Innerbelt Bridge Subcommittee Meeting May 4, 2006

1

CLEVELAND INNERBELT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT GROUP 1 CUY-90-14.92, PID No. 77332 Innerbelt Bridge Subcommittee Meeting 1 Meeting Minutes Project: Central Viaduct Date: May 4, 2006 Subject: Innerbelt Bridge Subcommittee Time: 1:00pm - 3:00pm By: AMC/JWB Place: NOACA Attendees: (ODOT – D12) Craig Hebebrand – Ohio Department of Transportation – District 12 Joseph Seif – Ohio Department of Transportation – District 12 Dave Lastovka – Ohio Department of Transportation – District 12 Lora Hummer – Ohio Department of Transportation – District 12 Keri Welch – Ohio Department of Transportation – District 12 James Calanni – Ohio Department of Transportation – District 12 John Motl – Ohio Department of Transportation – District 12

(ODOT – C.O.) Scott Phinney – Ohio Department of Transportation – Central Office Jeff Crace – Ohio Department of Transportation – Central Office

(City of Cleveland) Bob Brown – City of Cleveland Planning Commission Scott Frantz – City of Cleveland Planning Commission Debbie Berry – City of Cleveland Rob Mavec – City of Cleveland Traffic Engineering

(Cuyahoga County) Brendan Finn – Cuyahoga County Engineers Office Paul Alsenas – Cuyahoga County Planning Commission Marvin Hayes – Cuyahoga County Planning Commission

(FHWA) Matt Shamis – Federal Highway Administration

(Other Organizations) Bill Beckenbach – Quadrangle Colleen Gilson – Tremont West Development Corp. Thomas Starinsky – Historic Gateway and Warehouse District Howard Maier – Northeast Ohio Area Coordinating Agency Ron Eckner – Northeast Ohio Area Coordinating Agency Richard Enty – Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Joe Marinucci – Downtown Cleveland Alliance

Innerbelt Bridge Subcommittee Meeting May 4, 2006

2

(Michael Baker Jr., Inc. - Design Team) Bob Parker – Michael Baker Jr., Inc. John Dietrick – Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Laura Toole – Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Amilyn Cedergreen – Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Jeff Broadwater – Michael Baker Jr., Inc. MEETING SUMMARY Meeting Agenda � Welcome/Introductions � Subcommittee Roles and Responsibilities � Project Status � The Bridge Type Selection Process � Discuss Typical Evaluation Criteria � Next Steps Bridge Types: � Cable-Stayed � Tied Arch � Deck Truss � Box Girder � Extradosed � Delta Frame � Plate Girder

Innerbelt Bridge Subcommittee Meeting May 4, 2006

3

• Introduction and Roles & Responsibilities (Bob Brown – City of Cleveland) • Innerbelt Project Update (Craig Hebebrand – ODOT)

o Schematic Plan for entire Innerbelt Project is not current and will be updated and provided at the next Subcommittee meeting.

o November 17, 2005 ODOT made recommendation to Advisory committee for preferred alignments

o After much public/stakeholder involvement, some minor changes have been made.

o Environmental documentation supporting the decisions made is on going and will include some delays.

o Summarized proposed preferred alignment on reconstruction plans for entire corridor.

o Intend to submit final environmental documents to FHWA by year-end. o Anticipate FHWA approval will go until middle 2007. o 2007-2008 final design. o Late 2009 begin construction of contract Group 1. o 10-year construction term forecast for entire Innerbelt. o Project Team (organization chart) discussed.

• Baker Team (Laura Toole - Baker)

o Innerbelt Bridge Subcommittee Binders distributed o Timeline discussed for subcommittee meetings and public meetings public

meetings scheduled at Greek Orthodox Church (6/7 & 9/13) o Agenda for subcommittee Meeting #1 discussed. o Proposed agenda for subcommittee meetings number 2, 3, 4, and 5.

• Bridge Type Selection Process (John Dietrick - Baker)

o How type selection process fit into overall schedule. o Type selection date directly linked to starting design activities early 2007 so

ODOT can break ground by late 2009. Question raised: Can we publish listing of bridge types that won’t be considered due to project parameters? (City of Cleveland) Answer: John mentioned that some, such as suspension bridges, are ruled out.

Structure types that are not feasible should be listed in the binder. � Project parameters discussed

o Transverse section – 5 lanes and 2 shoulders with unidirectional (one-way). o Clearances over RR, Cuyahoga River, roads. o Discussed geometrics of bridge which include ramps of Abbey and Ontario with

a horizontal curve in the center of the bridge and a profile similar to the existing bridge.

o Slope stability issues of west slope discussed.

Innerbelt Bridge Subcommittee Meeting May 4, 2006

4

o Mentioned that bridge type selection may be influenced by ability to place a pier in the slope.

o Question came up on what cost differential is there for suspension bridge. (NOACA) Answer: There is a large cost differential with regards to labor and materials. (John Dietrick)

o Discussed global aesthetics of compatibility with adjacent bridge. o Detail aesthetics will be addressed in next phase of project. o Safety with regards to wind and earthquake loads should not be a factor. All

bridge types presented are equally safe.

