DOCSLIB.ORG

Multnomah County Willamette River Bridges Capital Improvement Plan (2015-2034) FINAL

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) 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 .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 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 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 4.1 Mechanical and Electrical Systems and Components ............................................................................................................................................................ 24 4.2 Programmatic Seismic Assessment ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 24 4.3 Roadway and Roadway Maintenance .................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 4.4 Bridge Structural Elements and Maintenance ....................................................................................................................................................................... 26 4.5 Paint Systems ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 4.6 Programmatic Bridge Replacement ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 4.7 Multimodal Elements (Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit) ........................................................................................................................................................ 28 4.8 Environmental ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 29 Date: April 28, 2015 Capital Improvement Plan Report – FINAL P a g e | 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 ................................................................................................................................................... 28 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 D – Bridge CIP Project Costs Summary
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • A Co-Taught Field Course with Integrated History and Civil Engineering Content
    Paper ID #21651 Bridging the Gap: a Co-taught Field Course with Integrated History and Civil Engineering Content Dr. Charles Riley P.E., Oregon Institute of Technology Dr. Riley has been teaching mechanics concepts for over 10 years and has been honored with both the ASCE ExCEEd New Faculty Excellence in Civil Engineering Education Award (2012) and the Beer and Johnston Outstanding New Mechanics Educator Award (2013). While he teaches freshman to graduate- level courses across the civil engineering curriculum, his focus is on engineering mechanics. He imple- ments classroom demonstrations at every opportunity as part of an instructional strategy that seeks to overcome issues of student conceptual understanding. Dr. Mark Henry Clark, Oregon Institute of Technology After receiving a B.S. in mechanical engineering at Rice University in 1984, Mark Henry Clark decided to pursue a career in the history of technology, earning a Ph.D. in the subject at the University of Delaware in 1992. Since 1996, he has been professor of history at the Oregon Institute of Technology. He has also been a visiting faculty member at the University of Aarhus and the Technical University of Denmark. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Bridging the Gap: A Co-Taught Field Course with Integrated History and Civil Engineering Content This paper describes an innovative approach to the integration of social science and engineering content within the context of a field-based course. The class, titled “Oregon Bridges,” combines instruction about both the history of the construction and maintenance of major bridges in Oregon and the fundamental engineering design principles of bridge building.
    [Show full text]
  • November 3, 2005
    Reference for CTF Sellwood in the News Blogs County release third Sellwood Bridge survey August 15th, 2007 - Jonathan Maus (Editor), BikePortland.org http://bikeportland.org/2007/08/15/county-releases-third-sellwood-bridge-survey/ A closer look at bikes and the Sellwood Bridge project August 15th, 2007 - Jonathan Maus (Editor), BikePortland.org http://bikeportland.org/2007/08/15/a-closer-look-at-bikes-and-the-sellwood-bridge-project/ Neighborhood Petition August 2007, ongoing -VoteForTeal.com http://www.voteforteal.com/ News Articles To view all articles about the project, go to www.sellwoodbridge.org/NewsRoom.aspx Sellwood Bridge will close Sunday during an inspection September 4, 2007 - Patrick O'Neill, The Oregonian http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/09/sellwood_bridge_will_close_sun.html Infrastructure Gridlock August 10, 2007 - Randal O'Toole, The American Spectator http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11855 Daily bridge commute has an ominous side August 9, 2007 - Dan Itel, The Lake Oswego Review http://www.lakeoswegoreview.com/opinion/story.php?story_id=118661464739486300 Don’t wait for a crisis August 7, 2007 - The Gresham Outlook http://www.theoutlookonline.com/opinion/story.php?story_id=118655100511386000 REFERENCE FOR CTF 1 9/11/2007 SELLWOOD IN THE NEWS Oregon bridges ok, but we’re uneasy August 5, 2007 - The Corvallis Gazette-Times http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2007/08/06/news/opinion/0di01_bridge0806.txt Sellwood: A bridge too far gone? August 5, 2007 - James Mayer and Andy Dworkin, The Oregonian
