Contents Table of Contents

CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 3

Bridge Program Function and Performance Measures 5

Bridge Conditions 6

Investment in Our Bridge Infrastructure 13

2015/16 Bridge Project Summary 15

Western Hills Viaduct Replacement 17

City (DOTE) Bridges 6-Year Plan 20

County Bridges 6-Year Plan 22

Appendices Appendix A Explanation of Rating System

Appendix B 2015 Individual Inspection Reports City (DOTE) Bridges County Bridges Fort Washington Way Bridges City (Skywalk) Bridges City (Other) Bridges Railroad Bridges Private Bridges

Return to Contents 2

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

Bridges are an essential part of Cincinnati’s transportation major maintenance responsibility for these 224 bridges, network, linking roadways and communities. Timely they are not included in this report. maintenance is critically important for the safety and welfare of the traveling public. The Department of The objectives of DOTE’s Bridge Inspection Program Transportation and Engineering (DOTE) is the city agency are to: primarily responsible for inspecting, maintaining, and 1. Provide a current information base on the condition of improving the transportation system within the City bridges within Cincinnati so that maintenance, repair, of Cincinnati. The Bridge Program is the specific program and replacement projects can be programmed within DOTE charged with the responsibility of maintaining efficiently. the bridges within this transportation system. This report is 2. Ensure that the structures continue to satisfy present the annual update to City Council informing Council of the service and safety requirements. condition of the bridges in Cincinnati and DOTE's efforts to 3. Determine the need for establishing or revisiting maintain Cincinnati’s bridge infrastructure. weight restrictions on bridges. 4. Determine and locate the extent of any structural In conformance with state law, every bridge in weakness or damage so that appropriate corrective Cincinnati is inspected on an annual basis. The ODOT actions can be taken to ensure public safety. Bridge Inspection Manual defines a bridge as “Any 5. Satisfy state and federal regulations. structure, including supports, of 10 feet or more clear span or 10 feet or more in diameter on, above, or below a Following the completion of each annual bridge inspection highway.” Within the City limits there are 450 structures cycle, this report is issued by DOTE to inform City Council which meet this criteria and are therefore classified as of the condition of the bridges in Cincinnati which are bridges. Of these 450 bridges, 226 are inspected by specifically inspected by DOTE personnel. This report also DOTE Bridge Program personnel. These inspections are functions as an annual update to inform City Council on performed in accordance with the guidelines specified in how the funds appropriated to the Bridge Program are the ODOT Bridge Inspection Manual. The remaining 224 being utilized. bridges which are part of the Interstate and State Highway systems and are inspected by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). As the City has no inspection or

Return to Contents 3

INTRODUCTION

Based upon maintenance responsibility, these 6. Railroad Bridges • 50 bridges: Railroad bridges that 226 bridges are divided into the following seven cross over or under public roadways. CSXT, GWRR, categories: Norfolk-Southern, and SORTA own and maintain these bridges. 1. City (DOTE) Bridges • 65 bridges: Vehicular and 7. Private Bridges • 52 bridges: Privately owned, pedestrian bridges owned by the City and maintained mostly pedestrian and utility bridges that cross over by DOTE, 17 of which are pedestrian only structures. public roadways. The applicable private owners 2. County Bridges • 26 bridges: Vehicular bridges maintain these bridges. within City limits that support improved roads which are of general and public utility running into or through Starting July 1st, 2014 an ODOT sponsored 3 year Cincinnati. By contractual agreement with Hamilton inspection program, went into effect. Through this County, DOTE maintains these bridges. Hamilton program, ODOT hired a consultant to perform inspections County funds the work performed on these bridges and load ratings for bridges carrying highway traffic that with the Municipal Road Fund. would normally be inspected by the local municipality. The 3. Fort Washington Way Bridges • 5 bridges: Bridges City of Cincinnati opted to participate in this program at no over Ft. Washington Way constructed with the Ft. direct cost to the City. As a result, in the 2015 inspection Washington Way reconstruction project. DOTE shares season (which began in January 2015 and was concluded maintenance responsibility for these bridges with in December 2015), forty-five out of the 226 bridges that ODOT. are typically inspected by DOTE personnel were inspected 4. City (Skywalk) Bridges • 16 bridges: Central by the ODOT selected consultant, HDR. This program will Business District pedestrian bridges on the skywalk continue in 2016. system owned by the City. The Department of Public Services and property owners adjacent to the bridges Throughout the remainder of this report, most of the maintain these structures. Generally, DOTE is discussion will be focused on the 65 City (DOTE) bridges responsible for the major rehabilitation of these and the 26 County bridges as the DOTE Bridge Program is bridges. responsible for maintaining these 91 bridges. 5. City (Other) Bridges • 12 bridges: Unique City owned structures located on, over, or under a roadway The individual bridge inspection reports for all 226 bridges that technically qualify as bridges. Various City under the City’s inspection responsibility are included in agencies including Parking Facilities, Storm water Appendix B of this annual report. The bridge inspection Management Utility and the Park Board maintain these reports are grouped in the order listed above (#1 through bridges. #7). Within each group, the individual bridge inspection reports are arranged alphabetically by bridge name.

(-* . Ï,#! -31( , »#.3%31&%16 »#.35

»#.3Ï,#! -65 »#.3 #(.#( 91 ,#0. 52

Maintained by DOTE (." ,-21 »#.3 #(.#( 91

County uy

Maintained Others ttw #&,)50

»#.3." ,12

Return to Contents 4

FUNCTION AND PERFORMANCE BRIDGE PROGRAM FUNCTION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES

The goal of the Bridge Program is to preserve the 3. Performance Measure: structural integrity of all bridges that DOTE maintains so Bridge Program personnel will develop plans, request that they remain safe for the traveling public. DOTE funding, schedule, and manage bridge maintenance, established the following performance measures to track repair, and replacement work so that no less than 95% its progress in accomplishing this objective. of City (DOTE) bridges are open with no load restrictions. 1. Performance Measure: Progress: As identified in this report, 100% of all City Bridge Program personnel will annually inspect or will (DOTE) bridges are open with no load restrictions. cause to be inspected by a consultant all bridges on, over, or under public roadways within the City of Cincinnati (excluding bridges inspected by ODOT and ODOT assigned consultants) and submit this annual bridge condition report, in compliance with the Ohio Revised Code, Section 723.54. Progress: During the 2015 bridge inspection cycle, all such 226 bridges were inspected. The results of those inspections are compiled in this report.

2. Performance Measure: Bridge Program personnel will develop plans, request funding, schedule, and manage bridge maintenance, repair, and replacement work so as to maintain a Weighted Average Bridge Rating of 6 or better for bridges maintained by DOTE. A bridge General Appraisal rating of 6 represents a “Satisfactory” condition, which indicates that all primary structural elements are sound but may show some minor deterioration. Progress: As identified in this report, the present Weighted Average Bridge Rating for City (DOTE) bridges is 6.98.

