Innerbelt Bridge Subcommittee Meeting 5 - Meeting Minutes

Transcription

1 CLEVELAND INNERBELT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT GROUP 1 CUY , PID No Meeting Minutes Project: Central Viaduct Date: Subject: Innerbelt Bridge Subcommittee Time: 9:00am - 12:00pm By: DJB 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 James Calanni Ohio Department of Transportation District 12 Natalie Conley Ohio Department of Transportation District 12 John Motl Ohio Department of Transportation District 12 Keri Welch Ohio Department of Transportation District 12 Dave Coyle Ohio Department of Transportation District 12 (ODOT C.O.) Jeff Crace Ohio Department of Transportation Central Office Scott Phinney Ohio Department of Transportation Central Office Jennifer Townley Ohio Department of Transportation Central Office Tim Keller Ohio Department of Transportation Central Office Tim Hill Ohio Department of Transportation Central Office (City of Cleveland) Bob Brown City of Cleveland Planning Commission Scott Frantz City of Cleveland Planning Commission (Cuyahoga County) Brendan Finn Cuyahoga County Engineers Office Paul Alsenas Cuyahoga County Planning Commission (Other Organizations) Bill Beckenbach Quadrangle Thomas Starinsky Historic Gateway and Warehouse District Howard Maier Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency Hunter Morrison Cuyahoga Community College Colleen Gilson Tremont West Development Corp. Matt Shamis FHWA Steve Litt Plain Dealer Ed Hauser Citizen (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. Daniel Baxter Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Doug Blank Michael Baker Jr., Inc. 1

2 Jeff Broadwater Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Terry Tiberio Michael Baker Jr., Inc. (Burgess & Niple - Consultant) Neil Chase B&N Skip Smallridge Crosby Schlessinger & Smallridge Bruce Mansfield B&N MEETING SUMMARY Design Principles Welcome/Introductions Review Final Design Principles Summary Of Comments From August 17 th Meeting Review (4) Concepts Concept Variations And Evaluation Discuss Approach Spans Review Visual Impact Assessment Closing Comments / Adjourn Welcome & Introductions (Bob Brown City of Cleveland) Productive and interesting new options will be shown today. The main goal today is to go from four to three options. The four options selected at the previous meeting were o Steel Tied Arch o Single Tower Cable Stay (Eastbank) o Single Tower Cable Stay (Westbank) o Two Tower Cable Stay. We ll need a fair amount of focus on the two single tower options to find a clear preference. We held a makeup meeting for subcommittee members who could not attend the August 17 th meeting, and heard that Tremont views a west bank cable stay tower positively. Presentation (John Dietrick Michael Baker Jr., Inc.) Our main goals today are to get down to three options, talk about the approach spans, and to discus the visual impacts of different single tower cable stay options. There is a public meeting next week that will be the same presentation as today, unless we are able to narrow the choices from four down to three, in which the presentation will be updated accordingly.. Review of the design principles. At the makeup meeting, refinements to the principles were discussed. 2

3 Bob Brown: A few of the proposed changes are significant. Skip Smallridge: The goal and first statement remain the same. There has been wordsmithing of the second statement. The Design should be inspired by Cleveland s civil, industrial, and bridge design history, and should be the next contribution to the rich bridge architectural history of the valley. It should grow out of the aesthetic history of this place. Changed to: The Design should be inspired by Cleveland s civil, industrial, and bridge design history, and should be the next contribution to the rich bridge architectural history of the valley. It should respect of the aesthetic history of this place. Bob Brown: The change was made because we didn t want to imitate existing bridges. Skip Smallridge: The third principle stays the same. The word overly has been dropped from the forth principle. The new bridge should reflect consistent design themes of existing bridges in the valley, and should strive for similar attention to form and detail while not being overly imitative. Changed to: The new bridge should reflect consistent design themes of existing bridges in the valley, and should strive for similar attention to form and detail while not being imitative. In the fifth principle, the word reflect has been changed to advance. The new bridge should reflect architecture and technology of our time, not be nostalgic. Changed to: The new bridge should advance architecture and technology of our time, not be nostalgic. Bob Brown: This bridge should be the next step in architecture. Skip Smallridge: The sixth principle remains the same. The seventh principle changes entirely, and has been changed to a different time context. Design of the new bridge and plans for the rehabilitation of the existing bridge should be compatible. Changed to: Design for the rehabilitation of the existing bridge should be compatible with plans for the new bridge. 3

