DOCSLIB.ORG

Multnomah County Willamette River Bridges Capital Improvement Plan (2015-2034) DRAFT for Public Comment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Multnomah County Willamette River Bridges Capital Improvement Plan (2015-2034) DRAFT for Public Comment Multnomah County Willamette River Bridges Capital Improvement Plan (2015-2034) DRAFT for Public Comment Prepared for: Multnomah County Department of Community Services Bridge Division 1403 SE Water Ave. Portland, OR 97214 503 988-3757 www.multco.us/bridges Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Results .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Prioritization Process for Bridge CIP Projects .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Bridge CIP Project Costs ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 3 Bridge CIP Development Process Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Existing Information Review .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Field Reconnaissance and Hydrographic Survey .................................................................................................................................................................... 10 3.3 Criteria Development and Project Prioritization Process ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 3.4 Cost Estimating ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 3.5 Logical Groupings and Bundling Methodology ...................................................................................................................................................................... 17 3.6 Cost Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 17 3.7 Seismic Philosophy and Bridge Replacement ........................................................................................................................................................................ 19 3.8 Public Involvement and Outreach.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 4 Technical Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 4.1 Mechanical and Electrical Systems and Components ............................................................................................................................................................ 23 4.2 Programmatic Seismic Assessment ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 23 4.3 Roadway and Roadway Maintenance .................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 4.4 Bridge Structural Elements and Maintenance ....................................................................................................................................................................... 25 4.5 Paint Systems ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 4.6 Programmatic Bridge Replacement ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 4.7 Multimodal Elements (Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit) ........................................................................................................................................................ 27 4.8 Environmental ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 28 Date: February 12, 2015 Capital Improvement Plan Report – DRAFT for Public Comment Page | i Tables Table 1 – Summary of Project Costs by Target Time Interval .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Table 2 – Summary of Project Costs by Bridge Complex ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Table 3 – Summary of Bridge CIP Costs by Primary Work Category ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 Table 4 – Summary of Project Costs by Target Time Interval .................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Table 5 – Summary of Project Costs by Bridge Complex ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 6 – Summary of Bridge CIP Costs by Primary Work Category ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 Table 7 – Development Approach Categories of the Bridge CIP Cost Elements ................................................................................................................................... 14 Table 8 - List of Projects with Elements from Stakeholder Engagement Requests ............................................................................................................................... 22 Table 9 - List of Projects with Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements ................................................................................................................................................... 