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 –HS-20 Design Live Load

Viaduct – looking SE (late 1930’s)

Viaduct – Below (late 1930’s)

Grand Ave. w/ MLK Looking SW

Grand Ave. Looking N. at Caruthers

Stairway, N. Side of Caruthers

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.

Sunken Area – Looking NW

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

MLK Sunken Span & Concrete

Bent 26 – Before Repair Apr. ‘02

Beam Support Repairs

Column Repairs

Column Repairs cont.

Stakeholder & Architectural Goals 1 Environmental Assessment & 4(f) Evaluation Process Design Review Advisory Committee (DRAC) Improved Vehicular Access Improved Ped. & Bike Access Traffic Calming Landscaping, Planters on Structure

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 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 (1930’s)

Gateway Rendering 2001

Rail Mockup w/ Light Pole

Bridge Replacement Concept Studies ( ) 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 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 Alternative

MLK/Grand Selected Alternative

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 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 Sections

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

Haunched Beam – Half Elevation

Haunched Beam – Sections

Span 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.

Foundation Conditions Silt Overburden Layer Seismic Settlement & Amplification Use Steel H-Piles –Driven into Troutdale Gravel Layer –Approx m deep North & South –Approx m deep at wood waste MSE Wire Retaining Walls –CIP Architectural Facing, After Settlement

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 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 bid for structure and retaining walls

Layout – Grand Ave. Rehab.

Layout – Grand Ave. Replace

General Layout

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 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 ODOT Experience with Best Value Contracting: –I-5 Interstate Bridge Lift Span Trunnion Replacement (1997) –St. Johns Bridge Rehabilitation ( ) –Both Were A+C –Procedure now in place at Office of Procurement to streamline Best Value Contracting

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. 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?