4 Bob Brown: The group said that the design of the new bridge should not be dependant on the rehabilitation plans of the existing bridge. Now, the principle is that the design for the rehab of the existing bridge should be compatible with plans for the new bridge. Skip Smallridge: The eighth principle was changed too. Treat side, under, and above deck views with care Changed to: Treat side, under, and above deck views with comparable effort and attention as global views. Bob Brown: People were not sure what with care meant, so the principle is now to treat side, under, and above deck views with comparable effort and attention as global views. Skip Smallridge: The tenth principle is Consideration of people environment adjacent to and under the bridge is important. Design should recognize the potential for future pedestrian use on the land under the bridge and consider lighting or other means to increase safety and userfriendliness Skip Smallridge: The eleventh principle is The design should be sensitive to the scale and appearance of the neighborhoods where it touches down and should respect the special character of Tremont and Gateway. Skip Smallridge: The twelfth principle is The bridge and placement of its supports should be conducive to positive and beneficial future land use adjacent to the underside the structure Skip Smallridge: We have electronic work on design principles ten and twelve and we can show it to you after the presentation if you would like to see it. Skip Smallridge: At the make up meeting (held on August 29 th ) it was suggested that there should be a new design principle for bikes and pedestrians on the existing bridge. This new principle, number thirteen, is that the design should consider bicycle and pedestrian access on either the new structure or the rehabilitated new structure. ODOT has looked at this issue. Craig Hebebrand: We have looked at this issue closely. ODOT has tremendous concerns about safety. The bridge is high, and it will be hard to maintain the riding surface. It will be in proximity to high-speed traffic, and the barrier limits access to the bike path, so we have strong concerns about public safety. There are alternate upper level routes on existing bridges and in the valley. Placing a bike path on the new bridge has extreme cost. Our determination is that bikes and pedestrians are accommodated on existing routes and are not warranted on the new bridge. John Dietrick: This is the list as it stands right now. It will be used over the next month to evaluate the bridge concepts. 4

5 Bob Brown: It is important that principle thirteen was added, as it is the committee s stated preference. But unless the committee chooses otherwise this is staying in; we re not proposing to drop it from the list. Paul Alsenas: Please make ODOT s analysis about bicycle and pedestrian access available to the committee. John Dietrick: The analysis is in the packet that was handed out to the attendees. Colleen Gilson: Principle thirteen should be left in, but Lillian Kuri is not here and we should engage her in this discussion. John Dietrick continued the presentation: Next we d like to talk about the different options. We want to go from four to three. We will have an open discussion, walk around, and view the renderings. Steel Tied Arch, there were many comments that the arch was too flat. So, we ve brought the arch to 120-feet above the deck. With this raised height it becomes more prominent. Two Tower Cable Stay. There are no changes but we do have renderings of an alternate version. Single Tower Cable Stay concepts, we were asked by the committee to put a tower on each bank, which we have done. Bob Brown: Yes, we had to choose between two different tower designs before, which complicated the selection process. John Dietrick continued the presentation: Written comments from August 17th meeting: The steel tied arch comments were mostly positive. Some thought that they would like to see an arch with no inclined ribs. One person made the insightful comment that, if this arch were constructed, there would be only two above deck viaduct structures crossing the river and both would be arches. Technical details of the tied arch: The rise is 120-feet above the deck. Maintenance is high, but the ability to accommodate a new bridge is good. We ve taken a close look at room for a second new bridge. We ve also been looking at railroad clearances. There is some distinction between alternatives since some are wider than others. There are clearance problems with the east bank cable stay, but no clearance problems with the arch. Bob Brown: ODOT in the past has given a 40 year likely replacement time for construction of the second new bridge. 5

