Smoky Hill River Bridges
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF SA LINA, KANSAS
CITY COMIVITSSION
Ha roId Jaeger, Mayor
E. P. Wenger
Carl Ramsey
Don McCune
Ralph Exline
Leland Srack, City Manager
Harold F. Harper, City Engineer
REPORT ON REPLACEMENT
OF
SMOKY illLL RIVER BRIDG ES
February, 1959
BUCHER & WILLIS
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
KANSAS CITY, MO.
SALINA, KANSAS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BUCHER AND WILLIS
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
James D. Bucher
Shelby K, Willis
P. O. Box 583
625 E. Crawford
Salino, Kant.
Mr. Leland Srack
City Manager
City Commission
Salina, Kansas
Dear Mr. Srack:
Presented herewith is our "Report on Replacement of Smoky
Hill River Bridges" in Salina. The studies include proposed alternate
schemes for replacing the existing bridges across the River at North
Ohio Avenue, Elm Street, Ash Street, Walnut Street, Mulberry Street,
Oakdale Avenue, and for a new crossing at South Ohio Avenue.
Alternate schemes for the various crossings are accompanied
with estimates of cost. These estimates include the cost of removing
the existing structures, the cost of relocating existing utilities which
cross the River on the present bridges, the cost of constructing the
new crossing, and the cost of replacing existing pavement and curbing
necessary to complete the proposed facilities for traffic. By choosing
the most economical alternate for each of the crossings, it appears
that replacement of all seven bridges can be accomplished for a total
cost of approximately $305,700.00.
Studies of the seven crossings included herein brought to light
additional problems beyond the scope of this report which prompted us
to make several recommendations for your consideration in planning
for future traffic needs in Salina. Wf= have included these additional
recommendations in the Summary of our report.
We respectfully submit this report for your use, and express
our appreciation for the cooperation and assistance of the City Officials.
It was a pleasure to be of service to the City of Salina.
Yours very truly,
BUCHER & WILLIS
~1(/J1;;
illis
SKW:jt
I
I
I
I.
I
II.
III.
I
IV.
I
I
TABLE 1
TABLE 2
I
TABLE 3
I
TABLE 4
TABLE 5
TABLE 6
TABLE 7
TABLE 8
TABLE 9
TABLE 10
TABLE 11
TABLE 12
TABLE 13
TABLE 14
TABLE 15
TABLE 16
TABLE 17
TABLE 18
TABLE 19
TABLE 20
I
I
I
I
I
PLATE 1
PLATE 2
PLATE 3
PLATE 4
PLATE 5
PLATE 6
PLATE 7
PLATE 8
PLATE 9
PLATE 10
PLATE 11
PLATE 12
PLATE 13
PLATE 14
PLATE 15
PLATE 16
PLATE 17
PLATE 18
PLATE 19
PLATE 20
PLATE 21
PLATE 22
PLATE 23
PLATE 24
PLATE 25
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
LOCATION & ALIGNMENT OF STRUCTURES & STREETS
STUDIES OF STRUCTURE TYPES
SUMMARY
LIST OF TABLES
North Ohio Avenue Estimate of Cost 5 x 4 Reinf. 'Concrete Box Culvert
Estimate of Cost 60 inch Corrugated Metal Pipe
Elm Street Estimate of Cost 5 x 4 Reinf. Concrete Box Culvert
Estimate of Cost 60 inch Corrugated Metal Pipe
Ash & Front Streets Estimate of Cost 5 x 4 Reinf. Concrete Box Culvert
Estimate of Cost 60 inch Corrugated Metal Pipe
South Ohio Avenue Estimate of Cost 4 x 4 Reinf. Concrete Box Culvert
Estimate of Cost 54 Inch Corrugated Metal Pipe
Mulberry street Estimate of Cost Continuous Concrete Two-Girder
Mulberry Street Estimate of Cost 18 ft. Dla. Multi-Plate Pipe with Wingwalls
Mulberry Street Estimate of Cost 18 ft. Dia. Multi-Plate Pipe with 3 to 1 Slopes
Mulberry Street Estimate of Cost 20x 20 Relnf. Concrete Box Culvert
Mulberry Street Estl mate of Cost Continuous Steel Beam
M ulbeny Street Estimate of Cost Reinf. Concrete Haunched Slab
Mulberry Street Estimate of Cost Reinf. Concrete Flat Slab
Mulberry Street Estimate of Cost Welded Steel Frame
Mulberry Street Estimate of Cost Reinf. Concrete Rigid Frame
Walnut Street Estimate of Cost 18 ft. Dla. Multi-Plate Pipe with Wingwalls
Walnut Street Estimate of Cost 20 x 2(J Reinf. Concrete Box Culvert
Walnut Street Estimate of Cost Continuous Concrete Three-Girder'
Oakdale Avenue Estimate of Cost 18 ft. Dla. Multi-Plate Pipe with Wingwalls
Oakrlale Avenue Estimate of Cost 20 x 2CJ Reinf. Concrete Box Culvert
Oakdale Avenue Estimate of Cost Continuous Concrete Three-Girder
Replacement of All Seven Bridges Total Estimate of Cost
LIST OF PLATES
General Plan
North Ohio Avenue Crossing
Elm Street Crossing
Ash & Front Street Crossing
Mulberry Street Bridge
Oakdale A venue Bridge
Walnut Street Bridge
South Ohio A venue Crossing
Design Standards
Mulberry Street
Mulberry Street
Mulberry Street
Mulberry Street
Mulberry Street
Mulber-ry Street
Mulberry Street
Mulberry Street
Mulberry Street
Mulberry Street
Mulberry Street
Mulberry Street
Walnut street
Walnut Street
Oakdale Avenue
Oakdale A venue
Continuous Concrete Two-Girder Alternate
18 ft. Dla. Multi-Plate Pipe with Wlngwalls
18 ft, Dla. Multi-Plate Pipe with 3 to 1 Slopes
20 x 20 Reinf. Concrete Box Culvert Alternate
Perspective of 20 x 2(J Reinf. Concrete Box Culvert Alternate
Continuous Steel Beam Alternate
Relnf. Concrete Haunched Slab Alternate
Reinf. Concrete Flat Slab Alternate
Welded Steel Frame Alternate
Reinf. Concrete Rigid Frame Alternate
Reinf. Concrete Arch Alternate
Twin Multi-Plate Arch Pipe Alternate
20 x 20 Reinf. Concrete Box Culvert Alternate
Continuous Concrete Three-Girder Alternate
20 x 20 Reinf. Concrete Box Culvert Alternate
Continuous Concrete Three-Girder Alternate
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
r
,
!
l
l
\1'"
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REPORT ON REPLACEMENT
OF
SMOKY HILL RIVER BRIDGES
I. INTRODUCTION
The need for new bridges across the Smoky Hill River has long been
recognized by the City Officials and citizens of Salina. Replacement of these
structures, however, has been wisely postponed until flood control measures
on the Smoky Hill River in the vicinity of Salina were initiated. Now that these
measures are virtually assured, the City Officials can reap dividends from them
by realizing appreciable savings in the replacement of the bridges across the
River. With the cutoff channel bypassing Salina to the East, the waterway
openings now required at the bridge sites can be materially reduced.