27 Figures Figure 1 – Multnomah County Willamette River Bridges Overview ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Figure 2 – Multnomah County Downtown Portland Bridges ................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 3 – Summary of Project Costs by Target Time Interval ................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 4 – Summary of Project Costs by Bridge Complex ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Figure 5 – Summary of Bridge CIP Costs .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 6 – Bridge CIP Development Process ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 7 – Burnside Bridge Surrounding Conditions from Hydrographic Investigation ......................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 8 – Project Prioritization Process ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 9 – Project Bundle Development Approach................................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Attachments Attachment A – Report Terms and Definitions List Attachment B – Multnomah County Willamette River Bridges Maintenance Limits Graphics Attachment C – Bridge CIP Project Costs Summary Tables – All Projects Attachment
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sellwood Bridge May 8, 2018 Project Overview Project Overview
    SELLWOOD BRIDGE MAY 8, 2018 PROJECT OVERVIEW PROJECT OVERVIEW • Procurement: CMGC • Owner: Multnomah County • Location: Portland, Oregon • Contract Value: $227,000,000 • Construction Timeline: • Started: December 2011 • Completed: January 2017 PROJECT TEAM • Agencies • Multnomah County • City of Portland • Oregon Department of Transportation • Federal Highway Administration • Designers/Consultants • T. Y. Lin International • CH2M Hill • David Evans and Associates • General Contractor • Slayden/Sundt Joint Venture HISTORY • Originally a Ferry Crossing • Original Sellwood Bridge - Opened 1925 • In depth inspections - mid 1980’s & 2003 • Further “Band aids” were installed • Loads Restrictions enforced in 2004 • In-depth inspection/evaluation 2005 • Structural rating - 2 out of 100 Local RR OR 43 to Tracks Portland Cemetery Willamette River Sellwood Landslide Riverpark and Sellwood Harbor OR 43 to Condos Lake Oswego CMGC PROCUREMENT CMGC CONSTRUCTION MANAGER/GENERAL CONTRACTOR • Collaboration between Owner, Designer, and Contractor • Up to Date Market Pricing • Design development Owner • Constructability Reviews • Value Engineering • ROW/TCE acquisition & Phasing • Schedule Development • Risk Management A/E Collaboration GC • Other Owner Drivers: • Sustainability • Public involvement • Minority Goals PRECONSTRUCTION • 7 Amendments (Design Packages) • Able to release packages early to start work • Shoofly • Landslide • Condo Demo/Reconstruct • Main Bridge - GMP • 60%, 90%, and 100% cost estimates • After each pricing exercise adjustments are made to validate the design aligns with the owners budget • Design Modifications • Value Engineering • Material Selections • Means and Methods Evaluated CONTRACTING PLAN • DMWESB Goal - 20% • Created a Contracting Plan with the Owner: • 4 Categories • Project Final DMWESB: • 20.41% • $45,491,206 SMALL GC PACKAGES • 4 scopes of work separated into GC-type packages • Subcontractor solicitation, best value scoring, and scope management for the entire scope.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Sauvie Island Quadrangle, Multnomah and Columbia Counties, Oregon, and Clark County, Washington
    Geologic Map of the Sauvie Island Quadrangle, Multnomah and Columbia Counties, Oregon, and Clark County, Washington By Russell C. Evarts, Jim E. O'Connor, and Charles M. Cannon Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3349 2016 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2016 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. Suggested citation: Evarts, R.C., O'Connor, J.E., and Cannon, C.M., 2016, Geologic map of the Sauvie Island quadrangle, Multnomah and Columbia Counties, Oregon, and Clark County, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3349, scale 1:24,000, pamphlet 34 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sim3349. ISSN 2329-132X (online) Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Aura Burnside