Return to Contents 5

BRIDGE CONDITIONS BRIDGE CONDITIONS

The individual bridge ratings for all 65 City (DOTE) bridges bridges and County bridges from 1987 to 2015 is shown in and all 26 County bridges are shown on pages 8 and 10. graphical form at the bottom of page 10. At the writing of A summary of the bridge ratings for all 226 inspected this report, 100% of all City (DOTE) bridges were open bridges is shown in tabular form on page 11. The with no load restrictions. Weighted Average Bridge Rating for both City (DOTE)

EXPLANATION OF RATING SYSTEM

Rating Description

9 • Excellent

8 • Very Good No problems noted.

7 • Good Some minor problems.

6 • Satisfactory Structural elements show some minor deterioration.

5 • Fair All primary members are sound, but have minor section loss, etc.

4 • Poor Advance section loss, etc.

3 • Serious Loss of section has seriously affected primary members, local failures possible.

2 • Critical Advance deterioration of primary members. Unless closely monitored, bridge closure possible.

1 • Imminent Major deterioration, bridge is closed. Failure

0 • Failed Out of service, beyond corrective action.

As indicated on the graph at the bottom of page 10, the The current Weighted Average Bridge Rating for City condition of both City (DOTE) bridges and County bridges (DOTE) bridges is 6.98. The current Weighted Average have shown general improvement over the past twenty- Bridge Rating for County bridges within the City limits is eight years. 6.34.

Return to Contents 6

BRIDGE CONDITIONS

WEIGHTED AVERAGE BRIDGE RATING

DOTE uses a Weighted Average Bridge Rating to monitor the performance and communicate the effectiveness of the Bridge Program. The Weighted Average Bridge Rating is an adjusted average of all bridge condition ratings that accounts for the importance of the bridge as determined by its size. The weighted average is calculated using a size multiplication factor (SMF) between 1 and 5 as shown below.

Size Factor Multiplier SMF Deck Area (ft2)

1 Under 5,000

2 5,000–10,000

3 10,001–20,000

4 20,001–40,000

5 Over 40,000

DOTE has been using the Weighted Average Bridge Rating for over a quarter century and has found it to be an effective tool to stress the importance of larger viaducts while not ignoring the conditions of smaller structures.

Return to Contents 7

BRIDGE CONDITIONS 2015 CITY (DOTE) INDIVIDUAL BRIDGE RATING Inspection Ratings Structural Deck Area Year Year Bridge File No. (sq. ft.) SMF Built Rehabbed 2014  2015 Beekman Street Pedestrian Overhead at Elmore 3160068 1,035 1 1970 1970 7  7 Bramble Avenue Bridge over Little Duck Creek 3160556 2,565 1 1931 1989 7  7 Burns Street Ramp over Railroads, West of Eighth Street Viaduct 3160270 3,321 1 2009 2009 8  8 Celestial Street Pedestrian Bridge over Columbia Parkway 3103455 1,320 1 1958 1958 7  7 Central Incinerator Approach Bridge over Mill Creek 3160610 9,019 2 1953 1953 6  6 Central Parkway over Rapid Transit Tubes S. of Hopple Street 3199924 18,711 3 1924 1924 6  6 Central Parkway over Rapid Transit Tubes - Walnut to Draper 3199937 422,280 5 1922 1922 5  5 Coliseum Pedestrian Bridge from Taylor Southgate Bridge 3199928 1,000 1 1995 1995 7  6 Coliseum Pedestrian Bridge over Taylor Southgate Bridge 3101355 11,300 3 1975 1975 7  7 Coliseum/Stadium Plaza Overhead over Broadway (Platform A) 3101940 38,525 4 1975 1975 7  7 Dalton Avenue under C.U.T. Approach Drive 3160017 25,248 4 1931 1931 6  6 Dana Avenue Pedestrian Bridge North of Madison Road 3161455 3,468 1 1973 1973 7  7 Dreman Avenue Bridge over West Fork Channel 3160432 3,693 1 1999 1999 8  8 Elm Street Cable Stayed Pedestrian Bridge over FWW - East Side 3106179 2,845 1 2000 2000 8  8 Elm Street Cable Stayed Pedestrian Bridge over FWW - West Side 3106063 2,845 1 2000 2000 8  8 Elm Street over Pete Rose Way and Parking Lots 3161978 36,960 4 2000 2000 7  7 Elmhurst Street Pedestrian Bridge over Torrence Parkway 3162494 1,155 1 1950 1950 5  5 Erie Avenue Bridge over Duck Creek 3160882 4,136 1 1900 1980 7  7 Erie Avenue Bridge over N & W Railroad 3160602 1,955 1 2001 2001 7  7 Erie Avenue Bridge over Red Bank Road 3160998 12,800 3 1943 1980 7  7 Erie Avenue Bridge over SORTA 3160939 12,800 3 1943 1980 7  6 Este Avenue Extension Culvert at Ridgewood Arsenal 3161412 2,250 1 1990 1990 7  7 Freedom Way West over Parking Garage between Elm and Race 3165280 22,922 4 2011 2011 8  8 Freedom Way Center over Parking Garage between Race and Rosa Parks Street 3165337 34,604 4 2011 2011 8  8 Freedom Way East over Parking Garage between Walnut and Main Streets 3165396 34,869 4 2011 2011 8  8 Gest Street Bridge over CIND Railroad 3161277 2,195 1 1919 1999 7  7 Gest Street Bridge over Mill Creek 3161749 4,373 1 1997 1997 8  8 Gest Street Ramp E. of Linn Street 3161358 3,049 1 1963 1963 7  6 Gest Street Ramp W. of Linn Street 3161366 3,049 1 1963 1963 6  6 Gilbert Ave. Pedestrian Overhead S of Court Street 3100774 807 1 1970 1970 8  7 Hutton Avenue Pedestrian Bridge over Conrail 3199920 1,150 1 1930 1930 6  6 Ida Street Viaduct over Wareham 3160076 14,356 3 1931 1931  6 Kennedy Connector Bridge over Duck Creek 3162958 11,031 3 2013 2013 8  8 Kennedy Connector Bridge over SORTA/IORY 3163008 23,432 4 2013 2013 8  8 Kenton Street Bridge over Florence 3160130 13,275 3 1998 1998 8  8 Lincoln Avenue Bridge over Open Land 3161838 16,500 3 1953 1953 7  7 Madison Road Pedestrian Bridge East of CSX 3161935 773 1 1959 1959 5  5 Madison Road Pedestrian Bridge West of CSX 3161889 774 1 1959 1959 5  5 Main Street Cable Stayed Pedestrian Bridge over FWW - East Side 3106462 2,845 1 2000 2000 8  8 Main Street Cable Stayed Pedestrian Bridge over FWW - West Side 3106403 2,845 1 2000 2000 8  8 Main Street Bridge over Parking Garage 3161900 27,730 4 2004 2004 8  8 Mehring Way Pedestrian Overhead Bridge to Coliseum 3101371 13,262 3 1975 1975 6  6 Mitchell Avenue Bridge over Mill Creek 3160440 14,347 3 1959 1959 6  6 Monastery Street Bridge over Open Land 3161404 11,324 3 1984 1984 6  6 Park Avenue Bridge over Kemper 3160777 30,680 4 1917 1917 6  6 Powers Street Bridge over West Fork Channel 3160904 4,799 1 2001 2001 8  8 Race Street Bridge over Pete Rose Way and Parking Lots 3162036 20,724 4 2000 2000 8  8 Railroad (Abandoned) over I-71 North of Elsinore 3106748 5,440 2 1970 1970 6  6 Roe Street Bridge over Little Duck Creek 3161005 1,692 1 1930 2002 7  7 Rosslyn Drive Bridge over Duck Creek 3162338 2,820 1 1943 1943 7  7 Second Street Connector from Clay Wade Bailey (Ramp D) 3160661 25,617 4 2001 2001 8  8 Second Street over Transit Center - East End 3160866 61,812 5 2001 2001 5  5 Second Street over Transit Center - Elm to Main Streets 3160696 178,641 5 2001 2001 8  8 Second Street over Transit Center - West Approach 3160688 27,302 4 2001 2001 8  8 Settle Street Bridge over Little Duck Creek 3161188 1,888 1 1996 1996 7  7 Sixth Street Expressway Pedestrian Bridge West of Harriet 3102831 1,251 1 1965 1965 7  7 Sonoma Court Culvert 3162753 1,474 1 2004 2004 8  8 Southside Avenue over Conrail/CSX 3161528 5,263 2 1992 1992 8  8 Spring Lawn Avenue Bridge over Branch of Ludlow Run 3161285 434 1 1925 1925 5  5 Stillwell Road Bridge over Amberly Creek (N. of Summit) 3161331 840 1 1954 1954 5  6 Victory Parkway Pedestrian Overhead South of I-71 3161374 2,090 1 1972 1972 7  6 Vine Street Bridge over Parking Garage (Rosa Parks) 3161781 22,214 4 2003 2003 8  8 Walnut Street Bridge over Parking Garage 3162877 22,185 4 2004 2004 8  8 West Eighth Street Bridge over Fairbanks Avenue 3162702 8,568 2 1955 1955 7  7 West Eighth Street Bridge over Woodlawn Avenue 3162656 4,704 1 1955 1955 6  6 Total Deck Area (sq. ft.) Average Weighted Rating Return to Contents 1,309,181 7.04  6.98 8