The principal purpose of this report was to determine the approximate
cost of replacing seven obsolete and deteriorated structures crossing the River
within the City limits. The replacement of the structures at each site involved
two basic considerations. The first consideration was the location and alignment
of the new structures and the realignment of the streets in the vicinity of the
crossings. The second consideration was an economic study of the various
types of structures that could be used to transport traffic across the river at
these chosen locations.
studies were made for River crossings as follows:
North Ohio A venue Mulberry Street
Elm Street Oakdale A venue
Ash & Front Streets South Ohio A venue
Walnut Street
A plan of a portion of the City which includes these seven crossings is shown on
Plate 1.
Crossings at Walnut Street, Mulberry Street and Oakdale Avenue are in
the park areas and these structures are proposed with openings which will per-
mit pleasure boating, as well as ,discharge the design quantity of water. There-
fore, studies for these sites were limited to span bridges or large culverts. The
four other crossings considered in this report are proposed to be compacted
earth fills with culverts designed to discha rge local storm drainage. Pre-
liminary surveys were made in the field and crossings deemed best suited for
each of the seven sites were developed in sufficient detail to permit reasonably
accurate quantity take-off and estimates of cost. Studies and plans of the various
sites are included in the report.
II. LOCATION & ALIGNMENT OF STREETS & STRUCTURES
Each crossing will be discussed individually, outlining the considerations
which led to the recommended location and alignment of the structures and the
streets. In replacing the structures, it was deemed important to make the great-
est possible improvement in the alignment of the streets crossing the River, as
well as those intersecting near these crossings. For the sake of economy, it
was also necessary to consider the alignment of the structure. These two as-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
pects of the problem were often at opposite extremes and the most practical
solution necessitated a compromise.
NORTH OliO AVENUE
There is no change contemplated in the alignment of Ohio Avenue as it
crosses the River. At this location, boat travel is not encouraged, thus the
size and type of crossing need be considered only from the aspect of drainage.
The crossing can be accomplished with a culvert structure and a compacted earth
fill. Any means of changing the river channel to reduce the length of structure
would require acquisition of expensive right-of-way. It is believed that no
economic gain would be realized if this latter method were employed. There-
fore, the proposed culvert should be constructed along the centerline of the exist-
ing river channel at a skew of ap1=roximately forty degrees. The final grade of
Ohio Avenue should cross the river on a tangent. A plan of the proposed cross-
ing is shown on Plate 2.
ELM STREET
The proposed replacement of the structure over the Smoky Hill River at
Elm Street will not alter the alignment of Elm Street or Oakdale Avenue. A
culvert type structure, under a compacted earth fill, is adequate at this site.
The alignment of the existing channel at Elm Street permits the structure to be
constructed at a fifteen degree skew without making a channel change. The final
grade line should correspond to the existing grade of Elm Street adjacent to the
River. A plan of the proposed crossing is shown on Plate 3.
ASH & FRONT STREETS
The present alignment on Ash Street requires no revision. Under the
existing conditions, the location of the River necessitates a broken alignment
ST.
I~D~I
I:D~I
~ ;1
..".j
.~\, ;'~::i;'
'-At
~
8
h
r--
f'l]
~
;tv
);-
,
-"
L-
o
\ I
I~C~~
I~C-
II
GEN ERAL PLAN
II ~
II FIFTH sr. II
FOURT."-' S II
. "T
THIRD ."..r.11
I ~.
seCOND sr.I I .
::.,.
....... """,:: .
o D I 04KDAu-,lr A VB.
< ~ ~I ~ AVB '\
~I II A ve:.
" KANSAS . ~ )I!'
~ I. II ~ti
~ OH'O AJ I Q
~'O>''"'''' ~ ~. ~~
/ II Ii ~
~I
"
I ~I
I ~
:"1
I
I
I~CI
':C
I"C
IC
IC
SALINA BRIDGE REPLACEMENT REPORT
or jog on Front Street. According to the recent Salina Traffic Report, Front
Street is proposed to become a minor north-south arterial. Replacement of
the present bridge with a compacted earth fill and a drainage structure will per-
mit correction of this broken alignment on Front Street to a desirable ninety
degree intersection. This construction will require a rather long culvert
structut'e. However, additional cost of the culvert is justified by the resulting
increase in traffic capacity on Front Street.
Final grade of the relocated intersection should conform to the existing
grades on Ash Street and Front Street. The improvement in alignment of the
streets at this crossing, achieved by the replacement of the existing bridge, is
shown on Plate 4.
MULBERRY STREET
Studies at Mulberry Street were based on the construction of a span bridge
across the Smoky Hill River. It is recommended that the centerline of the new
structure parallel the existing bridge. This will permit ninety degree crossing
of the River, yeilding a minimum length of bridge. By increasing the width of
the bridge roadway to twenty-six feet, and altering the curbs at the bridge ap-
proaches, the alignment across the River can be substantially improved. Due
to the local nature of the traffic using this structure, skewing the bridge to com-
pletely eliminate a curve in the alignment of Mulberry Street is not warranted.
The final grade across the River should conform to the existing street grades
adjacent to the improvement. A plan of this proposed layout is shown on Plate 5.
OAKDALE AVENUE
Through traffic on Oakdale Avenue is severely 'bottlenecked' at the cross-
ing of the River. This condition is further aggravated by frequent peak demands
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NORTH OH 10 AVE. CROSSING
qj
~I
"t
o
.....
.c
o
<:
PLATE 2
N
..........
....
"-
;~ :~"" --', \,
":":,,,,,'" .,~ "
\ \
\ \
\
BUCHER a WI LLIS
1:[;'
\
\
\
.... \
, '\
'\ ,
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\
,
SALiNA BRIDGE RELACEMENT REPORT
~
III
lei
..I
Q.
C)
z
en
lJ)
~
o
ti
w
0:
I-
lJ)
I-
Z
o
0:
Lo..
d5
%
lJ)
<(
If)
III
~
cl
..J
Q.
C)
z
en
lJ)
o
0:
o
I-
W
W
0:
I-
lJ)
~
...J
W
~
(f)
~
"t
~
~~.~
:ts: pUO~[}
1
Z -a .~
0.,;1/117' Cl/opyOO
-<.:
CI)
~I
141
l-
II:
o
0.
III
II:
...
Z
III
2
III
()
cl
..I
Q.
III
0:
lIJ
\!I
o
ii:
lD
cl
z
::::i
cl
(I)
lS' IUOJ.:I
(I)
::;
..J
i
cO
II:
III
J:
U
:J
lD
l-
ll:
o
Q.
III
II:
~
Z
III
::!i
III
U
cl
..J
Q.
