ODOT/ACEC Partnering AwardExcellence in Highway Design

2020 Nomination Template

Project Nomination Deadline: March 6, 2020District Capital Program Administrator Final Submission Deadline:

March 10, 2020

transportation.ohio.govwww.acecohio.org

Please direct any additional questions to: Mat Mauger | Office of Consultant Services | 614-644-0623 | M at . M a u g e r @ d o t.o h i o . g ov

The nomination process has two steps:1) Consultants and/or ODOT Employees complete a draft nomination using this Word template

o Draft nominations (in MS Word format) are to be emailed to the respective ODOT District Capital Program Administrator (see the map and table below) by Friday, March 6, 2020

Please save this file using unique name(s) for your nomination(s) to avoid confusion and overwriting issues. Completed document should be no more than 25 total pages, maximum (not including the embedded picture

pages). All requested images should be included using the Picture fields available with the specific questions. Do not submit hard copies of any nomination materials, attach additional documents and do not send CD-

ROMs. Many entry fields in this form accept ‘Rich Text’ formatted material, but reformatting directly in the fields is

limited/restricted due to the templated nature of this presentation. Copying and pasting of formatted text, including bulleted text, indents, font size, etc., from other unrestricted Word files or other documents is possible and acceptable.

2) District Capital Program Administrators use this portal link (ODOT Intranet Only) to submit pre-screened/completed nomination Word format document(s) by Tuesday, March 10, 2020

o Please save file(s) using unique name(s) for each nomination to avoid confusion and overwriting issues.o Each district may submit a maximum of two (2) submissions per category for final review

Please direct any additional questions to: Mat Mauger | Office of Consultant Services | 614-644-0623 | M at . M a u g e r @ d o t.o h i o . g ov

ODOT DISTRICTCAPITAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATORS

D-1: Robert White(419) 999-6901

robert.white@dot.ohio.gov

D-2: Kacey Young (419) 373-4350

m i k e . gr a m za@ d o t .oh i o . gov D-3: Matthew Walter

(419) 207- 7047matthew.walter@dot.ohio.gov

D-4: Chad Root(330) 786-3162

chad.root@dot.ohio.govD-5: Julie Gwinn(740) 323-5240

julie.gwinn@dot.ohio.gov

D-6: Thom Slack(740) 833-8340

th o m .sla c k @ d o t . o h i o .g o v D-7: Matt Parrill(937) 497-6802

m a t t. par r i l l @ d o t . o h io. gov

D-8: Stefan Spinosa(513) 933-6639

st e f a n .s p i nos a @ d o t. o h i o .g o v D-9: Christopher

Pridemore(740) 774-9067

D-10: Jamie Hendershot(740) 568- 3975

jamie.hendershot@dot.ohio.govD-11: Shane Locke

(330) 308-3955shane.locke@dot.ohio.gov

D-12: Michael Kubek(216) 584-2127

michael.kubek@dot.ohio.gov

Project Nomination Form

Project Name: I-80 Widening, Preliminary Engineering and Final Design, Mahoning & Trumbull Counties

Project PID: 77260

Consultant Agreement No.: 17248

County or Municipality: Mahoning & Trumbull Counties

ODOT District: ODOT District 4

Consultant Name: ms consultants, inc. / GPD Group

Category for which project is being nominated Category 3: Construction Value - $20,000,001 or more

Construction Value $91,150,300 Award Amount

Construction Project Number 150126

Dates of PS&E, Letting and Construction Completion

Plan Package in CO – 11/19/2014Letting – 4/2/2015End Construction Est. 7/31/2018

Name of Organization Submitting ODOT District 4

Contact person for award-related W. Brian Hughes, P.E.bhughes@msconsultants.com

1

material/submittal (Name, email, phone, mailing address)

330-744-5321333 East Federal Street, Youngstown, Ohio 44503

Region Contact Person and their role Rob ShenalContracts ManagerODOT District 4

Project Personnel and their roles, including significant players from bureaus

(e.g. Structures), agencies, consultants, etc.

