DOCSLIB.ORG

Reduction of Transverse Cracking in Structural Slab Bridge

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reduction of Transverse Cracking in Structural Slab Bridge REDUCTION OF TRANSVERSE CRACKING IN STRUCTURAL SLAB BRIDGE DECKS USING ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS A Dissertation Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of: Doctor of Philosophy Srikanth Marchetty May 2018 REDUCTION OF TRANSVERSE CRACKING IN STRUCTURAL SLAB BRIDGE DECKS USING ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS Srikanth Marchetty Dissertation Approved by: ________________________________ ________________________________ Advisor Department Chair Dr. Anil Patnaik Dr. Wieslaw K. Binienda _______________________________ ________________________________ Committee Member Dean, College of Engineering Dr. Craig C. Menzemer Dr. Donald P. Visco Jr. ________________________________ ________________________________ Committee Member Exec. Dean of Graduate School Dr. Ping Yi Dr. Chand K. Midha ________________________________ ________________________________ Committee Member Date Dr. Xiaosheng Gao ________________________________ Committee Member Dr. Nao Mimoto ii ABSTRACT Cracking on decks is one of the major concerns for bridges located all over the United States, affecting the durability and service life of the bridge. The CSS (Continuous Span Structural Slab) bridges, without stringers and are the most commonly used bridges in counties over the streams. Several CSS bridges in Ohio were surveyed to inspect crack widths on the bridge decks; and it was found that the crack widths over the negative moment regions were as wide as 0.125 inches. Such wide cracks exceed the recommended limit by ACI 224R-01 on bridges exposed to deicing salts by a factor of over 15. The permanently opened cracks act as pathways to the chlorides from the de-icing salts, allowing them to reach the reinforcement, causing aggressive environment around the embedded steel. This causes corrosion of the embedded reinforcing bars leading to severe section loss in steel. It was observed in the past, that epoxy-coated bars caused wider cracks compared to conventional black steel when used in reinforced concrete flexural applications. These wider cracks allow chlorides to penetrate the slab and directly attack the steel exposed due to the damage caused by epoxy coating during its handling. The corrosion of the epoxy coated bars leads to peeling off due to poor adhesion of the coating to the base steel. This causes a loss of bond with the surrounding concrete and loss in flexural capacity, which is of critical concern for the service life of the bridge. These cracks iii not only open and close under traffic loading, but widen over time due to the action of freeze-thaw effect and continuous fatigue due to vehicular loading. Experimental program was designed to reduce cracking using alternative reinforcing bars, with better bond characteristics as well better corrosion resistance. Prism tests with various corrosion resistant bars which include epoxy-coated bars, hot-dipped galvanized bars, stainless steel bars, CGR-UAR bars, MMFX bars revealed that epoxy coated bars caused wider cracks than all other bar types and prisms with CGR-UAE, MMFX bars showed smaller crack widths at same stress level. Flexural tests on slabs reinforced with corrosion-resistant bars revealed the same conclusions as that of prism specimens. The crack widths on prism and slab specimen were further reduced by using fiber reinforced concrete. Polypropylene fibers at a dosage of 10 lb/yd3 were added to the QC2 mix design to cast and test specimens with fibers. Corrosion tests on small-scale slabs were also performed to investigate the corrosion performance of these bars under accelerated corrosion and sustained load condition. Epoxy-coated bars with 5% defects showed highest flexural capacity loss compared to other bar types, but with 2.5% defects showed similar damage as that of slabs with black bars indicating no protection. Slabs with MMFX, stainless-steel bars showed less capacity loss. Addition of fibers improved the performance of the slabs subjected to accelerated corrosion by reducing the crack growth and the capacity loss. iv DEDICATION I dedicate this dissertation to my dad M.P. Narasimha Raju, my mom M. Chandra Kala and my family who stood by me mentally and emotionally. My dearest friends Lava Kumar and Kaya Suram who encouraged me at all the hard times during my education. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to GOD, for taking me through my Ph.D. education successfully. Special and heartfelt appreciation to my advisor, Dr. Anil Patnaik for his continuous support and his insightful guidance throughout this study. I am grateful to Dr. Waseem Khalifa and Mr. Perry Ricciardi of Ohio Department of Transportation for useful discussions and review of results. I am indebted to Dr. Craig Menzemer, Dr. Ping Yi, Dr. Xiaosheng Gao, and Dr. Nao Mimoto who served as my Doctoral Research Committee members. Thanks to Lafarge North America and Euclid Chemicals for supplying chemicals for QC/QA concrete mix. I would like to convey my special thanks to Kim Stone, Patricia Eaglewolf, Sheila Pearson and all Civil Engineering Department faculty members at the University of Akron (UA). Special thanks out to my colleagues at The University of Akron, Sourav Khatua, Mohammed Habouh, Mohamed Essili, Abdullah S Alzlfawi, Umang Pawar, Nibras Khalid, Dave McVaney, Dale Ertley, Bill Wenzel and Brett Bell for their extended support throughout this project. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiii LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... xxv CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Problem Statement .................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Conclusions from Previous Work on Bridge Deck Cracking ................................... 4 1.3 Research Objective .................................................................................................... 5 1.4 Research Approach ................................................................................................... 6 1.5 Report Organization .................................................................................................. 6 II. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................... 8 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Types of Concrete Cracking on Bridge Decks .......................................................... 9 2.3 Factors Causing Cracking on Bridge Decks ........................................................... 11 2.3.1 Material and Mix Design Factors ..................................................................... 12 2.3.2 Construction and Environmental Factors ......................................................... 15 2.3.3 Structural Design Factors ................................................................................. 16 2.4 Previous Studies of Non-Structural Cracking of Bridge Decks .............................. 17 2.4.1 Use of Admixtures to Control Shrinkage Cracking.......................................... 18 2.4.2 Use of Fibers to Control Shrinkage Cracking .................................................. 26 vii 2.4.3 Testing Methods on Non-Structural Cracking.................................................. 29 2.5 Literature Review on Structural Cracking .............................................................. 36 2.5.1 Factors Causing Widening of Cracks on Bridge Decks ................................... 36 2.5.2 Control of Crack Widths .................................................................................. 38 2.5.3 Test Methods Adopted for Structural Crack Studies ........................................ 42 2.6 Literature Review on Corrosion .............................................................................. 82 2.6.1 Accelerated Corrosion Process ......................................................................... 83 2.6.2 Accelerated Corrosion Under Sustained Loading ............................................ 85 2.7 Use of Alternate Reinforcement in Bridge Decks ................................................... 92 2.8 Summary of Literature Review ............................................................................... 99 III. CRACK SURVEYS OF BRIDGES ......................................................................... 102 3.1 Conclusions Drawn from an Earlier Project on Bridge Deck Cracking ............... 102 3.2 Bridges Considered for Survey in the Current Project .......................................... 106 3.3 Crack Survey and Crack Mapping of Bridges Inspected ...................................... 109 3.3.1 Bridge FAI-37-7360 (District 5) ..................................................................... 112 3.3.2 Bridge PER-668-1000 (District 5) .................................................................. 113 3.3.3 Bridge PER-668-9990 (District 5) .................................................................. 114 3.3.4 Bridge PER-22-12020 (District 5) .................................................................. 115 3.3.5 Bridge MUS-146-20920 (District 5) .............................................................. 116 3.3.6 Bridge COS-79-0160
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Union Station Conceptual Engineering Study
    Portland Union Station Multimodal Conceptual Engineering Study Submitted to Portland Bureau of Transportation by IBI Group with LTK Engineering June 2009 This study is partially funded by the US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. IBI GROUP PORtlAND UNION STATION MultIMODAL CONceptuAL ENGINeeRING StuDY IBI Group is a multi-disciplinary consulting organization offering services in four areas of practice: Urban Land, Facilities, Transportation and Systems. We provide services from offices located strategically across the United States, Canada, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. JUNE 2009 www.ibigroup.com ii Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................... ES-1 Chapter 1: Introduction .....................................................................................1 Introduction 1 Study Purpose 2 Previous Planning Efforts 2 Study Participants 2 Study Methodology 4 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions .........................................................................6 History and Character 6 Uses and Layout 7 Physical Conditions 9 Neighborhood 10 Transportation Conditions 14 Street Classification 24 Chapter 3: Future Transportation Conditions .................................................25 Introduction 25 Intercity Rail Requirements 26 Freight Railroad Requirements 28 Future Track Utilization at Portland Union Station 29 Terminal Capacity Requirements 31 Penetration of Local Transit into Union Station 37 Transit on Union Station Tracks
