HomeMy WebLinkAboutTrans 2015-04-06 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETCity of Tukwila
Transportation Committee
❖ Joe Duffie, Chair
❖ Allan Ekberg
❖ Kathy Hougardy
AGENDA
Distribution:
P. Brodin
J. Duffie
R. Turpin
A. Ekberg
M. Hart
K. Hougardy
Clerk File Copy
K. Kruller
2 Extra
D. Robertson
Pg. 1
Mayor Haggerton
place pkt pdf on Z: \TC -UC
D. Cline
Agendas
L. Humphrey
e-mail cover to: A. Le,
B. Giberson
C. O'Flaherty, J. Duffie,
F. Iriarte
D. Almberg, B. Saxton,
R. Tischmak
S. Norris, M. Hart,
G. Labanara
L. Humphrey
MONDAY, APRIL 6, 2015 — 5:15 PM
FOSTER CONFERENCE ROOM — 6300 BUILDING
(formerly known as Conference Room #1)
Item
Recommended Action
Page
1. PRESENTATION(S)
2. BUSINESS AGENDA
a) 42nd Ave S /Allentown Roadside Barrier
a) Information Only
Pg. 1
Project Update
b) 2015 Annual Bridge Inspection and Repairs
b) Information Only
Pg. 15
S 119th St Pedestrian Bridge Repair and Replacement Options
3. SCATBd
c) . SCATBd 2/17/15 Meeting Summary
c) Information Only
Pg. 31
SCATBd 3/17/15 Meeting Agenda
3/19/15 Letter to Legislators
4. MISCELLANEOUS
d) • Mid -block Crosswalks (Citywide)
d) Information Only
Interurban Ave S /48th Ave S Intersection (Vehicle Turning
Design)
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Future Agendas:
Next Scheduled Meeting: Monday, April 20, 2015
SThe City of Tukwila strives to accommodate individuals with disabilities
Please contact the Public Works Department at 206 - 433 -0179 for assistance.
Transportation Committee - 2015 Work Plan
Description
Qtr
Dept
Action or
Briefing
Status
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access
Design contract (to COW only)
1
PW
A
42 Avenue South Phase III
Design Contract Supplement — design undergrounding
2
PW
A
Seattle City Light underground agreement
4
PW
A
Follow -up on potential for coordination with SeaTac
2
PW
B
ADA Improvements
Design contract and bid award
2
PW
A
Annual Overlay and Repair Program
Bid Award
2
PW
A
53`d Avenue S (S 137th — S 144th St)
Funding and Design contract
2
PW
A
53rd Ave S Water Main Replacement, Sewer Rehab (from
Utilities)
A
Cascade View Safe Routes to School
Closeout
3
PW
A
Andover Park West/ TUC Transit Center
Closeout
3
PW
A
Thorndyke Safe Routes to School
Closeout
3
PW
A
Boeing Access Road over BNRR Bridge Rehab
Bid Award
3
PW
A
Residential Street Improvements
Design contract
2
PW
A
Safety -based priority list
4
PW
B
Annual Bridge Inspections and Repairs
Program update
4
PW
B
TUC Ped /Bike Bridge
Right -of -way and easement acquisition
1
PW
A
Complete
Bid Award
4
PW
A
Interurban Avenue S (S 143`d — Fort Dent Way)
Status update
4
PW
B
S 144th St Phase 11 (42nd Ave S — TIB)
Bid award
4
PW
A
Crosswalk Petition — TIB /S 139th Vicinity
Present engineering analysis
3
PW
B
OTHER
TIB pedestrian bulb replacement (test locations)
2
PW
B
Allentown Roadside Barriers — outreach and design alternatives
PW
B
Duwamish/ S 1191h Ped Bridge — present condition and repairs
1
PW
B
Transit plan update contract
4
PW
A
Standard Reports /Briefings
Frequency
Dept.
Facility Tours
As needed
PW
SCATBD
Semimonthly
PW
Committee Work Plan
Council, Staff
City of Tukwila Updated 3/12/15
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
TO:
Mayor Haggerton
Transportation Committee
FROM:
Bob Giberson, Public Works Director
BY:
Dave Sorensen, Project Manager
DATE:
April 3, 2015
SUBJECT:
42nd Ave S/Allentown Roadside Barrier
Project No. 91310301
Project Update
ISSUE
Present an update for the 42nd Ave S/Allentown Roadside Barrier Project.
1 -.10111 Z Us
This project, funded as part of the Small Roadway & Safety Improvements in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), was
preceded by a study to determine guardrail and/or barrierwarrants along the Duwamish River adjacent to 42nd Ave S
and S 115th St in Allentown. The goals are to prevent accidents in which vehicles go into the river, reduce illegal
dumping of vehicles, and provide additional security for large fire apparatus on narrow streets. The technical analysis
is complete and the design phase is underway with the project plans at approximately 30% complete.
Several areas of the river bank are being recommended for guardrails and/or barriers as a result of the analysis.
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) City Safety grant funding for construction was pursued,
however no project funds were awarded. With the grant application unsuccessful, City funds will now be used to
construct the improvements over multiple years. Construction of all recommended guardrail and barrier installations is
currently estimated $344,465. This topic was last discussed at the November 24, 2014 Transportation Committee.
Four residents of the Allentown neighborhood addressed the Committee to express concerns about the obstruction of
river views and adverse aesthetic impacts to the neighborhoods. The residents inquired about alternate safety solutions
or less obstructive barriers. Staff informed the Committee that any barrier that is used must be crash-tested and
conform to engineering standards. Following Committee discussion, Chair Ekberg requested additional community
outreach and any resulting feedback as well as potential alternative designs be brought back to the Committee
when appropriate. This update includes the requested action by Chair Ekberg (2014 TIC Chair).
ANALYSIS
Alternative Barrier Options: Barrier products installed on city projects must be crash-test approved by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). Staff reviewed the current list of FHWA approved options as seen in Attachment No. 1. Staff
retraced their research on recommendations for barriers and found no other feasible options for guardrails and Jersey
barriers other than those noted in Attachment No. 1 as Options A and B. Rejection of the other alternatives listed in
Attachment No. 1 will be discussed in the committee meeting, including 'Weathered" steel guardrail, which residents
requested as an option.
As a note, FHWA no longer allows weathered guardrail, also known as "Corten" guardrail, due to concerns about
weathering steel. The use of weathering steel or (rusting steel) in guardrails should be limited. As roadside barriers are
usually close enough to the path of travel that they might be sprayed with water from passing vehicles, chemicals found in
the water spray can affect and degrade the structural integrity of weathering steel barriers. If weathering steel is desired for
aesthetic purposes, agencies should adopt a frequent inspection and replacement schedule. It may continue to be used
on the backside of steel backed timber rail.
WAPW Eng\PROJECTSW RW & RS Projects\42nd Ave S Allentown Roadside Barrier (91310301)\Design\November 24th TC Project Update\Feb 2015 TC Update\Docs to TC\March 2015 Info Memo 42nd Ave S Barrier report RRT - sb.dDCX
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
Additional Public Outreach: In December 2014 the Communications Department compiled community responses to a field
survey completed in the Allentown neighborhood. Data collection via door -to -door contact was completed and analyzed.
The goal was to determine residents' concerns, likes, and dislikes of this area. The survey was an un- prompted effort and
residents were not asked specific questions. While a number of items surfaced, pro and con for this neighborhood, no
residents mentioned concerns over the 42nd Ave S Roadside Barrier Project. Staff has taken community input into
consideration early on in the design process. Every effort has been be made to consider design options that strike a good
balance between form, function, aesthetics, budget considerations, and required safety design standards. Currently, the
most feasible barrier products are concrete Jersey barriers and either steel or wooden guardrail as noted in Attachment
No. 1.
FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated construction costs for all recommended guardrail and barrier installations is $299,970 based on the
calculations of the current 30% design. This includes a 10% contingency and with construction management at 15 %, the
total project cost estimate is $344,465. The 2015 construction budget is set at $70,000 (as the grant funding was not
successful).
Additional Options Cost Scenarios: The cost analysis for Option "B ", steel- backed timber guardrail, was included in the
November 24, 2014 agenda packet and is estimated to cost an additional $120k over the current 30% design estimate.
The `TimBarrier' Option "A" is more cost effective and would run an additional $30k - $40k, provided that there are no
design issues that would prevent its feasible installation. A potential drawback to this system is that there is no
crashworthy end treatment currently available. Designing an end treatment that will work may be infeasible for financial or
engineering reasons.
It should be noted that the choice of multiple barrier types will likely create undesirable aesthetics. The anchored concrete
Jersey barrier is proposed in locations where underlying utilities prohibit the installation of guardrail posts. The likely need
to install concrete Jersey barriers combined with currently existing standard W beam guardrails may make the choice to
install a third type of aesthetic barrier undesirable. This is important to the aesthetic discussion as the additional costs may
not provide the expected outcome.
• Current 30% design (W beam and concrete Jersey barrier) $300,000
• Replace W beam with weathering steel $320,000 - $330,000
• Option "A" - Replace W beam with TimBarrier (wood guardrail) $330,000 - $340,000
• Option `B" - Replace W beam with timber - backed steel $400,000 - $420,000
Designing and constructing other options that would eliminate the need for concrete Jersey barriers will add specific costs
related to utility relocations as estimated below as well as other implementation costs. These additional costs may include
the relocation of -800 LF of telecom ductbank (no cost to city under franchise) and the relocation of 150 LF of water line at
an approximate cost $30,000.
Additional City funds would be needed for the Small Roadway & Safety Improvements Program if any options listed
above are requested by Council. Construction costs could be spread over the next 6 years to minimize the impact to the
Residential Street Fund (103 Fund).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends moving forward with this project based on the current funding programmed within the CIP.
Attachments: Page 5, 2015 CIP for Small Roadway & Safety Improvements
Consultant Project Status Report with Vicinity Map and Aerial Layout
Photos of Standard W Beam Guardrail & Concrete Jersey Barrier
Attachment No. 1— Aesthetic Barriers
W: \PW Eng \PROJECTS\A- RW & HIS Projects\42nd Ave S Allentown Roadside Barrier (91310301)\DesignWovember 24th TC Project Update \Feb 2015 TC Update\Docs to TC\March 2015 Info Memo 42nd Ave S Barrier report RRT- sb.docx
CITY OFAJKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
2015 to 2020
PROJECT:
SmnsU Roadway Safety Project 9131O3O1 N»�
Varies
Pmgrammadcappmachto addressing smaUmadwayand sa��concumsthmughavah�yofm�bods.
o�8CF�PT|ON�
Addresses needs not included in general maintenance, traffic calming, or other approaches.
Increasing public demand on staff time. Local access streets in residential neighborhoods may need minor
JUSTIFICATION:
roadway or safety improvements that can not be addressed with any other City program.
8
42nd Ave S/Allentown Roadside Barrier is proposed in phases, Project No. 91310301. Full design in2O14
STATUS:
and critical areas constructed in 2015. Additional construction in 2016 is grant dependent.
MA|NT.|K8PACT:
Minimal.
Federa|cons�ucdongrantispmposed*or$35O.00O�nmtheCitySa��w�hno|oca|m�ohrequired.FuU
�oxxK8�NT�
program is only feasible if Public Works adds a Traffic Engineer to staff (same position as Traffic Calming).
FINANCIAL Through Estimated
(in S000's) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 RFYOND TOTAL
EXPENSES
Design
8
30
78
116
Const. Mgmt.
10
50
60
Construction
60
300
360
TOTAL EXPENSES
1 81
30
1 148
1 350
1 01
01
01
01
01
536
FUND SOURCES
Awarded Grant
0
Proposed Grant
350
350
Mitigation Actual
0
Mitigation Expected
0
a
2015 onon Capital Improvement Program 5
Project Status Report
To: Dave Sorensen, P.E. — City of Tukwila
From: Nelson Davis - KPG
Date: 11/13/2014
Re: 42nd Ave S — Roadside Barrier Warrant Analysis
Project No: City # 91310301.1000.100 (KPG # 13093)
BACKGROUND:
The City of Tukwila intends to install roadside barrier along 42nd Avenue S and S 115th
Street in general accordance with the recommendations contained in the `42nd Avenue S —
Roadside Barrier Analysis' prepared by KPG (9/25/2013). The proposed improvements
include installation /replacement of approximately 2,400 linear feet of barrier along the west
side of 42nd Avenue S / south side of S 115th Street. The roadway is located adjacent to
the Duwamish River and the barrier will improve safety along this stretch of the roadway.
CURRENT PROJECT STATUS:
KPG has completed utility locates, survey, geotechnical review and prepared 30% Plans
and Construction Cost Estimate that is currently under review with the City. The Plans
generally match the recommendations included in the original Roadside Barrier Analysis
that combines the use of of anchored concrete barrier and WSDOT standard galvanized
beam guardrail on timber posts. In some locations, beam guardrail was recommended in
the original Barrier Analysis, but has been upgraded to anchored concrete barrier in the
current 30% design due to discovery of underground utilities. The underground utilities
would conflict with timber post installation and result in greater costs associated with utility
relocation and pavement repair compared with changing the type of barrier.
ESTIMATED COSTS AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
The estimated construction cost at the 30% design level is $300,000 compared with a
preliminary estimate of $275,000 during the 2013 Barrier Analysis. The increased cost is
primarily due to the need for additional anchored concrete barrier in lieu of beam guardrail
due to underground utility conflicts.
As requested, we also reviewed alternate guardrail materials as follows:
Use of weathering steel guardrail to replace galvanized beam guardrail would result
in a cost increase of approximately $30,000 over the current estimate.
Use of steel backed timber guardrail to replace galvanized beam guardrail would
result in a cost increase of approximately $120,000 over the current estimate.
These estimates are for replacement of the beam guardrail portion of the project only,
which is approximately 50% of the proposed barrier. The remaining 50% of barrier would
remain as anchored concrete barrier due to either physical site conditions or conflicts with
subsurface utilities that would result from timber post installation.
SCHEDULE:
A grant application was submitted for construction funding through the Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) in July, 2014. If the City is awarded grant funds, the intent
would be to construct all of the improvements under a single construction contract in 2015.
If the funding is not approved, the project will be split into phases to be completed over the
next few years in accordance with the current budget. Determination of grant funding is
scheduled for December 2014, at which time we will proceed with final design and
permitting of the improvements. A phasing strategy will be developed in the event that
grant funds are not available.
If grant funds are awarded to the City, additional environmental documentation will be
required to satisfy federal funding requirements; however, the goal is to complete the
permitting and design for construction in the summer /fall of 2015.