BRIDGE CONDITIONS

CHANGES IN AVERAGE BRIDGE 4. The condition rating of the Gest Street Ramp E of CONDITIONS OVER THE PAST YEAR Linn Street was reduced from 7 (good condition) to 6 (satisfactory condition). CITY (DOTE) 5. The condition rating of the Gilbert Ave. Pedestrian The change in Weighted Average Bridge Rating for City Overhead S of Court Street was reduced from 8 (DOTE) Bridges that occurred over the past year (from (very good condition) to 7 (good condition). 7.04 in 2014 to 6.98 in 2015) was the cumulative result of the following 7 changes: 6. The condition rating of the Victory Parkway Pedestrian Overhead S of I-71 was reduced from 7 (good condition) to 6 (satisfactory 1. The condition rating of the Coliseum Pedestrian condition). (Stairway) Bridge from the Taylor Southgate Bridge was reduced from 7 (good condition) to 6 7. The condition rating of the Stillwell Rd. Bridge over (satisfactory condition). Amberley Creek was increased from a 5 (fair condition) to 6 (satisfactory condition). 2. The condition rating of the Erie Ave. Bridge over SORTA was reduced from 7 (good condition) to 6 (satisfactory condition).

3. The condition rating of the Ida Street Bridge over Wareham Dr. was reopened to traffic in 2015 after having been closed for deck reconstruction in 2014. As it was closed and under active construction in 2014 it was not inspected or included in the 2014 Bridge Condition Report. It returned to the inventory in 2015 with a condition rating of 6 (Satisfactory condition).

Return to Contents 9

BRIDGE CONDITIONS

2015 COUNTY INDIVIDUAL BRIDGE RATING Inspection Ratings

Structural Deck Area Year Built Year Bridge File Num be r (sq. ft.) SMF / Reconst. Rehabbed 2014  2015 Anthony Wayne Avenue Bridge over Mill Creek 3136388 6,452 2 1992 8  8 Beekman Street Bridge over West Fork Channel 3136426 3,256 1 1912 1995 7  7 BRIDGE CONDITIONS Berkshire Lane Culvert 400' North of Beechmont 3136450 1,767 1 1986 7  7 Center Hill Avenue Bridge over Mill Creek 3136469 6,702 2 2014 9  9 Clifton Avenue Bridge over Mill Creek 3136353 8,729 2 2009 8  8 East Fork Avenue Bridge over Little Duck Creek 3136574 1,512 1 1952 5  5 Eighth Street Over Railroads, W. of Eighth Street Viaduct 3136639 7,110 2 2008 8  8 Eighth Street Viaduct over Evans Street, Mill Creek, Etc. 3136582 190,610 5 2008 6  6 Galbraith Road Bridge over Anthony Wayne and Conrail 3136612 20,808 4 1949 5  5 Hopple Street Viaduct over Mill Creek, Railroad & Spring Grove Avenue 3136337 115,560 5 1916 6  6 Kennedy Avenue Bridge over Conrail 3136671 9,723 2 1933 4  4 Madison Road Bridge over Duck Creek E. of Ridge Road 3136728 2,352 1 1929 1992 7  7 Marburg Avenue Bridge over N & W Railroad 3136744 6,156 2 1932 4  4 North Bend Road Bridge over Kirby Road 3136795 6,776 2 1951 5  5 North Bend Road Bridge over Mill Creek 3137139 8,404 2 1995 8  8 Plainville Road Arch over Little Duck Creek 3136817 1,188 1 1915 6  6 Red Bank Expressway Culvert at Deerfield Channel N. of Duck Creek Rd. 3136841 3,570 1 1969 6  6 Red Bank Expressway Culvert At Deerfield Channel S. of Madison Rd. 3136868 28,000 4 1970 7  7 Seymour Avenue Bridge over Mill Creek 3136922 8,326 2 1994 8  8 Spring Grove Avenue Bridge over Mill Creek E. of Kings Run 3137074 13,448 3 1993 7  7 Spring Grove Avenue Bridge over Mill Creek South of Colerain 3137031 17,365 3 1970 7  7 West Fork Road Bridge over Tributary of West Fork Channel 3137155 2,755 1 2000 8  8 West Fork Road Bridge over West Fork Channel - 2nd W. of Montana 3137147 3,143 1 2000 8  8 West Fork Road Bridge over West Fork Channel at Montana 3137090 3,476 1 1928 1991 7  6 Western Hills Viaduct 3137082 221,920 5 1931 1978 4  4 Wooster Road Bridge over Duck Creek 3137112 5,816 2 1961 7  7 Total Deck Area (sq. ft.) Average Weighted Rating 704,924 6.36  6.34

COUNTY The change in the Weighted Average Bridge Rating for The condition rating of the West Fork Road Bridge over County Bridges that occurred over the past year (from 6.36 West Fork Channel at Montana Ave. was reduced from 7 in 2014 to 6.34 in 2015) was the result of the following (good condition) to 6 (satisfactory condition change:

