ODOT/ACEC Partnering AwardExcellence in Highway Design
2018 Nomination Template
Project Nomination Deadline: March 5, 2018District Capital Program Administrator Final Submission Deadline:
March 23, 2018
transportation.ohio.gov www.acecohio.org
Please direct any additional questions to: Mat Mauger | Office of Consultant Services | 614-644-0623 | M at . M a u g e r @ d o t.o h i o . g ov
The nomination process has two steps:1) Consultants and/or ODOT Employees complete a draft nomination using this Word template
o Draft nominations (in MS Word format) are to be emailed to the respective ODOT District Capital Program Administrator (see the map and table below) by Monday, March 5, 2018
Please save this file using unique name(s) for your nomination(s) to avoid confusion and overwriting issues. Completed document should be no more than 25 total pages, maximum (not including the embedded picture
pages). All requested images should be included using the Picture fields available with the specific questions. Do not submit hard copies of any nomination materials, attach additional documents and do not send CD-
ROMs. Many entry fields in this form accept ‘Rich Text’ formatted material, but reformatting directly in the fields is
limited/restricted due to the templated nature of this presentation. Copying and pasting of formatted text, including bulleted text, indents, font size, etc., from other unrestricted Word files or other documents is possible and acceptable.
2) District Capital Program Administrators use this portal link (ODOT Intranet Only) to submit pre-screened/completed nomination Word format document(s) by Friday, March 23, 2018
o Please save file(s) using unique name(s) for each nomination to avoid confusion and overwriting issues.o Each district may submit a maximum of two (2) submissions per category for final review
Please direct any additional questions to: Mat Mauger | Office of Consultant Services | 614-644-0623 | M at . M a u g e r @ d o t.o h i o . g ov
ODO
T DISTRICT
D-1: Chris Hughes(419) 999-6901
D-2: Mike Gramza(419) 373-4466
D-3: Bob Weaver(419) 207-7158
b o b . w e a v e r@ d o t . oh i o . g ov
D-4: Gery Noirot(330) 786-2270
[email protected]: Jason Sturgeon
(740) 323-5100j as o n .s t u r ge o n @ d o t . o h io . gov
D-6: Thom Slack(740) 833-8340
th o m .sla c k @ d o t . o h i o .g o v D-7: Matt Parrill(937) 497-6802
m a t t. par r i l l @ d o t . o h io. gov
D-8: Stefan Spinosa(513) 933-6639
st e f a n .s p i nos a @ d o t. o h i o .g o v D-9: Christopher
Pridemore(740) 774-9067
D-10: Eric Reed(740) 568-3951
[email protected]: Nick Susich
(330) [email protected]
D-12: Greg Kronstain(216) 584-2166
Project Nomination Form
Project Name: SUM-76/77-11.27/12.12 (Johnston/Spicer St.)
Project PID: 86979
Consultant Agreement No.: 16346
County or Municipality: City of Akron
ODOT District: ODOT District 4
Consultant Name: Glaus, Pyle, Schomer, Burns and DeHaven (dba GPD Group)
Category for which project is being nominated Category 2: Construction Value - $5,000,001 to $20,000,000
Construction Value $15,645,000
Construction Project Number 150086
Dates of PS&E, Letting and Construction Completion
PS&E = fall 2014Bidding = March 2015Construction completed = fall 2017
Name of Organization Submitting ODOT District 4 and GPD Group
Contact person for award-related material/submittal (Name, email, phone,
mailing address)
Daniel K. DeptoODOT District 42088 South Arlington Street, Akron OH 44306(330)786-4809
1
Mark GrossmanGPD Group520 South Main Street, Suite 2531, Akron OH 44311(330)[email protected]
Region Contact Person and their role Daniel K. DeptoProject Manager
Project Personnel and their roles, including significant players from bureaus
(e.g. Structures), agencies, consultants, etc.
Daniel K. Depto: ODOT District 4 project managerMark Grossman: GPD project managerDavin Ng: GPD chief bridge engineerJason Young: ODOT District 4 project engineer
Award Ceremony Information:
Person(s)
accepting award
at ceremo
ny (Name, Email,
phone)
Daniel K. [email protected](330)786-4809
Mark [email protected](330)572-2234
Names to show
on certificate, up to
Daniel K. Depto: ODOT District 4 project managerMark Grossman: GPD project managerDavin Ng: GPD chief bridge engineerJason Young: ODOT District 4 project engineer
2
6 persons
and their
companies or roles
One JPG image to be
used on certifica
te
3
4
Executive Summary:
Overall purpose, goals, and design methodology
The project consisted of the removal of three (3) mainline freeway bridges via the conversion to roadway embankment on the west side of the Central Interchange in downtown Akron. By reconstructing the bridges as roadways, the State avoided the costly rehabilitation of mainline bridges over Johnston and Spicer Streets that could easily be relocated and connected to nearby Brown Street. The removal of the bridges also elimainted a critical constraint for the city wide Akron Beltway freeway operations study and subsequent reconstruction of the Central Interchange to improve capacity and safety at the interchange which carries over 100,000 vehicles per day. The Akron Central Interchange is the junction point of I-76, I-77 and SR-8 and is a regionally vital traffic link for commerce, commuters, as well as multiple hospitals and the Unversity of Akron.