6 John Dietrick: Last time there was a desire to see a different look for the arch. So, we have rendered an arch with no bracing. Tom Starinsky: Why did you choose not to make the unbraced tied arch as high as the baskethandle arch? John Dietrick: We wanted to show different variations in height, and structurally it s harder to make the unbraced tied arch higher. We would need to increase the size of the arch. John Dietrick continued the presentation: The second alternative is the Two Tower Cable Stay. The steel tied arch and the two tower cable stay were the two highest scoring alternatives. It is intuitive, therefore, that the comments about the two tower cable stay were mostly positive. Some of the comments about this alternative were that there were possibilities for great lighting and public art, and that this alternative has a good relationship with the railroad lift bridge. Technical Details of the Two Tower Cable Stay. There is a 450-feet span to get over the river. The towers are not raised, and are still 85-feet. The estimated cost is 10% over budget. There is a fair ability to accommodate the existing bridge. Let s look at a potential variation. We ve heard that people like the two tower alternative but that it is hard to see the towers. We have come up with a unique solution to that problem and the railroad bridge issue. We ve staggered two of the towers with single planes of cables on either side. The towers are now 210-feet high. This does add cost. Also, we put the renderings together quickly and the towers could be more graceful. Bob Brown: My understanding is that the main engineering reason for this is to allow the bridge deck to be closer to the railroad tower, so that the future structure will be more easily accommodated. John Dietrick: Yes, this alternative could very nicely accommodate the future bridge. It s a fresh idea that we need to fine tune. Tom Starinsky: I really appreciate the creativity. I think this option is worth looking at. Does this increase this alternative s score from fair to good for fitting in the second new bridge? John Dietrick: Yes. This alternative fits almost as well as the steel plate girder bridge. John Dietrick continued the presentation: The next alternative is the Single Tower Cable Stay East Bank option. There were mixed comments, and we ve shown both towers on the east bank as asked. One of the comments was that this option would look modern but might look passé in the future. 6

7 Technical Details of the Single Tower Cable Stay: It spans 450-feet over the river and has similar maintenance requirements as the two tower cable stay. But, it would be difficult to fit it in with the existing railroad bridge, which is a major technical issue for this alternative. As asked, we have shown the diamond shaped tower on the east bank. The tower shape is still on the table, and there is no significant cost difference between towers. The next alternative is the Single Tower Cable Stay West Bank alternative. There were some comments that the tower was too close to Tremont, while others liked the proximity of the tower to Tremont. The bow-legged pier was not popular, but this was done to accommodate the new bridge. We have views to show how the tower impacts Tremont. The technical advantage of the west bank cable stay over the east bank cable stay is that it is much easier to fit the second new bridge into the site if the cable stay tower is on the west bank. We have shown how the open tower looks on the west bank, as you ve asked. So that s where we stand with the four alternatives. We ll talk about the approach spans next. Let s quickly go through where we re coming from with the design of the approaches. Approach Spans The approaches will be designed using the principles of rhythm, scale, and proportion. For the approaches, we want to use the maximum span length possible while maintaining an efficient superstructure that will be economically justifiable. Spans of ft are possible. These span lengths are consistent with neighboring bridges, such as the Lorain-Carnegie Bridge. We are looking closely at pier types. We want to maintain open views. Skip Smallridge: The hammerhead pier minimizes the footprint of the approaches, but two column piers with piers at the faces of the edge girders are more consistent with existing bridges. Scott Frantz: Is there any benefit to making sure that the proposed piers line up with existing bridge piers? John Dietrick: We don t want to be tied down by the existing bridge, and we need to do what is right for the new bridge. From an efficiency standpoint, we would not use the span lengths of the existing bridge with I-girders or box girders. Skip Smallridge: There are tradeoffs with street layout and land deposition. 7