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Steel Construction 2009
    Reprinted from 2009 MSC Steel Bridges 2009 Welcome to Steel Bridges 2009! This publication contains all bridge related information collected from Modern Steel Construction magazine in 2009. These articles have been combined into one organized document for our readership to access quickly and easily. Within this publication, readers will find information about Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC), short span steel bridge solutions, NSBA Prize Bridge winners, and advancement in coatings technologies among many other interesting topics. Readers may also download any and all of these articles (free of charge) in electronic format by visiting www.modernsteel.org. The National Steel Bridge Alliance would like to thank everyone for their strong dedication to improving our nation’s infrastructure, and we look forward to what the future holds! Sincerely, Marketing Director National Steel Bridge Alliance Table of Contents March 2009: Up and Running in No Time........................................................................................... 3 March 2009: Twice as Nice .................................................................................................................. 6 March 2009: Wide River ..................................................................................................................... 8 March 2009: Over the Rails in the Other Kansas City ........................................................................ 10 July 2009: Full House .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia River I-5 Bridge Planning Inventory Report
    Report to the Washington State Legislature Columbia River I-5 Bridge Planning Inventory December 2017 Columbia River I-5 Bridge Planning Inventory Errata The Columbia River I-5 Bridge Planning Inventory published to WSDOT’s website on December 1, 2017 contained the following errata. The items below have been corrected in versions downloaded or printed after January 10, 2018. Section 4, page 62: Corrects the parties to the tolling agreement between the States—the Washington State Transportation Commission and the Oregon Transportation Commission. Miscellaneous sections and pages: Minor grammatical corrections. Columbia River I-5 Bridge Planning Inventory | December 2017 Table of Contents Executive Summary. .1 Section 1: Introduction. .29 Legislative Background to this Report Purpose and Structure of this Report Significant Characteristics of the Project Area Prior Work Summary Section 2: Long-Range Planning . .35 Introduction Bi-State Transportation Committee Portland/Vancouver I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Task Force The Transition from Long-Range Planning to Project Development Section 3: Context and Constraints . 41 Introduction Guiding Principles: Vision and Values Statement & Statement of Purpose and Need Built and Natural Environment Navigation and Aviation Protected Species and Resources Traffic Conditions and Travel Demand Safety of Bridge and Highway Facilities Freight Mobility Mobility for Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Travel Section 4: Funding and Finance. 55 Introduction Funding and Finance Plan Evolution During
    [Show full text]
  • City of Portland, Oregon
    CITY OF PORTLAND WEEKLY CAMPSITE REPORT November 4 – November 10, 2019 Last week, the Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program (HUCIRP): • Posted and cleaned 57 campsites. • Completed approximately 352 assessments—engaging with people living in camps, collecting garbage and biohazardous materials, and coordinating with service providers. This week we received: 758 new campsite reports identifying 241 active campsites throughout the City. Of these reports: • 104 were reports of people living in vehicles. CLICK ON THE MAP BELOW TO SEE ALL LOCATIONS REPORTED IN THE LAST 12 WEEKS CLICK ON THE MAP ABOVE TO SEE ALL LOCATIONS REPORTED LAST WEEK Homelessness/Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program Update: Last week we cleaned the following posted locations*: • N Hancock and Victoria • NW Broadway and NW • I-5 SB and N Lombard • NE 8th and Schuyler Naito • N Kerby Offramp • NE 3rd and Weidler • Steel Bridge West Side- • N Russell and Larrabee / N • NE 60th and Prescott Near Day Storage (x3) Interstate • NE 78th-81st and Schuyler • NW Lovejoy/Johnson and • N Schmeer and Whittaker • NE 118th -120th and NW 15-16th • N Columbia and Kerby Couch • NW Broadway and NW • N 33rd and Riverside • NE 87th and Killingsworth Naito • NE 33rd and Sunderland • NW Davis - 5th to • NE 122nd North of Broadway Glisan/NE Oregon • NW Kittridge and NW ST • I-205 MUP near N. and S. Helens Rd sides I84 • NW Davis - 5th to • NE 33rd and Halsey Broadway (x2) • NE 54th and Prescott • NE 46th and Tillamook • SW 6th and SW Pine • Portland Center Park • Providence Park (SW 18th from SW Salmon to SW Morrison) • SW Park/Oak and W Burnside • SW 1st and Ash-Ankeny (Fire Station and Skidmore Fountain) • SW 64th and Barber (I-5 SB) • SE Division and I-205 • SW 11th-12th and Taylor • S.
