Ohio.gov State Agencies  |  Online Services
Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
  
  
  
  
  
Question
103000ODOTTina Collinstina.collins@dot.state.oh.us614-466-2314
My question
103000Kenmore Construction Co., Inc.Matthew Moravecmmoravec@kenmorecompanies.com330-762-9373
Could a list of the contacts with phone numbers for each bidding team be made available so that interested subcontractors can contact them.
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Sections 14.3.10 and 14.3.3 of the Project Scope require 30% design drawings for the structures per Section 202.2 of ODOT’s BDM to be submitted with the Technical Proposal. Section 4.15 of the Selection Criteria limits the Technical Proposal to 75 pages plus an unlimited number of additional exhibits, plan, schedules and figures. The drafting of 30% submittal quality drawings is not normally required to estimate or write a Technical Proposal of a design build project of this scope. Is there a conflict in the requirements of the Project Scope and Selection Criteria? If required, are the 30% structure design drawings counted as part of the 75 pages of the Technical Proposal or are they part of the unlimited appendices?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
We request that the submission of ATC’s be extended from the present deadline of May 14, 2010 until June 25, 2010. This will enable the DBTs more time to develop ATCs that are not apparent until our design is further developed.
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
We request that the pre-ATC meetings be changed to Wednesdays or Thursdays to allow more flexibility in arranging travel for those DBT out of town personnel.
cWalsh Construction CompanyArik Quamaquam@walshgroup.com724-745-6039
Project Scope Section 14 “STRUCTURES” addresses the structural requirements for the I-90 Viaduct Structure Approach and Main Spans. Aesthetic requirements are given in scope section 16 “AESTHETICS and ENHANCEMENTS” for the structures. It is unclear in these sections the requirements structurally or aesthetically for the Ontario Street on Ramp to I-90 WB (Ramp A5). Is the ramp required to conform to the Viaduct structure main span or approach span requirements? Would you please clarify the structural and aesthetic requirements for this ramp structure?
103000Walsh Construction CompanyArik Quamaquam@walshgroup.com724-745-6039
*** Confidential *** Request for 2nd Pre-ATC Meeting The Walsh/HNTB DBT requests a 2nd one-on-one pre-ATC meeting with ODOT on Monday April 12, 2010. The list of items we wish to discuss include the following: 1. Define the limits of masonry coating on concrete superstructures. 2. Maximum allowable concrete strengths for bridge segments. 3. Prestressing strand size limitations. 4. The shape of the haunch for concrete supestructures. 5. Foundation types and restrictions in the 2007 BDM. 6. Foundations in the Abbey Ave slope stabilization. 7. The location of the storm drain crossing RTA tracks along the E 9th St extension. 8. The use of alternative materials for inspection access under the viaduct. Please reply back to me at aquam@walshgroup.com as to the time of the meeting. Thanks
103000Lane/Brayman Joint VentureJim Seybertjsseybert@laneconstruct.com336-518-6179
The Lane/Brayman Joint Venture would like to request a pre-ATC meeting for April 12, 2010. The content of the meeting would involve structures including substructure and deck details, with an emphasis on decks.
103000Lane/Brayman Joint VentureJim Seybertjsseybert@laneconstruct.com336-518-6179
Section 1.19.1.h of the Project Scope specifically references the purchase of two licensed copies of Primavera (P3) for the Project. This software is no longer available for purchase to new users. Furthermore reference document PN 107 (1/16/2009) – Critical Path Method Progress Schedule in section C, item 1 references the use of P3 Project Planner by Primavera Systems. Primavera Systems, has been purchased by Oracle. As noted previously the specified software is no longer available to purchase, in addition, technical support will no longer be available for P3 Project Planner after December 2010. Will the Ohio Department of Transportation be migrating to the new version of Primavera software supported by Oracle, Primavera P6 Project Management version 7? If so, should the DBT prepare their proposed project schedule for the Innerbelt Bridge Project in Primavera P6v7 or P3 Project Planner format
103000Lane/Brayman Joint VentureJim Seybertjsseybert@laneconstruct.com336-518-6179
Given the wealth of information provided by ODOT, an extension of the ATC deadlines is requested as follows; Last day for DBTs to submit ATC proposals - revise to 5/28/10 (2 week extension) Last day for Department to inform DBTs of ATC approval status - revise to 6/18/10 (2 week extension) Please note that we do NOT request an extension to the submission of the Technical and Price Proposals. Thank you for your consideration, JSS
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
CONFIDENTIAL REQUEST FOR PRE-ATC MEETING We request a pre-ATC meeting for Monday, April 12, 2010 to discuss the resubmission of our previous ATCs and the submission of two new ATC. You will receive the information on all of the ATCs by UPS this morning. We request that the meeting be held in your Cleveland area offices at 1:00 pm on Monday as was the previous pre-ATC meeting. This time frame fits well with the travel arrangements for our design personnel. If you have any questions regarding our ATCs or this request, please do not hesitate to contact me.
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
MISSING BRIDGE PLANS We have reviewed all the documents made available to the us and we are unable to locate existing bridge plans for the following bridges: - CUY-90-1490L - CUY-90-1490R - CUY-90-1506 Please advise if these plans are available.
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Structural Steel Painting Clarification Referencing section 14.4 of the Project Scope for Non-Viaduct Structures, we request clarification of the painting of the structural steel. The Scope of Work for Bridges 7, 8 and 9, Pages PS-167 thru 169, indicates that “Painting is not required for (these structures)”. However, we are required to perform steel retrofits per Paragraph 14.4.2 (B), bearing replacements per Paragraph 14.4.2 (D) and end cross-frame replacements. Please confirm that no paint will be required at these repairs / retrofits.