8 John Dietrick: There are good rules for proportioning span lengths and spacing of columns. Here s one example from the Minnesota Department of Transportation s Manual for Aesthetic Design of Bridges, showing size and spacing of piers when viewed at a skew. Skip Smallridge: One question is if the piers should be round or rectangular. The option shown here has an integrated pier cap, which changes the proportions. We also looked at bringing the pier up past the deck. John Dietrick: We are also looking at making the approaches and main span superstructure consistent. Under-deck views and the pedestrian environment are important. We have additional images that we can show you. John Dietrick continued the presentation: Here are some images showing the visual impact in Tremont of the final four alternatives that we have. Hunter Morrison: The fence on the Abbey Avenue Bridge isn t too appealing. John Dietrick: We will have to do something about the fence in the rendering. The single tower on the west bank is dominant. John Dietrick continued the presentation: Going north on University Avenue near the University Inn, all four alternatives are visible. This is the view towards the bridge from the Southside patio. Right now the water tower of the cold storage building is visible. The west bank cable stay tower would be visible in its place. Headed east on West 14 th street, these images show how the alternatives change the view of the downtown skyline. Colleen Gilson: The image taken from University Avenue looking north is not next to the University Inn. I believe it is farther south. Doug Blank: That s correct. The photo was taken farther down University Avenue, near Fat Cats. John Dietrick continued the presentation: The west slope remediation and regrading is a very complex issue. Skip has a couple of examples worked up, but we are working to make the west slope work with whatever bridge type is selected. Bob Brown: All the examples show the west bank tower on the lower bank near the river. Are you still confident that this will work? 8

9 John Dietrick: Our work suggests there is no problem with a pier in the slope. Bob Brown: If that is the case, then what are the remaining slope technical issues? John Dietrick: The remaining issues include the landform of the regraded slope, and locating University Avenue and the towpath trail. But even a cable-stay tower near the base of the slope is okay. Bob Brown: Are any of these issues project killers? John Dietrick: I don t think so. We can make these issues work with each option. Hunter Morrison: How would you and ODOT judge the 8% difference in cost for the staggered two tower bridge. How does the future sister bridge factor into this cost. What is the benefit in paying that premium? John Dietrick: Let s understand that these are preliminary numbers. A 10% cost premium for the staggered two tower bridge is our best guess right now. Balancing the cost with the environmental impacts is an exercise that we ll need to go through with ODOT, if you want us to pursue this option. ODOT wants to leave it on the table; we want to hear from you if we should pursue it. Bob Brown: I heard two points of view at the makeup meeting. One was that a tall tower in Tremont is bad, and will dwarf the existing landmarks in Tremont. The second view is that a tall tower is good, and will become a good icon for Tremont. Colleen Gilson: We ve been publicizing the public meeting to get as many people as possible from Tremont to give their thoughts on the height of the tower. Bob Brown: Has Councilman Cimperman seen these renderings? Colleen Gilson: Yes. Bob Brown: Are you saying that if we want the two tower, that we should consider the staggered two tower instead? John Dietrick: No. We re asking first if you want the two tower at all, and secondly, if yes, which two tower alternative to put the most energy into. We don t want to eliminate one of the two tower options at this meeting. Tom Starinsky: One of the goals is that the bridge should encompass the technology of our time. Which one of these options excites the engineers the most? 9