Vicini
Standard W Beam Guardrail
Concrete Jersey Barrier
Attachment No. 1 (Aesthetic Barrier)
April 23, b13
NAME
MANUFACTURER
TEST LEVEL
NCHRP 350 I MASH
POST AND BLOCKOUT
RAI L
DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS
FLEXIBLE SYSTEMS
NatureRail
Gregory Highway Products
http://www.gregorvcorp.com/highwav nature
rail.cfm
TL -2
6" diameter Wood -clad steel
post.
NatureRail 2m - 5' -11 7/8" post,
6' -6 3/4" post spacing
NatureRail 4m - 5'- 117/8" post,
13' -1 1/2" post spacing
Steel spacer unit separates the
post from the rail.
No blockout.
Composite rail:
2m: Modified 7" diameter log and 3-
15/16" x 3/16" x 13' -1 1/16" steel
rail internally located in slotted
wood rail with no exterior steel rail.
4m: Modified 7" diameter log and 3-
15/16" x 3/16" x 13' -1 1/16" steel
rail internally located in slotted
wood rail with an additional steel
rail mounted to the back of the
wood rail.
Rail height 2' -3 1/2"
All wood appearance blends into the surrounding environment.
Dynamic Deflection 2m: 4' -7" and 4m - 6' -2 ".
Use along edge of roadway.
No crashworthy end terminal is currently available; acceptable end treatments
include anchoring in a backslope or flaring the barrier to the edge of the clear
zone.
Ironwood Aesthetic Barrier
No longer being produced
High Tension Cable Barrier
Brifen (WRSF)
http: / /www.brifenusa.com
Gibraltar
http: / /gibraltartx.com
Gregory Highway Products
http: / /www.gregorycorp.com /highway sa
fence.cfm
Nucor Steel Marion
http: / /nucorhighway.com /nu- cable.html
Trinity Highway Products
http://www.highwayguardrail.com/produc
ts/cb.html
TL -3
TL -3 and TL -4
S3 x 5.7, 5' -3" long steel post,
with a 8" x 2' steel soil plate
Steel post encased by a 6 3/4"
diameter wood sleeve.
Post Spacing 6' -6 ".
Sizes and post spacing designs
vary.
Refer to manufacturer's
specifications.
Composite rail: 8" diameter routed
wood beams and 1/4" thick steel
channel embedded in and bolted to
the timber rail.
8" x 7 " rectangular timber rail -
alternate design
Three and four cable designs
available.
For details on a specific system please go to manufacturer's website.
For a comparisons of all systems, please refer to FHWA Cable Barrier
Chart
Rail height 2' -2"
All wood appearance blends into the surrounding environment.
Dynamic deflection 5' -4 1/2"
No crashworthy end terminal is currently available; acceptable end treatments
include anchoring in a backslope or flaring the barrier to the edge of the clear
zone.
All systems are propriety.
Blends in with surrounding environment, and reduces visual impairment.
Refer to manufacturer's specifications for distance from post to embankment
hinge point.
Refer to manufacturer's specifications for availability of end treatments.
Steel posts are typically galvanized. Coating alternatives are available to
enhance aesthetic appearance.
Use in medians and along edge of roadways.
0
US.Deparlment of Transportation
Federal HlghwayAd minis trafloe
The safety systems shown on this chart are eligible for reimbursement under the Federal -Aid Highway Program. This reference is for informational purposes only, and was created by
KLS Engineering under FHWA Contract, DTFH61 -10 -D- 00021, Roadside Safety Systems Installers and Designers Mentor Program. For further information on an individual systems please
refer to the manufacturers' website.
11
Engineerng
Page 1 of 6
Steel- Backed Log Rail
http: / /flh.fhwa.dot.gov /resources /pse /standar
d / #fp617
TimBarrier StreetGuard Plus
S.I. Storey Lumber Co.
http:// www. sistoreylumber.com /pdf /StreetGu
a rdPlusFlyer.pdf
Deception Pass Log Rail
http: / /www.wsdot.wa.gov /Research /Reports/
600/642.1.htm
Aesthetic Barrier
April 23, 2013
NAME
MANUFACTURER
TEST LEVEL
NCHRP 350
MASH
POST AND BLOCKOUT
RAI L
DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS
SEMI -RIGID SYSTEM
Reinforced concrete, rock and
mortar, bollard posts designed to
replicate the historic Civilian
Conservation Corp construction.
18' bollard spacing
Intermediate spacing of 6"
diameter steel posts.
No blockout.
6" x 8" x 6' long timber post
Wood blockouts 6" x 8" x 10"
Post spacing 8'
12" diameter x 7' log post
Wood blockouts 8" x 6" x 8"
notched into log post
Post spacing 10'.
Composite rail: Modified 12"
diameter log and 6" x 6" x 3/8"
steel plate embedded into the log
rail.
Composite rail: 4" x 12" x 7' -11"
long timber rail backed by 1/4" x 6"
x 7' -6" long steel plates.
Composite rail: Modified 10"
diameter log rail, backed with 6" x
3/8" thick steel plate.
Rail height 2' -3"
Wood and rock appearance blends into the surrounding environment.
Design reduces visual impairment of the environment.
No crashworthy end terminal is currently available; acceptable end treatments
include anchoring in a backslope or flaring the barrier to the edge of the clear
zone.
Rail height 2' -5"
All wood appearance blends into the surrounding environment.
Use along edge of roadway.
No crashworthy end terminal is currently available; acceptable end treatments
include anchoring in a backslope or flaring the barrier to the edge of the clear
zone.
Dynamic deflection 4' -4 ".
Rail height 2' -7"
Wood appearance blends into the surrounding environment.
No crashworthy end terminal is currently available; acceptable end treatments
include anchoring in a backslope or flaring the barrier to the edge of the clear
zone.
Dynamic deflection 4"
0
US.Departrnerrt of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
0
The safety systems shown on this chart are eligible for reimbursement under the Federal -Aid Highway Program. This reference is for informational purposes only, and was created by
KLS Engineering under FHWA Contract, DTFH61 -10 -D- 00021, Roadside Safety Systems Installers and Designers Mentor Program. For further information on an individual systems please
refer to the manufacturers' website.
L 0
Engineering
Page 2 of 6
Aesthetic Barrier
April 23, X013
Composite Rail: 6" x 10" wood rail
backed with a 3/8" thick steel plate.
Steel Backed Timber Guardrail Tangent
End Terminal
All wood appearance blends into the surrounding environment.
System can connect to Straight and Curved Stone Masonry Guardwall.
Dynamic deflection 1' -11" with blockout
The SBT end terminal is 40' -9" long and is designed to collapse when hit end -on.
9 - 6" x 10" rail segment with angled ends and special attachment hardware.
http://f1h.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/pse/standar
Merritt Parkway Aesthetic Guardrail
http://pubsindex.trb.org/view.aspx?id=474497
Composite Rail: 6" x 12" timber
beams backed with 6" x 3/8" steel
plates and splices to provide tensile
continuity.
Rustic - appearance Metal Beam Guardrail
For a complete comparisons of these systems, please refer to FHWA
Roadside Post and Beam Chart
All wood appearance blends into the surrounding environment.
No crashworthy end terminal was developed for this system; acceptable end
treatments include anchoring in a backslope or flaring the barrier to the edge
of the clear zone.
A granite transition curbing is required at transition to a bridge parapet.
Dynamic deflection 3' -10" without a curb and 3' -4" when installed 12" behind a
4" sloped face curb.
Blends in with the surrounding environment
Propriety treatments to achieve rustic appearance on both post and rail
elements: acid - etched, powder coated and weathered steel.