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Structural Steel Painting Clarification Referencing section 14.4 of the Project Scope for Non-Viaduct Structures, we request clarification of the painting of the structural steel. The Scope of Work for Bridges 10 & 11, Pages PS-169 thru PS-171 indicates that “Painting is not required for (these structures)”. However, we are required to perform bearing replacements at these bridges. Please confirm that no paint will be required for the bearing replacements.
103000tBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Structural Steel Painting Clarification Referencing section 14.4 of the Project Scope for Non-Viaduct Structures, we request clarification of the painting of the structural steel. Bridge 12 Scope of Work Pages PS-171 thru PS-174 indicates that “Painting is not required for this bridge”. If due to MOT restrictions we are required to provide additional widening, for temporary traffic conditions, using additional steel framing, will we be required to paint this additional framing and paint the cross-frame connections at the existing framing?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Requesting CADD files for Streetscape Plans The Streetscape and Landscape Plans in Appendix AE-02 are very detailed in their design. The plans are not included in the list of files provided to the teams. Given that the plans are so extensive in their details but do not appear to be scalable, will the CADD versions of the plans be made available?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Painted Illustrations on the Starkweather and Kenilworth piers Table 16-1 of the Project Scope (pg PS-183) indicates that the existing illustrations on the piers for both the Starkweather and Kenilworth Piers shall be replaced. Are these illustrations to be recreated or are we to provide similar, but not the same, illustrations? Are the new illustrations to be created by an artist?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Requesting clarification for the requirements for a landscape architect for historic artwork Section 16.3.3 of the Project Scope indicates that the team shall include a landscape architect with “demonstrated previous experience in the incorporation of historic elements in public displays or public art”. Given that the pool that meets this requirement is very small, is it acceptable to include a local artist on the team to meet this requirement?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Request for Electronic Geotech Files The following gINT files cannot be found on the Departments ftp site nor the GDMS system. We request the Department provide these files in their electronic format to facilitate our analysis and proposal preparation. These files are as follows: • Electronic gINT files, where available, for all test borings drilled between project Station 123+00 and Station 169+00 (Viaduct Structure). Specifically, we will need all Project Files (GPJ) and all associated Library files (GLB) if they do not match the current library files available on the OGE website. • Electronic CADD Files (DGN) for the following soil plan and profile drawings included in Appendix GE-03: CUY-90-14.52 Soil Profile Drawings, sheet Nos. 51/114 through 64/114. • Electronic CADD (DGN), where available, for all remaining test borings drilled for the CUY-90 project. Specifically, we will need all Project Files (GPJ) and all associated Library files (GLB) if they do not match the current library files available on the OGE website. • Electronic Microstation Files (DGN) for the following soil plan and profile drawings included in Appendix GE-03: o CUY-90-14.52 Soil Profile Drawings, sheet nos. 47/114 to 50/114 o CUY-90-14.52 Soil Profile Drawings, sheet nos. 65/114 to 114/114
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Intent of Column/Pier Cap Transition Project Scope 16.3.4.1.C states “For single column piers supporting a multi-girder superstructure, a curved transition between the top portion of the column and the base of the pier cap shall be used.” Is the intent to make mandatory a curved transition that is transverse to the bridge, longitudinal to the bridge, or both?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
As-Built Plans of Buildings Scheduled for Demolition In order to prepare a reasonable estimate for the building demolition, can any as-built drawings be made available for the buildings as listed in Appendix RW-04? In particular we request the drawings of Parcel 602, The Cleveland Cold Storage Building and associated Power Plant, and Parcel 610, The Broadway Mills Building. Can a site visit be arranged to view any of the buildings slated for demolition?
103000Walsh Construction CompanyArik Quamaquam@walshgroup.com724-745-6039
Can ODOT please advise where we can locate the existing plans for the following bridge structures as we cannot find them or provide them to the DBT's? CUY-90- 1490L SFN: 1809342 I-90 WB over Starkweather Ave CUY-90- 1490R SFN: 1807625 I-71/ I-90 over Starkweather Ave CUY-90- 1506 SFN: 1807684 I-90 over Kenilworth Thank You
103000Lane/Brayman Joint VentureJim Seybertjsseybert@laneconstruct.com336-518-6179
The Lane/Brayman Joint Venture requests a pre-ATC meeting in accordance with the contract documents for April 19, 2010. The nature of the meeting will include alignment, MOT and Structures. Thank you, JSS
103000Lane/Brayman Joint VentureJim Seybertjsseybert@laneconstruct.com336-518-6179
This question relates to the efforts of an ATC and the question is requested to remain confidential. We absolutely understand that any information furnished would have to be furnished to all 3 teams, but we respectfully request that the content of the question remain confidential. While investigating the available information for the traffic signals, it appears that the traffic files included in Appendix DI-02 do not match the configuration shown in the roadway drawings. Specifically, the configuration depicted in the traffic files (both Synchro and CORSIM) show a connection to E. 18th Street with the I-90 WB on-ramp. The configuration depicted in the roadway plans shows this on-ramp connected to E. 14th street. It appears this significantly changes the traffic patterns at several of the signalized intersections in the project. Please advise which configuration is being recommended, and provide files that support the appropriate configuration. Thank you for your consideration, JSS
103000Walsh Construction CompanyArik Quamaquam@walshgroup.com724-745-6039
*** Confidential *** The Walsh/HNTB team requests a 3rd pre-ATC meeting with ODOT on Monday April 19, 2010. Below is a list of the items we would like to discuss at the 3rd pre-ATC meeting. 1. Allowable use of HPS 70W for bridge segments. 2. Use of stay-in-place forms. 3. Overlay requirements for post-tensioned structures. 4. No-foundation zone across Ontario Street. 5. The shape of the haunch for concrete superstructures. 6. Foundations in the Abbey Ave slope stabilization. (aesthetics, view shed) 7. Sustainability Issues 8. Restricted stormwater discharge to combined sewer system. 9. Recycled material for underground stormwater storage. Please email me at aquam@walshgroup.com as to the time of our meeting on Monday April 19, 2010. Thank You
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
CONFIDENTIAL Request for Pre-ATC Meeting Monday 4/19 We request a pre-ATC meeting with the Department as noted in the Selection Criteria and the Proposal on Monday, April 4, 2010. We would prefer to hold this meeting at your offices in the Cleveland area at 1:00pm to fit the travel arrangements of our design personnel. At this meeting we intend to present and discuss the following ATCs: • ATC #5 – Use of black reinforcing bar in lieu of epoxy coated bar for Bridges 9-12 • ATC#6 – Cast & milled integral wearing surface for segmental superstructure deck • ATC#7 – Waiver of mass concrete provisions for drilled shaft foundations • ATC#8 – Use of SIP forms for all structures • ATC#9 – Adjust main span limits in area of Ontario Ramp (Ramp A5) • ATC#10 – Allow use of less than three columns on non-viaduct bridges to be widened • ATC#11 – Allow use of longitudinal stiffeners on haunched steel girders The formal submittal of these ATCs is being mailed today, April 15, 2010 for delivery Friday, April 16, 2010 in the morning.