10 John Dietrick: I m excited about the staggered two tower bridge. It s unique, and has no precedent. From a technical standpoint it has challenges, and would be a fun bridge to design. All of them would be a good challenge, though. Jim Calanni: I have concerns about maintenance because of differential forces in the deck. The deck will be in torsion, and this may cause problems down the road. Tim Keller: The term challenges is an understatement. I see real big issues with this option. Tom Starinsky: Which of the two tower options do you like the best? Tim Keller: The staggered tower option is visually very dramatic. But we re guessing about costs. It s a dramatic, exciting look. Dave Coyle: For something that s never been built before contractors take no risks. The Ironton-Russell Bridge was over budget and it was just on a skew. Tom Starinsky: Do you have a preference of which bridge type you like? Dave Coyle: I like them all, but we need to get as close as we can to the budget. I want what the community chooses, but we re fishing for money. Craig Hebebrand: The offset twin tower is the unique option, but this increases the risk. We can design this, but at what cost? Contractors incorporate risk into their bids. Hunter Morrison: A premium is also associated with the second future bridge. How much value is there in solving the constraint problems with the staggered tower option? Skip Smallridge: We don t know, there is more work to be done. We also need to look further at the visual impact of the staggered tower option. John Dietrick: We have brought driver s view animation videos of the concepts, and we can show them if you would like to see them. Natalie Conley: What about the twin staggered tower structure? How will that look? The single bridge will probably look better than the twin structure. The staggered towers might not be as innovative in 50 years due to the parallel twin structure. Paul Alsenas: What are your thoughts about the placement of the towpath trail on the west bank? Where do you see it going? John Dietrick: Fortunately the width of the trail is probably 20-feet, so it won t be hard to move the piers. Paul Alsenas: It would be useful to have a conversation about this. The preferred spot for the trail should be along the river. Experiencing the valley is important, and the trail should be a 10

11 reference point around which you work. Has the dredging of the river been a factor in the geotechnical issues? Bob Parker: There is a shallow failure plane in the west slope near the river. The most prominent failure plane, however, is the deep failure plane. The deep failure plane is significantly below the river, so it is relatively unaffected by dredging. Paul Alsenas: My second set of questions is about the east side. Are you thinking about the slope on the east side of the valley? John Dietrick: The east side is the end of a series of approach spans. We have been trying to maximize span lengths, and minimize the footprint. By the time we get to the east side, the main span does not affect pier placement, so we can do it right there regardless of the bridge type selected for the main span. Paul Alsenas: The approach spans are proposed to be 200-feet to 250-feet. Have you thought about lengthening the approach span length to 400-feet near Gateway? John Dietrick: No. We d have to use a more expensive type of bridge on the east side. It would be a different type of bridge than the rest of the approach structures and it would be hard to make the entire bridge coherent. There is no apparent need to look at 400-feet spans, which would also cause budget problems. Paul Alsenas: Innovation is a goal for this project. Have you been thinking through where innovation should be focused in this bridge project? John Dietrick: We re trying to figure out the main span alternatives. As we move forward, we will work in innovation wherever we can. Paul Alsenas: I recommend that you have an innovation strategy. True innovation comes from a fundamental process, not tacking on things later. Innovation should be part of the fundamental design process. Why have staggered towers not been done before? John Dietrick: 450-feet is a short span for a cable-stayed bridge. This option would not be on the table for a longer bridge. We would not have thought of it without our unique set of circumstances, such as the horizontal constraints and the short span. Paul Alsenas: It is worthwhile to think of technical innovation now. Bob Brown: There has been some talk that the downtown side of the bridge is fairly standard. There has been some consideration of above deck elements on the downtown side, even if they are not structurally necessary. They could be artistically innovative. John Dietrick: People want to feel that they are on the bridge. We are thinking of above-deck demarcation. 11