    URBANWORKSREALESTATE.COM / 503.228.3080 FOR LEASE RESTAURANT / RETAIL / SERVICE AURA BURNSIDE 55 NE GRAND AVENUE, PORTLAND, OR 97232 NEW MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED ON E. BURNSIDE BETWEEN GRAND AVE AND MLK JR. BLVD. TOTAL // 10,000 SF RANGE // 640 - 8,800 SF (DIVISIBLE) KIA HARTLEY / NICOLE ONDER / 503.228.3080 THE AURA // 1 AURA BURNSIDE ADDRESS // 55 NE GRAND AVENUE, PORTLAND, OR 97232 DELIVERY // Q2 2017 USES // RETAIL / SERVICE RETAIL / RESTAURANT RENTABLE TOTAL // 10,000 SF SF RANGE // 640 - 8,800 SF NEW CENTRAL EASTSIDE DEVELOPMENT The Aura is under development on E Burnside, between NE MLK Jr. Blvd. and NE Grand Ave in The Burnside Bridgehead, one of Portland’ most walkable and desirable neighborhoods. The mixed-use apartment and retail building features amenities that include landscaped rooftop fire pit and activity area with City and Mt Hood views, clubhouse with designer kitchen, bike lounge with lockers, grilling stations, plus on-site wine and bike storage facilities. GROUND FLOOR RETAIL SPACES Retail spaces front MLK Jr Blvd, E Burnside & NE Grand, all of which enjoy high traffic counts and strong walkability scores. Suites offer glass roll-up doors, 17 ft ceilings and space for outdoor seating. E. BURNSIDE & NE MLK BLVD THE AURA // 2 FLOOR PLAN << E.COUCH << SUITE #7 640 SF SUITE #6 683 SF LU# 14-169513 DZM Enlarged Plan - Ground Floor Arcade Section 4: >> NE GRAND AVE >> >> AVE >> NE GRAND << NE MLK JR BLVD << << JR BLVD << NE MLK Retail/ Retail/ Retail/ Commercial Commercial Commercial ne martinlutherboulevard king, jr. SUITE #1 SUITE #2 SUITE #3 SUITE #4 SUITE #5 3,800 SF 1,270 SF 1,270 SF 1,233 SF 1,227 SF ne grand avenue >> E.BURNSIDE STREET >> e burnside street arcade elevation BURNSIDE ELEVATION THE AURA // 3 AURA BURNSIDE E.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Flyer
    » CLOSE-IN EASTSIDE RETAIL/RESTAURANT OPPORTUNITIES « ĭĸħĴĪĨīIJijĵĴĺ FOR LEASE IN PORTLAND, OREGON Location SE Grand Avenue & Belmont Street (SE corner) Available Space 1,155 SF – 4,723 SF Rental Rate $30.00 – $34.00/SF/YR, NNN Comments • New, mixed use project in Portland’s central eastside (131 market rate apartments above ground floor retail). • Excellent opportunity for coffee/café operator to occupy prime 1,155 SF corner space with direct connection to building lobby and conference room. • Opportunities for space fronting SE Grand Avenue, including corner of Grand & Yamhill, ideal for restaurant, retail/service retail. • Retail features large glass storefronts, high (15') ceilings and incredible visibility and signage. • Notable area tenants include: Afuri Ramen, Dig a Pony, Kachka, Loyal Legion, Trifecta Tavern, Voicebox Karaoke, and just steps from the “Goat Blocks” mixed use redevelopment including Market of Choice, among others. • Available Now! Traffic CountS SE Grand Avenue | 52,347 ADT (18) SE Belmont Street | 2,826 ADT (18) SE Morrison Street | 20,394 ADT (18) CRA Commercial Realty Advisors NW LLC ashley heichelbech [email protected] 733 SW Second Avenue, Suite 200 Portland, Oregon 97204 kathleen healy [email protected] www.cra-nw.com 503.274.0211 Licensed brokers in Oregon & Washington The information herein has been obtained from sources we deem reliable. We do not, however, guarantee its accuracy. All information should be verified prior to purchase/leasing. View the Real Estate Agency Pamphlet by visiting our website,
    [Show full text]
  • Open Gardens2016
    THE HARDY PLANT SOCIETY OF OREGON OPEN GARDENS2016 gardeners growing together Garden Thyme Nursery Harvest Nursery Hydrangeas Plus Nowlens Bridge Perennials Out in the Garden Nursery Sebright Gardens Secret Garden Growers Bailey garden 2016 Open Garden season is about to begin! Welcome to this year’s directory of approximately 100 listings covering a wide variety of wonderful gardens and nurseries to visit all season. Many gardens will be open on the weekends, and evening openings are on the second and fourth Mondays of June, July, August and September. The Directory has been prepared by a dedicated committee led by Chair Tom Barreto, assisted by Ruth Clark, Merle Dole-Reid, Jenn Ferrante, Barry Gates, Jim Rondone, Pam Skalicky, Lise Storc and Bruce Wakefield. Tom is also much appreciated for his beautiful photography which graces the cover this year. Special thanks to Linda Wisner for cover design, advice and production direction and a very big thank you to Bruce Wakefield for his help with a process that is always time consuming; we are very grateful. We have worked hard to assure the accuracy of the listings in the 2016 Open Gardens Directory, but if you find an error or omission, please contact the HPSO office at 503-224-5718. Corrections will be announced in the HPSO weekly email blasts. And most importantly, our deepest thanks to the generous and welcoming HPSO members who are sharing their gardens this year. We appreciate the opportunity to learn from, and enjoy, your remarkable gardens. 1 VISITOR GUIDELINES TO GOOD GARDEN ETIQUETTE We are fortunate to be able to visit so many glorious gardens through our HPSO membership.