    [Show full text]
  • M E M O R a N D U M To: Oregon Metro and Trimet From: Nelson\Nygaard Team Date: June 25, 2019 Subject: Central City Transit Capacity - Screening Report
    M E M O R A N D U M To: Oregon Metro and TriMet From: Nelson\Nygaard Team Date: June 25, 2019 Subject: Central City Transit Capacity - Screening Report The Central City Transit Capacity Analysis (CCTCA) project is an effort to define a representative project that addresses light rail capacity and reliability issues in the Central City and that improves regional mobility by eliminating major sources of rail system delay. A representative pro ject is intended to give project sponsors and partners enough information to scope and estimate costs for future operational, engineering, and environmental studies. The representative pro ject will also provide conceptual, preliminary information for stakeholders and the general public. The Portland Central City is the economic and cultural center of the region, with the densest population of people and jobs in Oregon. It is home to numerous regional destinations, including the Oregon Convention Center, Rose Quarter, Union Station, the Pearl District and Old Town/Chinatown, Do wntown, Portland State University, and Providence Park. Traffic congestion, surface transit limitations, limited Willamette River crossings, and Steel Bridge rail capacity and reliability issues all impact the movement of people to and through downtown Portland and between Regional and Town Centers. Projected population and employment growth in the Central City and throughout the region will exacerbate the problem in the future. Improvements to the light rail system are among the most critical, sustainable, and cost-effective means to ensure access to Central City and provide the regional mobility needed to support job and population growth. The project, including this Screening Report, are guided by a Technical Group composed of representatives from local partner agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Download PDF File Campsite Report 28 October
    CITY OF PORTLAND WEEKLY CAMPSITE REPORT October 28 – November 3, 2019 Last week, the Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program (HUCIRP): • Posted and cleaned 59 campsites. • Completed approximately 306 assessments—engaging with people living in camps, collecting garbage and biohazardous materials, and coordinating with service providers. This week we received: 619 new campsite reports identifying 198 active campsites throughout the City. Of these reports: • 71 were reports of people living in vehicles. CLICK ON THE MAP BELOW TO SEE ALL LOCATIONS REPORTED IN THE LAST 12 WEEKS CLICK ON THE MAP ABOVE TO SEE ALL LOCATIONS REPORTED LAST WEEK Homelessness/Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program Update: Last week we cleaned the following posted locations*: • Steel Bridge West Side- Near Day Storage • NW Lovejoy/Johnson and NW 15- 16th • Couch Park (NW 18th and • Peninsula Crossing Trail Hoyt) • N Pier 99 (Under I-5) • NE 6th and Everett • Union Station-NW • • NE Everett and NE MLK PPR Property-Heron Lake at N Broadway between NW Force Ave (maintenance) * • Irving/Glisan West of NE MLK North of (maintenance) * NE Davis • NW Broadway and NW • NE Schuyler/ Between Naito MLK and Grand • NW Flanders 18th to 21st • NE Halsey at 84 WB • NW Glisan 18th to 21st (Flyover Above 82nd) • NW Hoyt 18th to 21st • NE Wheeler and • NW 24th and Reed Multnomah • • NW Dav is From 5th to 4500 NE Garfield Broadway • Portland Center Park • Providence Park (SW 18th from SW Salmon to SW Morrison) • SW 4th and Taylor • SW 1st and Ash-Ankeny (Fire Station
    [Show full text]
  • New York City Department of Transportation
    INNOVATIONS & ACCOMPLISHMENTS East River Bridges A $3.14 billion reconstruction program is underway to rehabilitate all four East River crossings. In 2005, these bridges carried some 498,213 vehicles per day. In 2002, working in coordination with the NYPD and other law enforcement agencies, the Division implemented enhanced security measures on these bridges. This work is ongoing. BROOKLYN BRIDGE The Brooklyn Bridge carried some 132,210 vehicles per day in 2005. The $547 million reconstruction commenced in 1980 with Contract #1, and will continue with Contract #6, currently in the design phase and scheduled for completion in 2013. This contract will include the rehabilitation of both approaches and ramps, the painting of the entire suspension bridge, as well as the seismic retrofitting of the structural elements that are within the Contract #6 project limits. Engineering Landmark Plaque. (Credit: Russell Holcomb) 1899 Plaque Near the Franklin Truss of the Bridge, Marking the Site of George Washington’s First Presidential Mansion, Franklin House. (Credit: Hany Soliman) Historic Landmark, 1954 Reconstruction, and Two Cities Plaques. (1954 & Cities Credit: Michele N. Vulcan) 44 2006 BRIDGES AND TUNNELS ANNUAL CONDITION REPORT INNOVATIONS & ACCOMPLISHMENTS The fitting of the remaining bridge elements requiring seismic retrofitting will be carried out under a separate contract by the end of 2013. Work completed on the bridge to date includes reconditioning of the main cables, replacement of the suspenders and cable stays, rehabilitation of the stiffening trusses, and the replacement of the suspended spans deck. The next work scheduled for the bridge is a project to replace the existing travelers with a state of the art technology system.