12 Bob Brown: People don t have the sense that they are on the existing bridge now. John Dietrick: Above-deck demarcation would be consistent with the Lorain-Carnegie Bridge. Ed Hauser: The Conceptual Alternatives Study was released at the last meeting. When will there be a public outreach telling people that this document is available, and that there is a deadline to comment on the document? How are you going to contact the northeast Ohio community and let them know about the deadline? Craig Hebebrand: The document is widely distributed and is available on the website. We have sent a copy to anyone we know who wants it. Comments will be accepted until it is approved. The FHWA is approving it. We have not cut off the public, and there will be a public meeting about this. Ed Hauser: At the November 17 th public meeting, ODOT wanted people to know how they would be involved. If you have an open comment process, you can t review what people are saying. People are giving up since they don t know how to get involved. The November 17 th meeting was misleading. Do a lot more outreach and involve the public. Update the project schedule and let us know how to get involved. John Dietrick: Any thoughts about how to take this from four alternatives to three alternatives? Let s take a break, look at the renderings, and come back in ten minutes. After a ten minute break John Dietrick reconvened the meeting: We want to run a rough first cut of the driver s view animations. We will eventually have the background of the city included in the animations. We have animations for the arch and two tower variations, but we do not have animations for the four standard bridge types. Bob Brown: What do you mean by eventually? John Dietrick: The community meeting will have animations of the variations, if you want to pursue them, but the cityscape will not be included in the animations. By the October 5 th subcommittee meeting we will have complete animations that include the view of the city. Bob Brown: For the next subcommittee meeting, will the animations be set in the context of the existing city? John Dietrick: That s the hope. Anyone want to volunteer which of the four alternatives you don t want to move forward with? Bob Brown: With the inclusion of the potential variations, we have moved from four to five options. We really have five options and we want to get to three. I prefer the staggered two tower cable stay to the four posted two tower cable stay. The most obvious option is to 12

13 eliminate one of the single tower cable-stays. But Colleen said that she s not going to say anything until residents of Tremont have seen the different cable stay options. Tom Starinsky: The four post two tower cable stay seems to be falling out of favor. I would think that too, but this committee is really only a fraction of the community. The biggest issue with Tremont residents is the height of the towers. The towers are far from downtown so the height of the towers will not have as much of an impact there. The four post will be nearly invisible during the day. Bob Brown: The four post two tower cable stay will not be visible from downtown. Tom Starinsky: I m quazi-agreeing with you about the four post option. John Dietrick: Would we be wise to move forward with the west tower and then have the east tower to fall back on if Tremont does not like the west bank tower? Tom Starinsky: Also there are choices between the diamond and vertical tower shapes. Bob Brown: We re not picking tower shapes at this point. Tom Starinsky: Two tower styles are confusing. The layman will think that the two different tower options are two different bridge types. Bob Brown: So you re saying to show both shapes on the west bank, and to be ready to show the easy bank if people don t like it? People will relate most to the render views from their neighborhoods. I don t know if the renderings will be adequate for showing people what they will be seeing. Tom Starinsky: We should have panoramic views from Tremont to really give people a feeling of how the new bridge will look. Skip Smallridge: It is not just the height of the towers that is important, but also the breadth of the bridge. Tom Starinsky: Can you splice photos to create panoramic views? Skip Smallridge: Technically yes, but it would be hard to do in time for the public meeting. Is the view looking down University Avenue most useful? John Motl: Yes. Bob Brown: Yes. Craig Hebebrand: The view from the intersection of Abbey and 14 th Street looking towards downtown might be a good idea. 13

14 John Dietrick: We will try to get a panoramic view this afternoon. Tim Keller: The single tower offset gives height, but loses its effect when it doubled with a second new bridge. I still like the arch and the four tower [(the four post two tower)] cable stay. Visually, looking from downtown, the four tower still works for me. John Dietrick: For the second new bridge the staggered two tower could be doubled up. We don t want to get too wrapped up in what it will look like. Tim Keller: The uniqueness disappears when a second new bridge is added. Dave Coyle: Forty years from now, the next innovation won t be a twin structure. Craig Hebebrand: Hunter had to leave, but he said that he liked the tied arch, the staggered two tower, and the single tower west concepts the best. Natalie Conley: If West 14 th Street is the most common travel path, it might be a better location for a panoramic rendering than the most glamorous location along University Avenue. Bob Brown: West 14 th Street is on the edge of Tremont, but very few people drive on University Avenue. Craig Hebebrand: Either the corner of 14 th Street and Fairfield or 14 th Street and Abbey would be good locations for a panoramic rendering. John Dietrick: I was thinking that right outside the church [Greek Orthodox Church of the Annunciation] would be a good location. Craig Hebebrand: At the intersection of 14 th Street and Fairfield, the trees are behind you. Steve Litt: Does the west bank single tower cable stay alternative have an asymmetrical cable pattern? John Dietrick: Both the west bank and east bank single tower cable stay options have an asymmetrical cable pattern. One is just a mirror image of the other. Steve Litt: The east bank tower is just a flip of the west bank tower okay. Joseph Seif: For the east side single tower alternative, can you put an identical bridge next to it in the future when the second new bridge is constructed? John Dietrick: A side by side cable stay bridge will not work at that location. It might be possible to fit a plate girder bridge next to an east bank single tower bridge. Craig Hebebrand: The inability to fit a twin structure next to the east bank cable stay alternative might be a fatal flaw for this concept. 14