III
II:
III
(!)
o
lr
lD
cl
z
::::i
cl
(I)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
\/)
J l-J~~ l!
~ JC7I ~ \\7LJ~\fl l1j
IIJ
(.)
<t
'\ ~ ~ ~ ~
\ ~ ~
~\ \~ ~ g
~~ \ \ // I~
\\ ;\\/ ~
'\ f~ \ '\; . ::J
"., ~\1 ~,'. ~
"" ~~ \ ',\. '
~ "'-. \ '=~~
~~~~ \ ~- ('''\
ltJ
<.::>
Q
a::
ill
~ ~~ ~ ~~;;-"';'C\ ~ 0:)H~
w ~ //:::::...,
~/f:~:.lliw
~/.::::'HW'
i l&' pu=S ~'II-II~III~iili'il1.
~ . t"llllll.:..:,m
W
I-
oc{
..J
n.
~
~~
U .C: 8
~ 13
~ V)
~
of..;
~
::))
(f)
::i
..J
~
to
D::
W
:x:
o
::>
ill
:';S' PJ/L/J.
generated by the recreational and civic activities which take place in Kenwood
Park. Oakdale Avenue provides a necessary outlet for the numerous activities
in this park. Furthermore, it is an inviting route for through north-south
traffic between Crawford Avenue and Iron Avenue because it has a minimum
of intersecting streets. Elimination of the 'bottleneck' at the River would
make Oakdale A venue the logical minor north-south arterial through the
park area. This plan is contrary to a proposal which would make Front Street
a minor north-south arterial between Crawford and Iron.
Several alternate plans for improving the movement and control of traffic
were considered at the Oakdale Avenue crossing. All studies were limited to
the use of a span bridge over the River since boating is permitted in this vicinity.
Studies varied from a scheme with only minor changes in the present alignment
to a scheme which projected Oakdale Avenue across the River with no curvature
in alignment. The recommended realignment, shown on Plate 6, is a compromise
between these extremes, and provides a reasonably economical structure with a
minimum sacrifice to traffic movement. This scheme proposes relocation and
enlargement of the existing traffic island to channelize all traffic movements
south of the bridge. The roadway width of the proposed bridge should be a
minimum of forty feet.
The gradient of Oakdale Avenue on the recommended alignment should be
lowered to the grade existing approximately one hundred feet north and south
tof the bridge.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
OAKDALE AVE. SRI DGE
PLATE 6
:jUJ
II
I'
!I
" I
H
Ii II
Ii I
1'1
Qj Ii ii'
~ 'II
~ I~L~~~c~ ...
~~ >'. .->- ----- >
I ~ . Smoky Hill Dr:
II ~~~- - - .
I~
PI 11 II
: I'
A : ,I
lj ! Ii
I II
1 Ii;;!,
4(7 j1 - J !
A ! d I
I il I S I! I
l1J I' cz I
-=--===co---~ ~
Park Place
Oakdale Or;
000.
y-J
y..e(l
BUCHER a WILLIS
WALNUT STREET
Considerable study was given to the crossing at Walnut Street with re-
spect to it's usefulness as minor east-west arterial. To make best use of this
crossing, it will be necessary to relocate Gypsum Avenue between Front Street
and OakdaleAvenue. This relocation would eliminate an undesirable jog and
permit through traffic to continue east of the River. The relocation of Gypsum
A venue would require the acquisition of expensive right-of-way between Front
Street and Oakdale Avenue. However, if this relocation is not accomplished,
the advisability of replacing the Walnut Street Bridge is questionable. When
Fourth Street becomes a major north-south arterial, as recommended in
recent traffic studies of Salina, the cro~sing at Walnut Street could be abandoned
without materially altering the movement of east-west thru traffic and with
only minor affect to local traffic. Fourth Street would serve as a feeder route
between the crossings at Iron Avenue, Mulberry Street and Crawford Avenue.
The authors recommend one of two alternatives. Either replace the
existing bridge and relocate Gypsum Avenue between Front Street and Oakdale
Avenue to meet the proposed structure, or terminate Walnut Street at the
River after Fourth Street is improved to carry through north-south traffic.
If the former alternative is chosen, the proposed Walnut Street Bridge
would be constructed as shown on Plate 7. Under these conditions, a roadway
width of forty feet should be maintained across the River. The final gradient
should be lowered to conform with the existing grade of Walnut Street and
Front Street on either side of the crossing.
I III !I I l-
t-- 0::
0
ltJ 0-
I l- II/ ill w
<t a::
..J
0- Iii II I l-
ii i: 2:
I II 'I W
I il ~ II ~
I ~ II w
(.)
'i.: i! <t
~ il ..J
I 0-
I lJJ
::::: a::
i: ltJ
(!)
I ~ a
a::
0 CD
~ <t
I 2:
..J
<t
(j)
I
I ---
i
I wi --
~
0
I 0:::
m
I-
w
w
I 0::
I-
(j)
I ~Z~ ~ ~"""""'l::
..J
c::t
5
I
I \;'Y
I ~
----
I ) :.;s; puoo~S'
I (/)
:1
~
<0
I ffi
I
0
:;:)
I I CD
SOUTH OHIO AVENUE
North of Crawford Avenue the Smoky Hill River crosses the right-of-way
for the proposed extension of Ohio A venue. The extension of Ohio A venue is
planned to cross the River on a straight alignment. Boating is prohibited at this
location, therefore design of the proposed structure may be limited to drainage
requirements. Construction of a culvert type structure under a compacted earth
fill will adequately meet these requirements. A minor channel change at this site
is desirable, however, this change would require relocation of an existing, forced
main, sanitary sewer. Any saving realized by the channel change would be offset
by the relocation of the sewer. For these reasons, it is recommended that the
proposed culvert be constructed in the center of the existing channel at a skew of
approximately twenty-five degrees. The existing forty-two inch diameter storm
sewer on Ohio Avenue right-of-way should be extended to outlet into the side of
the proposed culvert or pipe at this crossing. A plan of this crossing is shown on
Plate 8.
DESIGN STANDARDS
The width and number of traffic lanes proposed for bridges or roadways
at the various crossings are shown on Plate 9. In general, standards are based
upon recommendations set forth in the 'Traffic and Street Needs' report for Salina
published in 1958. However, in the interest of economy, the roadway widths on
the proposed bridges were reduced to forty feet for four lanes of traffic and to
twenty-six feet for two lanes of traffic. Considering the speed limits enforced
within the City and the omission of parking on the bridges, these widths are be-
lieved to be ample.
Structures should be designed to support H-20 S-16 loading in accordance
with the latest edition of the American Association of State Highway Officials.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SOUTH OH 10 AVE. CROSSING
BUCHER a WILLIS
pp
!
Qjl
~I
,Qi
-"1
~I
Q
10 'V;I
<k>
=[~~il
lI:ill;
~-II
flllill~
i;~~jil~
ii;i;!i!;;! ::'!':1:'--; :Ui';:l~j~..