0
US.Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
vvy
The safety systems shown on this chart are eligible for reimbursement under the Federal -Aid Highway Program. This reference is for informational purposes only, and was created by
KLS Engineering under FHWA Contract, DTFH61 -10 -D- 00021, Roadside Safety Systems Installers and Designers Mentor Program. For further information on an individual systems please
refer to the manufacturers' website.
This product is structurally inferior to standard gaurdrail do
to the weakening created by the process used to create the
weathered look. FWHA does not reccomend installing this
product near constantly humid locations such as riverside
applications.
11
Englneering
Page 3 of 6
Random Rubble Cavity Wall
http://www.efl.fhwa.dot.gov/files/technology/
abs/ Random - rubble /B181RubbleGuardwall-
WFLHD - FIN.pdf
Aesthetic Barrier
April 23, 2013
NAME
MANUFACTURER
TEST LEVEL
NCHRP 350
MASH
COMPONENTS
CHARACTERISTICS
RIGID SYSTEM
Rough Stone Masonry Guardwall
http: / /safety.fhwa.dot.gov /roadway dept /poli
cv guide /road hardware /barriers /pdf /b202.cf
m
Rough Stone Masonry Guardwall
http: / /safety.fhwa.dot.gov /roadway dept /poli
cv guide /road hardware /barriers /pdf /b64d.p
df
TL -1
TL -2
TL -3
Wall width 1' -6"
Composed of alternating height sections:
Section 1 is 1' -6" tall x 12' long
Section 2 is 2' tall x 5' -6" long.
Reinforced concrete footings and core wall are poured and stone
placed prior to filling the cavity with concrete.
Rock size is between 12" and 1' -6" with smaller rocks and masonry
mortar.
Wall width: 2' single or 2' -3" double faced.
Three main components: reinforced concrete foundation slab, inner
reinforced concrete core wall and rough stone masonry face with an
attachment system.
Masonry face can have the projections a maximum of 1 -1/2" beyond
the working line. Avoid projections oriented toward oncoming traffic.
Rake joints can be up to 2" deep, and mortar beds can be 2" - 3" thick.
Wall width: 2' single or double faced.
Three main components: reinforced concrete foundation slab, inner
reinforced concrete core wall and rough stone masonry facing with
an anchor attachment system.
Masonry face can have the projections a maximum of 1 -1/2" beyond
the working line. Avoid projections oriented toward oncoming traffic.
Rake joints can be up to 2" deep, and mortar beds can be 2" - 3" thick.
Wall height: 1' -6" and 2' alternating height sections
Stone facing blends into the surrounding environment.
No crashworthy end terminal is currently available; acceptable end treatments
include anchoring in a backslope or flaring the barrier to the edge of the clear
zone.
Wall height: 1' -10"
Stone facing blends into the surrounding environment.
No crashworthy end terminal is currently available; acceptable end treatments
include anchoring in a backslope or flaring the barrier to the edge of the clear
zone.
Wall height: 2' -3"
Stone facing blends into the surrounding environment.
Used in medians when double- faced.
No crashworthy end terminal is currently available; acceptable end treatments
include anchoring in a backslope or flaring the barrier to the edge of the clear
zone.
0
US.Deparlment of Transportation
Federal HlghwayAdministratlon
N
The safety systems shown on this chart are eligible for reimbursement under the Federal -Aid Highway Program. This reference is for informational purposes only, and was created by
KLS Engineering under FHWA Contract, DTFH61 -10 -D- 00021, Roadside Safety Systems Installers and Designers Mentor Program. For further information on an individual systems please
refer to the manufacturers' website.
['IL RI
Engineering
Page 4 of 6
Precast Concrete Guardwall
http: / /flh.fhwa.dot.gov /resources /pse /standar
d / #fp618
Smooth Stone Masonry Guardwall
http: / /flh.fhwa.dot.gov /resources /pse /standar
d / #fp620
Aesthetic Barrier
April 23, YO13
NAME
MANUFACTURER
TEST LEVEL
NCHRP 350
MASH
COMPONENTS
CHARACTERISTICS
RIGID SYSTEM
Stone Cast Barrier
Stone Cast, Inc.
http: / /safety.fhwa.dot.gov /roadway dept /poli
cv guide /road hardware /barriers /pdf /b-
73.pdf
o
TL -3
TL -3
TL -3
Wall width: 2' single or double faced.
Three main components: reinforced concrete foundation slab, inner
reinforced concrete core wall and rough stone masonry face with an
attachment system.
Masonry face can have the projections a maximum of 1 -1/2" beyond
the working line. Avoid projections oriented toward oncoming traffic.
Rake joints can be up to 2" deep, and mortar beds can be 2" - 3" thick.
Wall width 2' -2"
10 -ft long pre -cast units include 12 inch deep footings.
Foundation, core, and concrete stone facing are precast as a single
unit.
Unit dimension: 2' -7" tall; 1' -7" width at top and 2' at bottom.
Unit footing: 1' deep x 4' wide, cast integrally with its stem.
Foundation, stem , and stone veneer cast integrally as a single unit.
Units can be made in 5',10' or 20' long segments, and can be curved to
fit a specified radius
0
Wall height: 2' -3" with 3" crenulations above primary height.
Stone facing blends into the surrounding environment.
No crashworthy end terminal is currently available; acceptable end treatments
include anchoring in a backslope or flaring the barrier to the edge of the clear
zone.
Wall height: 2'- 3 -1/2"
Precast concrete stone facing and capstone blend into the surrounding
environment.
Use in medians if double -faced or along edge of roadway.
Approved for use with 4" mountable curb at any offset.
No crashworthy end terminal is currently available; acceptable end treatments
include anchoring in a backslope or flaring the barrier to the edge of the clear
zone.
Wall height: 2' -7"
No crashworthy end terminal is currently available; acceptable end treatments
include anchoring in a backslope or flaring the barrier to the edge of the clear
zone.
0
US.Deparfinent of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
The safety systems shown on this chart are eligible for reimbursement under the Federal -Aid Highway Program. This reference is for informational purposes only, and was created by
KLS Engineering under FHWA Contract, DTFH61 -10 -D- 00021, Roadside Safety Systems Installers and Designers Mentor Program. For further information on an individual systems please
refer to the manufacturers' website.
Engineering
Page 5 of 6
Aesthetic Barrier
April 23, 2013
NAME
MANUFACTURER
TEST LEVEL
COMPONENTS
CHARACTERISTICS
NCHRP 350
MASH
RIGID SYSTEM
California's Type 60 Concrete Barrier
e.g.: Mission Arch, Deep Cobblestone
Reveal, Dry stack, Fracture Granite
TL -3
Barrier has a constant single slope approximately 9 degs from the
vertical.
General texture guidelines:
1. Sandblast textures with a maximum relief of 1/5 ".
2. Images or geometric patterns inset into the face of the barrier 1" or
less and having 45 -deg or flatter chamfered or beveled edges.
3. Textures or patterns of any shape and length inset into the face of
the barrier up to the 1/2" deep and 1" width.
4. Any pattern or texture with gradual undulations that have a
maximum relief of 3/4" over a distance of 1'.
5. Gaps, slots, grooves or joints of any depth with a maximum width
of 3/4" and a maximum surface differential across these features of
1/5" or less.
6. Any pattern or texture with a maximum relief of 2 -1/2 ", if such
pattern begins 2' or higher above the base of the barrier and all
leading edges are rounded or sloped. No part of this pattern or
texture should protrude above the plane of the lower, untextured
portion of the barrier.