Weighted Average Bridge Ratings

8.0

7.5 7.32 7.17 7.18 7.16 7.21 County Bridges 7.09 7.11 7.11 7.08 7.08 6.98 6.97 7.04 6.98 7.0 City Bridges 6.64 6.69 6.62 6.64 6.54 6.60 6.36 6.5 6.24 6.18 6.56 6.57 6.54 6.53 6.50 6.51 6.46 6.48 6.48 6.51 6.47 6.36 6.34 6.29 6.31 6.26 6.26 6.27 6.0 6.19 5.66 5.73 6.08 5.61 5.61 6.03 5.98

Weighted Average Rating Average Weighted 5.55

5.5 5.66 5.46 5.36 5.27 5.30 5.30 5.0

Year Return to Contents 10

BRIDGE CONDITIONS

2015 INDIVIDUAL BRIDGE RATINGS SUMMARY

Number of Bridges: 2014  2015

City DOTE County Ft. Washinton WayCity Skywalk City Other Railroad Private TOTAL

9 • Excellent 0  0 1  1 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 1  1 2  2

8 • Very Good 24  23 7  7 5  5 7  7 0  0 2  2 10  8 55  52

7 • Good 22  19 8  7 0  0 7  7 7  6 6  5 16  17 66  61

6 • Satisfactory 11  17 4  5 0  0 2  2 4  5 15  16 13  14 49  59

5 • Fair 7  6 3  3 0  0 0  0 0  0 6  6 7  6 23  21

4 • Poor 0  0 3  3 0  0 0  0 1  0 11  10 4  5 19  18

3 • Serious 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  1 10  10 1  1 11  12

2 • Critical 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  1 0  0 0  1

1 • Imminent 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 Failure

0 • Failed 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0

Total 64  65 26  26 5  5 16  16 12  12 50  50 52  52 225  226

Return to Contents 11

BRIDGE CONDITIONS

PROJECT STATUS OF BRIDGES RATED BRIDGE CONDITIONS IN POOR OR WORSE CONDITION

The individual condition ratings of all inspected bridges by bridge safe, but due to the condition of the structure, owners are summarized in the table above. ongoing monitoring and emergency repairs will be necessary until the bridge is removed or rehabilitated to The single bridge rated in “Critical” condition (condition ensure the safety of the traveling public. rating of 2) is the Spring Grove Ave Chessie Overhead N of Mitchell Ave. This structure is owned and maintained by Fifteen bridges rated in “Poor” condition (condition rating of CSX. During the 2015 inspection a crack through a non- 4), are owned and maintained by either railroad companies redundant beam was detected. CSX was made aware of or private owners. The conditions of these bridges have the situation and emergency repairs have begun, hence it been called to the attention of their respective owners. is expected that the rating of this bridge will improve in 2016. The three County bridges rated in “Poor” condition (condition rating of 4) are the Marburg Avenue Bridge over Out of the twelve bridges rated in “Serious” condition Norfolk Southern Railroad, the Kennedy Avenue Bridge (condition rating of 3), eleven are owned and maintained over Conrail, and the Western Hills Viaduct. by railroads and private owners. The conditions of these bridges have been called to the attention of their Outside federal funding has been secured for the respective owners. replacement of the Marburg Avenue Bridge and plans are being developed by DOTE personnel. Construction is The only City owned bridge rated in “Serious” condition is expected to begin in 2017 when the federal funding the Central Parkway Pedestrian Overhead at Music Hall. becomes available. This bridge is controlled by the City of Cincinnati’s Parking Facilities. Due to the bridge’s continued deteriorating Outside federal funding has been secured for the condition, Parking Facilities was required to implement two replacement of the Kennedy Avenue Bridge and plans are separate interim structural repairs over the past 9 years. being developed by DOTE personnel. The construction is These interim repairs were necessary to maintain the safe scheduled to begin in 2019 when the federal funding continued use of the bridge. Parking Facilities is now becomes available. working with City Leaders to determine if this pedestrian bridge should be removed or undergo a major Preliminary engineering is continuing for the replacement rehabilitation. Replacement costs have been estimated at of the Western Hills Viaduct. A full discussion of the $2.5 million while removal costs (all include some other Western Hills Viaduct can be found on page 17 of this nearby elevated structures) are estimated to be $1.2M. It is report. expected that the removal or major rehabilitation of the bridge will coincide with the 2016/2017 renovation of Music Hall. Emergency repairs were made by the department of Public Services in late 2015 to make the area below the

Return to Contents 12

INVESTMENTS IN BRIDGES

INVESTMENT IN OUR BRIDGE INFRASTRUCTURE

CITY (DOTE) BRIDGES funds. Capital funding for 2017 is expected to be Maintenance, repair, and replacement of City (DOTE) $798,000. bridges is funded with both operating and capital funds. City funds are leveraged, when possible, with state and The current level of funding alone is insufficient to achieve federal funds. the program goals and a reliance on outside funding has been and will continue to be necessary. DOTE INVESTMENTS IN BRIDGES DOTE’s goals are to maintain a weighted average bridge aggressively pursues outside funding sources to maintain rating of 6, “Satisfactory” condition, or better and to have at Cincinnati’s public infrastructure. Successful leveraging of least 95% of City (DOTE) bridges open without load outside funds is imperative to maintaining and improving restrictions. The Smale Infrastructure Commission Report the condition of Cincinnati’s bridge. recommended an annual investment increase of $2,000,000 to maintain the city’s bridge infrastructure. The following table indicates the level of outside funding This recommendation was in 1988 dollars to maintain a that the City has obtained in recent years for the City deck area of approximately 1,000,000 square feet. Since Bridge Program. Except for the construction of the 1988, DOTE has been maintaining a steadily increasing Waldvogel Viaduct Replacement Project, a significant bridge deck area which at this time is over 1,300,000 percentage of the obtained leveraged funding was for square feet. The 2016 Operating and Capital funding bridges on US or State routes. Because of the generally levels for City (DOTE) bridges were $71,440 and $550,000 higher traffic volumes, these bridges are more likely to be respectively, plus an additional $985,298 in reprogrammed successfully leveraged with outside funding sources.