I I '~II
I II
I I 1/
I I II
I i
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I "I
I I
. I I
II
I I
I I
PLATE 8
N
SALINA BRIDGE REPLACEMENT REPOR
~
,
< ..,., '. ....
A' ." I. , I'J
.... . . ", .
TYPICAL SECTION OF MULBERRY BRIDGE
/6'
e4'
l 13' J
~, .. 1-, :M'_":~,, , . ..
,',-':',':-:,;:;;,-':,;. .;...1""
24'
/6'
I
~
' ,,: ~n;,';,;...,
" " i" ',.', ,,","","
, .:" '-1"""'.,, .
~..
, . . .........
3:1. .":''.''~'}S'''<''
.' 1:",~;.,;i.:~.!}/c':'I~Y1;/; ';,:.-.' " , ' . :"~L.'IA>':Li;_'"
I
.~. "-
-. '..
~., .... :
;r-"I"
; ...', J, ". 1 "'.~
SOUTH OHIO AVE.
18'
44'
18'
3:
ELM a FRONT STREET
BUCHER a WI LLlS
DESIGN STANDARDS
PLATE 9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ 40' RO~DWAY
'W "', '. ' ' ',' 'i,~J,~~ 'I .. "
~ ~
.~
.;.",.'
TYPICAL SECTION OF WALNUT 8 OAKDALE BRIDGE
NORTH OHIO AVE.
/8'
48'
/8
I
I
ASH STREET
SALINA BRIDGE REPLACEMENT REPORT
III. STUDIES OF STRUCTU RE TYPES
With the proposed location and alignment of the streets and structures
determined, it is possible to determine the types of structures that are feasible
at each site and make economic comparasions of the various alternates. Es-
timates of cost for the alternate crossings studied are based upon quantities taken
from preliminary designs. Unit prices assigned to the items in the estimates of
cost were derived from current bid prices on similar work in the vicinity of
Salina.
As previously stated, crossings of the River at North Ohio Avenue, Elm
Street, Ash and Front Streets, and South Ohio Avenue are proposed to be com-
pacted earth fills with the drainage crrried thru culvert type structures. A
preliminary survey of the drainage requirements was made in sufficient detail to
determine the approximate size of the drainage culverts. This study was based
on the following premises:
a) That during any appreciable rainfall the fifty-four inch diameter
inlet control structure in the diversion dam northof Crawford Ave-
nue would be closed.
b) That the present river channel would be maintained free of debris
and that the ponding area would not be reduced in volume by filling
any portion of this channel.
c) That the rate of rainfall runoff reaching the river was controlled
principally by the capacity of the existing storm sewers. How-
ever, these preliminary computations are predicated on an in-
crease in storm sewer capacity of approximately fifty percent to
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
allow for possible future replacement and additions.
d) That fifty year design storm should be used in the derivation
of the size of the proposed structures. It was not deemed
feasible to design for storms of greater magnitude as the
depth of water in the Iron A venue Cutoff during maximum
floods (100 year frequency and greater) would probably limit
the flow from the existing channel into the Cutoff at their junc-
tion near North Street.
Based on these premises, drainage computations indicate that the structures at
North Ohio Avenue, Elm Street and Ash and Front Streets should be sixty inch
diameter round pipes or box culverts of equivalent capacity.
The size of the waterway opening for the structure at South Ohio Avenue
should be equal to that provided by the inlet control structure which will be con-
structed upstream from this crossing in the diversion dam. The drainage area
between the inlet control structure and the South Ohio Avenue crossing is not
sufficient to require a structure larger than a fifty-four inch round pipe or its
equivalent box culvert at South Ohio Avenue.
Economic comparisons were made for two alternative structures at
each of these sites. The first alternate in each case utilizes a reinforced con-
crete box culvert structure. The second alternate is based on a corrugated
metal pipe. The estimated costs of constructing each crossing with either of
the alternate types of structures are given in Tables 1 to 4, inclusive. With the
exception of the estimates for the crossing at South Ohio Avenue, the estimates
include an item for removing the existing structure and a quantity of approach
pavement. South Ohio Avenue is not paved and it is assumed that paving in the
TABLE 1
NORTH OHIO CROSSING
ESTIMATE OF COST
ALTERNATE 5 x 4 REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX CULVERT
Compacted Fill'
Class A Concrete
Reinforcing Steel
6...in. Reinf. Conc. Pavement
Concrete Curb & Gutter
Sod for Slope Protection
10,000 cu. yds. @ $ 1.00
103.2 cu.yds. @ 55.00
10,800 lbs. @ 0.15
1,200 sq. yds. @ 5.00
500 line ft. @ 2.50
700 sq. yds. @ 0.50
Total Estimated Construction Cost
$ 10,000.00
5,676.00
1,620.00
6,100.00
1,250.00
350.00
$ 24, 996. 00
Removal of Existing Structure & Pavement
Engineering & Contingencies
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF COST
ALTERNATE 60-INCH CORRUGATED METAL PIPE
1,000.00 '
3,704.00
$ 29, 700.00
Compacted Fill 10,000 cu. yds. @ $ 1. 00
Corru. Metal Pipe 50-in. , 10 ga. 254 lin.ft. @ 42.00
Grouted Stone Pavement 31 sq. yds. @ 3.50
6..in. Reinf. Conc. Pavement 1,220 sq. yds. @ 5.00
Concrete Curb & Gutter 500 line ft. @ 2.50
Sod for Slope Protection 700 sq. yds. @ 0.50
Total Estimated Construction Cost
$ 10,000.00
10,668.00
108.50
6,100.00
1,250.00
350.00
$28, 476.50
Removal of Existing Structure & Pavement
Engineering & Contingencies
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
1,000.00
4,323.50
$33,800.00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2
ELM STREET CROSSING
ESTIMATE OF COST
ALTERNATE - 5 x 4 REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX CULVERT
Compacted Fill
Class A Concrete
Reinforcing Steel
6-in. Reinf. Conc. Pavement
Concrete Curb & Gutter
Concrete Sidewalks
Sod for Slope Protection
10,000 cu. yds.
82. 3 cu. yds.
8, 730 lbs.
1,330 sq. yds.
660 line ft.
267 sq. yds.
650 sq. yds.
@ $ 1. 00 $
@ 55.00
@ 0.15
@ 5.00
@ 2.50
@ 3.50
@ 0.50
Total Estimated Construction Cost
Removal of Existing Structure
Engineering & Contingencies
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
10,000.00
4,526.50
1,309.50
6,650.00
1,650.00
934.50
325.00
ALTERNATE - 60-INCH CORRUGATED METAL PIPE
Compacted Fill
Corru. Metal Pipe, 60-in.,
Grouted Stone Pavement
6-in. Reinf. Conc. Pavement
Concrete Curb & Gutter
Concrete Sidewalks
Sod for Slope Protection
10, 000 cu. yds.