Wall height: 2'-3" (vertical wall) to 2'-8" (single slope barrier)
No crashworthy end terminal is currently available; acceptable end treatments
include anchoring in a backslope or flaring the barrier to the edge of the clear
zone.
���- �--,
�� �� ,\ � �
,�
T,
mss.
�, �� � ��
� \��A \���� ��V
\� \�\
\� \��� \� \�����
-; -'
= ;
� �` _�`��
�y� � \�
\�~\—
����o \ \�
��
_
—��
ST--
0
US.Deparimerd of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
The safety systems shown on this chart are eligible for reimbursement under the Federal -Aid Highway Program. This reference is for informational purposes only, and was created by
KLS Engineering under FHWA Contract, DTFH61 -10 -D- 00021, Roadside Safety Systems Installers and Designers Mentor Program. For further information on an individual systems please
refer to the manufacturers' website.
II
L
Engineering
Page 6 of 6
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
TO: Mayor Haggerton
Transportation Committee
FROM: Bob Giberson, Public Works Director 4440
BY: Grant Griffin, Senior Program Manager
DATE: April 3, 2015
SUBJECT: 2015 Annual Bridge Inspection and Repairs
Project No. 91510402
S 119th St Pedestrian Bridge Repair and Replacement Options
ISSUE
The timber on S 119th St Pedestrian Bridge in Allentown over the Duwamish River is experiencing deterioration and paint
failure. While the problems are currently more aesthetic than structural, a maintenance project must be developed to correct
the deterioration and protect the existing structure before the bridge's capacity is affected. Repair and replacement costs
have been prepared to aid decision making about the future of this pedestrian bridge.
BACKGROUND
The S 119th St Pedestrian Bridge was built in 1965 and has been painted and repaired during its service life with the most
recent repair completed in 2002. There is currently widespread deterioration of the top surface of the timber girders and
overall paint failure on the bridge. The bridge passes the biennial safety inspection, but aesthetically it does not inspire
confidence in its users.
DISCUSSION
David Evans and Associates (DEA) has prepared a conceptual bridge repair plan, with cost estimates, that include repair of
deterioration on the top of the girders and repainting the bridge to protect the structure and slow the deterioration process.
The proposed work is the minimum amount necessary to correct the most glaring deficiencies, however additional repairs
could be performed in future years to correct further deficiencies. The bridge still offers many years of service potential with
consistent maintenance and the costs could be spread out over future years using the Annual Bridge Inspection and Repair
Program funding. An estimate for the replacement of the bridge has also been prepared to provide information necessary to
plan for the future of the pedestrian crossing and funding needs.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The girder repair and repainting of the S119th StPedestrian Bridge could be funded through the 2015/2016 Bridge
Inspection & Repair Program. Currently $86,000.00 of the 2015 funding is slated for the required match of the 3 Major
Maintenance Bridge Projects. Repair work on the S119th StPedestrian Bridge could be constructed in stages over several
years using several bridge program funding cycles. Estimated costs for rehabilitation, replacement, and removal are below:
S 119th St Pedestrian Bridge Full Replacement
S 119th St Pedestrian Bridge Rehabilitation
S 119th St Pedestrian Bridge Removal
For information only.
Attachments: Page 10, 2015 CIP
Proposed CIP Bridge Project Sheet
DEA Summary Report
Estimate
$1,388,971.00
282,728.00
107,374.00 (Not an option)
WAPW Eng\PROJECTS\A- RW & RS Projects\Bridge Inspection Programs\Bridge Inspections 2015 (91510402)\119th Ped Bridge\Info Memo 11951 Ped Bridge Update TC gi-sb.dDcx
IN
CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
2015 to 2020
PROJECT: Annual Bridge Inspections and Repairs Project No. Varies
DESCRIPTION: Ongoing program of bi-annual inspections, repairs, painting and rehabilitation of the 22 City bridges.
Federally required program identifies safety or repair needs in the early stages to minimize hazards and
JUSTIFICATION: costs. The number of bridge inspections necessary each year can vary between 3 and 8 bridges.
Inspection frequencies vary from bridge to bridge and WSDOT provides some inspection services.
STATUS: Construction projects will be determined from inspection reports and noted deficiencies/problems.
MA|NT.|K8PACT: Reduces maintenance costs.
COMMENT: Ongoing project, only one year actuals are shown in the first column. 42nd Ave S Truss Bridge had repairs
completed in 2014 along with matching funds for the 1'5/K|ickitatDr Unstable S|ope/E|evetedVVe|kwey.
FINANCIAL Through Estimated
(in $000's) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 BEYOND TOTAL
EXPENSES
Design
65
40
40
40
40
45
45
45
45
405
Const. Mgmt.
30
30
30
30
40
40
40
40
280
Construction
27
200
200
200
200
250
250
250
250
1,827
TOTAL EXPENSES
92
270
270
270
270
335
335
335
335
2,512
FUND SOURCES
Awarded Grant
236
236
Proposed Grant
0
Mitigation Actual
0
Mitigation Expected
0
City Oper. Revenue
92
34
270
270
270
335
335
335
335
2,276
TOTAL SOURCES
92
270
270
270
1 270
1 335
1 3351
335
1 3351
2,512
1s
2015 2020 Capital Improvement Program 10
CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
2016 to 2021
STATUS: Federal grant funding was approved after a competitive process in December 2U14.
MAANT IMPACT: Maintenance needs will be reduced once these three major maintenance projects are completed.
rnem/euuxuyvv Were uppmvuum/y/uomuou,xvepu/uu,/uuum/amxumuuuuu, Will uevumumom
i�oone for �edea�n&oondmoUonconkuc| Grant �0���NT� � '
projects that obtain construction authorization by 9/30/18 are eligible for 100% Federal funding for
""nwn/,xnn
FINANCIAL Through Estimated
(in $000's) 2014 2015 2016 2017 uoia 2019 2020 2021 REYomD TOTAL
EXPENSES
Design
866
866
Const. Mgmt.
593
593
Construction
3,889
3,889
FUND SOURCES
Proposed BRAC Grant
780
4,482
5,262
Mitigation Actual
0
Mitigation Expected
0
17
2015-2030 Capital Improvement Program 10
S. 119th Street Pedestrian Bridge (Tukwila 16)
Rehabilitation and Replacement Alternative Analysis
Introduction
The existing pedestrian bridge over the Duwamish River was constructed in 1965. It consists of
three spans with a 127' main span and two approach spans of 53' each (Figure 1). The bridge
serves the residential communities between 42nd Street and Interurban Avenue. The
superstructure is composed of two glued laminated (glulam) beams, which also serve as
pedestrian railing. The two intermediate piers in the river are founded on timber piles and
timber fenders. The timber plank decking spans between caps suspended from the glulam
beams.
rigure 1 — lly reuebU ldH DF IUge
The bridge was last inspected in in 2013. However, the intermediate piers were not inspected
and no condition assessment for scour was made. There is some evidence of repair to the top
of the fender dolphins. A steel I beam has been added to the timber caps at each intermediate
pier to remedy cap crushing and prevent racking of the bridge.
Bridge Condition Assessment
The foregoing is based on visual observations of the engineer preparing this report as well as a
condition assessment report performed by King County 2013. The bridge was assessed to be in
fair condition by the inspector who prepared the condition assessment in 2013.
Glulam Girders
The glulam beams were last painted in 2002. The existing coating has completely failed
and the beams are starting to weather severely (Figure 2). Approximately one third of
LilkWdO 1 '. 119 S rrrf 1'rtl (1'1011 Brltl';r� 1 of 41- )OVItl 1 X011"' 01'1tJ /s',',rJt ot'r "', lrir.
