Sei sulla pagina 1di 2
“Timothy Nesbitt Gene T SWE Rice (8/2008 9:00 AM Re: Fw: Corps iss for ascussion USACE Questions. doc ‘Attached are several TxDOT questions for your consideration, Tim >>> “Rice, Gene T SWF" 3/30/2008 8:35 AM >>> Gentlemen’ Please look over ths stand fet me know if you have any other issues / ‘questions that should be added, Thank you Gene T. Rice, Ir, PE. CESWEPMC 817-886-1374 Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld Original Message— From: Dugger, Rebecca To: Rice, Gene T SWF CC: Jordan, il ; Ajemian, Gregory < ‘Sent: Fri Mar 28 07:42:16 2008 Subject: Corps Issues for discussion <> ‘Attached are some ofthe issues that the Cty would like more discussion and ‘resolution on. We hope that the Corps can discuss some of these at your ‘meeting in April with HQ (we were told that they were coming down here for a meeting). Thanks Rebecca Dugger Director “Trinity River Corridor Project Office: (214) 671-9501 Fax: (214) 670-3226 TxDOT questions posed to USACE April 8, 2008 Verbal requests have surfaced stating all Trinity River bridge designs must achieve a 15 ft clearance above the future elevation of the Trinity River levees. Related requests advise avoidance of levee penetration. Unfortunately, the 15 ft clearance can not be achieved on the currently planned bridges of |-35E or |-30. In the case of I-30, raising the interstate profile severs famp access to / from Industrial Boulevard, a prime means of access to the Central Business District. Such a raised profile would also eliminate interstate highway access beneath the Houston Street Viaduct (and into the !-30 “Canyon” due to the historic, arched structure's shallow clearances. In the case of I-35E, a 15 ft raised profile not only severs ramps to Industrial Boulevard but severs ramp access to Colorado Boulevard, a facility directly servicing Methodist Hospital, one of only two Level | Critical-care Trauma Centers in North Texas (Colorado Boulevard is the Hospital's only direct link to the fully- directional Canyon-Mixmaster freeway system.) Recognizing the 24 / 7 national security need and purpose of the Eisenhower Interstate System, and the related quality-of-life need in maintaining daily interstate access for emergency vehicles, several integrated bridge-levee design (solution) aspects are presented for USACE comment and input: 1) Since it is not possible to manufacture and install bridge beams 400-500 ft in length to span both the existing levees and a future 50 ft levee toe, can TxDOT install diaphragm walls into the levees beneath the I-30 and |-35E bridges such that resulting bridge columns could penetrate the levees? If so, would such penetration be acceptable for either the levee landside or riverside? 2) The USACE need in having ample bridge (headroom) clearance in order to raise the levee system (in the future) is acknowledged. In light of the I-30 and -35E bridge profiles not achieving 15 ft levee clearances, and thereby hampering the future levee-raise construction, would the USACE be receptive to TxDOT funding the levee raise while each I-30 and |-35E bridge is under reconstruction and therefore accessible by construction vehicles? 3) To the extent the 50-year old I-30 bridge has no drivable shoulders, the construc- tion of added, regionally-demanded bridge lanes can only be accomplished via temporarily widening of the bridge in order to maintain critical, daily traffic flow around the construction zone. Similar to the existing I-30 bridge column layout and placement, is it acceptable to have temporary bridge columns within the levee during the estimated 4-year construction duration? The response to this question might correspond to acceptance of the diaphragm wall solution and acknowledging the fact that spanning the entire levee system with theoretical 400-500-foot bridge beams is not possible. Both the temporary bridge and ultimate bridge would be accomplished during the project's 4-year construction duration in that the 1-30 “signature” bridge is a fully funded.