15 Joseph Seif: For me, the technical reason is enough to drop the east bank tower option. Let s just take the west bank tower option to the public. If Tremont does not like the west bank tower, then we can drop it and continue with the two tower cable stay and tied arch concepts. Craig Hebebrand: I don t think anything stops us from showing the east bank tower and saying that engineering reasons prohibit it from being carried forward. Saying that the owner will not carry this option forward because of engineering concerns is a reasonable statement. Tom Starinsky: It would be good to show the public the process we have been following in this committee, and the work that this committee has done. Dave Lastovka: Would it be confusing to show both the east bank and west bank alternatives? Ed Hauser: We need to look at the future eastbound bridge now, and not fifty years from now. Are you saying that a future eastbound bridge is not feasible? John Dietrick: For some of the alternatives, it is difficult to fit the new eastbound bridge in between the existing bridge and the proposed westbound bridge. Craig Hebebrand: Giving enough clearance for the railroad bridge pushes us towards the existing bridge. This precludes a twin east bank tower. Ed Hauser: Can a future eastbound bridge be built between the existing bridge and the westbound bridge? John Dietrick: Yes. Bob Brown: It is easy to fit in a second new bridge for the tied arch and the west bank cable stay bridge concepts. Fitting in the second new bridge is difficult or impossible for other bridge types. Ed Hauser: Will there be detailed design about how to tie the future eastbound bridge into this? John Dietrick: It is not our place to look into the detailed design of the future eastbound bridge. We just want to leave options open for a variety of designs in the future. Bob Brown: We want to leave options open for a variety of future bridge types. Ed Hauser: What degree of engineering has been done to see if the future eastbound bridge will work? John Dietrick: The engineering that has been done is geometric, to determine if there is sufficient space to locate the new eastbound bridge for each alternative. 15

16 Steve Litt: What are the basic dimensions of the staggered two tower concept? John Dietrick: The towers are about 210-feet tall, and the span over the river is 450-feet. Bob Brown: Would anyone object to eliminating the east bank tower and substituting the staggered two tower concept for the four post two tower concept? Laura Toole: We need to be prepared to say why the east bank concept was eliminated. Bob Brown: We can bring the east bank concept back if people don t like the west bank concept. Dave Coyle: We should realize that it is possible that both single tower cable stay concepts will be eliminated after September 13 th. Bill Beckenbach: I m not ready to go that far and eliminate the four post concept. Dave Coyle: The problem with the staggered tower concept is that we re already over budget, and this will increase costs further. Committee member: I don t want to eliminate the four post concept. The four post fits in with the railroad bridge and the city. Bob Brown: The four post is the only low-rise option. Committee member: Visually the four post option is more appealing to me than the staggered tower option. Tom Starinsky: Can we go over the heights of each concept above the roadway? John Dietrick: The height of the four post two tower concept is about 85-feet above the roadway. The height of the tied arch is about 120-feet above the roadway. The staggered two tower concept towers have a height of 210-feet above the roadway, and the towers of the single tower cable stay concepts have a height of about 220-feet above the roadway. Ed Hauser: Could you display the options that we re thinking of eliminating? Jim Calanni: The staggered cable stay will have an increased superstructure depth, which is not shown on the renderings. Will the depth of this option be different than the other cable-stay options? Terrence Tiberio: The standard cable-stay concepts would have a six foot edge girder. The staggered tower cable-stay concept would have a ten foot edge girder. Bob Brown: The consultants have been saying that the approach span girders have a depth of ten feet; the conventional cable stay bridges will have a girder depth of six feet, while the 16