1993-PRESENT LEVERAGED FUNDING SUMMARY CITY (DOTE) BRIDGE PROGRAM Contract Bid % % % % Year Bridge Name Cost Fed State SCIP Local Leveraged Local 1993 Sixth Street Expressway (2 bridges) $1,555,990 75% 25% $1,555,990 $0 1996 Gest Street over the Mill Creek $839,550 80% 20% $671,640 $167,910 1997 Kenton Street over Florence $1,589,170 80% 20% $1,271,336 $317,834 1998 Dreman Ave. Bridge over West Fork Channel $1,887,370 70% 30% $1,321,159 $566,211 1998 Gest Street over CIND Railroad $552,000 55% 45% $303,600 $248,400 2000 Erie Avenue Bridge over N & W Railroad $731,620 68% 32% $498,968 $232,652 2003 Martin Drive Ramp over Columbia Parkway (Bridge Work Only) $162,333 100% 0% $162,333 $0 2003 Celestial Street Pedestrian Bridge (Bridge Work Only) $172,727 57% 43% $98,477 $74,250 2003 Roadway and Aesthetic Improvements with Columbia Parkway Bridge Project $2,201,695 81% 19% $1,781,337 $420,358 2006 Freeman Avenue over 6th Street Expressway with 6th Street Expressway $103,702 100% 0% $103,702 $0 2007 Waldvogel Real Estate Purchase of Hilltop Property $5,000,000 84% 16% $4,196,786 $803,214 2008 Burns Street Ramp – Replacement $1,205,224 17% 83% $204,888 $1,000,336 2010 Waldvogel Railroad Relocation (Const. Contract) $6,012,400 84% 16% $5,035,000 $977,400 2010 Waldvogel Real Estate Reimbursement 1 $2,974,387 80% 20% $2,379,510 $594,877 2011 Waldvogel Real Estate Reimbursement 2 $1,419,698 80% 20% $1,135,758 $283,940 2011 Waldvogel Reconstruction (Const. Contract) $37,632,522 78% 1% 14% 7% $35,111,294 $2,521,228 2013 Waldvogel Real Estate Reimbursement 3 $634,261 80% 20% $507,409 $126,852

Total Costs $64,674,649 $56,339,187 $8,335,462

Return to Contents 13

INVESTMENTS IN BRIDGES COUNTY BRIDGES By contractual agreement with Hamilton County, the City DOTE aggressively pursues outside funding sources to of Cincinnati receives $1,000,000 annually from the maintain Cincinnati’s public infrastructure. Successful Hamilton County Municipal Road Fund to inspect and leveraging of outside funds is imperative to maintaining maintain bridges that support improved roads which are of and improving the condition of Cincinnati’s bridges. general and public utility running into or through Cincinnati. This funding level has remained constant since the The following table indicates the level of outside funding initiation of the agreement in the late 1970’s. As with City that DOTE has obtained in recent years for the County (DOTE) Bridges, this funding alone is insufficient to Bridge Program. Because of the generally higher traffic achieve the program goals and a reliance on outside volumes on these bridges, the funds received from funding has been and will continue to be necessary. Hamilton County are more likely to be successfully leveraged with outside funding sources.

1993-PRESENT LEVERAGED FUNDING SUMMARY COUNTY BRIDGE PROGRAM Contract Bid % % % % Year Project Cost Fed State SCIP Local Leveraged Local 1993 Columbia Parkway (2 bridges) $1,497,545 70% 30% $1,497,545 $0 1993 River Road over Muddy Creek $759,740 75% 25% $759,740 $0 1993 Sixth Street Expressway (10 bridges) $4,130,761 75% 25% $4,130,761 $0 1993 Spring Grove over Mill Creek $2,065,260 80% 20% $1,652,208 $413,052 1994 Seymour Avenue over Mill Creek $1,945,780 80% 20% $1,945,780 $0 1994 Beechmont Avenue Viaduct $5,067,402 75% 25% $5,067,402 $0 1995 Beekman Avenue over West Fork $967,222 80% 20% $773,778 $193,444 1995 North Bend Road over Mill Creek $1,302,647 80% 20% $1,302,647 $0 1993 Ludlow Avenue Viaduct $9,229,975 75% 25% $9,229,975 $0 1997 Columbia Parkway Viaduct $10,900,000 100% $10,900,000 $0 1999 Fort Washington Way Viaduct (3rd St. Viaduct) $27,208,420 100% $27,208,420 $0 1999 West Fork Bridges over West Fork Channel $1,555,310 70% 30% $1,088,717 $466,593 1999 River Road/Hillside Culvert at Bender $2,198,465 100% $2,198,465 $0 2001 Kellogg and Salem Avenue Bridges $397,097 100% $397,097 $0 2002 Western Hills Viaduct - West Plaza Repairs $161,296 90% 10% $145,166 $16,130 2003 Columbia Parkway Bridge West of Martin Drive Ramp (Bridge Work Only) $3,599,019 100% $3,599,019 $0 2004 Clay Wade Bailey Approach $1,400,000 100% $1,400,000 $0 2005 Norwood Lateral over Paddock and Reading Road Bridges $396,755 100% $396,755 $0 2006 6th Street Expressway Project (10 Bridges) $631,560 100% $631,560 $0 2007 Columbia Parkway over Beechmont, Linwood, Heekin & Ramp to Eastern – Deck $73,830Treatments (Bridge100% Work Only) $73,830 $0 2008 8th Street Viaduct and 8th Street Bridge West of 8th Street Viaduct $20,593,768 63% 17% 20% $16,475,014 $4,118,754 2009 Clifton Avenue Bridge Superstructure Replacement $1,535,000 70% 30% $1,074,500 $460,500 2010 Western Hills Viaduct – Upper Deck Rehabilitation $1,836,273 50% 50% $918,136 $918,136 2012 Center Hill Avenue Bridge - Replacement $3,415,883 33% 67% $1,137,500 $2,278,383 2014 Western Hills Viaduct - ROW acquisition $6,750,000 80% 20% $5,400,000 $1,350,000 Total Costs $109,619,007 $99,404,015 $10,214,992

Return to Contents 14

PROJECT SUMMARY 2015/2016 BRIDGE PROJECT SUMMARY repair/replacement of expansion joints, repair of fire damage, bridge overlay replacements, waterproofing

repair and the sealing of concrete bridge decks. The The following summarizes major activities on City (DOTE) project is funded with City CIP funds. The awarded and County bridges that occurred in 2015 or will occur in contract value including the Baymiller Pedestrain Bridge 2016. Except as noted, DOTE staff performed plan removal was $822,666.52. development and construction management for these bridge projects. The Banks Public Infrastructure Development – Race Street Extension (City Bridge in the Central Riverfront) 2015/2016 CITY (DOTE) BRIDGE PROJECTS This project consists of extending Race Street south of

Freedom Way for one block. Once complete, the Race Second Street over Transit Center – Leak Mitigation Street extension will be an elevated roadway spanning (City Bridge in Central Riverfront District) over the Central Riverfront Parking Garage. The bridge is This project consists of improvements to the Transit Center being constructed in conjunction with the parking garage which will mitigate current leakage issues. The project is and is expected to be complete in 2016. The cost of the being implemented as a preservation measure of the project is approximately $3.0 M and is being funded jointly structure and the appurtenances within. Plans for the work between the Ohio Development Services Agency, the City were prepared by a directed consultant.The first phase of of Cincinnati and Hamilton County. the work was completed in 2012. The second phase began in 2013 and continued through 2015. This work was Central Incinerator Approach Bridge – Fracture Critical financed as part of the Banks project. Inspection (City Bridge in South Cumminsville, Millvale

and Camp Washington) Ida Street Viaduct over Wareham Drive – Concrete This project consists of performing a “hands on” inspection Repairs (City Bridge in Mt Adams) of every fracture critical member on the Mill Creek Road This project consisted of performing a concrete deck Bridge over the Mill Creek (Central Incinerator Approach overlay and replacing the existing deteriorated concrete Bridge). The inspection will be performed by an ODOT railing and sidewalks. Construction started in mid 2014 and directed consultant before July 17th 2016. The cost of this was completed in 2015. The $1.9M project was funded inspection will be paid for by the ODOT sponsored with City CIP bridge funds. A separate contract to make municipal inspection program. concrete repairs to the arches is expected to bid in 2016.