John Picuri: ODOT District 4 Project ManagerBrian Hughes: ms consultants Project Manager (Part 1)Steve Gealy: ms consultants Senior Highway EngineerMark Grossman: GPD Project Manager (Part 1)Davin Ng: GPD Project Manager (TRU-80-1.91 L/R) (Part 2)Tom Washko: GPD Senior Bridge EngineerDante Castronava: GPD Senior Bridge EngineerChris Luzier: GPD Roadway EngineerMike Hobbs: GPD Senior Traffic EngineerLaura Beese: ODOT District 4 Project Engineer (Parts 1 and 2)

Award Ceremony Information:

Person(s) accepting award at ceremony

(Name, Email, phone)

W. Brian Hughes, PE (ms consultants, inc.) bhughes@msconsultants.com330-744-5321

Mark R. Grossman, PE (GPD Group)mgrossman@gpdgroup.com330-572-2234

Davin Ng, PE (GPD Group)dng@gpdgroup.com614-210-0751

Names to show on certificate, up to 6

Thomas E. Mosure, PE, W. Brian Hughes, PE, Steve Gealy, PE – ms consultantsMark R. Grossman, PE, Davin Ng – GPD Group

2

persons and their companies or roles

One JPG image to be used on certificate

3

Executive Summary:

Overall purpose, goals, and design methodology

Identified as a major trade and travel passageway—a macro corridor—the Mahoning and Trumbull Counties section of Interstate 80, known as MAH/TRU-80-4.50/0.00, is not only a major link in Ohio’s transportation system, but also a gateway for moving freight between the Midwest and eastern states. The central portion of the corridor also carries state Route 11, which serves traffic moving goods and services between Lake Erie and the Ohio River Valley.Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), District 4 initiated a major investment study of the aging corridor, as it was more than 45 years old and nearing the end of its useful life. Through the study, ODOT determined that the corridor had high-crash locations and numerous design deficiencies, issues that led to congestion and safety problems. Although the daily percentage of trucks in the central portion of the corridor remained constant at 28%, the daily truck volumes will increase from 15,360 to 17,440 by 2035 —compounding an already serious problem. ODOT developed the project to implement the study recommendations, geared towards restoring the pavement integrity through full-depth reconstruction, improving safety by correcting deficient geometric conditions, and relieving congestion by improving capacity via adding lanes.ms consultants, inc., with their major subconsultant, GPD Group, was selected by ODOT to lead Part 1, MAH/TRU-80-4.50/0.00, the reconstruction of the mainline lanes and third lane addition. Part 2, TRU-80-1.68, was led by GPD Group to replace the TRU-80-1.91 L/R Twin Bridge spanning Norfolk Southern and Ohio Central Railroads, along with widening and reconstruction of I-80 and two US-422 interchange ramps. Part 3, MAH-80-0.16, was led by District 4 and involved limited full depth reconstruction of I-80 pavement sections west of the project corridor.The majority of the IR-80 project corridor was a four-lane facility with two through lanes in the westbound and eastbound directions. The project began at SR-46, which is 0.9 miles west of the I-80/I-680/SR-11 Interchange

4

and proceeded east to the SR-193/Belmont Avenue Interchange. There are six interchanges within the reconstruction limits. Two of the interchanges are system interchanges. The west-most system interchange (“West Interchange”) is the I-80/I-680/SR-11 interchange, and the east-most system interchange (“East Interchange”) is the I-80/SR-711/SR-11 interchange. SR-11 shares the I-80 corridor between the two system interchanges. Service interchanges also exist at SR-46, Salt Springs Road (CH-64), US-422, and at SR-193/Liberty Street. The scope of services for the project involved three broad objectives:

Add a third median lane in each direction from the SR-11/I-680 Interchange to the East Interchange.

Add auxiliary lanes between the East Interchange and SR-193. Reconstruct all existing interchange ramps and mainline lanes.

These key components had to be accomplished while reconstructing wider bridges and maintaining two lanes of traffic in each direction. An additional objective was to correct identified deficiencies by making horizontal alignment and vertical profile enhancements to meet design speeds and preferred vertical clearances along the corridor.

Leading Part 1, the ms consultants design team developed a plan that involved reconstruction of more than six miles of I-80 and nearly six miles of ramp lanes. Project requirements included bridge inspections of 14 structures, total replacement of 1 bridge, reconstruction and widening of 3 mainline bridges, and minor rehabilitation to 10 other overhead or mainline bridges. An extensive geotechnical investigation and mine hazard investigation were also completed. New roadway drainage, median retaining wall, grading, 10,000 feet of noise walls, new high mast lighting, signing and striping, and maintenance of traffic planning were all important components of the overall project completion.