10 gat 204 line ft.
31 sq. yds.
1,330 sq. yds.
660 lin. ft.
267 sq. yds.
650 sq.yds.
@ $ 1. 00 $
@ 42.00
@ 3.50
@ 5.00
@ 2.50
@ 3.50
@ 0.50
Total Estimated Construction Cost
Removal of Existing Structure
Engineering & Contingencies
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
10,000.00
8,568.00
108.50
6,650.00
1,650.00
934.50
325.00
$25,395.50
1,000.00
3,804050
$30,200.00
$28,236.00
1,000.00
4,264.00
$ 33, 500.00
TABLE 3
ASH & FRONT STREETS CROSSING
ESTIMATE OF COST
ALTERNATE - 5 x 4 REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX CULVERT
Compacted Fill
Class A Concrete
Reinforcing Steel
6-ino Reinf. Conc. Pavement
Concrete Curb & Gutter
Concrete Sidewalks
Sod for Slope Protection
36,700 cu. yds.
146 cu. yds.
16,900 lbs.
3,670 sq.yds.
1, 400 Uno ft.
620 sq. yds.
800 sq. yds.
@ $ 1. 00
@ 55.00
@ 0.15
@ 5,,00
@ 2.50
@ 3,,50
@ 0050
$ 36,700.00
8,030.00
2,535.00
18,350.00
3,500.00
2,170.00
400000
Total Estimated Construction Cost
Removal of Existing Structure & Pavement
Engineering & Contingencies
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF COST
ALTERNATE - 60-INCH CORRUGATED METAL PIPE
Compacted Fill 36,700 cu. yds..
Corru. Metal Pipe, 60-in. , 10 ga. 396 Un" fto
Grouted Stone Pavement 31 sqo yds.
6-in. Reinf. Conca Pavement 3, 670 sq. yds.
Concrete Curb & Gutter 1,400 linoft.
Concrete Sidewalks 620 sq. yds.
Sod for Slope Protection 800 sq. yds.
@ $ L 00
@ 42000
@ 3.50
@ 5.00
@ 2050
@ 3,,50
@ 0.50
$ 36,700" 00
16,632.00
108.50
18,350.00
3,500000
2,170000
400.00
Total Estimated Construction Cost
Removal of Existing Structure & Pavement
Engineering & Contingencies
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF COST
$71,685.00
1,000.00
10,815.00
$ 83, 500.00
$77,860.50
1,000000
11,639,,50
$ 90, 500000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 4
SOUTH OHIO STREET CROSSING
ESTIMA TE OF COST
ALTERNATE 4 x 4 REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX CULVERT
Compacted Fill
Class A Concrete
Reinforcing Steel
Sod for Slope Protection
8,500 cu. yds. @ $ 0.50 $ 4,250.00
62.3 cu. yds. @ 55.00 3,426.50
6,040 lbs. @ 0.15 906.00
700 sq. yds. @ 0.50 350.00
Total Estimated Construction Cost $ 8,932.50
Extend 42-in. Storm Sewer
Engineering & Contingencies
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF COST
800.00
1, 367.50
$11,100.00
ALTERNATE 54-INCH CORRUGATED METAL PIPE
Compacted Fill 8,500 cu. yds. @ $ 0.50 $ 4,250.00
Corru. Metal Pipe 54-in. , 10 ga. 186 line ft. @ 35.00 6, 510.00
Grouted Stone Pavement 31 sq. yds. @ 3.50 108.50
Sod for Slope Protection 700 sq. yds. @ 0.50 350.00
Total Estimated Construction Cost $11,218.50
Extend 42-in. Storm Sewer
Engineering & Contingencies
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF COST
800.00
1,781. 50
$13,800.00
Note: Pavement is not included in this estimate because no street exists
at this location at present time.
II
TABLE 5
MULBERRY STREET BRIDGE
ESTIMATE OF COST
ALTERNATE I - CONTINUOUS CONCRETE TWO GIRDER BRIDGE
BRIDG E
Class I Excavation (Dry) 31 cu. yds.
Class II Excavation (Wet) 60 cu. yds.
Class AAA Concrete (Superstr.) 162 cu. yds.
Class A Concrete (Piers) 75 cu. yds.
Reinforcing Steel 55,650 lbs.
Piles, 12-in. 900 line ft.
Handrail 180 lin. ft.
APPROACH PAVEMENT
6-in. Reinf. Conc. Pavement 772 sq. yds.
Concrete Curb & Gutter 215 line ft.
@ $ 6. 00
@ 20.00
@ 60.00
@ 55.00
@ 0.15
@ 6.50
@ 8.00
$ 186.00
1,200.00
9,720.00
4,125.00
8,347.50
5,850.00
1,440.00
@ $ 5.00 $3,860.00
@ 2050 537.50
Removal of Existing Structure & Pavement
Engineering & Contingencies
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF COST
$30,868.50
$ 4, 397.50
$ 35,266.00
1,000.00
5,334.00
$41,600.00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o 'l;!l_"",~_-
llJ
I-
<t
-1
n.
I-
W
W
a: _~L--
l-
(/)
>-
IX
0:
llJ
m
.J -~' -
:J
..-
..2:
~I
.--~ .-'r -}" ....';1"
:--
, ,
,
-- -
--- ~._-
~
<:::l
, I
2J
:--
~
-"
t:'_~_
"
-.J
CL
~
~ \)
\:') - I
\! 1<:.\
(j \r
.....
~
~'p ~
.......
-c- --- ..1.,
------J ------
-, - \~
illl \\
1'1'
I ~:~
II
-II]
II
lil'l
III
~
\)
, I
1:>.,
t, )
t
\)
.,
~
(\~
I
--L ----------- --.-
-- - - },_",,-c, l=-:--r- - -='--=-y- _: =1 "
I I I I
I I I
I I I I
r.' I ~", 1/::;,,.-,(.' ....'1 I 17'
..J (. ")f ,,'....... <1.->""\ . <_,
-- r-- -----("--t -~-
I I ! I I
I I I I I
1___ L _ J _.J_-1
- ---- ----, - - -- - ---,- --
r-r- ----1
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I
r-+- - '-~-- :
I I I I I
I: I I
I I I I
I I
__L__ _.J.__~
i~r-=- ~r l
I I I I
I I I I
I I I
I I ' I I
I I I I
I I I I
',. L_l~- - J-::-J _
l
I(
_-\1 --.____
.,- - P..::.:.p' -- --
5r I
"
ll.l W
l- I- I i
w <t u::
a::: z
(.) IT. 1-
Z lu
0 l- I
-1
(.) <t
l'J
(/) 0::: u
::> -"r
0 W ..1
:::> 0 L!
Z Ct: IU
- G:::
.... ~
Z . '-d
0 0 ()
(.) 5 u
.... r,..