    [Show full text]
  • Granite's Construction Experience
    PUGET SOUND REGION June 8, 2010 Jim Wilkerson Purchasing Division Tacoma Public Utilities 3628 S. 35th Street Tacoma, WA 98409 RE: Statement for Qualifications for Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project (Specification No: PW10-0128F) Dear Jim: The rehabilitation of the Murray Morgan Bridge offers the City of Tacoma yet another creative element to the City’s infrastructure that provides beneficial use to its citizens while honoring its past. Granite Construction Company (Granite), one of the largest and most established regional and national design-build construction contractors, offers the City of Tacoma a focused team of engineers and subconsultants that has the skills, experience, and local resources to partner with the City on the delivery of this truly unique project. The Granite Team was specifically structured to deliver the most cost-effective approach to reopening the Murray Morgan Bridge by November 2012. In doing so, we are confident that we are the team best suited to: Deliver on your schedule commitments Incorporate quality systems and materials Provide the highest value for the budget Reduce operating and maintenance costs Allow for maximum supplemental work Honor stakeholder commitments To achieve these objectives, Granite has carefully selected the following key team members: FIRM ROLE Granite Construction Company Submitter, Design-Build Contractor HDR Engineering, Inc. Lead Designer (Major Participant) Kleinfelder Quality Management, Materials Testing PRR Public Involvement CivilTech Engineering Retaining Walls & Lifesafety Structures Hough Beck & Baird Urban Streetscape Design & Sustainability Link Controls Electrical Controls Design-Builder Northwest Archaeological Associates Historic/Cultural Specialist Granite / Everett Area Office | 1525 E. Marine View Dr., Everett, WA 98201-1927 | Ph: (425) 551-3100 | Fax: (425) 551-3116 Granite / Whatcom Area Office | 3876 Hannegan Rd., Bellingham, WA 98226-9103 | Ph: (360) 676-2450 | Fax: (360) 733-6735 Granite / Thurston Area Office | 7717 New Market St.
    [Show full text]
  • Sellwood Bridge Health Impact Assessment
    The Sellwood Bridge Project: A Health Impact Assessment Prepared by: Maya Bhat, Research Analyst Elizabeth Clapp , Research Analyst Health Assessment & Evaluation Office of Health & Social Justice January 21, 2011 Lillian Shirley, Director, Multnomah County Health Department Sandy Johnson, Director, Health & Social Justice For information please contact: Maya Bhat (503) 988-3663 ext. 29055 [email protected] Contents List of figures and table......................................................................................................... ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 3 2 PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................... 3 3 SCOPE OF THIS HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT ................................................................ 3 4 PROJECT BACKGROUND 4.1 Existing conditions on the bridge ......................................................................................... 3 4.2 Locally preferred bridge design .................................................................................................... 4 5 ANALYSIS OF HEALTH IMPACTS OF THE REPLACEMENT BRIDGE 5.1 Improve bicyclist and pedestrian safety .............................................................................. 7 5.1.a Concerns about bike and pedestrian
    [Show full text]
  • In Portland Oregon
    ZOOBOMBING AND OTHER URBAN BIKE TOURING ADVENTURES IN PORTLAND OREGON between the Broadway and Sellwood bridges along both sides of the Willamette River. The sky is blue. The temperature mild. Portlanders are out in force to recreate. The downtown Saturday market is in full swing. Dragon Boats race near the Haw- thorne Bridge. Cyclists of all types and ages are riding the full catalog of bikes — fixies, recumbents, beach cruisers, mountain bikes, racers, and tricycles. We gaze out across the sparkling river at the downtown skyline, and I think, Story and photos by Willie Weir “Where are we going to stay tonight.” Cities are always the hardest part of a bike trip. They tend to be impersonal compared to small-town America. lie awake on a summer night pon- creative, different, and exotic aspects are The Beginning and read the Bike lanes are clearly “Willie?” dering my travel options. I need missing. The trip begins the way I wish every Sunday New York marked with signs It’s a young couple, Kelly and Ben. I something new, creative, different, I have to think outside the box. No. trip would — on a train. I love trains. Times while we telling you where don’t know them, but Kelly went to the exotic … and cheap. I also need Maybe the answer is inside the box. Maybe even more than bikes. If they rolled along the you are going. And University of Oregon in Eugene and at- Isomething short. A week, tops. You see, What if instead of a trip to Portland, I weren’t so damned expensive, I’d buy tracks for the there are wide side- tended several of my presentations.