GPD Group completed the replacement of the I-80 1.91 bridge pair over the railroads between US-422 and the Mahoning River, along with roadway approach work along I-80 and the west ramps of the I-80/US-422

5

interchange.In addition to GPD Group, the ms consultants’ design team was assisted by subconsultants Barr & Prevost, Northwest Consultants, Inc., and So-Deep, US, P.C. GPD Group provided roadway and bridge planning from the East Interchange to SR-193 and project-wide Maintenance of Traffic planning. Barr & Prevost completed the road, retaining wall and bridge geotechnical investigations and reporting, as well as the underground mine hazard evaluation and reporting. Northwest Consultants performed the project survey and right of way planning. So-Deep was responsible for the Level B and Level A subsurface utility engineering.At project inception, the team created an Alternative Evaluation Report, identifying geometric deficiencies along the corridor and presenting options for improvements. To provide fully developed construction plans, ms continued the plan development of Stage 1, Stage 2, and Stage 3, and through tracings submissions. The design was on ODOT’s fast track process, implemented to reduce design and construction costs.

Highlight any unique aspects of the project

COORDINATION BETWEEN PARTS 1 AND 2: Part 1 planning required close coordination with Part 2 planning because the TRU-80-1.91 Twin Railroad Bridge replacement was situated midway through the overall corridor. This coordination was eased by having GPD lead maintenance of traffic planning for Part 1, and coordinate it directly with their railroad bridge design team. The ms and GPD team developed a file and drawing sharing system, as well as meeting regularly to provide systematic, integrated plan development across the entire corridor.RAILROAD COORDINATION: Many projects are delayed due to railroad access issues. It is traditionally the contractor’s responsibility to prepare the temporary railroad access plan and submit the plan to the Railroad companies for their approval after the contract has been awarded. ODOT District 4 was striving to avoid such a scheduling delay. Therefore, GPD prepared the temporary railroad crossing plan for approval by the Railroad during the design phase. GPD scheduled a meeting at the Ohio Central

6

Railroad office in Coshocton to discuss the preliminary temporary at-grade crossing detail, design criteria and the other requirements of the Railroad. A Railroad Construction Access Meeting was also conducted at ODOT’s field office and at the site to discuss the construction of the access road and railroad crossing before award of the contract.

MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC: Specific to the railroad bridge, two lanes of traffic in both directions were maintained on I-80 at all times as well as mantaing the EB exit ramp and WB entrance ramp from the I-80/US-422 interchange to the east. The minimum width of the previous EB bridge was 33 feet while the WB bridge was 45 feet with both being constrained on the west end. With a requirement to maintain the mainline lanes at 11 feet with 1-foot shoulders, neither of the existing bridges were wide enough to accommodate both directions of travel under a crossover scenario. The proposed alignment also prohibited a shift that would allow complete construction of a new structure, either inside or outside of the existing bridges. Additionally, due to the need for lower speed ramp curves to tie back into the existing ramps and the possibility of substandard merge/diverge lengths, full EB deceleration and WB acceleration lanes were needed for the entire length of the bridge during construction. To accommodate these constraints, it was determined that a portion of the new WB structure could be constructed inside of the existing bridge to accommodate one EB mainline lane and the EB ramp deceleration lane while the second EB mainline lane was placed on the existing WB bridge with the WB lanes shifted to the outside of the bridge. This allowed for a full closure of the EB bridge structure, which was then completely reconstructed. All three EB lanes were subsequently shifted back to the new EB structure along with the two WB mainline lanes. The WB ramp acceleration lane was placed on the previously constructed portion of new WB bridge structure to complete construction on the remaining portion of the WB bridge. This resulted in crossovers and temporary pavement on both sides of the Eb and WB bridges.

7

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: ODOT and GPD held a public meeting and separate design workshops for business owners and managers to provide project information and receive feedback about the impacts to the traffic flow during the construction.

8

Judging Criteria:

A. Project Development Process

1 Project development schedule maintained

a. Consultant completion schedule, scoped vs. actual

Through the use of design workshops, and regularly scheduled project meetings, the consultants worked with District staff to ensure that the design of the project was completed on schedule.

The project team met the ODOT commitment dates for each design stage submittal on a very aggressive completion schedule. The design schedule consisted of 12 months from NTP through AER to Stage 1 submission, 4 months from Stage 1 complete to Stage 2 submission, less than 3 months from Stage 2 complete to Stage 3 submission and 1 month to Tracing submittal.

2 Effective comment and conflict resolution process

The success of this project was centered around open communication between the railroads, the consultants and ODOT. The consultants brought up any issues before they became problems and ODOT provided timely responses to these concerns.

Work was completed with a small number of review comments and minimal technical guidance from the Department, relative to the size and complexity of the project.

3 Cooperative and effective project management

Since this project involved construction along a vital transportation route for the Midwest, connecting major cities like Chicago and New York, it affected many people. The design team worked as a cohesive group to provide a project that addressed transportation concerns, provided effective MOT schemes, and addressed the needs of construction access crossing the railroad tracks. The close collaboration between all project managers was an important reason for the success of this project.