U
<~
.....'1>
_I
'j,
(l)
z
o
~
<1:
>
W
-.J
LtJ
(j)
-1
..J
""'7'-
>
d5
n::
III
r
( -,
IAl
vicinity of the River will be delayed until the flood control diversion dam and
inlet channel are functioning. A contingency item is added to each estimate to
cover, among other things, the relocation of any utilities which presently cross
the River on the existing bridges.
As previously stated, studies of structure types at Walnut Street, Mul-
berry Street and Oakdale Avenue were limited to those providing openings large
enough to permit boating through the park areas. The location of these structures
in the park areas warrants that some consideration be given to appearance pro-
vided that esthetics can be achieved economically.
By permitting appearance to govern the design of the bridge railing and
terminal posts, and by specifying rubbed finishes on all exposed concrete sur-
faces, any of the alternates included herein should present a pleasing appearance
to the public. Nine alternate types of bridges were studied at Mulberry Street
in sufficient detail to permit a reasonably accurate quantity take-off and thereby
arrive at an estimate of cost. Two additional types are shown for which estimates
are not included. An attempt was made to study practically every type of structure
normally in use for the span length range of these bridges. For the purpose of
these studies, estimates are predicated on the assumption that abutments, piers,
and counter forts are supported on friction piles 50 feet in length with a penetration
of forty-five feet below the river channel. Local geologists report that a bearing
strata sufficient to refuse penetration of point bearing piles in the vicinity of all
three bridgessites .is at least seventy feet below the streambed elevation.
Plans and Elevations of the several alternates for the Mulberry Street
Bridge are shown on Plates 10 to 21, inclusive, with the accompanying estimates
J
of cost shown on Tables 5 to 13.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Advantages of several of the various alternatives should l:E emphasized.
Alternate I, shown 'on Plate 10, is a continuous reinforced concrete bridge with
two concrete girders supporting the twenty-six foot roadway deck and two five
foot sidewalks. Studies indicate that this type of bridge is slightly more economi-
cal than the other types for foundation conditions and the roadway width existing
at Mulberry Street. It offers the advantage of all concrete structures in that
practically no maintenance will be required after construction is completed. A
perspective of this alternate is shown on the Frontispiece.
Alternates II and IV, shown on Plates 11 and 13, are culvert type structures
employing reinforced concrete wingwalls to retain the roadway fill. A perspective
of Alternate IV is shown on Plate 14. These alternatives require foundation piles
only for the support of the counterforted wingwalls. Specifications should be writ-
ten for these structures to insure the preparation of an adequate bed or foundation
under the barrel of the box culvert or pipe. Unit prices assigned to certain items
in the estimates for these alternatives have been increased to allow for the cost of
temporarily diverting the river flow away from the foundation during the construc-
tion period.
Alternate III, shown on Plate 12, utilizes a multiplate culvert pipe without
earth retaining wingwalls. The compacted fill around and on top of the structure
is constructed with flat sideslopes. Alternates II, III and IV are enclosed struc-
tures which do not collect debris or invite loitering around the premises as do the
open span alternatives.
Structures of steel as exemplified in Alternates V and VIII on Plates 15
and 18 are not as economical as concrete structures when span lengths are re-
latively short as they are at the Mulberry Street site. They also have the disad-
TABLE 6
MULBERRY STREET BRIDGE
ESTIMATE OF COST
ALTERNATE IT -18 FOOT DIAMETER MULTI-PLATE PIPE WITH WINGWALLS
CULVERT WITH WINGWALLS
Class I Excavation
C lass A Concrete
Reinforcing Steel
18-ft. Multi-Plate Pipe
Piles, 12-in.
Handrail
220 cu. yds.
196 cu. yds.
24,200 lbs.
30 line ft.
1,200 line ft.
204 line ft.
APPROACH BACKFILLING & PAVEMENT
6...in. Reinf. Conc. Pavement
Concrete Curb & Gutter
Sand Backfill
1,015 sq. yds.
200 line ft.
1, 000 cu. yds.
@ $ 6. 00
@ 45.00
@ 0.15
@ 175.00
@ 6.50
@ '8.00
@ $ 5.00
@ 2.50
@ 2.00
$ 1,320.00
8,820.00
3,630.00
5,250.00
7,800.00
1,632.00
$ 28, 452.00
$ 5 , 075. 00
500.00
~OO.OO
~ 7,5r;5.00
$36,027.00
Total Estimated Construction Cost
Removal of Existing Structure
Engineering & Contingencies
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF COST
1,000.00
5,573.00
$42,600.00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
llJ
I-
<J:
..J
a..
I
I
I
S~
I
I
I
L:i I
I
\.1.1 I
a::
I-
en
,
>- I
a::
a:: l
l1J I
(l)
.J I
=>
~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 I
I
I
I
I
r~- I
I
I
I
ocrdwoy__ hS:
I
I :---
~
I
I I
I
I
:= = ~-=-~ \=l
I tJ
L ,I
I 2
I
-=-= ----~
---
I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I :-.
t-.j
I
I
I
I L
I
c6' /?,
z
<l
-l
a..
1- \
I-l--~~\i~~~~
- ,
" \
\\
;\'
<N \
\
:.:.:.:.:~ ':d-~~~
L~--
~7T JII,I",II, '\ g
I~ r" )
1."",".I"",'li,N.,.,. : ~
- =~I;'l::;:~ -i ~
11th' ,) W
- = == = J -t.f~~~
/ I...Cj---
1
/
1
1
I
I
Ir~____
= -Li ~~~~~
I L -----
I
I
.
C)
,I
'\l
::::1
W
I-
<t
2
a:::
w
a:::~
W<t
I-
WW
~~
<to.
ow
-00 ~
-.J
a..
I
5
::::>
~
l-
n::
o
a..
w
a:::
I-
z
w
2:
W
U
<t
.J
a..
W
a:::
w
(!)
o
a:::
CD
q:
Z
.J
<t
(/)
(/)
.J
.J
3:
<0
a::
W
I
o
::::>
ro
TABLE 7
MULBERRY STREET BRIDGE
ESTIMATE OF COST
ALTERNATE III - 18 FOOT DIAMETER MULTI-PLATE PIPE WITH 3 TO 1 SLOPES
CULVERT
18-ft. Diam. Multi-Plate Pipe 115 line ft.
18-ft. Diam. Multi-Plate Pipe Cut Bevel & Bolt
APPROACH BACKFILL & PAVEMENT
6-in. Reinf. Conc. Pavement
Concrete Curb & Gutter
4-in. Concrete Sidewalks
Handrail with Terminate Post
Embankment
Grouted Stone Pavement
Sod for Slope Protection
1,015 cu. yds.
430 line ft.
127 sq. yds.
240 line ft.
3, 870 cu. yds.
115 sq. yds.
600 sq. yds.