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Oswego Portland
    Lake Oswego to Portland TRANSIT PROJECT Public scoping report August 2008 Metro People places. Open spaces. Clean air and clean water do not stop at city limits or county lines. Neither does the need for jobs, a thriving economy and good transportation choices for people and businesses in our region. Voters have asked Metro to help with the challenges that cross those lines and affect the 25 cities and three coun- ties in the Portland metropolitan area. A regional approach simply makes sense when it comes to protecting open space, caring for parks, planning for the best use of land, managing garbage disposal and increasing recycling. Metro oversees world-class facilities such as the Oregon Zoo, which contributes to conservation and educa- tion, and the Oregon Convention Center, which benefits the region’s economy Metro representatives Metro Council President – David Bragdon Metro Councilors – Rod Park, District 1; Carlotta Collette, District 2; Carl Hosticka, District 3; Kathryn Harrington, District 4; Rex Burkholder, District 5; Robert Liberty, District 6. Auditor – Suzanne Flynn www.oregonmetro.gov Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Project Public scoping report Table of contents SECTION 1: SCOPING REPORT INTRODUCTION …………………………………......... 1 Introduction Summary of outreach activities Summary of agency scoping comments Public comment period findings Conclusion SECTION 2: PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING ………………………………………………… 7 Summary Handouts SECTION 3: AGENCY SCOPING COMMENTS ………………………………………..... 31 Environmental Protection Agency SECTION 4: PUBLIC
    [Show full text]
  • Ordinance 187832, Vol. 2.3.A, Page 13748
    PSC Map App Testimony Reporting Period - 7/21/14 to 3/14/15 CommentIDCommentor DateReceived Comment GeoArea Topic 3900 Dan Reed Miller 3/14/15 This project makes me wonder if the concept \"induced demand\" has not yet gained currency in the heirarchy of Central City transportation planning in Oregon. Study after study, empirical observation after empirical observation, has shown that building more lanes to r 3899 Dan Reed Miller 3/14/15 This connection is long overdue! I was very disappointed when the eastside streetcar went in with no Central City accommodation of bicycle infrastructure at the I-84 crossing. A bike/ped bridge at 7th will make a huge positive difference to the vitality and long-term 3898 Ted Buehler 3/14/15 I ride from NE to SE regularly, and crossing I-84 is a real barrier. Please fill in this gap in the network. Central City 3897 Ted Buehler 3/14/15 Yes to Bike Share! I spent 3 days in Manhattan last year and thoroughly enjoyed the bike share. It made it possible West Northeast Central City STransportation + TSP + parking to visit all sorts of places I\'d have had trouble getting to just by walking or subway, and it was a real treat as a visitor to see the 3896 Ted Buehler 3/14/15 Please -- don\'t spend our tax dollars to widen a freeway. This is a 1970s solution to a 21st century problem. East Instead, spend our money on proactive, future-oriented solutions that will move people, not cars. Thank you.
    [Show full text]
  • Portland Bridges Choose Your Crossing to Get from One Side of Bridgetown to the Other
    Portland Portland Bridges Choose your crossing to get from one side of Bridgetown to the other. 1 Feb 2017 2 4 Lafcadio 3 jauntful.com/Lafcadio 5 6 8 7 9 10 11 12 ©OpenStreetMap contributors, ©Mapbox, ©Foursquare St. Johns Bridge 1 Burlington Northern Railroad B... 2 Fremont Bridge 3 Broadway Bridge 4 Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Designed by D.B. Steinman and H.D. The bridge's two tracks are used by Due to the public's dissatisfaction with The bridge was originally black, matching Robinson, the St. Johns was the longest freight trains of BNSF and Union Pacific the appearance of the Marquam Bridge, the Steel and Hawthorne spans, but in suspension bridge west of the Railroad and by Amtrak passenger trains. the Portland Art Commission 1961 the Broadway Bridge was repainted Mississippi at the time of construction. participated in the design process of the "Golden Gate" red. bridge. 7150 Northwest Front Avenue, Portland en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington_Northern_Rai St. Johns Bridge, Portland lroad_Bridge_5.1 Fremont Bridge, Portland Broadway Bridge, Portland Steel Bridge 5 Burnside Bridge 6 Morrison Bridge 7 Hawthorne Bridge 8 Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge It is the only double-deck bridge with The bridge provides shelter for the The first Morrison Bridge was a wooden The Hawthorne Bridge is the busiest independent lifts in the world and the initially unauthorized Burnside Skatepark truss swing span bridge completed in bicycle and transit bridge in Oregon, 2nd oldest vertical-lift bridge in N. under the east end. 1887, the first PDX Willamette River with over 8,000 cyclists and 800 TriMet America, after the nearby Hawthorne bridge and the longest west of the buses (carrying about 17,400 riders) daily.
    [Show full text]