Duck Creek Connector over Deerfield Channel (HAM- Baymiller Pedestrian Bridge over Central Parkway – CR 67-2.19) (New City Bridge in Madisonville) North Span Removal (Former City Pedestrian Bridge in OTR and West End) The Duck Creek Connector is a new road that will be built This project consisted of removing the remaining portions as jointly sponsored project between the City of Cincinnati of the former pedestrian bridge. The former north abutment and ODOT connecting Madison Road to the Red Bank was anchored into the backfill and will remain and serve as Expressway. Part of this project will include a new bridge a retaining wall. The project was completed in 2015 as part over the Deerfield Channel which will become a City bridge of a City Bridge maintenance contract. The project was upon project completion. Construction is expected to funded with City CIP bridge funds and the cost for bridge commence in mid 2016 and be completed by the end of removal portions was approximately $45,000. 2017. Plans were developed by a consultant selected by ODOT and ODOT will bid, award, and manage the 2015 City Bridge Maintenance Contract (Multiple City construction of the project. The City’s contribution to the Bridges) project was funded as a specific Duck Creek Connector This project consists of performing maintenance repair on capital budget line item. selected City bridges. The project mainly focuses on the

Return to Contents 15

PROJECT SUMMARY 2015/2016 COUNTY BRIDGE PROJECTS

Western Hills Viaduct - Fracture Critical Inspection A contract to remove the south trough could begin as early (County Bridge in CUF and South Fairmont) as 2017 pending railroad cooperation.. A contract to This project consisted of performing a “hands on” remove the north trough will be let after relocation of the inspection of every visible fracture critical member on the present utilities in the trough. Currently GCWW, through Western Hills Viaduct as well as inspecting selected contract forces, is installing a supplemental support for the fatigue-prone members within arm’s length distance. The watermain within the north trough. inspection was performed by a directed consultant in May of 2015 and was funded with County MRF bridge funds. Kennedy Ave. Bridge – Structural Repairs The final inspection cost was $51,500. (County Bridge in Kennedy Heights) This project consisted of shoring two beams at the north Western Hills Viaduct – Routine Maintenance abutment to provide an alternate load path. Plans for this (County Bridge in CUF and South Fairmont) project were developed by a directed consultant and the This project consisted of performing routine maintenance project was constructed in the summer of 2015 by a City to keep the Western Hills Viaduct safe for the traveling registered SBE. Construction was funded with County public. It included the repair of impact attenuators, and MRF funds. The final construction cost was $16,773. removal of lose concrete over traveled areas. The maintenance is typically performed by the City’s Public Hopple Street Viaduct – Service Department. In 2015 the Traffic and Roadway Expansion Joint Reconstruction Operations Division (TROD) removed loose concrete from (County Bridge in Camp Washington, North Fairmount, the Western at three different occasions. Millvale) This project consists of replacing failed expansion joints on Western Hills Viaduct – Trough Repairs the Hopple Street Viaduct. In this phase of the project the (County Bridge in CUF and South Fairmont) single worst expansion joint will be replaced in order to This project consists of making repairs and removing provide a smooth riding surface. The remaining Hopple portions of the two utility troughs cantilevered off the Street Viaduct joints will be replaced alike when matching bottom deck of the Western Hills Viaduct. The north funds become available. The cost for this project is trough supports an active watermain and fiber optic cables. expected to be approximately $100,000 and will be funded The utilities within the south trough have been removed. with County MFR bridge funds. The project is expected to go under construction in the summer of 2016.

Return to Contents 16

WESTERN HILLS VIADUCT

MAJOR BRIDGE PROJECTS WESTERN HILLS VIADUCT source that could cover the approximate $300M cost for the proposed new viaduct, a project phasing and (County Bridge in South Fairmount and CUF) maintenance plan is also being developed. This phasing and maintenance plan will break the project into smaller Representatives from DOTE and the Hamilton County (more fundable) projects that can be incorporated into the Engineer’s Office have selected and hired AECOM final project but that can be completed in advance of the (formerly known as URS) to perform preliminary construction of the large span structure which is the largest engineering and prepare environmental documents for the single expense of the proposed project. As the phasing replacement of the Western Hills Viaduct. Hamilton plan pushes construction of the large span County Municipal Road Funds are being used to fund this structure out to 2025, the plan also incorporates a engineering work. All design work is being coordinated maintenance schedule so that the existing viaduct remains with ODOT’s proposed Brent Spence project and MSD’s operational until 2025. Approximately 55,000 vehicles use proposed Lick Run Valley Conveyance System (storm the viaduct on a daily basis. water separation) project. Coordination with ODOT, the railroads, and the utilities is ongoing. Due to the expected cost of the Western Hills Viaduct replacement project, substantial funding from non local A one day field and office technical review meeting and a sources will be needed. To date only $5.4M in non local, three day value engineering (V.E.) session was held with federal funding, has been secured for right-of-way representatives from of the Federal Highway acquisition. Some of these funds are presently being used Administration, the Ohio Department of Transportation, for preliminary engineering right-of-way services (title Hamilton County, the City of Cincinnati and the Railroads reports and real estate appraisals) while preliminary in the summer/fall of 2015. As a result of the V.E. session, engineering and preparation of the environmental the preferred alternative (alternative “T”) with a new, large documents is continuing to be advanced. No non local span, double deck structure immediately south of the funds have as yet been secured for construction. existing viaduct was selected for further development and evaluation. Alternative “T” includes the outcome of previous public involvement meetings and allows the project to (1) satisfy current highway design standards, (2) improve pedestrian and bicycle accessibility, (3) maintain reasonable maintenance of traffic during construction, and (4) allows for construction over the CSXT rail yard. The project will be designed with adequate geometry and sufficient strength that it can support concurrent use light rail. A sketch of alternative “T” is provided on page 18 of this report.

