MEETING
NOTES
April
15, 2008
HNTB Project No. 44353
KDOT
Job No. 10-23 KA-0685-01
K-10
Bridge Replacement Team Meeting #2 held April 3, 2008
Location: City Commission Chambers, City Hall
Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to review
developed alternatives and decide on 2-3 concepts to further evaluate. .
Attending: Kris Norton KDOT,
Road Design
Glen Scott KDOT,
Road Design
Sue Riley KDOT,
Public Affairs
Kim Qualls KDOT,
Public Affairs District 1
Earl Bosak KDOT,
Area Engineer
Michelle LaRoche KDOT, Bridge
Design
Gary Chan KDOT,
Bridge Design
Shoeb Uddin City
of
Chuck Soules City of
Shelley Schupp City of
Keith Browning
John Roane HNTB
Corporation
Brenda Foree HNTB
Corporation, Bridge
Eric Saggars HNTB
Corporation, Project Manager
Katie Blakemore HNTB Corporation,
Public Involvement
Eric
Saggars began the meeting with an overview of the agenda and proceeded with introductions
around the room. He then gave the team a
status update on schedule where we are approximately 6 to 8 weeks behind. However, the time can and will be made up
during the design phase where we have already begun to work on solutions and
are farther along than expected. We will
still make Feb 2009 Field Check, ahead of KDOT’s 883 schedule.
Next,
Katie Blakemore let the team know that a summary of the workshop had been
emailed to all team members for review and gave a brief summary on the
Landowner Workshop held on
à
Vehicular
access under bridge –
à
Lowering
the bridge profile – all users seem to approve of this idea for increase in
safety as well as visibility to businesses along K-10.
à
à
Traffic
during construction – summer months are seen as the best time for construction
and keeping 2 lanes open in each direction.
à
Other
items of discussion –
o
Provide
a sidewalk on the south side – lots of foot traffic along K-10 throughout the
day.
o
No
median barriers as part of the design
o
Drainage
issues in the area of 641 E. 22nd
o
Consolidating
access for businesses along K-10 seems to work fine for most, with the
exception of
Eric
led the rest of the discussion topics:
Traffic Analysis
à
HNTB
has not finalized the traffic analysis, but our preliminary recommendation is
to carry two lanes of traffic in each direction throughout construction. Analysis of turning movement or storage needs
has not been completed.
à
If
only one lane were carried in each direction, queues from the signals would
back up into the shoo-flies. HNTB is
still fine tuning the model and will finalize that information before the next
team meeting.
à
Also,
due to the short distance between the adjacent intersections and the
shoo-flies, the desirable lane drop spacing may not fit so it is likely that
drivers will make lane changes before the signals, This
will affect the approach to
à
Work
on design solutions has proceeded with the two lane recommendation, prohibiting
left turns on to K-10 from side streets such as
à
No
advantages were found to have three lanes maintained during construction, even
with a reversible middle lane because peak traffic flows are not directional.
Design Alternatives
Handouts
of all alternatives evaluated to this point were handed out. The drawings were also shown in a large view
by PowerPoint during the meeting.
Ultimate Condition of
à
5
lanes through project with curb & gutter
à
Sidewalk
on both sides
à
Most
of widening would go to the south, fits best with constraints at west end..
1A Option – Pedestrian Box
Structure Only (4:1)
à
4:1
side slopes outside of clear zone.
à
Carry
traffic on top while pedestrian structure is built, lower the roadway; and
carry 2 lanes WB on north shoo-fly and 2 lanes for EB on north side of
à
Significant
retaining walls needed due to width increases; approx. <10’ height, but not
studied in detail yet.
à
A
10’ x 10’ box structure, could be built between existing piers; 110’ long &
lighted (it had earlier been mentioned that this may be undesirable in urban
areas).
à
The
building with the loading dock on northwest quadrant requires additional retaining
wall and a large pad, to allow truck turnaround space.
à
Shoo-flys
shown are conceptual only:
o
South
side shoo-fly is less desirable than north because more work is probably needed
at southeast tie-in due to existing parking lot and trees in the southeast
quadrant.
o
No
intention to leave any portion of shoo-flys in place after construction. KDOT is not interested in keeping them and
adding access points to
o
It
is possible to sequence construction with north shoo-fly only and carry two
lanes on the existing bridge.
o
Pushed
shoo-flys inward to keep limits of construction from west of Learnard and off from
1B Option – Pedestrian
Only Tunnel (3:1)
à
3:1
side slopes outside of clear zone.
