INNERBELT BRIDGE PUBLIC MEETING #2

Transcription

1 Welcome to the INNERBELT BRIDGE PUBLIC MEETING #2

2 Today s Discussion Welcome and Introductions (Bob Brown, City of Cleveland) Innerbelt Project Status (Craig Hebebrand, ODOT) Bridge Type Selection Update (Skip Smallridge, CSS; John Dietrick, Baker) Final Bridge Alternatives (John Dietrick, Baker) Open Discussion

3 Project Team

4 Innerbelt Bridge Subcommittee May 4, 2006 Typical Criteria / Bridge Types / Rendering Views June 1, 2006 Initial Criteria / Initial Concepts June 7, 2006 Public Meeting 1. Bridge Type Selection Process / Initial Concepts June 28, 2006 Context Sensitive Design Workshop / Bridge Tour July 20, 2006 Public Feedback / Design Principles / Goal Statement August 17, 2006 Final Design Principles and Goal Statement/Feasible Alternatives September 7, 2006 Refined Final Alternatives Public Meeting 2. Final Alternatives October 5, 2006 Recommend Preferred Alternative

5 Timeline of Meetings

6 Innerbelt Bridge Subcommittee Recommend a bridge type to ODOT at October 5, 2006 Subcommittee Meeting

7 Public Input Your Input is Important! Second of Two Public Meetings for Bridge Type Selection Focus on Bridge & Global Aesthetics Project Website (

8 Innerbelt Project Update

9 Central Viaduct Bridge Site

10 Project Budget Construction Group 1 Current Construction Budget = $297M (2010$) Final Alternatives Range from Approximately $315M to $334M (2010$) for Entire Construction Group (5% - 12% over current budget)

11 Bridge Type Selection Update Goal Statement and Design Principles Bridge Context Final Bridge Type Alternatives Technical Considerations Possible Variations Visual Impact

12 Goal Statement Aspire to a design that further defines and enhances the identity of Cleveland, reflects technology of our time and respects Cleveland s history and culture in a fiscally responsible manner.

13 Design Principles The design should be inspired by Cleveland s civic, industrial and bridge design history, and should be the next contribution to the rich bridge architectural history of the valley. It should respect the aesthetic history of this place. The new bridge should reflect consistent design themes of existing bridges in valley, and should strive for similar attention to form and detail, while not being imitative. The new bridge should advance architecture and technology of our time, not be nostalgic. The design of the approaches and main spans should be consistent and coherent across the entire valley, and speak with a single design vocabulary.

14 Design Principles The design should maximize the possibility to create a visual image or statement, preferably with an above-deck structure. Bridge should focus on principles of form, rhythm and scale. The scale of bridge elements should invoke and be in proper proportion with the dimensions of the overall valley. Design for the rehabilitation of the existing bridge should be compatible with plans for the new bridge.

15 Design Principles 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 user-friendliness. 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. The bridge and placement of its supports should be conducive to positive and beneficial future land use adjacent to the underside the structure.

16 Design Principles Treat side, under, and above deck views with comparable effort and attention as global views. Design should incorporate opportunities for aesthetic lighting, including the underside of the structure, in keeping with the lighting schemes common to existing bridges in the valley. The design should consider bicycle and pedestrian access on either the new structure or the rehabilitated new structure.

17 Bridge Context The Two Partis

18 Characteristics of Site Consistent Datum Line

19 Characteristics of Site Objects above Datum Line are Near River

20 Characteristics of Site Structures Frame the Valley No Significant Vertical Elements in Valley

21 Characteristics of Site Consistent Theme Concrete Supporting Steel

22 Characteristics of Site Proximity of Existing Central Viaduct Bridge

23 Slope Stability and Geotechnical Conditions Slope Stability Analysis Piers Can Be Founded on West Slope Shorter Main Span Across River (Approx. 450 ft.)

24 West Slope Remediation and Regrading

25 Final Alternate 1 Steel Tied Arch

26 Final Alternate 1 Steel Tied Arch Technical Description Main Span = 450 ft. over River Height of Arch = Approx 120 ft. above Deck Estimated Cost in 2010 = $315 M (6% Higher than $297 Budget) Anticipated Maintenance Requirements - Medium to High Ability to Accommodate Future Parallel Structure - Good

27 Final Alternate 1 Steel Tied Arch Aesthetic Observations Arch form matches and flows well with understructures of other bridges Reflects arch theme found in valley Meets many design goals modern, above deck, compatibility with existing bridges Speaks to existing steel bridges in valley Only 2 bridges in valley rise above roadway both arches

28 Final Alternate 1 Steel Tied Arch Potential Variation Parallel Arches, no Struts Main Span = 450 ft. over River Height of Arch = Approx 90 ft. above Deck Parallel Arch Ribs & Vertical Cables Estimated Cost in 2010 = $315 M (6% Higher than $297 Budget)

29 Final Alternate 2 Two Tower Cable Stay

30 Final Alternate 2 Two Tower Cable Stay Technical Description Main Span = 450 ft. over River Height of Towers = Approx 85 ft. above Deck Estimated Cost in 2010 = $328 M (10% Higher than $297 M Budget) Anticipated Maintenance Requirements - Medium Ability to Accommodate Future Parallel Structure Fair. Some conflict exists with existing RR bridge.