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Prebid Question - Broadway Mills Salvage Section 5.2.3 Of the Project Scope indicates that the medallions and the 10 architectural sandstone center pieces above each half-circle window in the building are to be salvaged for reuse in the commemorative display. Appendix AE-02 also includes the decorative frieze work in addition to the aforementioned elements. In addition, Appendix AE-02 indicates where these elements are to be reused in the commemorative display area. Since Appendix AE-02 spells out what is to be salvaged and how it is to be used, how does Table 16-2’s requirement for 3 options apply? Are additional elements to be salvaged to meet the 16-2 requirement?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Prebid Question Salvaged Material - Tremont Appendix AE-02 indicates a number of items to be salvaged including cap stones along University; stone pavers on University Drive and Crown Ave; corner, cap, and face stones at the stone abutment wall; and 2 stone columns. However, the plans do not indicate where these salvaged items are to be reused. Are they to be stockpiled for a future phase of the work, or used as a part of this phase and if so, where?
PdPvwlZZDTbiyMpUakxKhNZoxypczt@bleqae.comxypczt@bleqae.com53266123835
103000Walsh Construction CompanyArik Quamaquam@walshgroup.com724-745-6039
*** Confidential *** The Walsh/HNTB DBT requests a 4th pre-ATC meeting with ODOT on Monday April 26th. Below is a list of topics our team would like to discuss: 1. Follow-up on previous ATC questions(Regarding action items) 2. Mass concrete specification. 3. Maintenance of Traffic. 4. Construction of E. 9th St over RTA Please advise the time for our meeting by emailing Arik Quam at aquam@walshgroup.com. Thanks
103000Lane/Brayman Joint VentureJim Seybertjsseybert@laneconstruct.com336-518-6179
The Lane/Brayman Jt Venture respectfully requests a pre-ATC meeting on April 29, 2010 in accordance with project specifications. The subject of the pre-ATC meeting will involve Roadway, Traffic and Structures. Thank you, Jim Seybert Design Build Project Manager
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
CONFIDENTIAL REQUEST FOR PRE ATC MEETING 4/26 We request a pre-ATC meeting with the Department as noted in the Selection Criteria and the Proposal on Monday, April 26, 2010. We would prefer to hold this meeting at your offices in the Cleveland area at 1:00pm to fit the travel arrangements of our design personnel. At this meeting we intend to present and discuss the following ATCs: • ATC #10 – Allow use of less than 3 columns on non viaduct bridge to be widened • ATC #12 – Slipforming of parapets on viaduct structures • ATC #13 – Slipforming of parapets on non viaduct structures • ATC #14 – Allow use of friction capacity on east bank drilled shafts • ATC #15 – Eliminate use of coated rebar for certain viaduct substructure units • ATC #16 – Allow use of less than 3 columns on viaduct approach spans • ATC #17 – Allow use of steel delta frame superstructure on main viaduct span • ATC #18 – Changes to allow realignment of Ramp A6 • ATC #19 – Reduction of Ramp A4 to 1 lane • ATC #20 – Reconstruct Broadway Mills Frieze with Salvaged Brick • ATC #21 – Alternative Lighting sources • ATC #22 – Allow use of horizontal web splice in steel haunched girders ATCs #10, 12-14 were mailed to your office for delivery today 4/22 and ATCs #15-22 are being mailed today for delivery tomorrow morning.
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Bridge 15- Abbey Avenue Viaduct Width In Section 14.4.2 of the Project Scope at Bridge Location 15- Abbey Avenue Viaduct, the “Structure horizontal dimensions:” section on page PS-174 indicates “31 feet-0 inches curb-to-curb, two (2) 11-foot 0-inch lanes, two (2) 5-foot 0-inch bike lanes, two (2) 5-foot 0-inch sidewalks”. The sum of the widths of the driving lanes and bike lanes is 32 feet 0 inches. Which is required, 31 feet 0 inches, or 32 feet 0 inches? Please clarify.
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Removal of Existing Various Ramp Structures, W2, E1, E3 & E5 Per the Project Scope section 12.2.3 Removal of existing Roadway and Structure Elements, after removal of the various Ramps Structures W2, E1, E3 and E-5, the DBT is to place “portable concrete barrier placed parallel to or diverging from existing I-90”. Is this portable concrete barrier to be “Bridge Mounted” barrier?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Utility Removal Line Style and Level ODOT does not have a utility removal line style and level in their CADD seed file. Can we create a removal line style and level to use in the proposed utility master file? This line style would look like a series of X’s (It would look like this…X X X X X X). It would be drawn in the proposed utility file over referenced existing utilities that are to be abandoned or removed. This would clarify abandonment and removal limits specified throughout the project.