�i �,�l�f��'rirJri ��rit_9 1'r Cal��rr riir ri'r /slfr 1'11O I V r /1ri / Vloy 23") 20]
18
WAVM EVAme
==ASSOC.ATsS=
the length of top glulam beams have severe rotting, with the top laminate completely
disintegrated. The laminate under a number of hanger washer plates are rotted.
Figure 2 — Glularn girder with rotted top laminate
The coating from the 2OO2 has failed completely and there is evidence of checking and
start ofglu|amdecay.
Timber Decking
The timber planks were assessed tobein fair shape inthe 2O13 condition assessment
report. There are a few ridges which need to be planed to prevent tripping. The surface
also seemed slippery, particularly at one location where it was replaced with smooth
plywood (Figure 3).
Figure 3 — Timber plank decking
11m
VDAVID EVAmS
Timber Substructure
The timber substructure was not assessed during the condition assessment in 2013 nor
was any underwater inspection performed to assess scour. However, they seem tobe
in fair shape based on visual observation (Figure 4\.
Figure 4 — Pier 3 timber foundation and fenders
Miscellaneous Structural Elements
The galvanizing and paint coating on the hanger washer and bolts has failed and
corrosion has initiated. Any repair would need to address preservation of the steel
Other timber elements including caps, bkockngs and braces are showing signs of
weathering and were generally found tobein fair condition inthe 2O13 assessment. The
toe boards attached to the glulam blockings are preventing free drainage off the deck.
Alternative Analysis
1. Rehabilitation
Aset of drawings have been prepared to address the immediate repairs needed to
preserve the existing fair condition of the bridge. The suggested bridge rehabilitation
• replacement of the glu|amtop laminates where required;
• packing two part epoxy under the hanger washers asneeded;
• surface prep and coating ofthe gdu|amn beams, b|uckngs caps, and bradngs;
• replacement of the toe boards;
• sweep blasting of all steel hardware before coating; and
r�|�.v|'a \���� il9`S�ree�Pedest�iap8ri�j�e pa��a3o�4 Dav'dEvan��'-�A�y�n.at�s,|-�
wm
DAVID
�
sweep blasting of the timber deck planks, planing and sealing with linseed oil
based coating.
The total estimated repair cost b$283,0X]O.
2. Replacement
The existing bridge can be replaced with a new pedestrian bridge approximately 19O'
long spanning the entire river with no piers in the waterway. Approach structural earth
vva||s approximately 22' each will also be required. This option will allow for a
significantly easier environmental permit process.
The most economically feasible structure types for replacement are precast, pre-
stressed deck bulb Tgirders, o prefabricated truss, and a Bai|y-type otructure. The cost
estimate prepared is for the pre-stressed beam structure. Other aesthetically pleasing
structure types, at higher costs, are precast concrete arch and single tower stay-cable
structures.
The substructure is expected to be founded to deep foundations, either drilled shafts or
open ended steel piles. VVe have priced open-ended piling inthis estimate.
The cost estimate for replacement b approximately $1,980,000.
This bridge has not been assessed for determination of historical significance.
Life Cycle Cost Analysis
This life cycle cost analysis is based on the following assumptions:
• an inflation rate of21}4%;
• an existing bridge life expectancy after repairs of 10 years, up to year 2025 (assuming
pile foundations are in fair shape and noscour);
• o new bridge service life of75 years; and
• a new bridge salvage value of 60%/75% of 2015 value.
Our analysis indicates a Net Present Cost of $363,000 for the repair option and $2M2,OOO for the
replacement alternate.
mm
cost estimate was based on the following assumptions:
• Mobilization 10%;
• Washington State Sales tax of9.S%;
• Presence ofNu Hazardous Materials;
• Existing Water Line Relocation Would not be Required for the Replacement Option;
• County Staff Would Perform the Rehabilitation Work;
Alternative
Estimated Cost ($)
Rehabilitation
$ 282,728
Replacement
$ 1,388,971
,Removal
$ 107,374
PA
4468
CLEANING AND PAINTING BRIDGE
SF
4948
15
$ 74,215
City of Tukwila S. 119th Street Pedestrian (TUK -16) Bridge Painting Cost Estimate
61
REMOVING and REPLACE PORTION OF EXISTING GLULAM BEAMS
SF
117
120
$ 13,980
100
REMOVING AND REPLACE TOE BOARDS
LF
468
10
4,680
4469
CONTAINMENT OF ABRASIVES
SF
4948
8
$ 39,581
4470
TESTING AND DISPOSAL OF CONTAINMENT WASTE
EST.
1
5,000
$ 5,000
4487
CLEANING, SEALING AND CAULKING
L.F.
500
15
7,500
4487
DECK BLASTING AND SEALING
SF
1410
10
$ 14,100
6403
ESC LEAD
DAY
5
200
7003
TYPE B PROGRESS SCHEDULE
L.S.
1
1,000
$ 1,000
$ 1,000
7480
ROADSIDE CLEANUP
EST.
1
1,000
$ 1,000
7569
NO TRASSPASSING SIGN
EA
2
500
$ 1,000
7570
HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN
L.S.
1
1,000
$ 1,000
7736
SPCC PLAN
L.S.
1
500
$ 500
SUBTOTAL
$ 164,556
CONTENGENCY (25 %)
$ 41,139
ENGINEERING (15 %)
$ 24,683
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (5% CONSTRUCTION COST)
$ 10,285
MOBILIZATION (10 %)
$ 20,570
TAX (9.5 %)
$ 21,495
ASSUMPTIONS:
COUNTY FORCES TO PERFORM THE WORK
HISTORICAL BDM
$120 /sf
15 /FT
15 /sf
8 /sf
City of Tukwila S. 119th Street Pedestrian Bridge (TUK -16)
Replacement Cost Estimate
BRIDGE
$
678,462
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
$
15,000
MOBILIZATION (10 %)
$
67,846
CONTENGENCY (35 %)
$
271,385
SUBTOTAL
$
1,032,692
ENGINEERING (15 %)
$
154,904
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (10% CONSTRUCTION COST)
$
103,269
TAX (9.5 %)
�. TCi
$ 98,106
j 11 ��
Assumptions:
No Haz -mat
24
City of Tukwila S. 119th Street Pedestrian Bridge (TUK -16)
Removal Cost
Item Description
Cost ($)
Exist. Bridge Removal
63,180
Mobilization (10 %)
6,318
Subtotal
69,498
Contingency (25 %)
17,375
Engineering (10 %)
6,950
Construction Management (10 %)
6,950
Tax (9.5 %)
6,602
Assumptions
Cost of existing water line relocation is not included
` -7
City of Tukwila S. 119th Street Pedestrian Bridge (TUK -16)
Preliminary Cost Estimate
Item
Component
Unit'
1
Glulam Repair Area
SF
116.5
2
Toe Boards
LF
468
Glulam
Caps
Kickers
Toe Boards
Blockings
Total
3
Paint Surface Ares
SF
4095
320
139
234
160
4948
City of Tukwila S. 119th Street Pedestrian Bridge (TUK -16)
Replacement Cost
Length
Width
Area
190 LF
6 LF
1,140 SF
Bridge Replacement Alternative Cost
Cost Based on Square Foot Area
Element,
Area (SF)
;Unit Cost ($)
Cost ($)
Bridge
1,140
550
627,000
Walls
2,160
35
75,600
Subtotal
Mob
702,600
Cost Based on Elements
Item
Diameter
Area (SF)
Weight (LB
Length (LF)
Unit Cost
Cost
Materials
24
0.256
490
400
2
100,352
Mob
25,000
Driving
20,000
Total
145,352
Element
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost,($)
Cost ($)
Clearing & Grubbing
1
Est
1
5,000
Open Ended Steel Piles
400
LF
145,352
Cap
30
CY
1000
29,630
Girder
380
LF
400
152,000
Lauch
1
EST
1
50,000
Excavation
44
CY
40
1,778
Shoring
504
SF
20
10,080
Diaphr
22
CY
1000
22,222
HMA
16
Ton
100
1,620
Railing and Screen
480
LF
150
72,000
Removing Ext. Bridge
1,404
SF
45
63,180
Walls
2,160
SF
35
75,600
Misc
1
EST
1
50,000
aft
Assumptions:
No Haz -mat
Water Line Shut Down During Construction
Girder transport and Lauching from the West
Four X 100' Open Ended Steel Piles
City of Tukwila S. 119th Street Pedestrian Bridge (TUK -16)
Life Cycle Cost Analysis
Alternative
Expenditure Description
Year
Construction Cost
Present Value
w�
,
Design and Permitting
2
$ 24,683
Painting
2
$ 258,045
Deck Replacement
5
$ 30,000
Pier Fenders /Caps
Salvage Value
5
15
$ 50,000
$ -
Replacement
Design and Permitting
2
$ 154,904
Construction Cost
6
$ 1,234,067
HMA Deck Overlay
25
$ 2,000
HMA Deck Overlay
50
$ 2,000
Salvage Value
$ (1,111,177)
Igm
NNE o
:a
Assumptions:
Real Discount Rate (d) 2.80%
Nominal Discount Rate (D) 4.90%
Inflation Rate (i) 2.04%
Analysis Period 75 Yrs
i= [(1 +D) /(1 +d)] - 1
FV = C *(1 +i) ^n
PV = FV /(1 +D) ^n
28
233` —<
53' -1'
Q PIER
127' -0"
PIER
53' -1'
LEGEND
(DUWAMISH
RIVER
GLUED LAMINATED
BEAM
EXISTING
NEW
GLUED
LAMINATED
BEAM
BLOCKING
(TYP.)