à
Reduced
height and length of retaining walls needed (1000’ vs. 450’) due to steeper
slopes.
à
Guardrails
would need to be added depending on what is at the bottom of the slope using
the 3:1 slopes
à
Pedestrian
box structure is the same as 1A option:
10’ x 10’ tunnel structure, built between existing piers; 110’ long
& lighted (undesirable in urban areas).
A taller box (12’) may be desired for comfort and would not affect
proposed profile.
à
Profile
-
o
Same
for 1A & 1B – can be lowered by 8.7’ from the existing profile.
à
Truck
movement
o
Assumed
WB-62 truck to be conservative with turning movement required.
o
Additional
cost associated with needing extra surfacing and a retaining wall to maintain
truck movement at loading dock.
o
Dock
would not be accessible during construction if north shoo-fly is used. The building owner had earlier stated he
would work with KDOT on this issue. He is trying to evict current tenant. He is open to working around loading dock
access during construction.
o
Turning
movement with a truck from the northwest frontage road dock to
2A Option – Pedestrian
& Vehicular Box Structure (separate structures)
à
Two
separate structures between spans
o
Ped
- 10’ x 10’ tunnel structure, built between existing piers; 110’ long &
lighted (undesirable in urban areas).
o
Vehicular
– 28’ x 16’-4” – must go through existing longest span.
à
By
adding the vehicular structure, retaining walls are reduced to placement
between two structures and to the south side (shoo-fly).
à
Easier
to construct during traffic than a combined structure but headwall and hubguard
details need to be studied further.
à
Profile
o
Assumes
16’-4” vertical clearance in vehicular structure.
o
Profile
lowered by 7’ from the existing profile.
o
Gets
rid of dip in existing profile west of bridge, so still a significant
improvement for sight distance.
à
The
space between structures is a concern of the City – possible difficulty with compaction
presents possibility of a bump emerging in
à
Location
of vehicular tunnel has implications for loading dock access during
construction.
o
May
need to pave more due to offset of vehicular structure.
o
Wing
wall could be close to turning trucks and should be protected with guardrail or
bollards.
2B Option – Pedestrian
& Vehicular Box Structure (combined)
à
45’
x 16’-4” Conspan structure – aligned with existing roadway beneath bridge
à
Could
construct footings and stem walls before demolition of existing bridge, thus
reducing construction time.
à
South
retaining wall still required
à
Long
pedestrian structure eliminated and comfort level of user is likely increased.
à
Structure
is too wide to construct under the existing bridge between piers.
à
If
utilizing 2 shoo-flys during construction, with traffic on both
o
Bridge
taken down in one phase and a new structure built
o
Cost
of additional shoo-fly
o
Contractor
must work between traffic
à
Utilizing 1 shoo-fly
o
would
allow bridge to be taken down 1/2 at a time
o
temporary
shoring needed (= increased cost)
o
build
con-span structure to carry 2 lanes, and north shoo-fly would carry 2 lanes
à
Cost
implications for scenarios still need to be studied/evaluated
à
Profile
– can not be lowered by as much as 2A, but still about 5’ depends on Conspan
geometry.
o
Shoulder
width in lower roadway through the structure needs further study – with low
traffic volumes, could it withstand 2’ shoulders? May be limited in standard sizes available
from Conspan. Look at cost of both 42’
and 48’ wide openings
o
nice
aesthetically – stamped, etc.
o
Build
cast-in-place stem walls and foundations entire width in Phase 1. Place precast conspan units on south 1/2 only
during Phase 1.
à
Option 3 –
à
3-span
bridge structure, accommodating both vehicle and pedestrians
à
KDOT’s
past bridge concept study needs further refinement of spans and location
à
2
walls at frontage roads are still needed on south side
à
Can
be constructed in phases with 1 or 2 shoo-flys similar to 2B.
à
Cost
of second shoo-fly could be as much as extra cost of phasing construction –
need to evaluate before next team meeting.