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Status of Waterline at GCRTA Crossing For the following question below, please refer to the RFP as follows: Appendix UT-08 Page 2 titled “East 9th Street” Center section labeled “Roadway from Commercial Road to GCRTA Crossing” Bottom row Question: The 8” water line specified above is owned by CWD and is called out as “active” in the second column. From a recent field it appears to be abandoned. Please clarify with CWD.
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Limits of Structure Removal Bridge Location 5 (Ramp E5) There is a discrepancy regarding removal limits for Bridge Location 5. PS 12.2.3(D) provides that for Ramp E5 (E 14th Street to I-90 WB) the approximate limits of removal of existing shall be “...from the eastern tie-in to existing (approximately Station 3000+00) to the existing pier in the median of southbound E 9th Street…” PS 14.4.2 Bridge Location 5 provides the scope of work as “This Bridge shall be removed”. What is the scope of removal for this structure, since the Ramp E5 Structure and Bridge Location 5 are one in the same? Do we remove the bridge in its entirety, or just portions?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Ontario Abutment Aesthetics In Appendix AE-02, page L1.2C, the plans at the Ontario Abutment reference detail 2-L3.2. However this detail is for the abutment in Tremont for the 14th Street Extension. In referencing this detail, is ODOT asking for a similar approach with art panels and lettering on this abutment?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Tremont Artwork In Appendix AE-02, page L3.2, there is a note that reads “Art panels shall be provided and installed by the DBT. Coordination with Artist(s) for art content shall be through ODOT.” Please provide clarification as to the responsibilities of the DBT with regard to the artwork. Are we to provide the panels for the artist to do their work? What material are the panels to be? Who is paying the artist? Is there an approval process the DBT needs to follow with regards to the artwork content? Does the DBT have control over the schedule for when the panels need to be installed?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Railing at Broadway Mills In Appendix AE-02, page L0.2B, it is indicated that the 2 existing railing panels at the stone abutment wall adjacent to Broadway Mills shall be salvaged, repaired, scraped, painted, and replaced along with new panels. However, this rail does not meet current Uniform Building Code, ODOT standard requirements, or municipal codes for railings, resulting in a liability issue for the DBT. Please provide direction on how to proceed with the railing design to bring it in line with the applicable codes.
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Signals – Existing Plans Please provide existing traffic signal plans for the following locations: o Ontario/Orange at Eagle, Carnegie, 9th, 14th, 22nd, 30th o Broadway at 30th, Rockefeller/Post Office o 37th at Rockefeller/Broadway o E 9th at Bolivar, Carnegie o E 22nd at Carnegie, Cedar, Central, Community College, Orange o W 25th at intersections listed in TC-10, section 2.2 o I-90 EB and W 25th o 14th & Fairfield o Existing traffic signal interconnect plans for interconnect that connects to any of the intersections above. o Information about the existence of detection at these intersections, and if currently in operation.
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Signals – Innerconnect Interconnect – Carnegie/Ontario/Orange area. Scope calls for twisted pair copper cable, but fiber tape identifying marker. Is fiber an alternative? Are there available specs for equipment required in cabinets related to interconnect (switches, termination panels, etc.)? Are there plans for the existing interconnect system in the downtown area? A laptop is noted, but is any system software required?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Signals – Traffic Dectectors Detection – some locations specify loops or video, other locations do not. In those cases are either acceptable?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Signals – Interconnect – W 25th Street See Appendix TC-10. Will the W 25th St interconnect be City or ODOT owned/maintained? Does it cross any other interconnect corridors that it must interface with? TC-10 allows fiber or wireless, are there any specs for system communication (e.g. Protocols/Ethernet, communications to a TOC, equipment required in cabinet, on-street master, etc.).
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Signs – Modified faces For modified sign faces, can existing signs be used in place and modified, or do they need to be upgraded to meet current MUTCD standards (2009) and use Clearview fonts?
103000Lane - Brayman Joint VentureJim Seybertjsseybert@laneconstruct.com336-518-6179
Reference PS-124 Section 11.1.11 Pavement Resurfacing for Interstate and Ramps. The text description of this scope defines overlays for the Alternate Route Plans to "be resurfaced by planing 1.5 inches, tack coat and 1.5 inches of surface course." The tabular scope references 1.5 inches of 442, 1.75 inches of 442 and 3 inches of 254. Please clarify.
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
MOT Improvements to 22nd St Project Scope section 18.8.H calls for E. 22nd St. to be widened and converted to 2-way traffic per Section O prior to implementation of either ARP. Where is Section O? TC-10 describes constructing two new southbound lanes consistent with City of Cleveland roadway design, but shows no section.
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
MOT Resurfacing SR14 Project Scope sections 18.8.G and 18.8.I call for resurfacing of SR 14 (Broadway and E. 34th St.) and E.14th St. If these improvements are to be done before implementation of the EARP and WARP, who would be responsible for maintenance?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
MOT IR-490 Rumble Strips Project Scope section 18.8.B states that rumble strips on concrete shoulders of IR-490 shall be milled and filled prior to implementation of ARP. Appendix MT-02 states that rumble strips may be cleaned and filled. Is either method acceptable?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
MOT Improvements to Alternate Route roadway Project Scope section 18.8.F states that the DBT shall resurface the Alternate Route lanes and shoulders as per Section 11, and provide pavement markings, including RPM’s and rumble strips as per Section 17 prior to implementation of each ARP. Section 17 calls for epoxy pavement markings on ODOT facilities. If ARP implementation is for a short duration less than one construction season, could temporary pavement markings as per CMS 614.11 be used. Also, some areas of the detour pavement are in good shape, would the entire ARP need to be milled and filled if the ARP was in use for this short duration? Could existing pavement be used for the short duration, and the overlay be done when the second implementation of the ARP was put into place?