@ $ 175. 00
Lump Sum
@ $ 5. 00
@ ,2.50
@ S._pO
@ 5.00
@ 2.00
@ 3.50
@ O. 50
Total Estimated Construction Cost
Removal of Existing Structure & Pavement
Engineering & Contingencies
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF COST
$ 20,125.00
500.00
$20,625.00
$ 5,075.00
1,075.00
444.50
1,200.00
7,740.00
402.50
300.00
j)16,237.00
$ 36, 862. 00
1,000.00
5, 538.00
1> 43, 400.00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C\I
w
~
...I
Q.
i
I, ~ !?6' Roaa'..voy
Ii
II
Ii
II
i.'1
)i
j
I 1.1;' ,li,,1
~ I
, I'!
IJ"1
ti, ~I
Eli(: -----
~.,:; l'
~l:'-.';I'::,':,
1"A . I"
U, - " ---"; , ;
C~, -j'
~)--j:'-' -- - --
-1j~l:j
:::>1 Ii
::i I --,::1
! I!
I 1-&'" ',!,I
--1"1
i ] ('ii'
-"'1,
:,1
ii
!
='
~
s'l.
I
:E~.
,
I
I:/;
',-
I:I?
:---
~
/
=
CV
, I
~
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ill:
I. I
I
I
f-
a::
w 0
Q. Q.
W
Q. a::
WW f-
f-I- 2
<(<t W
...12 ~
Q.D: W
_w
~~ (.)
<t
::J<l ..J
~ Q.
W
- a::
(X) w
<!>
0,
a::
fI)
<l
2
..J
<t
(J)
z
o
~
>
W
..J
W
<h
3
3:
co
a::
w
:r:
t)
;:)
co
TABLE 8
MULBERRY STREET BRIDGE
ESTIMA TE OF COST
A LTERNATE IV - 20 x 20 REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX CULVERT
CULVERT WITH WINGWALLS
Class I Excavation
Class A Concrete
Reinforcing Steel
Piles, 12~in.
Handrail
290 cu. yds.
285 cu. yds..
38,300 lbs..
1,200 lin. ft.
204 lin. ft.
APPROACH BACKFILLING & PAVEMENT
6-in. Reinf. Conc. Pavement
Concrete Curb & Gutter
Sand Backfill
1,015 sq. yds.
2 00 lin. ft.
1, 000 cu. yds..
@ $ 6. 00
@ 45.00
@ 0.15
@ 7.00
@ 8.00
$ 1. 740.00
12.825.00
5,745.00
8,400.00
1,632..0~
$30,342..00
$ 5,075.00
500..00
2,000.00
lP 7,575.00
$ 37,917.. 00
@ $ 5.. 00
@ 2.50
@ 2.00
Total Estimated Construction Cost
Removal of Existing Structure & Pavement
Engineering & Contingencies
1,000.00
5,783.00
$4,4,700.00
I ~
I W
I-
<t
...J
a.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I t-
W
W
a::
t-
en
I >-
a:
0:
w
I m
..J
~
:2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'6Il
I
rr T
I
!, [6' Roadway 5'
I I
I . I
I I
I I.
I t -.
'.
: J : C\)
- (1== =-- =-~-=-~
1 +- I :::
I I (J
- - [I , ,
-- I I ~
I I
) . ~~-f-==- ~ -L,...
I , I
I I
I I
I I --
I I ~
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I l l
I
l. I ....1...
z
<{
...J
a..
:::
Cl
,I
""
.....
.......
W
I-
W
O:::w
01-
Z<t
Oz
(.)0:::
OW
w~
(.)<t
0:::
01-
l1..0:::
ZW
G:i~
0:::::>
00
NX
XO
oal
\ N
I \ r-~__
:.~j ~..::.:--
I \ L::t = =::.
I \
I
1-\
I -~ \
I ,
I \
I , ri:':==
:::x::. c;:==
- 't-5'==--
\
\
-1 z
~II I ~
li;i;,lii I <{
---~IJ~I I ~
Iii I...J
.J W
I---
I I
I /
!...______ -Lra==
j-- - - - - t=1 0'==
Lg:.-==
I I
I I
I .\ I
I , I
: I
I l
I Ird==
-= tJ g==
r I LlOr-==-
I I
1
I-
0::
o
0..
W
rc
I-
z
W
:.ii:
w
o
<t
...J
0..
W
(!)
o
0:::
CD
<t
Z
...J
<t
(f)
(f)
...J
...J
::
ca
a::
w
:r:
(.)
::>
al
vantage of requiring the maintenance of paint.
Other types of structures commonly used are included in Alternates VI,
VII IX, X and XI on Plates 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21. Alternates on Plates 20
and 21 were not developed in sufficient detail to include detailed estimates of
cost as inspection revealed that they were not in the lower economy ranges.
A comparison of the alternates indicates the maximum range of costs possible,
and emphasizes the importance of making economic studies prior to final design
of a structure~
Studies at Walnut Street and Oakdale Avenue were limited to those which
proved to be most economical at Mulberry Street. Results of these studies are
shown on Plates 22 to 25 with accompanying estimates of cost on Tables 14 to
19. It is believed that further studies at these sites would result in needless
repetition. Attention should be called to the fact that the culvert type structures
proved slightly mors economical than the continuous concrete giraer alternate
for these structures with the wider forty feet roadway.
IV. SUMMARY
As regards location and alignment of the structures and the street patterns
in the vicinity of the crossings, only the recommended solutions have been includ-
ed in this report. All alternative structures will satisfy the requirements for
drainage, will permit boating in the park areas, and can be designed to enhance
the general appearance of the sites. Therefore, the authors believe that the
choice of structure type at all of the locations should be governed by economy.
To obtain maximum economy in the culverts, it would be advisable to permit al-
ternate bids on either corrugated metal pipe or concrete boxes.
I lJ)
V a::
4J
4J
Z
I.LJ C)
I ~ z
<t 4J
...J C)
a.. z
I-
...J
I ::>
(/)
Z
0
0
lJ)
I ...J
..J
j
d5
I a::
4J
:I:
()
::>
Q)
I
I
I w
<9
0
a::
I 00
I-
W
W
a::
I I-
(f)
>-
a::
a::
w
I 00
....J
:)
~
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
IJ f cl
z
I :i
<l
(/)
IJ..
0
I >-
I-
<:3
TABLE 9
MULBERRY STREET BRIDG E
ESTIMATE OF COST
ALTERNATE V - CONTINUOUS STEEL BEAM
BRIDGE
Class I Excavation (Dry) 93 cu. yds.
Class II Excavation (Wet) 60 cu. yds.
Class AAA Concrete (Superstr.) 100 cu. yds.
Class A Concrete (Piers & Abut. )120 cu. yds.
Reinforcing Steel 28,300 lbs.
Structural Steel 48,500 lbs.
Bearing Devices 3,550 lbs.
Piles, 12-in. 1,300 line ft.
Handrail 186 line ft.
APPROACH PAVEMENT
6.,.in. Reinf. Conc~. Pavement
Concrete Curb & Gutter
772 sq~ yds.
215 line ft.