9"
EXISTING GLUED LAMINATED
BEAM (2 TOTAL)
EXISTING BOLTS
125' CLEAR SPAN
2' -6 7/8" ON
SUSPENDED
SPAN
ELEVATION LOOKING DOWNSTFEAM
VARIES FROM
2' -3 5/8"
TO 3' -7 7/8"
ON CANTILEVER
PORTION
3' -8 7/8"
CAP BEAM
(TYP.)
SECTION A O
WATER
MAIN
VARIES
REMOVE AND
REPLACE EXISTING
TOE BOARDS WITH
PRESSURE TREATED
2X6. NAIL TO
BLOCKINGS AND SET
1" ABOVE DECKING
(TYP.)
DETAIL A
SECTION B
3"
R =1 1/2”
,/
t
/ 11/16" HOLES
FOR 5/8" BOLTS
GALVANIZED PLATE WASHERS
EXISTING PLATE WASHER
(TYP.)
DETAL A
EXISTING HANGER
BOLTS (TYP.)
GLULAM
BEAM
GENERAL NOTES:
1. ALL MATERIAL AND WORKMANSHIP SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE REQUIREMENTS OF WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD, BRIDGE,
AND MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION DATED 2014 AND AMENDMENTS.
2. THE TWO EXISTING GLULAMINATED BEAMS, HANGER BOLTS, PLATE
WASHERS, EXPOSED FACES OF CAPS, BLOCKINGS AND NEW TOE
BOARDS SHALL BE PAINTED AFTER PRESCRIBED REPAIRS IN
PLANS.
3. REMOVE CRACKED OR PEELED PAINT, LOOSE CHALKY PAINT, DIRT,
AND OTHER FOREIGN MATERIAL BY WIRE BRUSHING, SCRAPING, OR
OTHER MEANS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE PAINTING. MOISTURE CONTENT
OF THE GLULAM TIMBER SHALL BE LESS THAN 20% AT THE TIME
OF THE FIRST APPLICATION.
4. REMOVE RUST FROM EXISTING HANGER BOLTS AND WASHER
PLATES WITH LIGHT SWEEP BLAST BEFORE FIRST COAT OF PAINT
IS APPLIED WHILE PROTECTING THE GLULAM BEAMS.
5. ADD TURPENTINE AND LINSEED OIL, AS REQUIRED BY THE
CHARACTER OF THE SURFACE, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
ONE —EIGHT OF THE PAINT. USE THREE APPLICATIONS OF PAINT.
6. AFTER FIRST APPLICATION HAS DRIED, PUDDY CRACKS, CHECKS,
NAIL HOLES, OR OTHER DEPRESSIONS FLUSH WITH THE SURFACE
WITH A WATER REPELLANT PRESERVATIVE CONTAINING COPPER
NAPHTHENATE IN A 2% SOLUTION. ALLOW TO DRY BEFORE SECOND
APPLICATION OF PAINT.
7. POLYURATHANE ADHESIVE FOR WOOD SUBSTRATES SHALL BE USED
FOR ALL REPAIRS.
8. CONSTRUCTION LOADING SHALL NOT EXCEED 85 PSF OF BRIDGE
DECK AREA.
REMOVE ALL DECAYED AND SOFT WOOD TO SOLID
SUBSTRATE. GLUE SNUG NO. 1 OR BETTER PRESSURE
TREATED WOOD. SEAL ALL EDGES WITH TWO PART
EPDXY FILLER. IF REMOVAL UNDER HANGER WASHERS
IS NEEDED, DO NOT REMOVE MORE THAN A THIRD OF
THE BEAM WIDTH AT A TIME.
PLAN
SECTION C
GLULAM
BEAM
1908
L LIC' WORKS
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS * BUILDING *
DAVID EVANS
CD 4211 Argo ASSOCIATES INC.
1115 West Bay Drive N.W., Suite 301
Olympia, Washington 98502
Phone: 360.705.2185
SO. 119TH STREET PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
TUKWILA 16
BRIDGE REHABILITATION
BRIDGE PLAN
AND ELEVATION
IMM
MI=
MEI
No. Date Revisions
PEO
or 2
File No. Ee- PEO1- TUKAaoI1 awg
Seale AS SHOWN
Date MARCH 2015
REMOVE ALL DECAYED AND SOFT
WOOD TO SOLID SUBSTATE (TYP.)
REPLACE TOE BOARDS WITH
2 "X6" PRESSURE TREATED
TIMBERS
REMOVE DECAYED WOOD UNDER HANGER
WASHERS TO SOLID SUBSTRATE. PACK WITH
TWO PART EPDXY FILLER. DO NOT REMOVE
MORE THAN ONE THIRD OF THE BEAM WIDTH
AT A TIME AFTER EPDXY IN PREVIOUS
SECTION HAS CURED. (TYP.)
SWEEP BLAST PLANK DECKING, PLAN ROUGH
RIDGE, AND SEAL WITH LINSEED BASED OIL
APPLY 3 COATS OF PAINT TO
GLULAM BEAMS, CAPS,
BLOCKINGS, AND BRACES
A
908
PUBLIC WORKS 17EPT_
0
*ENGINEERING* STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING *
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES INC.