103000Lane Brayman Joint VentureJim Seybertjsseybert@laneconstruct.com336-518-6179
Given that the Design firms and the IQ firm would not typically use ODOT DBE's and that historically that volume would not be included in the minority participation of a project, it is requested that subcontract volume of these categories be excluded from the 15% DBE Goal.
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Bridge 8 Deck Replacement Date Project Scope section 14.4.2 states that Bridge 8, I-90 EB over E. 9th St., shall have the deck replaced by December 1, 2011. Appendix MT-01 shows this bridge being reconstructed in Phase 5 of Contract Group 1. Is the December 1, 2011 date correct for this bridge? If it is, would the December 1, 2011 date also apply to Bridge 7, I-90 WB over E. 9th St.?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
NFPA Compliance The latest 2008 version of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA 502), Chapter 6, Section 3, says where the distance from an acceptable water supply source to any point on a bridge or elevated highway exceeds 400 ft, the bridge or elevated highway should be provided with a standpipe system. We believe the main viaduct falls into this category. NFPA compliance is not explicitly required in the Project Scope 1.17, but it could be embedded in one of the many documents listed. Should a standpipe system be installed on the main viaduct to comply with NFPA requirements?
Xu2qDfQj7rztvonbo@kmfbtz.comtvonbo@kmfbtz.com74796781186
103000Walsh Construction CompanyArik Quamaquam@walshgroup.com724-745-6039
Section 4.15 Format of Technical Proposal of the Design Build Selection Criteria States "Font shall be at least 12 point in Times New Roman...Graphics shall conform to the other format requirements listed." Question #1 Are the 30% plans that will be in an appendix required to meet the font requirements? Question #2 If we pull a design graphic or partial plan sheet into the main body of the 75 page technical proposal, is the text on the partial plan sheet required to meet the font requirement? Thanks
103000Walsh Construction CompanyArik Quamaquam@walshgroup.com724-745-6039
Section 5.0 Oral Interview of the Design Build Selection Criteria States "Topics and issues not addressed in the written Technical Proposal shall not be discussed during the oral interview" Question Can the DBT bring reference material to the oral interview such as design drawings that can be referenced and assist in the answering of any questions during the oral interview? Thanks
103000Walsh Construction CompanyArik Quamaquam@walshgroup.com724-745-6039
Section 4.15 Format of Technical Proposals of the Design Build Selection Criteria Due to the anticipated large number of plan sheets that will be included in the technical proposal submittals, can the technical proposal submittal be broken up into two volumes and bound as two seperate volumes?
103000Walsh Construction CompanyArik Quamaquam@walshgroup.com724-745-6039
Section 4.15 Format of Technical Proposals of the Design Buils Selection Criteria States "Submit fifty (50) sequentially numbered paper copies..." Can the 30% design plans that will be in the appendix have the sequential copy number only on the cover sheet vs. placing the sequential copy number on every sheet of every copy of the appendix plan sheets?
103000Walsh Construction CompanyArik Quamaquam@walshgroup.com724-745-6039
Please clarify the testing requirements of the DBT Process Quality Control Staff versus those of the IQF. Section 1.18 of the Project Scope lists supplemental specifications for the project, some of which have been modified. SS 898 has been modified to replace “Contractor” with “DBT” and “Department, or Engineer” with “ICQM”. The testing responsibilities of this supplemental specification are clear. SS 840 and SS 879 have not been modified in a similar manner. Should they be? Does “ICQM” replace “Department, or Engineer” in all specifications, supplemental specifications and supplements? Otherwise, please clarify the intent of Sections 2.4.2, 2.6.1.9, and other sections referencing Process Quality Control versus that of Section 2.6.5.24.
103000Walsh Construction CompanyArik Quamaquam@walshgroup.com724-745-6039
Please clarify the term Laboratory Independent Quality Material Testing in Section 2.6.5.17 of the Project Scope. It is not defined elsewhere in the document. What testing comes under this Section? Does this mean that contractor, supplier or producer personnel cannot perform testing using their own certified personnel (e.g. asphalt testing under Item 403, aggregate testing under S 1069, concrete testing under SS 898, etc.)?
103000Lane/Brayman Joint VentureJim Seybertjsseybert@laneconstruct.com336-518-6179
The Lane/Brayman Joint Venture requests a pre-ATC meeting for Monday May 17, 2010. The topics of discussion will relate to bridge, bridge painting, permanent ramps and retaining walls. Thank you, Jim Seybert Design Build Project Manager
103000Walsh Construction CompanyArik Quamaquam@walshgroup.com724-745-6039
**** Confidential **** The Walsh/HNTB DBT requests a 5th Pre-ATC meeting with ODOT on Monday May 17, 2010. We would like to discuss the following items: 1. Slip forming of parapet walls 2. Slip forming of the median bi-directional wall 3. End Viaduct Structure between the RTA tracks and Ontario St. Add a fill section between the RTA tracks and Ontario St. Add an additional bridge over Ontario St. 4. Low Point on approach bridge 5. Haunch Depths greater than 2:1 up to 5:1 6. Low flow storm water diversion as opposed to BMPs. 7. Allow excess waste material to be stockpiled on the project site for potential use in future contracts. Allow fill to be placed over abandoned broken pavement. 8. Utilize lime kiln dust for chemical treatment in lieu of cement or lime. 9. Utilize recycled concrete and/or slag for select granular backfill for MSE walls 10. Waive submittal of sodium sulfate/wear testing at time of original incorporation for use of recycled concrete on the project. 11. Allow a variance in the maximum height allowed for segmental block walls 12. Allow recycled concrete to be used for sub base material. Please advise what time our meeting will be on Monday May 17th via email at aquam@walshgroup.com. Thanks
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
CONFIDENTIAL REQUEST FOR PRE-ATC MEETING ON 5/17/10 We request a pre-ATC meeting with the Department as noted in the Selection Criteria and the Proposal on Monday, May 17, 2010. We would prefer to hold this meeting at your offices in the Cleveland area at 1:00pm to fit the travel arrangements of our design personnel. At this meeting we intend to present and discuss the following ATCs: • ATC #23 Semi integral abutments • ATC #24 Alternate roadway induction lighting • ATC #25 Bridge 6 Elimination and work substitution • ATC #26 IQF Design – alternate concept • ATC #27 IQF Construction – alternate concept • ATC #28 Welded exterior girder splice – performed in the field • ATC #29 Viaduct overhang requirements • ATC #30 Bolted horizontal web splice – interior girders only • ATC #31 Viaduct shoulder slopes • ATC #32 NICET Inspectors alternate certifications • ATC #33 Future wearing surface loads • Future ATC – Signature span over Ontario Avenue ATCs #24 through 33 are being mailed today for delivery tomorrow morning.