9

The ODOT project manager relayed in an email to ms consultants’s project manager, “With regards to overall Project Management, your control and knowledge of the project thru the entire plan development was excellent and the scores reflect that in the Management Evaluation Form. Thank-you!”

4 CES Score for project 81% Part 1, 79% Part 2

5 Consultant Contract Historya. Prime Agreement – Scope and Fee $1,466,674.00 Part 1, $1,573,749 Part 2b. Modifications – Scope and Fee $5,690,138.00 ($5,037,019 expended) for Part 1

B. Plan and Contract Quality

1 Project bid cost relative to budget estimates as a measure of fiscal planning

Engineer’s (State) estimate: $85,480,000Award Cost: $91,150,300.32(+6.63%)

2 Quantity variationsa. Total number of bid items on

project(s)823

b. Number of items for which the final quantity was within 2% of the quantity as let

512

3 Contract Change Ordersa. Number and value of change orders.

Explain why changes were needed106 change orders for a value of $8,462,588.10. The reason for the changes orders were varied. Some were for a change in the field condition, and others were MOT related.

b. Number of design related changes. Explain why changes were needed

12, while each case was different the major theme was that a different condition appeared from what was in the plan.

c. Dollar change from “as let” cost due $8,461,553.63

10

to CCO's and quantity revisions

d. Cost change as percentage of as let cost

9.28%

4 Addendaa. Number of addenda issued prior to

letting5

b. General nature and change in construction cost for each addenda

Addenda 1, changed pay items for concrete.Addenda 3, needed to change average width of the temporary pavement.Addenda 4, revised sheets dealing with the temporary support of the existing girders and provided the service dead load per girder.Addenda 5, added a pay item for the removal of intermediate striffeners.

C. Alignment and Location Design

1 Alternativesa.

Number and general nature of alternative alignments including relationship to location of existing roadway

For Part 1, two significant horizontal geometric improvements were made. The first flattened the EB I-80 left hand exit curve at EB I-680 diverge to lessen the degree of divergence. This horizontal improvement also worked to improve the vertical sag curve and clearance under the adjacent bridge to the east (MAH-680-0206) and eliminated the need for a short-height retaining wall at the merge with NB SR-11. The second improvement involved a horizontal realignment of EB I-80 in the vicinity of the bridge spanning NB SR-711. This effort saved the need to replace that structure. Furthermore, vertical clearances were improved to the extent practical at all overhead bridges.

For the MOTAA, multiple alternates were studied for Part 1, along with 41 various alternate combinations for the twin bridges designed under Part 2.

11

2 Alignment fita.

Efforts to fit to topography thereby minimizing cuts and fills, allowing flatter backslopes, more gradual driveway slopes, etc.

For Part 1, a strategy employed early in the planning was to improve graded shoulder widths by lowering the profile slightly so as not to result in sliver fills, which would require benching and disturbance of the 2:1 vegitated outside slopes. This scheme was an efficient way of accomplishing this improvement because the pavement was being replaced full depth, and it worked well with the need to improve the vertical clearances at the overhead bridges.For Part 2, the existing alignment of I-80 in the vicinity of the railroad bridge was composed of a 1°10’00” curve leading into a tangent on the eastern end of the project. GPD studied and presented at several conceptual workshops held at District’s office various geometric options (tapering, alignment shifting, ramp closures, detours, etc.) to maintain traffic through the project. As a result of these workshops, it was determined that the best scenario to maintain traffic was to realign I-80 EB and I-80 WB towards the median. The realignment involved the use of multiple flat compound curves ranging from 0°50’00” to 1°30’00” to achieve an approximate 13’ offset from the existing roadway. Both baselines tie into the existing I-80 alignment with the use of a 0°45’ deflection meeting the requirements for a 70 mph design speed. At each interchange the various entrance ramps, acceleration lanes, exits ramps, and deceleration lanes were updated to meet current design criteria, including geometric realignments, if needed. At the Railroad Bridge, Ramp C deceleration length was increased to place the 100’ deceleration lane taper off of the proposed structure to simplify the structure construction.

3 Design practicesa.

Safety and maintenance-related considerations incorporated into

During the AER phase of the project, all deviations from normal design criteria were tabulated and evaluated for improvement. The

12

design. (Improving vision, raising grade through marshes, etc.)

horizontal and vertical deficiencies were corrected by the project to improve design speed and/or stopping sight distance to the extent practical. Design exceptions were obtained where prudent to do so.