    [Show full text]
  • The Steel His Article by Joseph E.B
    Volume 41 Fall 2012 Number 4 The Steel his article by Joseph E.B. Elliott (SIA) introduces railroads and waterways. I had explored and photographed his new book The Steel: Photographs of the the decaying waterfront facilities of New York harbor while I Bethlehem Steel Plant, 1989-1996 (Columbia was simultaneously studying artists and documentarians such College Chicago Pr., 2013, 90 pp., 60 duotones, as Walker Evans and Charles Sheeler. I was ready for a big T$60). Aware of the decline and imminent demise of project that would document the heavy industry that seemed many integrated steel mills in the U.S. and fascinated by their to be slipping away before my eyes. monumental architecture, machinery, and the culture of work, Joe Seeing it for the first time in the early 1980s, the photographed the mills in Bethlehem, Pa., from 1989 until final Bethlehem steel plant embodied for me the history of the shutdown. Working with historian Lance Metz (SIA), he amassed modern age, and possessed the sublime beauty of the remains more than 1,000 large-format photographs and hundreds of archi- of an earlier civilization. In 1987, after several years of prob- val images and documents, in an effort to preserve a record of the ing the Bethlehem plant from the outside (this work was development, workings, and human dimensions of an integrated discussed by Betsy Fahlman in IA, Vol. 12, No. 2 (1986)), steel plant typical of machine age America. The book features an I wrote to the company management, introducing myself as introductory essay by Betsy Fahlman (SIA), who also writes and an artist who was interested in making photographs about edits the IA in Art column for SIAN.
    [Show full text]
  • Download PDF File Campsite Report 9-15 September 2019
    CITY OF PORTLAND WEEKLY CAMPSITE REPORT September 9 – September 15, 2019 Last week, the Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program (HUCIRP): • Posted and cleaned 69 campsites. • Completed approximately 325 assessments*—engaging with people living in camps, collecting garbage and biohazardous materials, and coordinating with service providers. This week we received: 1024 new campsite reports identifying 178 active campsites throughout the City. Of these reports: • 150 were reports of people living in vehicles. CLICK ON THE MAP BELOW TO SEE ALL LOCATIONS REPORTED IN THE LAST 12 WEEKS CLICK ON THE MAP ABOVE TO SEE ALL LOCATIONS REPORTED LAST WEEK Homelessness/Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program Update: Last week we cleaned the following posted locations*: • PCT at Columbia Blvd • N Victory to Schmeer • West End of Hayden Island Drive • NE 6th and Everett • • NE Everett and NE MLK 5001 N Columbia Boulevard • B/t N Union Court and N MLK (maintenance) * • N Marine Dr and N Portland Rd • Ramsey Lake • NW 27th and NW Quimby • N Marine Dr and I-5 loop complex • Under MUP S. side of I-84 • Steel Bridge West Side-Near • I-5 NB Going offramp loop (near N • NE 82nd and Columbia Day Storage Skidmore Overpass) • NE 33rd and NE • Union Station-NW Broadway • N Kerby Ave and N Argyle Clackamas between NW Irving/Glisan • NE Weidler and NE 3rd (maintenance) * • NE 128th and Burnside • NW Broadway and NW Naito • I-205 MUP and NE • Near 4600 NW St Helens Rd Burnside • • NW 6th and Broadway Rocky Butte-Upper and Lower • ODOT property along I-84
    [Show full text]
  • Banfield Light Rail Project: Conceptual Design Information for the City of Portland
    Portland State University PDXScholar TriMet Collection Oregon Sustainable Community Digital Library 11-1-1981 Banfield Light Rail Project: Conceptual Design Information for the City of Portland Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/oscdl_trimet Part of the Transportation Commons, Urban Studies Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon, "Banfield Light Rail Project: Conceptual Design Information for the City of Portland" (1981). TriMet Collection. 9. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/oscdl_trimet/9 This Report is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in TriMet Collection by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Banfield UghtRail Project CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT NOVEMBER 1981 REVISION - 3 12-0109 10.0 BANFIELD LIGHT RAIL PROJECT Conceptual Design Information for the City of Portland November, 1981 421 S.W. 5th, Suite 600 Portland, Oregon 97204 {503) 238-5878 INDEX 1.01 Introduction 1.02 Costs and Financing 1.03 The Light Rail System 1.03.1 General 1.03.2 Route 1.03.3 Light Rail Vehicles 1.03.4 Light Rail Operation 1.03.5 Self-Service Fare Collection 1.03.6 Bus Operations 1.03.7 Land Use 1.04 The Downtown Segment 1.04.1 Alignment 1.04.2 Downtown Station 1.04.3 Downtown Station Features 1.04.4 Downtown Traffic Impacts 1.04.5 Downtown Impacts 1.04.6 Utilities 1.04.7 Business 1.04.8 Historic Districts 1.05 Steel Bridge and Ramps l.
    [Show full text]
  • Old Town Chinatown Development Plan Part 3
    OLD TOWN / CHINATOWN DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PART 3 OF 3 - APPENDIX B) ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 1999 APPENDIX B Appendix B Steering Committee designated the following areas for detailed Urban Design: PHYSICAL PLANNING The Third and Fourth Corridor. This area was chosen because it is the heart of the dis- Following the identification of issues during trict. Third Avenue is where Old Town and Phase I, the second phase of the Development Chinatown meet, and it engages the proposed Plan effort focused on physical planning. This Chinese Classical Garden. phase was primarily an urban design exercise, identifying opportunity sites, and addressing public investments intended to spur redevel- The Trailways Blocks. Development of the opment. Note that some of the recommenda- three blocks east of the bus terminal and tions and design concepts from Phase II were south of Union Station was the one major modified during the subsequent phases of the goal identified in the Central City 2000 vision Development Plan, so that the recommended process which has not been accomplished. action plan does not always correspond The open lots represent a major opportunity directly to the Phase II findings. to bring new energy to the streets of the district. " IDENTIFICATION OF Burnside and related barriers and OPPORTUNITY SITES edges of the district. Burnside acts as a major divider between the Old Town/ As a first step in understanding the develop- Chinatown district and Downtown. Slowing ment potential of Old Town/Chinatown, the traffic and improving the pedestrian crossings Design Team sought to identify potential sites would enhance the quality of the sidewalk for new development or renovation (see experience and help integrate Old Town/ Development Potential Plan, at left).
    [Show full text]
  • MAX Station Optimization Consolidating Four MAX Stations in Downtown Portland Contents Context & Background
    MAX Station Optimization Consolidating four MAX Stations in Downtown Portland Contents Context & Background ................................................................................................................................. 3 The Portland Metropolitan Region is Growing ........................................................................................ 3 MAX Blue Line History .............................................................................................................................. 4 Jobs & Housing Access with an Equity Lens ............................................................................................ 5 Part of a Regional Focus on Transit Speed and Reliability ..................................................................... 6 Best Practices: Stop Spacing for Travel Time and Convenience ............................................................ 7 The Proposal and Decision Criteria ............................................................................................................. 9 Criteria: Proximity .................................................................................................................................. 10 Criteria: Access & Coverage.................................................................................................................... 15 Criteria: Safety ........................................................................................................................................ 18 Criteria: Ridership .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]