103000Lane/Brayman Joint VentureJim Seybertjsseybert@laneconstruct.com336-518-6179
It is requested that the Department consider providing a mobilization pay item for the project.
103000Lane/Brayman Joint VentureJim Seybertjsseybert@laneconstruct.com336-518-6179
Regarding Section 4 of the Project Scope; Can 1. the Department provide more specific details regarding Project communications meetings with ODOT (section 4.4). How many meetings are anticipated to be held weekly and/or monthly? 2. the Department provide more specific details regarding how regularly the Public Information Specialist will meet with ODOT (section 4.5). How many anticipated weekly and/or monthly meetings? 3. the Department proved more details, ideas, expectations related to items listed in 4.6 - specifically (4.6.3), (4.6.6), (4.6.7), (4.6.8) and (4.6.10)? Thanks, Jim Seybert Design Build Project Manager
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Widened Bridges - Number of Columns Required The Scope of Services states in section 14.4.2 that “proposed piers for widened structures shall be independent of existing piers.” Additionally section 14.4.2 requires that “cap and column piers shall have a minimum of three (3) columns.” There are several places on the project that will require one, two or three beam lines. Providing a cap and column pier, which incidentally will match the existing structure type, with 3 columns is difficult and/or impossible. Consideration is requested to allow the pier widening to be founded on cap and column substructures with less than 3 columns. In the case of a widened bridge with only one beam line, consideration is requested to provide a single column concentric with the beam line, with or without a dummy cap appearing to connect to the existing column.
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com4
RFP Addendum No. 3 Date Please note that the date for RFP Addendum No. 3 on document 103000d is printed as 5/13/2009.
103000Walsh Construction CompanyArik Quamaquam@walshgroup.com724-745-6039
Bridge Location 3 – CUY-90-1506 (I-90 Over Kenilworth Ave) According to the Scope Section 14.4.2 this structure is shown as deck replacement and minor widening. Since the new proposed alignment does not follow the existing alignment and the toe of the median barrier will be at a different alignment and location of the existing median, in addition to the complication of providing a transverse cross slope that does not match the existing cross slope on the structure and the location of the new phase construction line with respect to the existing beam locations and also accounting for the change in the profile due to the bearing height combined with the new profile, should the scope of this bridge be revised to be a new structure or new superstructure with modified substructure (The modification of the substructure is necessary to account for the new beam line locations and to resolve issues with future CCG2)?
103000Walsh Construction CompanyArik Quamaquam@walshgroup.com724-745-6039
Bridge Location 15 – CUY-ABBEY-1001M (Abbey Ave Viaduct) Since this structure is to be widened by approximately 1’-0” to accommodate the 5’-0” bike lane, would this require the scope of work under section 14.4.2 part G & H to be performed on this structure (i.e. the approach slab to be removed and replaced and the removal and replacement of Porous Backfill)?
103000Walsh Construction CompanyArik Quamaquam@walshgroup.com724-745-6039
Regarding pavement markings and delineation for the Alternate Route Plans, if there is an extended period between completion of the proposed initial EARP and/or WARP and implementation of the bi-directional condition what are the requirements for replacement of pavement markings and delineation devices(RPM’s and Rumble Strips) prior to final resurfacing and implementation of the bi-directional condition? In other words will the existing traveled lanes of the proposed detour routes have to be put back into their existing configuration (12’ lanes, shoulders, etc.) with new epoxy pavement markings, rpm’s, and rumble strips at completion of the initial ARP prior to the next ARP implementation or to the implementation of the bi-directional condition?
103000Walsh Construction CompanyArik Quamaquam@walshgroup.com724-745-6039
Mainline Bridge Locations: 1,2,3 7,8,9,10,11 &12: Some of these structures are scoped for deck replacement or deck replacement with widening, What are the intention of the department on the treatments of the bridge expansion joints? (replace with strip seal, convert to semi-integral if possible). If joint replacement is anticipated than removal of portions of the abutments backwall will be necessary. Please clarify the scope of work. Thanks
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Bulkhead Design Requirements Currently, within the CUY-90 14.92 project area, commercial marine terminal operators stockpile aggregate materials behind the east Cuyahoga River bulkhead wall. RW-03 indicates ODOT will be acquiring property adjacent to the new east bulkhead wall. Please provide a maximum transient design load for east side bulkhead wall based on ODOT’s anticipated use of this property.