The further development and evaluation of alternative “T” will include evaluating further increasing the span length of the large span structure so that no railroad tracks need to be crossed to construct the tower piers and moving the west end of the proposed structure closer to the existing viaduct so the existing viaduct can more readily be used for staging and material delivery during construction. Also, due to the lack of any immediately for seeable funding

Return to Contents 17

WESTERN HILLS VIADUCT

Return to Contents 18

WESTERN HILLS VIADUCT

WESTERN HILLS VIADUCT PRELIMINARY PHASING AND MAINTENANCE PLAN

Project 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Total Cost

Remove South Design $0.2 M Utility Trough R/W NA Const. $3.0 M $3.2 M Viaduct Repairs Design $0.3 M R/W NA Const. $5.0 M $5.3 M Remove North Design $0.2 M Utility Trough R/W NA Const. $3.0 M $3.2 M West Plaza Fill - Design $0.2 M Building Demolition R/W $7.0 M Const. $1.0 M $8.2 M West Plaza Fill - Design $2.0 M Highway R/W NA Construction Const. $20.0 M $22.0 M Viaduct Repairs Design $0.3 M R/W NA Const. $5.0 M $5.3 M Duke Substation Design $0.2 M Relocation - R/W $4.0 M Building Demolition Const. $1.0 M $5.2 M Duke Substation Design NA Relocation - R/W $10.0 M Substation Const. Const. NA $10.0 M Mill Creek Bridge & Design $1.0 M Bypass Track R/W $1.0 M Relocation Const. $5.0 M $7.0 M Viaduct Design $0.3 M $3.0 M $3.0 M $3.0 M $0.9 M Replacement R/W NA Project Const. $210.0 M $220.2 M Demolish Existing Design $0.4 M Viaduct R/W NA Const. $20.0 M $20.4 M $1.00 M $11.2 M $12.0 M $4.2 M $27.3 M $8.0 M $10.0 M $5.0 M $1.3 M $210.0 M $20.0 M $310.0 M

Highlighted cells indicate projects which are funded.

Return to Contents 19

CITY BRIDGE 6-YEAR PLAN

Program Expenses Estimated Fund Split 1 Total Carry-Over Deck Local Outside Estimated Local New Local Area Project Funding Remaining Funds Funds 2 Projects by Year Contract Awarded Rating (sq. ft.) Cost % Loca l % M a tch Secured Funds $1,500,000 $798,000 c 2016 $60,000 o Bridge Inspection & Program Management N/A $200,000 100% 0% N/A TROD Capital Bridge Work Various Various $50,000 100% 0% N/A Project Design & Management Various Various $200,000 100% 0% N/A Ida Street Viaduct - Concrete Repairs - Phase 2 6 30,680 $1,300,000 20% 80% No Total Expenses $1,750,000 $608,000 $608,000 $1,000,000 c 2017 $60,000 o Bridge Inspection & Program Management N/A $200,000 100% 0% N/A TROD Capital Bridge Work Various Various $50,000 100% 0% N/A Project Design & Management Various Various $200,000 100% 0% N/A Madison Road Pedestrian Bridge East of CSX 5 773 $100,000 20% 80% No City Bridge Maintenance Contract Various Various $50,000 100% 0% N/A Total Expenses $600,000 $1,068,000 $1,068,000 $1,000,000 c 2018 $60,000 o Bridge Inspection & Program Management N/A $200,000 100% 0% N/A TROD Capital Bridge Work Various Various $50,000 100% 0% N/A Project Design & Management Various Various $200,000 100% 0% N/A Springlawn Ave. Bridge Replacement 5 434 $300,000 20% 80% No Madison Road Pedestrian Bridge West of CSX Various Various $100,000 100% 0% N/A Total Expenses $850,000 $1,278,000 $1,278,000 $1,000,000 c 2019 $60,000 o Bridge Inspection & Program Management N/A Various $200,000 100% 0% N/A TROD Capital Bridge Work Various Various $50,000 100% 0% N/A Project Design & Management Various Various $200,000 100% 0% N/A Park Avenue Bdg - Concrete Overlay & Concrete Repair 6 30,680 $900,000 20% 80% No Stillwell Rd. Bridge over Amberly Creek - Replacement 5 840 $400,000 20% 80% No City Bridge Maintenance Contract Various Various $50,000 100% 0% N/A Total Expenses $1,800,000 $538,000 $538,000 $1,000,000 c 2020 $60,000 o Bridge Inspection & Program Management N/A $200,000 100% 0% N/A TROD Capital Bridge Work Various Various $50,000 100% 0% N/A Project Design & Management Various Various $200,000 100% 0% N/A Elmhurst Pedestrian Bridge - Replacement 5 1,155 $800,000 100% 0% N/A City Bridge Maintenance Contract Various Various $50,000 100% 0% N/A Total Expenses $1,300,000 $298,000 $298,000 $1,000,000 c 2021 $60,000 o Bridge Inspection & Program Management N/A $200,000 100% 0% N/A TROD Capital Bridge Work Various Various $50,000 100% 0% N/A Project Design & Management Various Various $200,000 100% 0% N/A Monestary Street Bridge - Concrete Overlay 6 11,324 $400,000 100% 0% N/A City Bridge Maintenance Contract Various Various $50,000 100% 0% N/A Total Expenses $900,000 $458,000

Return to Contents 20

CITY BRIDGE 6-YEAR PLAN 1 Additional leveraged funds will be pursued and will The estimated project costs are preliminary and are only be used to supplement local funds as secured. intended to establish basic funding needs and are not considered engineer’s estimates. Bridge conditions will be The projects are grouped by the year of expected bid. This continually monitored during the six-year period and the plan is flexible and will be revised as necessary if future plan will be adjusted as needed to best maintain the bridge bridge inspections reveal unexpected changes in the infrastructure. condition of any bridge, if anticipated bridge funding amounts change, if unexpected leveraged funding sources The funds programmed for the City Bridge Maintenance become available or are withdrawn, if the timing of any Contracts may also be used, wholly or in part, to support bridge project requires adjustment to coordinate with other other projects listed in the six-year plan whose expenses infrastructure improvement or development projects, or if exceed the preliminary estimations listed in the six-year City Council or the City Administration redirect priorities. plan.