The use of weathering steel on the railroad bridges eliminated initial structural steel coating costs and eliminates future maintenance recoating costs. Use of weathering steel also eliminates the extensive railroad coordination associated with providing protective structures and other enclosures necessary to perform field painting operations over active railroad tracks.

D. Cost-Effective Design

1 Safety and maintenance-related considerations. Identify this impact in terms of ODOT construction cost, cost to traveling public, or cost to entire public

The additional third lane in each direction and auxiliary lanes greatly reduce congestion along the freeway, improving safety to the traveling public. Median cable barriers are also provided as an additional safety component. Weathering steel eliminated initial structural steel coating costs for the I-80 twin railroad bridges and eliminates future maintenance recoating costs. Usage of weathering steel also eliminates the extensive railroad coordination associated with providing protective structures and other enclosures necessary to perform field painting operations over active railroad tracks. For the MAH-80-0517R bridge replacement, the existing abutments were salvaged as a means to minimize the height of the new abutments. The EB and WB bridges at this location span very old water lines owned/operated by the Mahoning Valley Sanitary District (MVSD). Therefore, special precautions were identified via plan notes to safeguard these critical lines servicing the Youngstown metropolitan area.

13

2 Project Maintainability The new railroad structures eliminated intermediate expansion joints or hinges, which is an improvement over the existing bridges.

E. Complexity of Design

1 Unusual, non-standard, or innovative design features and practices

The proposed shortened structures for the railroad bridges included a spill-thru rear abutment located within span 2 of the existing bridge configuration. A challenge in constructing the new rear abutment at the westbound structure was the existence of a buried railroad underpass structure beneath existing westbound span 2. The design removed a portion of the top slab of the existing buried structure then installed drilled shafts through the structure to avoid removing it entirely.

2 New technology and products used For the railroad bridges, the abutment bearings were laminated elastomeric type but required Teflon sliding surfaces to accommodate movements. Abutment bearings without Teflon slides could not be made tall enough and maintain proper stability and slip prevention.

3 Degree of coordination and timing The project required a great deal of coordination among ODOT, the consultant design team, railroad companies, local businesses, and various utility companies to meet the goals of the project in an urban area.

4 Number and type of controls governing Accommodation of existing utilities; right of way acquisition for accommodation for access and utility relocations; construction vehicular access.

5 Number of traffic control stages 10 maintenance of traffic phases. Construction of the new superstructures were performed under part-width construction, maintaining two lanes of traffic in each direction throughout the entire construction process.

14

F. Community Sensitive Design

1 Mitigation of Adverse Impact on Public During Construction

Disincentives plans on 17 different construction components to minimize construction impacts to both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.Pedestrian detours were provided to mitigate sidewalk closures on State Street (US-422)

The Project resequenced the MOT to improve traffic flow through the corridor during construction. This reduced driver frustration and delays, allowing emergency service providers to serve people promptly.

2 Preservation of Natural Areas N/A

3 Reestablishment of Natural Vegetation or Wetlands

Work to existing vegetated side slopes and ditches were intentionally avoided to minimize water pollution and to maintain slope stability.

4 Preservation of Historical and Archeological Features

N/A

5 Enhancement of Cultural Resources N/A

6 Community Sensitive Design The noise walls were designed with icons to showcase important local community attibutes and identity.

7 Overall Aesthetic Appeal The noise walls were designed with aesthetically pleasing stone relief and natural color, complemented with finials and local community icon panel inserts.

Location Map(s)

15

At least one high-level location map. Please attach an IMAGE FILE of your map here (take and upload a snapshot or screen capture image if the original map is only available as a PDF or other non-compatible image file format)

16

Photographs

Use the Picture boxes below to add up to 10 digital photos (.JPG or other compatible format) suitable for large-screen display. Before-and-after photos are encouraged. Please use the caption field to provide details on each image.

View looking northward at the I-80 / SR 11 / Sr 711 Interchange during construction (East Interchange)

(photo - 17)

(photo - 18)

View looking east towards Salt Springs Road Interchange early in the construction process.

(photo - 19)

Close-up view of median drainage reconstruction near Salt Springs Road.

(photo - 20)

View looking west from the Four Mile Run Road Bridge of future median retaining wall location after widening in the median.

(photo - 21)

View of MAH-80-View looking southward at MAH-80-0517 L / R. The EB Bridge was replaced and the WB Bridge was rehabiltated.

(photo - 22)

View of the Salt Springs Road Interchange area following EB median widening ahead of traffic shifts.

(photo - 23)

TRU 801.91 L/R over NFSS

(photo - 24)

Pier #4 next to the railroad tracks

(photo - 25)

Pier construction

(photo - 26)

Temporary grade crossing detail

(photo - 27)