Highlight any unique aspects of the project
MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC: Located in the heart of Akron’s Central Interchange, the ability to maintain freeway traffic to the maximum extents possible was key project goal. Through an extensive Maintenance of Traffic Alternates Analysis (MOTAA) which included design worskhops with District design and construction personnel, the necessity to detour north and southbound I-77 was identified as the most feasible alternate. East and westbound I-76 was maintaind via the sequenced shifting of I-76 traffic onto vacated I-77 through the interchange construction zone.
To minimize the duration of the traffic disruption, GPD and ODOT District 4 proposed to construct the embankment under the three mainline bridges being removed in a pre-phase allowing the vast majority of the fill to be placed, including a lengthy settlement period of the underlying soils, without any impacts to the freeway traffic above. The embankment was also specified as granular material to remove the typical weather limitations associated with a traditional earthen soil fill, thereby maximizing the contractor’s construction calendar. The removal of the three (3) mainline bridges were sequenced in a series of consectutive high intensity construction periods for the removal of the bridge, construction of that portion of the final embankment utilizing wire-faced MSE walls, paving and subsequent traffic shifts for the next phased removal. The three combined
5
sequences were contained within a 110 day duration with a $10,000 per day incentive/disincentive.
UTILITY RELOCATIONS: Prior to placement of the embankment fill material under the three Johnston/Spicer Street bridges, a 60” brick combined sewer must be reconstructed with reinforced concrete pipe in order to support loading of the proposed embankment. The magnitude of the continual flows within the sewer eliminated the feasibility of bypass pumping for the interface connections of the new and existing conduits, therefore the existing flows must be maintained at all times. To facilitate this, GPD designed cast-in-place concrete junction chambers to be constructed at the interface point encompassing both the existing brick pipe and the new concrete pipe without impacting active flows within the existing pipe.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: The project disconnected Johnston and Spicer Streets from crossing under I-76/I-77 to South Street which is located immediately south of the freeway. Johnston and Spicer Streets were proposed to be rerouted along the northern side of the freeway to connect to existing Brown Street, thereby eliminating two (2) surface street passageways for vehicles and pedestrians within a federally project minority and low-income population that was already bisected by the original construction of the I-76/I-77 freeway. To facilitate this proposal, GPD and District 4 partnered to write the first Environmental Justice (EJ) Summary Report in the District’s history.
As part of the EJ process, GPD and the District initiated an extensive public outreach program to ensure inclusion of all populations. This included the identified low income and minority populations accounting for over 40% of the residents in the project area.GPD personnel visited businesses, community centers, meal service centers, and other places of congregation to reach out to residents in the area that might not otherwise participate in the public process. Specifically, it was the goal of ODOT District 4 and GPD to go to the stakeholders in order to get the information out the project and make stakeholders aware of their opportunity to participate.
6
The public outreach effort was a success as the public meeting, which included a presentation by GPD and ODOT personnel as well as a question & answer session afterward, was well attended by the local neighborhood as evidenced by the 44 questions received during the Q&A session.
7
Judging Criteria:
A. Project Development Process
1 Project development schedule maintained
a. Consultant completion schedule, scoped vs. actual
Through the use of design workshops, the consultant worked well with District staff to assure that the design of the project was completed on schedule.
2 Effective comment and conflict resolution process
The success of this project was centered around the open communication beween the consultant and ODOT. The consultant brought up any issues before they became problems and ODOT provided timely responses to these concerns.
3 Cooperative and effective project management
Since this project is a vital transportation route through the City of Akron, it was going to affect many people. The design team lead by ODOT Project Manager, Dan Depto and Mark Grossman of GPD worked as a cohesive group to provide a project that not only provided an effective Maintenance of Traffic scheme, but also addressed the needs of the pedestrians in the area. The close collaboration between the 2 project managers was an important reason for the success of this project.