à
Profile
– lowered by 3.4’
o
Conservative
estimate based on prestressed concrete beam bridge
o
Shallower
structure type can be used to lower profile more – RC slab or steel beam
(profile would be similar to 2a & 2B options)
o
Construction
time can be decreased - Cost needs to be studied
Design Criteria
à
6:1
(20’ clear zone) vs. 5:1 (25’ clear zone) at 50 mph
o
City
asked to consider use of 45 mph (as posted) in this setting
o
Consider
using a 5:1 slope in the clear zone and 3:1 beyond the hinge point to minimize
retaining walls and grading limits. This
tends to be counterproductive.
o
KDOT
prefers 6:1 vs. having to add 3’ tall barrier to protect clearzone. Wall is preferred along frontage roads rather
than up along K-10.
o
Need
to look at sight distance from driveways due to guardrail along K-10.
à
Sidewalks
o
Current
design has 6’ sidewalks on both sides of
o
City
of
o
If
sidewalks are designed for both sides, can carry one side across the structure
– for example, carry sidewalk across the south side, and have sidewalk on north
go down to connect to the trail, and then carry sidewalk back up to
o
City
of
o
During
phased construction, south sidewalk could be used for vehicles.
à
City
asked if lane width could be narrower – they use 11’. KDOT requires minimum of 12’ lanes.
à
Aesthetics
o
City
of
o
Lawrence
Master Plan for
o
Chuck
Soules would like the team to consider a raised median on K-10 to break up the
pavement width. The median could be landscaped, stamped pavement, or brick
pavers. Need to evaluate lane widths and the total pavement width to determine
the typical section for the raised median section. (Note: Check
o
KDOT
thinks something could be added to medians after the phased construction. City wants to landscape the median as part of
this project so it does not appear to the public that they are tearing up new
work.
o
Details
can be taken up by the City after Field Check plans are submitted.
Utilities
Shelley
Schupp with City of
Other
issues that were brought to the team’s attention:
à
Water
line is located along the south portion of where designs indicate a shoo-fly
and a retaining wall, immediately north of the Douglas County Shop buildings on
the north side of the frontage road..
à
Any
retaining walls will be an issue for future maintenance when access to repair a
line is needed.
à
None
of the utilities (water, gravity, force) are currently cased and an evaluation
of additional embankment loads would be necessary.
Shelly
asked about schedule and it was explained that there is no funding for
construction at this time. The project
team will be coordinating with City Utilities when field check plans are
submitted, in Feb 2009, and funding has been secured for construction. If funding is secured, the earliest potential
letting date would be October 2011, with plans complete earlier in June 2011.
In
the meantime, Eric Saggars (and team) will plan to attend a regular scheduled
utility coordination meetings as field check plans near submittal date. Utility meetings occur on the first Tuesday
of each month. Eric will coordinate with
Design Concepts for
Further Study
Kris
Norton suggested to the team elimination of 1A and 2A from further
consideration. KDOT and the team selected
the following concepts to move forward to study and evaluate costs:
2B,
3, and 1B
à
1
B is a big change and less desirable to landowners. More discussion needs to take place with
HINU, and Lawrence Police Department in order to evaluate vehicular needs under
the bridge.
à
Modify
1B to have a 12’ x 10’ structure, as well as using 4:1 without 6:1 in clear
zone.
à
A
connection needs to be provided from the bike trail (multi-use path) on K-10 to
the rail trail below.
Next Steps
à
HNTB
Corporation will study the selected design concepts over the next 6 weeks, and
will present cost comparisons at Team Meeting #3 to be scheduled for the last
week of May ’08.
à
Presentation
of recommended solution to the KDOT Program Review Committee (PRC) – early June
à
Presentation
of concepts/recommended solution to Lawrence City Commissioners – 3rd
week of June
à
Public
Meeting – last week of June
à
à
A
second presentation to the PRC should occur following the completion of field
check plans (Feb/Mar 2009)
Action Items
à
HNTB
will schedule a meeting/lunch with HINU to discuss and obtain feedback design
concepts.
à
HNTB
will meet with Lawrence Police Dept. to discuss the potential elimination of
the underpass and the potential impacts on traffic and accidents. (detour traffic during football and other
local games held at HINU.)
à
Kris
Norton will check on status of existing Right-of-Way and contact Eric with the
info.
à
Eric
will schedule a meeting/teleconference with KDOT and City of
o
45
vs 50 mph, etc.
à
HNTB
will schedule a meeting with
This is our understanding of items discussed and
decisions reached. Please contact Eric
Saggars if there are changes or additions.
esaggars@hntb.com or 913-312-4805.
Submitted by,
HNTB CORPORATION
Eric
Saggars
Project
Manager