1115 West Bay Drive N.W., Suite 301
Olympia, Washington 98502
Phone: 360.705.2185
SO. 119TH STREET PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
TUKWILA 16
BRIDGE REHABILITATION
BRIDGE
IMAGES
NI=
No. Date Revisions
PEO2
2 or 2
File No. E8-PE02- TUKA0011.dwg
Scale AS SHOWN
Date MARCH 2015
SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSPORTATION BOARD (SCATBd)
February 17, 2015
MEETING SUMMARY
Members
Councilmember Bill Peloza (Chair)
Councilmember Dana Ralph (Vice - Chair)
Mayor Carol Benson
Deputy Mayor Jeanne Burbidge
Councilmember Stacia Jenkins
Chris Arkills
Commissioner Don Meyer
Charles Prestrud
Lance Newkirk
Councilmember Kathy Hougardy
Kelly McGourty
Councilmember Debi Wagner
Councilmember Mike Sando
Councilmember Barry Ladenburg
City of Auburn
City of Kent
City of Black Diamond
City of Federal Way
City of Normandy Park
King County (Alternate)
Port of Tacoma
WSDOT (Alternate)
City of Pacific
City of Tukwila
PSRC
City of Burien
City of Enumclaw
City of SeaTac
I. Open Meeting
After opening comments and introductions the Board adopted the meeting summary for their
January 20, 2014 meeting.
II. Reports, Communications and Citizens Requests to Comment
The Board discussed the oil train derailment in West Virginia and the need for continued
attention on oil train safety legislation. Councilmember Hougardy reported on the RTC
discussions on the Metro's Service Guidelines Task Force and the development of Transit's
Long Range Plan. She said the RTC asked for regular updates and that the long range plan
considers local comp plans. Councilmember Jenkins reported on the SCATBd Legislative
Message brochure and said a revised brochure could not be developed in time for this year's
Legislature. The Board recommended a SCATBd letter be developed expressing support for
movement on a statewide transportation package. The Board recommended that letter include
support for a new source of revenue to fund the transportation package, high level support for the
different types and modes of transportation improvements that would be included in a
transportation package and a concern about health impacts caused by transportation
improvements. Kelly McGourty reported the PSRC Transportation Policy Board recommended a
draft legislative agenda to their Executive Board. The Executive Board approved, but removed
mention of the Puget Sound region developing a sub - regional alternative if the legislature fails to
act on a transportation package.
Will Knedlik, ETA, comment on need for subarea equity and low income fare considerations for
Sound Transit commuter rail and express bus service. Todd Woosley, Woosley Properties, spoke
in support for the efforts in the Legislatures to pass a statewide transportation package.
1951
III. PSRC Industrial Land Analysis — Erika Harris, PSRC
Erika Harris briefed the Board on the PSRC's draft Industrial Land Analysis Report. This report
provides an updated assessment of economic activity on industrial land in the central Puget
Sound region, and includes an analysis of industry forecasts and the region's ability to
accommodate economic growth on industrial lands. The report also provides data and analysis
intended to serve a broad range of land use planning and economic development needs and
interests. Key findings of the report included:
• Non - industrial land will continue to absorb industrial jobs, and may increasingly do so as
some industrial processes evolve to become more compatible with other uses.
• It is important to protect industrial land for heavy industrial activities, especially lands
with unique assets and large infrastructure investments such as ports and freight nodes.
Non - industrial activities can negatively impact the effectiveness of industrial land.
• Keeping in mind that the demand analysis represents a no- change zoning scenario,
overall the region appears to have enough industrial land to meet future demand.
However, the level of adequacy varies by subarea.
• MICs are doing a good job overall in protecting industrial land.
• Many strategies for protecting industrial lands are land use policy recommendations that
would be implemented locally.
IV. Overview of the I -5 JBLM Vicinity Congestion Relief Study — Bill Elliott, Olympic
Region Plans Engineer.
Mr. Elliott reported in 2013 WSDOT began evaluating options for highway and interchange
improvements on I -5, between Steilacoom- DuPont Road and Thorne Lane. WSDOT conducted a
Corridor Feasibility Study and a multi -modal Alternatives Analysis, and is now working on a
preferred alternative environmental study and a Corridor Interchange Justification Report. He
said this work will become the roadmap WSDOT uses for long -range planning and construction.
WSDOT estimates that $250 to $450 million could construct some or all of the following
investments being refined through the EIS process: add one lane (HOV or managed) in each
direction of I -5 between the Thorne Lane interchange and the Steilacoom- DuPont interchange to
increase highway capacity; replace the I -5 interchanges at Thorne Lane, Berkeley Street and
Steilacoom- DuPont Road; construct a connector road between Gravelly Lake Drive and Thorne
Lane to improve local access; build bicycle and pedestrian facilities along the corridor.
Other Attendees:
Bill Elliott, WSDOT
Will Knedlik, ETA
Erika Harris, PSRC
Todd R. Woosley, Woosley Properties
Maryanne Zukowski, Normandy Park
Jim Seitz, Renton
Brandon Carver, Des Moines
Bob Lindskov, Covington
Monica Whitman, Kent
Paul Takamine, King County DOT
Ingrid Gaub, Auburn
Jason Brown, KC Councilmember Dunn's Office
19W
SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSPORTATION BOARD (SCATBd)
MEETING
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
9:00 — 11:00 a.m.
SeaTac City Hall
4800 South 188th Street
SeaTac
Agenda
1.
Open Meeting
Action
9:00 a.m.
• Introductions
• Approve summary of February 17,
2015 SCATBd Meeting Summary
(Attachment A)
2.
Reports, Communications and Citizen
Reports and
9:05 a.m.
Requests to Comment
Discussion
• Chair or Vice Chair
• Participant Updates from RTC and
Other Regional Committees
• SCATBd Legislative Letter Update
• Public Comment
3.
I -5 — Port of Tacoma Interchange Improvement
Report and
10:00 a.m.
- Russ Blount, City of Fife?
Discussion
4.
King County Metro Long Range Plan Update —
Report and
10:30 a.m.
Chris OClaire?
Discussion
33
March 19, 2015
Dear Legislators,
The members of the South County Area Transportation Board (SCATBd) wants to offer our
appreciation and support to both the House and Senate for progress made this year toward a
fully- funded transportation package and the safer transport of oil in Washington State.
As the legislature moves forward in negotiating these important issues, we urge you to continue
bi- partisan efforts to complete the legislation to:
Fully fund all of the identified projects needed for freight mobility and congestion relief
on the state's primary transportation corridors in the South King County region and
serving the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma,
Support Sound Transit's full request for additional revenue authority, and
Increase safety and financial responsibilities of rail and marine oil transport in
Washington State.
SCATBd represents more than 690,000 residents of 15 cities, the Muckleshoot Tribe, King and
Pierce counties, and Ports of Seattle and Tacoma. Thousands of workers and Washington
industries are dependent on transportation movement through our region and to and from our
ports. Freight mobility and congestion relief are critical to the economy of our entire state, and
these priorities directly impact our state's ability to remain competitive in a global marketplace.
In addition, South King County has a high percentage of low income residents who rely on
public transportation to sustain their jobs.
The safe transport of crude Bakken oil and other hazardous materials are critical public safety
issues in our region and impose serious threats to human life and the region's ecosystems.
Thank you for your consideration and action on these SCATBd legislative priorities. Again, we
appreciate the difficult tasks ahead for all of you in your decision making process.
Sincerely,
Bill Peloza
Auburn Councilmember
SCATBd Chair
Dana Ralph
Kent Councilmember
SCATBd Vice -Chair
34