17 staggered cable stay bridge will have a girder depth of ten feet. Will the depth of the approach span girders dictate the depth of the cable stay girder regardless of which option is chosen? Tom Starinsky: I m beginning to think that the cost/benefit of the staggered two tower is not there. I m wondering if it has enough merit to make the extra complications associated with this concept worth the trouble. I liked it because it reminded me of the [President Juscelino Kubitschek] arch bridge in Brazil, but now I m not so sure. Bob Brown: If you really like the tall tower, why not just support the west bank single tower cable stay? Tom Starinsky: Maybe the four post two tower cable stay could be taller, and it would be more contextual with the community. Leaving the four post alternative on the table will allow for a short option. Dave Coyle: Can the towers of the four post cable stay be lengthened to 100-feet above the deck? Tom Starinsky: It s good to give the community a view of what we have considered. Bob Brown: Would you like to present the three recommended alternatives, but also show the others that the committee has discarded? Tom Starinsky: Yes. I counter Hunter s proposal for the three final alternates with the tied arch, preferably with no struts, the single tower west bank cable stay, and the four post two tower cable stay. Bob Brown: There is a common theme of the east bank single tower alternative going away. Committee member: I second that. Tom Starinsky: It seems irresponsible to recommend that alternative. Paul Alsenas: As we go into the meeting, we should offer basic choices, such as a high structure visible from everywhere. We could determine, using mapping technology, every location from which the tower would be visible. These basic choices are what the average citizen wants. I like the tied arch and the four post two tower concept. I know you are in a rush to choose a bridge type, though. Laura Toole: We re not in a rush. Dave Coyle: The public will assume that we make recommendations that make sense. We need to talk about cost and being able to accommodate future bridges. Paul Alsenas: Asking a typical resident to take an immense array of balancing factors and pick one alternative is difficult. 17

18 Laura Toole: That s not how I d interact with the public. We re looking for feedback and recommendations. We re not asking them to choose. That decision is for the committee and ODOT. Paul Alsenas: Beautiful things make sense. What are our circumstances that dictate the staggered tower design? The selected design should come out of basic principles of rhythm, scale, and proportion. I m struggling with where we are in the process. Dave Coyle: We re trying to pick a bridge type. Bob Brown: After we ve selected a bridge type, the next step is to talk about the aesthetics of the chosen type. Paul Alsenas: Let s look at great bridges and see how the design process worked for these structures. How are we going to conduct the public meeting effectively? Laura Toole: We propose to remind people of different bridge types, and see how they react. Tom Starinsky: Talking about options that are not feasible will confuse them. Choosing three alternatives here and presenting those at the meeting is a better idea. Scott Phinney: From an ODOT perspective, it works better to show only options that have the highest likelihood of going forward. Laura Toole: Is it acceptable to show the east bank and staggered towers as a chronicle of the selection process? Scott Phinney: It would be okay to show those alternatives in the presentation, but the display boards should be limited to the three alternatives we select here. Paul Alsenas: You should show as much as you possibly can. The public meeting s purpose is to find ideas that might exist in the community. Tom Starinsky: Maybe it would be helpful to show three types, and to also show a forth type that chronicles the process that we ve been going through. Laura Toole: Please tell the fellow members of this committee to be here for the October 5 th meeting, which is very important. John Dietrick: Does focusing on the tied arch, single tower west bank cable stay, and the four post two tower cable stay sound okay? [Audience agrees]. Thanks for coming. The meeting was then adjourned. 18