martin luther king, jr. blvd. viaduct, portland project background and today’s design status

Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Viaduct, PortlandViaduct, Portland

• Project Background and Today’s Design Status

Location – Looking SoutheastLocation – Looking Southeast

Closer View - Looking Closer View - Looking SoutheastSoutheast

Historic Background - MLKHistoric Background - MLK

• MLK (Union Ave.) built 1938– H-15 Design Live Load

Historic Background – GrandHistoric Background – Grand

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

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

Viaduct – Below (late 1930’s)Viaduct – Below (late 1930’s)

Grand Ave. w/ MLK Looking Grand Ave. w/ MLK Looking SWSW

Grand Ave. Looking N. at CaruthersGrand Ave. Looking N. at Caruthers

Stairway, N. Side of CaruthersStairway, N. Side of Caruthers

Early ProblemsEarly 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.

Sunken Area – Looking NWSunken Area – Looking NW

Today’s ConditionsToday’s Conditions

• Structure Settlement, Translation & Deterioration

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

• SB Weight Restrictions (50,000 lb)• Ongoing Maintenance

MLK Sunken Span & ConcreteMLK Sunken Span & Concrete

Bent 26 – Before Repair Apr. Bent 26 – Before Repair Apr. ‘02‘02

Beam Support RepairsBeam Support Repairs

Column Repairs 2001-2002Column Repairs 2001-2002

Column Repairs 2001-2002 Column Repairs 2001-2002 cont.cont.

Stakeholder & Architectural Stakeholder & Architectural Goals 1Goals 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 Stakeholder & Architectural Goals 2Goals 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 Stakeholder & Architectural Goals 3Goals 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

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

Gateway Rendering 2001Gateway Rendering 2001

Rail Mockup w/ Light PoleRail Mockup w/ Light Pole

Bridge Replacement Concept Bridge Replacement Concept Studies (1999-2001)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 AlternativesNew 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

At-Grade Signalized At-Grade Signalized AlternativeAlternative

MLK/Grand Selected MLK/Grand Selected AlternativeAlternative

Engineering SolutionsEngineering 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 ChallengesStage 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)

Stage Construction SectionsStage Construction Sections

SuperstructureSuperstructure

• 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

Haunched Beam – Half Haunched Beam – Half ElevationElevation

Haunched Beam – SectionsHaunched Beam – Sections

Span Layout IssuesSpan Layout Issues

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

Layout – w/ Grand Ave. Rehab.Layout – w/ Grand Ave. Rehab.

Foundation ConditionsFoundation 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 Logistical Challenges During DesignDesign

• 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 ScheduleEvolving 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

Layout – Grand Ave. Rehab.Layout – Grand Ave. Rehab.

Layout – Grand Ave. ReplaceLayout – Grand Ave. Replace

General LayoutGeneral Layout

Innovative Contracting Innovative Contracting MethodsMethods• Complex Project with Significant Risk

Elements

– Want an experienced contractor with innovative abilities

– Think it through ahead of time

Innovative Contracting, cont. 1Innovative 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. 2Innovative 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

Questions?Questions?