Return to Contents 21

COUNTY BRIDGE 6-YEAR PLAN

Program Expenses Fund Split 1

Carry-Over Deck Estimated Outside Estimated Local New Local Area Total Local Funding Remaining Funds Funds 2 Projects by Year Contract was Awarded Rating (sq. ft.) Project Cost % Loca l % M a tch Secured Funds $3,340,000 $1,000,000 2016 Bridge Inspection & Program Management N/A $50,000 100% 0% N/A Project Design & Management Various Various $300,000 100% 0% N/A TROD and Contract Maintenance Work Various Various $50,000 100% 0% N/A Marburg Avenue Bridge Replacement 4 6,156 $400,000 10% 90% Yes Western Hills Viaduct - North Trough Removal - Design 4 221,920 $200,000 N/A N/A No Western Hills Viaduct - Preliminary Engineering 4 221,920 $300,000 100% 0% N/A Western Hills Viaduct - South Trough Removal - Design 4 221,920 $200,000 N/A N/A No Western Hills Viaduct - Viaduct Repairs - Design 4 221,920 $300,000 N/A N/A No Total Expenses $1,800,000 $2,540,000 $2,540,000 $1,000,000 2017 Bridge Inspection & Program Management Various $50,000 100% 0% N/A Project Design & Management Various Various $300,000 100% 0% N/A TROD and Contract Maintenance Work Various Various $50,000 100% 0% N/A Underwater Inspections Various Various $25,000 100% 0% N/A Galbraith Road Bridge Rehab 5 20,808 $1,500,000 50% 50% No Western Hills Viaduct - Fracture Critical Inspection 4 221,920 $50,000 100% 0% N/A Western Hills Viaduct - West Building Demolition - Design 4 221,920 $200,000 N/A N/A No Total Expenses $2,175,000 $1,365,000 $1,365,000 $1,000,000 2018 Bridge Inspection & Program Management $50,000 100% 0% N/A Project Design & Management Various Various $300,000 100% 0% N/A TROD and Contract Maintenance Work Various Various $50,000 100% 0% N/A Kennedy Avenue Bridge over Conrail - Bridge Replacement 4 9,723 $550,000 20% 80% Yes Western Hills Viaduct - R/W Acquisition 4 221,920 $1,350,000 20% 80% Yes Total Expenses $2,300,000 $65,000 $65,000 $1,000,000 2019 Bridge Inspection & Program Management $50,000 100% 0% N/A Project Design & Management Various Various $200,000 100% 0% N/A TROD and Contract Maintenance Work Various Various $100,000 100% 0% Yes North Bend Rd Bdg over Kirby - Deck Overlay/Painting 5 6,776 $150,000 20% 80% No Western Hills Viaduct - East Buildng Demolition and Duke 4 221,920 $200,000 N/A N/A No Substation Relocatain - Design Western Hills Viaduct - Fracture Critical Inspection 4 221,920 $50,000 100% 0% N/A Total Expenses $750,000 $315,000 $315,000 $1,000,000 2020 Bridge Inspection & Program Management $50,000 100% 0% N/A Project Design & Management Various Various $200,000 100% 0% N/A Anthony Wayne over Mill Creek - Painting 8 6,452 $200,000 100% 0% N/A TROD and Contract Maintenance Work Various Various $100,000 100% 0% N/A Western Hills Viaduct - Viaduct Repairs - Design 4 221,920 $300,000 N/A N/A No Total Expenses $850,000 $465,000 $465,000 $1,000,000 2021 Bridge Inspection & Program Management N/A $50,000 100% 0% N/A TROD Capital Bridge Work Various Various $100,000 100% 0% N/A Project Design & Management Various Various $200,000 100% 0% N/A East Fork Bridge over LDC - Replacement 5 1,512 $240,000 20% 80% No Hoople St Via - Overlay & Expansion Joint Replacement 6 115,560 $800,000 20% 80% No Western Hills Viaduct - Fracture Critical Inspection 4 221,920 $50,000 100% 0% N/A Total Expenses $1,440,000 $25,000

Note: Cross reference the Western Hills Viaduct Phasing Plan for the highlighted cells

Return to Contents 22

COUNTY BRIDGE 6-YEAR PLAN

1 Additional leveraged funding will be pursued become available or are withdrawn, if the timing of any and will be used to supplement local funds as bridge project requires adjustment to coordinate with other secured. infrastructure improvement or development projects, or if City Council or the City Administration redirect priorities. 2 Replacement of the Western Hills Viaduct will The estimated project costs are preliminary and are only be a major project and construction is intended to establish basic funding needs and are not expected to cost approximately $300 million of considered engineer’s estimates. Bridge conditions will be which the total match is listed but not included continually monitored during the six-year period and the in the summary. State and Federal funds will plan will be adjusted as needed to best maintain the bridge be sought, but a local match may be needed. infrastructure. DOTE is pursuing acquiring matching funds but no such funds have yet been secured. The funds programmed for the County Bridge Maintenance Contracts may also be used, wholly or in part, to support The projects are grouped by the year of expected bid. This other projects listed in the six-year plan whose expenses plan is flexible and will be revised as necessary if future exceed the preliminary estimates listed in the six-year bridge inspections reveal unexpected changes in the plan. condition of any bridge, if anticipated bridge funding amounts change, if unexpected leveraged funding sources

Return to Contents 23

APPENDIX A EXPLANATION OF RATING SYSTEM In accordance with the Code of Federal therefore would not be rated on an arch bridge, Regulations, Part 650, Subpart C and the Ohio and vice versa. Revised Code, Section 5501.47, the City annually inspects all structures with a clear span of 10 feet The overall summary rating (rating item N59) is the or more that fall under its inspection responsibility. summary rating for the entire bridge and is titled These inspections follow the procedures the General Appraisal rating. The Operational established by the National Bridge Inspection Status of the bridge is noted to the immediate Standards (NBIS). All inspections are performed right of the General Appraisal rating on the by a trained and licensed professional engineer, inspection report. The operational status indicates employed by DOTE, whose training and education any restrictions, such as load limitations, placed on meets or exceeds the requirements set forth by the use of the bridge. the NBIS. The condition ratings are in accordance with the The Bridge Inspection Engineer rates the condition ODOT 2014 Bridge Inspection Manual of each bridge using criteria established by the http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Engineering/S State of Ohio tructures/bridge%20operations%20and%20mainte nance/Manual%20of%20Bridge%20Inspection%2 Department of Transportation and records the 02014%20v8/Chapter%208_Assigning%20Conditi rating on the Bridge Inspection Report. The Bridge on%20Ratings%20to%20the%201-4%20Items.pdf Inspection Report contains 65 rating items which are grouped into seven main sections. All applicable individual items, are rated on a scale of 9 to 0, with “9” representing the best condition These main sections are: and “0” representing the worst. In the attached bridge inspection reports all individual items are 1. Bridge Deck rated on the 9 to 0 scale, with the former 1 to 4 2. Bridge Superstructure rating indicated as well for consistency with 3. Bridge Substructure previous reports. This dual rating system occurred 4. Culverts (These items are only when the pre-existing 1 to 4 rating system created applicable to culvert type structures) by the State of Ohio was merged with the 0 to 9 5. Channels (These items are only rating system of the Federal Government. applicableto bridges over waterways) The vertical Clearance (Item 65) is rated either “1” 6. Bridge Approaches for no change since the last inspection, “2” lower 7. General Information clearance since last inspection or “N” does not apply or clearance exceeds 25 ft. The last rating item in each of the seven main sections is a summary rating for that section. The following pages lists the bridge conditions This number summarizes the overall condition of associated with the specific individual and that portion of the bridge. All other rating items summary numeric ratings. within each section are individual ratings. These numbers represent the condition of specific bridge components. Not all components necessarily apply to any given bridge. For example, the components relating to truss bridges would not apply, and

Return to Contents 24

APPENDIX A

OPERATIONAL STATUS

Operational Code Status Description

A Open, no restriction.

B Open, posting recommended but not legally implemented (all signs not in place).

D Open, would be posted or closed except for temporary shoring, etc., to allow for unrestricted traffic.

Open, temporary structure in place to carry legal loads while original structure is closed and E awaiting replacement or rehabilitation.

G New structure, not yet open to traffic.

K Bridge closed to all traffic.

P Posted for load (may include other restrictions).

R Posted for other than load-carrying capacity restriction (speed, number of vehicles on bridge, etc.)

X Bridge closed for reasons other than condition or load-carrying capacity.

Return to Contents 25

APPENDIX A INSPECTION MANUAL GUIDE

Return to Contents 26

APPENDIX A EXPLANATION OF ABBREVIATIONS

Return to Contents 27

APPENDIX A EXPLANATION OF ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)

Return to Contents 28