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Interference with existing OH Sign Structure at Bridge 12 Reference Project Scope Section 14.4.2, Bridge Location 12, Comments B: “…For the I-77 ramp portion of the structure, the proposed left edge of deck shall match the existing left edge of deck”. This requires that the widening of the I-77 ramp will occur to the right side which will require the existing forward abutment to be widened accordingly. There is an existing overhead sign structure immediately past bridge 12 spanning I-90 in both directions which will interfere with this widening. This sign structure as shown on TC-01 sheet 9/24 does not appear to be required to be removed, relocated, or replaced. Will the DBT be permitted to temporarily remove this sign structure and replace the signs with temporary ground mounted signs during the MOT?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Updated *.dgn files noted in Appendix DI-02 A review of the ODOT ftp site for this project shows a number of changes to files in DI-02, Electronic Document Inventory, that have occurred in Addenda 1, 2, and 3, but the only addenda with new *.dgn or *.dwg drawings are addendum 2 with two AE drawings and addendum 3 with five right-of-way drawings. Specifically there are a number of drawings with a revision date of 4/15/2010 that show up on DI-02 in addendum 3 under BBC&M Engineering, Inc. (BBCM) that we cannot find. Where can we locate these drawings?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Beam Continuity Weld Retrofit Section 14.4.2B of the Scope states that "All ends of cover plates and beam continuity welds with splice plates shall be retrofitted." It is unclear what the retrofit is for the "beam continuity welds with splice plates". We believe that the retrofit for this item is to retrofit the ends of the splice plates similar to the retrofit of the cover plates. Please confirm.
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Pile Driving Records for Existing Innerbelt Bridge Please provide all available driving records for piles installed beneath the existing I-90 Innerbelt bridge and other structures included in the scope of CCG1.
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Design or As-Built Drawings for East Cuyahoga River Bulkhead Walls Please provide design or as-built drawings for the existing eastern Cuyahoga River bulkhead walls that fall within the project limits.
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Bridge Approach Slab Modifications at Bridge 15 The revised scope of work for Bridge Location 15 on page PS-176 (addendum 3) paragraph D notes that we are to “repair or replace approach slabs to match bridge retrofits.” Please clarify this scope - does this require us to provide an overlay on the approach slab? Will ODOT allow the approach slab to be widened by exposing the outside edges and drilling and grouting dowels and then placing only the widened slab?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Bridge Location 15 Joint Retrofit The revised scope of work for Bridge Location 15 on page PS-175 (addendum 3) paragraph B notes that we are to provide “…retrofit and extension of structural joint to match relocated curb line.” Will we be permitted to salvage and modify the existing sidewalk sliding plates for re-use?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Bridge Location 15 As-Built Joint Info The revised scope of work for Bridge Location 15 on page PS-175 (addendum 3) paragraph B notes that we are to provide “…retrofit and extension of structural joint to match relocated curb line.” Does ODOT have existing shop-drawings or submittal info as to the manufacturer of this joint? There is considerable risk in assuming that an identical extrusion and / or replacement neoprene seals are currently available without the DBT doing time consuming investigation of current fabricators.
103000Lane/Brayman Joint VentureJim Seybertjsseybert@laneconstruct.com336-518-6179
Please reference the proposal schedule of prices, in particular Line 6. The description of work for line 6 includes parking areas "Tremont, Fairfield & Downtown". We have assumed the parking lot between the proposed and existing I90 structures to be the "Tremont" parking lot. We have also assumed the lot along Central Viaduct to be the "downtown" parking lot. Please provide clarification as to what work would be included as part of the "Fairfield" parking area. Thanks, JSS
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Request for Design or As-Built Drawings for West Cuyahoga River Dock Wall The Proposal documents relating to the existing west Cuyahoga River Dock Wall (Appendix file ST-03, all sheets; Appendix file EX-53, sheets 32 and 33; Appendix file ST-04, sheets 38 of 43 and 3 of 5) do not clearly indicate typical sections for the entire existing west dock wall within the CCG1 work area. Please confirm the dock wall section, or provide new design or as-built drawings for the existing west dock wall between approximately Station 134+42 62’ R and Work Point 2 shown on Appendix ST-03, sheet 2 of 6.
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
PN 525 Steel Price Adjustment The current version of PN 525 Price Adjustment for Design Build Projects dated 1/15/2010 does not include an adjustment for Category 3 steel items (Prestress and Post tensioning strand)nor Category 4 (Reinforcing Steel). In light of the amount of steel product and long duration of the project, we request the inclusion of Category 3 and Category 4 steel items in this price adjustment clause as was done for recently bid ODOT project 100280 WAR IR 71 14.20.
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Engineer of Record for West Bank Stabilization Section 9 of the Project Scope clearly directs the DBT to perform a prescribed scope of work at the West Bank: “ODOT is prescribing stabilization construction for the west slope prior to construction of the viaduct bridge. The Stabilization consists of removal of the cold storage building, soil excavation, and installation of vertical and horizontal drains. The DBT shall construct the prescribed stabilization in accordance with the West Bank Grading Plans presented in Appendix GE-01, and Horizontal and Vertical Drains presented in GE-11.” ODOT is the engineer of record for the plans and the prescribed designs and sequences they contain. It is our understanding that the West Bank Grading Plans, including the prescribed sequence of work, were developed in order to mitigate slope stability concerns and that our scope of work is limited to the implementation of the prescribed grading plan and sequence of work. The foundations designed to support the bridge on the West Bank are therefore not subject to lateral forces related to slope movements. Would ODOT confirm that this understanding is correct?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Existing Original Central Viaduct Overlook Abutment Foundation Some foundations for the original Central Viaduct utilized timber mats and battered timber piles. Would ODOT provide documentation on the foundation of the existing original Central Viaduct east (overlook) abutment?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Ontario SB full depth pavement limits Please clarify the full depth pavement limits for Ontario SB from station 32-40. Appendix LD-01 typical section sheet 9/11 shows only the widening being full depth pavement. Appendix PA-02 the shading indicates the entire SB maybe full depth pavement and the project scope section 12.2.1 project limits table 12-3 seems to indicate this as well.