31 Final Alternate 2 Two Tower Cable Stay Aesthetic Observations Offers significant decorative opportunities in manner consistent with Lorain-Carnegie Bridge Possibility for great lighting Interesting relationship with Railroad lift bridge size and scale are similar Towers speak to form of downtown buildings

32 Final Alternate 2 Two Tower Cable Stay Potential Variations Many Options Exist for Shape of Towers No Significant Effect on Cost Cable Configuration Height of Towers

33 Final Alternate 3 Single Tower Cable Stay

34 Final Alternate 3 Single Tower Cable Stay Aesthetic Observations Like west bank placement 21st Century Feel Bookend for valley Good at meeting above-deck and gateway considerations

35 Final Alternate 3 Single Tower Cable Stay Technical Description Main Span = 450 ft. over River Height of Towers = Approx 200 ft. above Deck Estimated Cost in 2010 = $334 M (12% Higher Than $297 M Budget) Anticipated Maintenance Requirements - Medium Ability to Accommodate Future Parallel Structure Fair.

36 Other Concepts Considered

37 Final Alternate 3 Single Tower Cable Stay Potential Variation Open Tower on West Bank Many Tower Shapes are Possible - Open Tower, Inverted Y-Shape, etc. No Significant Cost Differential with Similar Span, Pier Height

38 Approach Spans From Design Principles Attention to rhythm, scale and proportion Coherency with main span Under views and pedestrian environment Similar attention to detail as neighboring bridges

39 Approach Spans Rhythm, Scale and Proportion Maximize approach span length 200 to 250 Minimize footprint Maintain efficient superstructure Consistent with neighboring bridges Open views pier types

40 Approach Spans Example Size and spacing of piers for bridges viewed at a skew

41 Approach Spans Coherency with Main Span Consistent depth of superstructure Similar use of materials (steel vs. concrete superstructure)

42 Approach Spans Under Views and Pedestrian Environment Piers are dominant visual elements Pier style should be appealing on pedestrian/ground scale where appropriate Placement of piers will not preclude Towpath Trail or other pedestrian / land use on west bank

43 Visual Impact - Abbey Road looking Southeast

44 Visual Impact - Abbey Road looking Southeast Steel Tied Arch

45 Visual Impact - Abbey Road looking Southeast Two Tower Cable Stay

46 Visual Impact - Abbey Road looking Southeast Single Tower Cable Stay

47 Visual Impact - Abbey Road looking North

48 Visual Impact - Abbey Road looking North Steel Tied Arch

49 Visual Impact - Abbey Road looking North Two Tower Cable Stay

50 Visual Impact - Abbey Road looking North Single Tower Cable Stay

51 Visual Impact - Southside Patio

52 Visual Impact - Southside Patio Steel Tied Arch

53 Visual Impact - Southside Patio Two Tower Cable Stay

54 Visual Impact - Southside Patio Single Tower Cable Stay

55 Visual Impact - West 14 th Looking East

56 Visual Impact - West 14th Looking East Steel Tied Arch

57 Visual Impact - West 14th Looking East Two Tower Cable Stay

58 Visual Impact - West 14th Looking East Single Tower Cable Stay

59 Visual Impact - University Road looking North

60 Visual Impact - University Road looking North Steel Tied Arch

61 Visual Impact - University Road looking North Two Tower Cable Stay

62 Visual Impact - University Road looking North Single Tower Cable Stay

63 Visual Impact Greek Orthodox Church

64 Visual Impact Greek Orthodox Church Steel Tied Arch

65 Visual Impact Greek Orthodox Church Two Tower Cable Stay

66 Visual Impact Greek Orthodox Church Single Tower Cable Stay

67 Visual Impact University Avenue Panoramic

68 Visual Impact University Avenue Panoramic Steel Tied Arch

69 Visual Impact University Avenue Panoramic Two Tower Cable Stay

70 Visual Impact University Avenue Panoramic Single Tower Cable Stay

71 Open Discussion Thank You for Your Attention and Input!