    [Show full text]
  • Multnomah County Willamette River Bridges Capital Improvement Plan (2015-2034) FINAL
    Multnomah County Willamette River Bridges Capital Improvement Plan (2015-2034) FINAL Prepared for: Multnomah County Department of Community Services Bridge Division 1403 SE Water Ave. Portland, OR 97214 503 988-3757 www.multco.us/bridges Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Results .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Prioritization Process for Bridge CIP Projects .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Bridge CIP Project Costs ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 3 Bridge CIP Development Process Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Existing Information Review ...................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Steel Bridge News National Steel Bridge Alliance Significantly Reduced the Amount of Shoring Estero Project
    Steel Bridge NATIONAL STEEL BRIDGE ALLIANCE NEWS JUNE 2008 On Opposite Coasts BY CRAIG FINLEY, P.E., JERRY PFUNTNER, P.E., AND MATTHEW ADAMS, P.E. This rendering shows the MIC-MIA bridge, which will provide access to Miami International Airport’s rental car facility. Two Florida bridges—on either side of the state—will deliver multiple benefits to their owners and users, thanks to value The redesign of the Estero Parkway Flyover project replaces twin, cast-in- place concrete box girders with with a design using four steel box girders. engineering redesign. LOCATED ON OPPOSITE COASTS OF FLORIDA, TWO CUR- crete, of course. And despite what some may think, the savings aren’t RENT BRIDGE PROJECTS WILL SERVE VASTLY DIFFERENT strictly linked to the material costs of the former versus the latter. PURPOSES. Donald Deberry, P.E., public works operations manager for Lee The Estero Parkway Flyover, near Fort Myers on Florida’s west County, notes that the recent cost fluctuation for all kinds of con- coast, will ease traffic congestion on the parkway and offer travel- struction materials underscores the need for good, solid engineering ers an alternate east-west route on the Tamiami Trail and I-75. The design, because chasing material prices is a losing game. Miami Intermodal Center Terminal Access Roadway Project—nick- “It might look like you’re saving money when you evaluate price Lnamed MIC-MIA—will provide access to a rental car facility as part during development of the project or the bridge development re- of a major upgrade of Miami International Airport.
    [Show full text]
  • Ross Island Bridge Rehabilitation Project Frequently Asked Questions
    Ross Island Bridge Rehabilitation Project Frequently Asked Questions What does the project involve? Starting in October 2014, contractors will remove about 250 deteriorating rivets and upgrade the steels members. This first phase will take six to eight weeks to complete. In the spring of 2015, crews will begin preparations to paint the bridge. This involves stripping old paint down to the bare steel, treating the bare steel for rust and then applying the new paint. Why paint the Ross Island Bridge? The paint on the U.S. 26 Willamette River Bridge (Ross Island Bridge) has deteriorated and no longer provides the necessary corrosion protection and aesthetic appearance. The bridge was last painted in 1967. This work will preserve its structural integrity and help extend its useful life. Why do the rivets need to be removed? Many of the rivets haven’t been replaced since the bridge opened in 1926 and are being removed because of rust and corrosion. Removing and replacing the rivets will help strengthen the bridge, preserve its structural stability and extend its service life. What’s the schedule? Rivet removal will take place in the fall of 2014 and will require six to eight weeks to complete. The painting will take place in the dry season, spring to fall, in 2015, 2016 and 2017. The project is scheduled for completion in late 2017, although the schedule is subject to change due to weather and site conditions. What are the work hours? The rivet work will occur during the day between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 83, No. 145/Friday, July 27, 2018/Rules and Regulations
    35550 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations MCC shall follow the provisions of the continues to process a pending request SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The owner Debt Collection Act of 1982, as or any pending appeal. If MCC has a of the bridge, Metropolitan amended, and its administrative reasonable basis to believe that a Transportation Authority Bridges and procedures, including the use consumer requester has misrepresented the Tunnels, requested a temporary reporting agencies, collection agencies, requester’s identity in order to avoid deviation from the normal operating and offset. paying outstanding fees, MCC may schedule in order to complete (l) Aggregating requests. The requester require that the requester provide proof rehabilitation work associated with the or a group of requesters may not submit of identity. replacement of lift span machinery. The multiple requests at the same time, each Marine Parkway (Gil Hodges Memorial) seeking portions of a document or § 1304.12 Other rights and services. Bridge across Jamaica Bay (Rockaway documents solely in order to avoid Nothing in this part shall be Inlet), mile 3.0 at Queens, New York has payment of fees. When the FOIA construed to entitle any person a right a vertical clearance of 55 feet at mean Program Officer reasonably believes that to any service or to the disclosure of any high water and 59 feet at mean low a requester is attempting to divide a record to which such person is not water in the closed position. The request into a series of requests to evade entitled under the FOIA.
    [Show full text]