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Ontario/Carnegie MOT closures The Ontario and Carnegie intersection is being rebuilt with full depth pavement either concrete or concrete base and asphalt pavement. The 14 day 2 lane reductions per the closure requirements for both Ontario and Carnegie listed in table 18-3 of the Project scope section 18.3.2 will not work. Can ODOT revise these times to be the 180 days listed for Ontario EB(SB)?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
ROW Fencing Requirements under the viaduct structure Can ODOT clarify if ROW fencing is required under the viaduct structure both at the west bank and from the Cuyahoga River east to the RTA? If it is required what are the limits for this contract (CCG2 may influence this).
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Ramp A7 (aka I-90 WB) Pavement Design Type Can the DBT have the option to pave Ramp A7 (aka I-90 WB) with full depth asphalt paving per project scope 11.1.1? This "ramp" is approximately 300' long and will be done in conjunction with the mainline asphalt paving.
103000Lane/Brayman Joint VentureJim Seybertjsseybert@laneconstruct.com336-518-6179
In the drainage section of the scope, section 13.1.2, Local Facilities, the first line states all plan and design for local facilities are to be prepared in the accordance with the latest standards provided in section 1.17. In section 1.17 there is a list of all the standards to be followed. In this list the only section that refers to the city of Cleveland is subsection F. The two references in this section are Cleveland Water Standards at (http://www.clevelandwater.com/system_overview/standards_details06.aspx) Standards construction drawings (including Drainage Design Standards) at: (http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/CityofCleveland/home/government/CityAgencies/publicService/Public%20Service%20Publications) From past experience with doing drainage work for the city of Cleveland, Cleveland Division of Water Pollution Control (WPC) has a set of standards not published in the above standards. These standards could have large impacts on the layout of the proposed drainage facilities for the local roads. Does ODOT wish to include the WPC standards or should the project be bid as shown in the RFP?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Technical Proposal Appendix Several key positions for the project are listed in the Selection Criteria sections 4.3, 4.5, and 4.7. Can full resumes for each key position be provided in the appendix to the proposal?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Technical Proposal – Form C2 Is it permissible to change the layout of Form C2 to an 11x17 page size to conform with the rest of the technical proposal.
103000Lane/Brayman Joint VentureJim Seybertjsseybert@laneconstruct.com336-518-6179
Our DBT is considering several alternate designs. We respectfully request confidential input as to the following questions: 1) Would the Department look favorably on a submission of more than one design alternative for the main viaduct? We have not found wording within the proposal to exclude this option. We would propose to offer two structures for owner/community within the technical proposal for the same pricing. 2) Would ODOT consider an opportunity for the DBT’s to submit proposals for alternate main-viaduct structure types that would contain pricing for each alternate structure?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Drivability Analysis for Pipe Piles ODOT Bridge Design Manual 2007 202.2.3.2.d states that minimum pipe pile wall thicknesses are specified by a formula in CMS 507 and 202.2.3.2.b However, ODOT BDM 2007 202.2.3.2.b indicates that designers are to perform a Drivability Analysis in accordance with LRFD 10.7.8. May we use this Drivability Analysis to also determine the minimum pipe pile wall thickness and capacity in lieu of using the formula listed in CMS 507.06?
102002Geuy Construction CoCindygeuyconstruction@woh.rr.com9373622721
Could you please list a source for the Truss Protector is listed as 1062 Goodrich Thermoid Rubber Baffle
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Traffic Signals Per TC-10, section 4.2 there are a variety of traffic signal improvements on Broadway between 14th Street and 27th Street, however, there is no mention of installing communications between these signals (as there is for W 25th Street, E 22nd Street and others). Please confirm that communications are not required for this corridor (or are already in place).
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Signing 2. There are a variety of truck information signs (TRUCKS PROHIBITED and TRUCKS 90 EAST) that have been added since the signing concept was developed (TC-1). Do these signs need to remain at the end of CCG1 in the bi-directional condition, or are they removed once traffic is taken off the old Innerbelt bridge?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Signing 3. The addition of more signs, or the replacement of existing signs with larger signs will increase the surface area of sign face on many of the existing sign structures. Should we assume that the structures need to be replaced? For example: a. I-490 EB near Broadway there is a cantilever sign for Exit 2A/Broadway OH14. Can we place the supplemental sign on the existing cantilever and fit to the space available?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Signing b. I-90 EB west of 44th Street, TC-1 shows adding a plaque for “Downtown Exits, Carnegie Ave, use”. This sign also already has a “Trucks I-90 East” plaque. This sign also needs a “Left Exit XXX” plaque. The downtown/Carnegie plaque is shown using very small text. Beyond the fact that this is probably too much information on one sign, using an appropriate text size would increase this panel substantially increasing it from the current height of around 120” to about 204” not including the exit plaque. This would seem to be an awfully tall panel to not be centered vertically on the truss. Should we assume the truss structure needs to be replaced? What is the minimum text size that can be used for the Downtown/Carnegie plaque? This set of signs may also need to be replaced with up arrow signs. As these signs have quite a bit more surface area should we assume the truss needs to be replaced?
103000Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Signing c. I-490 EB ramp to I-77. This set of signs is mounted on a bridge. The new sign will be wider and taller. The bridge is at an angle, so the bracket for the wider sign will have to extend out further and to keep it perpendicular to the roadway and to allow for a higher sign. Can we assume that that new bracketing can be configured to install the new signs on the bridge, or should these signs be installed on a truss in front of the bridge? Should the arrows be centered over the lanes per new MUTCD requirements?
1 - 100Next