agency Richard Enty Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Joe Marinucci Downtown Cleveland Alliance 1

2 (Michael Baker Jr., Inc. - Design Team) Bob Parker Michael Baker Jr., Inc. John Dietrick Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Laura Toole Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Amilyn Cedergreen Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Jeff Broadwater Michael Baker Jr., Inc. MEETING SUMMARY Meeting Agenda Welcome/Introductions Subcommittee Roles and Responsibilities Project Status The Bridge Type Selection Process Discuss Typical Evaluation Criteria Next Steps Bridge Types: Cable-Stayed Tied Arch Deck Truss Box Girder Extradosed Delta Frame Plate Girder 2

3 Introduction and Roles & Responsibilities (Bob Brown City of Cleveland) Innerbelt Project Update (Craig Hebebrand ODOT) o Schematic Plan for entire Innerbelt Project is not current and will be updated and provided at the next Subcommittee meeting. o November 17, 2005 ODOT made recommendation to Advisory committee for preferred alignments o After much public/stakeholder involvement, some minor changes have been made. o Environmental documentation supporting the decisions made is on going and will include some delays. o Summarized proposed preferred alignment on reconstruction plans for entire corridor. o Intend to submit final environmental documents to FHWA by year-end. o Anticipate FHWA approval will go until middle o final design. o Late 2009 begin construction of contract Group 1. o 10-year construction term forecast for entire Innerbelt. o Project Team (organization chart) discussed. Baker Team (Laura Toole - Baker) o Innerbelt Bridge Subcommittee Binders distributed o Timeline discussed for subcommittee meetings and public meetings public meetings scheduled at Greek Orthodox Church (6/7 & 9/13) o Agenda for subcommittee Meeting #1 discussed. o Proposed agenda for subcommittee meetings number 2, 3, 4, and 5. Bridge Type Selection Process (John Dietrick - Baker) o How type selection process fit into overall schedule. o Type selection date directly linked to starting design activities early 2007 so ODOT can break ground by late Question raised: Can we publish listing of bridge types that won t be considered due to project parameters? (City of Cleveland) Answer: John mentioned that some, such as suspension bridges, are ruled out. Structure types that are not feasible should be listed in the binder. Project parameters discussed o Transverse section 5 lanes and 2 shoulders with unidirectional (one-way). o Clearances over RR, Cuyahoga River, roads. o Discussed geometrics of bridge which include ramps of Abbey and Ontario with a horizontal curve in the center of the bridge and a profile similar to the existing bridge. o Slope stability issues of west slope discussed. 3

4 o Mentioned that bridge type selection may be influenced by ability to place a pier in the slope. o Question came up on what cost differential is there for suspension bridge. (NOACA) Answer: There is a large cost differential with regards to labor and materials. (John Dietrick) o Discussed global aesthetics of compatibility with adjacent bridge. o Detail aesthetics will be addressed in next phase of project. o Safety with regards to wind and earthquake loads should not be a factor. All bridge types presented are equally safe. Diversity of Views o Committee Co-chair stated that this committee will continue after the bridge type selection therefore views from North, South, East and West were requested. o FHWA recommended no aerial views; use views from people level. o Committee Co-chair suggested aerial views in addition to others. Bridge Types discussed o Some questions on bridge types. Question: What is the difference between plate girders and trusses? (Bob Brown) Answer: Plate girders are mainly beams with minimal maintenance; trusses have multiple triangle elements, are very labor intensive, expensive, require painting of multiple elements and, high maintenance requirements. (John Dietrick) Question: What type of bridge is Fulton Road? (Bob Brown) Answer: A concrete arch (John Dietrick) o Question asked about varying bridge types for one structure. o John explained that it is possible to have multiple bridge types ex. A tied arch main span over the river with plate girder approach spans. The bridge can have a signature bridge such as cable stayed but limit it to the portion of the valley needed for large span and use a girder bridge type for the rest of the bridge. Evaluation Criteria o Suggestion to add context as separate evaluation criteria. (Paul Alsenas) o Bob Brown stated that the aesthetics can be both separate and part of context sensitive design. o Paul Alsenas stated that bridge needs to be a symbol of all things around it. o $275 million budget for whole contract, group discussed. o Question: What is construction group 1? (Bob Brown) Answer: 2 miles which starts at I-90, I-71 & I-490 interchange to E. 22 nd St. and Westbound ramps. o Question asked how much bridge budget is to the whole. o Craig said we could present that information at the next meeting. 4

5 o Committee Co-Chair recommended that compatibility of bridge to the site context be added to the evaluation criteria and that public/stakeholder criteria may be removed. o Think about long term maintenance. o Aesthetics global architecture consistent with the Innerbelt project as a whole. o Maintenance long term, minimal maintenance and the monitoring of the West slope. o Constructability minimal impacts, MOT, Construction time can vary. o Public Input focus on bridge o Evaluation Matrix What criteria and priority? Need to quantify the items in the matrix. Subcommittee Meetings will be held at NOACA. o Public meetings (6/7 & 9/13) Wednesdays 4PM to 8PM Open House. o Scheduled discussion group times 5:00 PM discussion (presentation) 6:30 PM discussion (presentation). o Committee Co-Chair requested time for public comment be provided after presentations. o Question raised that $275 million budget seemed low for 2010 construction; can a bridge type be thrown out? (City of Cleveland) o Answer: ODOT is currently looking into inflation and construction costs. The cost estimate is in 2010 construction dollars and hopes to have it adjusted by July. (Craig Hebebrand) Site Visit to be Scheduled Suggestion that the subcommittee group arrange a day to walk the sites to view the sites once concepts are developed. (Joe Marinucci) o Multiple site visits suggested, first being late June. Discussion/Questions Where will proposed bridge be located in relation to the existing bridge? (CDC) o It will be located to the north and allow for future 5-lane bridge to be built in between new and existing approx. ~ 100. (John Dietrick) What are the limitations of spans and different elements? Can you talk about the geometric limitations? (Joe Marinucci) o Cable stayed would not work on a curve of this nature however an extradosed is feasible. Is there a super elevation? o Possibly, the ramp geometry may change according to bridge type. (Bob Parker) Committee Co-chair requested that subcommittee members submit names of any groups that should be represented. o No additional organizations were mentioned How will the bridge be tied-in at end of project? (NOACA) 5

6 o All structure types should accommodate equal treatment of tie-ins. (John Dietrick) RTA is concerned about capacity and designing 16 ft. shoulders wide enough for bus bypass lane and are there access ramps? (Rich Enty) o RTA provide prioritized listing of ramps where requested. (Craig Hebebrand) Could close up be shown of highway alignment through Tremont all the way to the tie-ins at public meeting. (Colleen Gilson) o Yes, we will show a close up of the project through Tremont. (John Dietrick) Are there any issues with technological advancements? (Brendan Finn) o Yes, we are looking beyond the ODOT standards. (Craig Hebebrand) Discussion of sustainable construction practices/materials be considered Have provisions been made or considered by ODOT to provide for pedestrian/ bike access? (Debbie Berry) o This will be considered under the rehabilitation of the existing bridge. The existing bridge will have additional width for safety. (Craig Hebebrand) When will photo views of concepts be available? (Bob Brown) o These will be displayed at the June 1 subcommittee meeting. (John Dietrick) Discussion/agreement that addresses will be collected and used as primary notification/contacts. (Group) meeting minutes (Group) Action Items o Provide list of bridge types which will not be feasible due to project site constraints o Provide updated Innerbelt Project site map o Create detailed Map for alignment through Tremont o meeting minutes 6