4 CES Score for project 86
5 Consultant Contract Historya. Prime Agreement – Scope and Fee $2,270,000 Step 1 (Prelim Engineering) thru Step 10 (Construction)b. Modifications – Scope and Fee $41,000 additional MOT detours and signing
B. Plan and Contract Quality
1 Project bid cost relative to budget estimates as a measure of fiscal planning
Engineer’s (State) estimate: $15,797,000Award Cost: $15,645,152.05 9 (-0.96%)
8
2 Quantity variationsa. Total number of bid items on
project(s)420
b. Number of items for which the final quantity was within 2% of the quantity as let
209
3 Contract Change Ordersa. Number and value of change orders.
Explain why changes were needed54 change orders total:
1) 10 Regular Work Change Orders for the normal differences between plan and actual quantities. TOTAL = ($477,435.31)2) 44 Extra Work Change Orders for work added to the project:
a) Maintenance of Traffic Changes and Repairsb) Utility Conflicts and Obstructionsc) Drainage Outfall RelocationTOTAL = $825,047.24
b. Number of design related changes. Explain why changes were needed
The outfall location for the proposed drainage system along the newly re-aligned Johnston Street had to be relocated since the original location experienced some flooding issues during construction. The re-design required some new catch basins and conduits to be added to the project.
c. Dollar change from “as let” cost due to CCO's and quantity revisions
$347,611.93
d. Cost change as percentage of as let cost
2.22%
4 Addendaa. Number of addenda issued prior to
letting2 Addendums were issued prior to the letting of the project.
9
b. General nature and change in construction cost for each addenda
The first addendum changed the letting date 1 day at no cost to the project. The second addendum added items and quantities for asbestos abatement for the buildings that were to be demolished as part of the project since the asbestos report was not available when the project was originally advertised. Addendum 2 added a cost of $424, 018.80 to the project.
C. Alignment and Location Design
1 Alternativesa.
Number and general nature of alternative alignments including relationship to location of existing roadway
24 various alternates were developed within the MOTAA.
The alignments of the permanent improvements were not subject to alternate evaluation given the limited project length.
2 Alignment fita.
Efforts to fit to topography thereby minimizing cuts and fills, allowing flatter backslopes, more gradual driveway slopes, etc.
Constructed a retaining wall along relocated Johnston Street to minimize the grading limits to the north of I-76/I-77 and to allow relocated Johnston Street to align directly across from the Lamparter/Brown Street Intersection.
3 Design practicesa.
Safety and maintenance-related considerations incorporated into design. (Improving vision, raising grade through marshes, etc.)
Primary driver behind the project was the current and future maintenance costs of the three (3) mainline bridges. By removing them instead of rehabilitating them, the District eliminated the maintenance costs. Safety improvements included shoulder widening and guardrail/barrier updates.
D. Cost-Effective Design
1 Safety and maintenance-related considerations. Identify this impact in terms of ODOT construction cost, cost to traveling public, or cost to entire public
See C.3.a above.
10
2 Project Maintainability Removed three (3) bridges and converted to roadway embankments to avoid future bridge maintenance
E. Complexity of Design
1 Unusual, non-standard, or innovative design features and practices
Highly complex design of MOT phasing, 60’ brick combined sewer relocation, accelerated bridge re-decking operations, phased granular embankment construction with wire-faced MSE walls for removal of 3 mainline bridges.
2 New technology and products used Roadway embankment constructed with granular material in lieu of normal Item 203/204 embankment to eliminate the potential for weather delays that might jeopardize the 110 day detour period for I-77
3 Degree of coordination and timing The project required a great deal of coordination between ODOT, the consultant design team, the City of Akron, Akron Metro RTA and various utility companies to meet the goals of the project in an urban area.
4 Number and type of controls governing Accommodation of existing utilities; right of way acquisition for accommodation for access and utility relocations; pedestrian and non-motorized access.
5 Number of traffic control stages A total of 8 phases were used to maintain traffic.
F. Community Sensitive Design
1 Mitigation of Adverse Impact on Public During Construction
Significant Environmental Justice and Public Involvement
2 Preservation of Natural Areas N/A
3 Reestablishment of Natural Vegetation N/A
11
or Wetlands
4 Preservation of Historical and Archeological Features
N/A
5 Enhancement of Cultural Resources N/A
6 Community Sensitive Design Sidewalks added along relocated Johnston Street to enhance access for non-motorized users in the community.
7 Overall Aesthetic Appeal The removal of 3 structures and replacement with embankment provided a more aesthic look to the area beneneath I-76/I-77.
Location Map(s)
At least one high-level location map. Please attach an IMAGE FILE of your map here (take and upload a snapshot or screen capture image if the original map is only available as a PDF or other non-compatible image file format)
12
13
Photographs
Use the Picture boxes below to add up to 10 digital photos (.JPG or other compatible format) suitable for large-screen display. Before-and-after photos are encouraged. Please use the caption field to provide details on each image.
Existing View from Johnston Street looking South West
(photo - 14)
Proposed View from Johnston Street looking South West
(photo - 15)
Existing View from Johnston Street looking West
(photo - 16)
Proposed View from Johnston Street looking West
(photo - 17)
Existing View from Spicer Street looking South
(photo - 18)
Proposed View from Spicer Street looking South
(photo - 19)
Existing View from the Brown Street/Lamparter Street Intersection looking South East
(photo - 20)
Proposed View from Brown Street/Lamparter Street intersection looking South East
(photo - 21)
Existing View from South Street looking West
(photo - 22)
Proposed View from South Street looking East
(photo - 23)