� Diversity of Views o Committee Co-chair stated that this committee will continue after the bridge

type selection therefore views from North, South, East and West were requested.

o FHWA recommended no aerial views; use views from people level. o Committee Co-chair suggested aerial views in addition to others.

� Bridge Types discussed

o Some questions on bridge types. Question: What is the difference between plate girders and trusses? (Bob Brown) Answer: Plate girders are mainly beams with minimal maintenance; trusses have multiple triangle elements, are very labor intensive, expensive, require painting of multiple elements and, high maintenance requirements. (John Dietrick) Question: What type of bridge is Fulton Road? (Bob Brown) Answer: A concrete arch (John Dietrick)

o Question asked about varying bridge types for one structure. o John explained that it is possible to have multiple bridge types – ex. A tied arch

main span over the river with plate girder approach spans. The bridge can have a signature bridge such as cable stayed but limit it to the portion of the valley needed for large span and use a girder bridge type for the rest of the bridge.

� Evaluation Criteria

o Suggestion to add “context” as separate evaluation criteria. (Paul Alsenas) o Bob Brown stated that the aesthetics can be both separate and part of context

sensitive design. o Paul Alsenas stated that bridge needs to be a symbol of all things around it. o $275 million budget for whole contract, group discussed. o Question: What is construction group 1? (Bob Brown)

Answer: 2 miles which starts at I-90, I-71 & I-490 interchange to E. 22nd St. and Westbound ramps.

o Question asked how much bridge budget is to the whole. o Craig said we could present that information at the next meeting.

Innerbelt Bridge Subcommittee Meeting May 4, 2006

5

o Committee Co-Chair – recommended that compatibility of bridge to the site “context” be added to the evaluation criteria and that public/stakeholder criteria may be removed.

o Think about long term maintenance. o Aesthetics – global architecture consistent with the Innerbelt project as a whole. o Maintenance – long term, minimal maintenance and the monitoring of the West

slope. o Constructability – minimal impacts, MOT, Construction time can vary. o Public Input – focus on bridge o Evaluation Matrix – What criteria and priority? Need to quantify the items in

the matrix.

• Subcommittee Meetings will be held at NOACA. o Public meetings (6/7 & 9/13) – Wednesdays 4PM to 8PM – Open House. o Scheduled discussion group times – 5:00 PM discussion (presentation) 6:30 PM

discussion (presentation). o Committee Co-Chair requested time for public comment be provided after

presentations. o Question raised that $275 million budget seemed low for 2010 construction; can

a bridge type be thrown out? (City of Cleveland) o Answer: – ODOT is currently looking into inflation and construction costs. The

cost estimate is in 2010 construction dollars and hopes to have it adjusted by July. (Craig Hebebrand)

• Site Visit to be Scheduled

� Suggestion that the subcommittee group arrange a day to walk the sites to view the sites once concepts are developed. (Joe Marinucci) o Multiple site visits suggested, first being late June.

• Discussion/Questions � Where will proposed bridge be located in relation to the existing bridge? (CDC)

o It will be located to the north and allow for future 5-lane bridge to be built in between new and existing – approx. ~ 100’. (John Dietrick)

� What are the limitations of spans and different elements? Can you talk about the geometric limitations? (Joe Marinucci) o Cable stayed would not work on a curve of this nature however an extradosed is

feasible. � Is there a super elevation?

o Possibly, the ramp geometry may change according to bridge type. (Bob Parker)

� Committee Co-chair requested that subcommittee members submit names of any groups that should be represented. o No additional organizations were mentioned

� How will the bridge be tied-in at end of project? (NOACA)

Innerbelt Bridge Subcommittee Meeting May 4, 2006

6

o All structure types should accommodate equal treatment of tie-ins. (John Dietrick)

� RTA is concerned about capacity and designing 16 ft. shoulders wide enough for bus bypass lane and are there access ramps? (Rich Enty) o RTA provide prioritized listing of ramps where requested. (Craig Hebebrand)

� Could close up be shown of highway alignment through Tremont all the way to the tie-ins at public meeting. (Colleen Gilson) o Yes, we will show a close up of the project through Tremont. (John Dietrick)

� Are there any issues with technological advancements? (Brendan Finn) o Yes, we are looking beyond the ODOT standards. (Craig Hebebrand)

� Discussion of sustainable construction practices/materials be considered � Have provisions been made or considered by ODOT to provide for pedestrian/ bike

access? (Debbie Berry) o This will be considered under the rehabilitation of the existing bridge. The

existing bridge will have additional width for safety. (Craig Hebebrand) � When will photo views of concepts be available? (Bob Brown)

o These will be displayed at the June 1 subcommittee meeting. (John Dietrick) � Discussion/agreement that email addresses will be collected and used as primary

notification/contacts. (Group) � Email meeting minutes (Group)

Action Items

o Provide list of bridge types which will not be feasible due to project site constraints

o Provide updated Innerbelt Project site map o Create detailed Map for alignment through Tremont o E-mail meeting minutes