@ $ 6.00
@ 20.00
@ 60.00
@ 55.00
@ 0.15
@0.17
@ 0.50
@ 6. 50
@ 8.00
@ $ 5.00
@ 2.50
$ 558.00
1,200.00
6,000.00
6,600.00
4,245.00
8,245.00
1,775.00
8,450.00
1,488.00
$ 38, 561. 00
$ 3,860.00
537.50
$ 4,397.50
$42,958.50
Total E;::;limated C()L)~3t.ruction Cost
Removal of Existing Bricl,qe & F:lVc:rlll'~nt
Engineering & C:mtingeneln;.'~
'I'OTALEi3'TlMATE OF COST
1,000.00
6, 441.. 50
$50,4.00:'-00
I 10
I w
J-
<t
..J
Q
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
W
I w
0=
I-
CJ)
I >-
0=
0::
W
CD
.J
I :::>
:2:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
n n n r
I 'I II I'
5' , e~ ~Rr 00111:;11_/ , 5'
II 11 ,I
I II I
I I
I II "
'I I -...
:, I ~
II I
II I
" , ,
I' I
I I
I ~
~
, ,I
I ~
I
I I
I I
I II
I II I
I 1 : I I
I I
I ,I I
II II I :-..
I, II I t~
I II ,I I
I II II ,
I II 'I
I II II ,
u U U U
I
~~~~
:si_~..::;:r~.--...
. ~~'""!.'~'-~,~'~I':'~-=;::.'Z"i"T~':=n:,;;:~..::;~-:-...r::.;o.-::::;:'~~:4:"';'::;l"c.:.:::-,~,:,<,;,:-,:,~..__~~,,:;ir.:~;;;~'- ,
J-
rr
0
w Q
J- w
<t 0::
Z
(/)0::: J-
:)W Z
O~ ILl
~
::><t w
Z (.)
-~ <t
I-ct ..J
Zw Q
Om w
Q 0::
..J
W W
W <.!>
I- 0
(/) ct:
'Q)
<t
Z
-
..J
<!
,1 (j)
t\1
(\)
z
~ 0
\:.) ~
Z ,I \) I-
<( ~ ~\ ~
-l ~~
n. I W
-l
W
"
l:;)
. I
~
(/)
:J
..J
~
d:)
0:
W
I
Q
:)
en
TABLE 10
MULBERRY STREET BRIDGE
ESTIMATE OF COST
ALTERNATE VI - REINFORCED CONCRETE HAUNCHED SLAB
BRIDG E
Class I Excavation (Dry) 43 cu. yds.
Class II Excavation (Wet) 94 cu. yds.
Class AAA Concrete (Superstr.) 196 cu. yds.
Class A Concrete (Piers) 117 cu. yds.
Reinforcing Steel 68,900 Ibs.
Piles, 12-in. 1,100 line ft.
Handrail 180 line ft.
APPROACH PAVEMENT
6-in. Reinf. Conc. Pavement
Concrete Curb & Gutter
772 sq. yds.
215 line ft.
@ $ 6. 00
@ 20.00
@ 60.00
@ 50.00
@ 0.15
@ , 6. 50
@ 8. 00
$ 258.00
1,880.00
11,760.00
5,850.00
10,335.00
7,150.00
1,440.00
$38,673.00
$ 3, 860.00
537.50
$ 4,397.50
$43,070.50
@ $ 5. 00
@ 2.50
Total Estimated Construction Cost
Removal of Existing Bridge & Pavement
Engineering & Contingencies
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF COST
1,000.00
6,429.50
$ 50, 500.00
I ~
w
I ~
..J
a.
I
I
I
I
I
I
t-
I W
11J
0::
t-
en
I >-
0:
0::
W
I CD
...J
::>
c-:;:
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
,
,-, --- ~._-- . ,-
---- -- (
.--'] :.. ~--- I----~-.---
I
I I
I I
I I
5'1 c:/ Pc::;;.::/;: l2f:/ r.'
~
--i -----r---~ T- I
I , I
I I
-~ ---I----_=. I
- =-=..- - - ~ ---
I I
I I
--- I
I I
I I ~
I I ' 1
I ~
I I I
I I
-- I
I
~ I
--- 1---- -l
1- - ~ -1
I I
I I
I I
I I I
I I
I I
I I
~ - 1--- -I-.
-
f-
0::
0
W n.
wI- w
I-<t 0::
wZ f-
0::0:: z:
OW w
z~ "'.-
0<( w
0 0
m <r.
o<t ..J
W..J n.
O(/) ltJ
0::0 ~
~w ltJ
z:I: l')
-0 0
Wz _.
~ 0::::::> rr:
fl) JJ_~ CD
, I <t
"- :I: <t
:z
---.- -- ::i
\ <t
(f)
C) I
, , [
~l
.)
----
I Z
I 0
......
z ~ [ <{
<J: ~ \J >
\S) ,I
-.J - I l:::l W
\') \J -.J
a.. s.)
" w
.
()
~
=.
L_-_-
~
.....
(/)
..J
..J
3:
~
0::
W
I
Cl
:J
CD
TABLE 11
MULBERRY STREET BRIDGE
ESTIM:A TE OF COST
A LTERNATE VII - REINFORCED CONCRETE FLAT SLAB
BRIDG E
Class I Excavation (Dry)
Class II Excavation (Wet)
Class AAA Conc. (Superstr.)
Class A Concrete (Piers)
Reinforcing Steel
Piles, 12-in.
Handrail
34 cu. yds..
61 cu. yds.
215 cu. yds.
89 cu. yds.
70,730 lbs.
1,300 line ft.
180 lin.ft.
APPROACH PAVEMENT
6-in. Reinf. Conc. Pavement
Concrete Curb & Gutter
772 sq. yds.
215 lin. ft.
@ $ 6. 00
@ 20.00
@ 60.00
@ 55. 00
@ 0.15
@ 6.50
@ 8.00
$ 204.00
1,220.00
12,900.00
4,895.00
10,609.50
8,450.00
1,440.00
$39,718.50
$ 3,860.00
537.50
$ 4, 397.50
$44,116.00
@ $ 5.00
@ 2. 50
Total Estimated Construction Cost
Removal of Existing Structure & Pavement
Engineering & Contingencies
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF COST
1,000.00
6)584.00
$ 51,700.00
I r--
w
I f-
<;i
..J
Q.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I-
l1.1-
It!
cr
I-
CJ)
I >-
a::
a::
w
I (D
.J
=>
::E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
s' t'6'.. ~oadm:ll 5'
-'1- ----- l..___ W
I I
I I I
I I
I I
I I .....
"
I I \J
I i I
I :',',::.- ,J
:~:....- .... r-
--j: ,.'h ..._ . .." ....,., ....,...
I I
, I I _....Jm, ,J.
I , I
I I '.
I I~-)
i- --, "
-~--- 'j- --_.._-~ .-._--- __ .u.____ ___ _ ()
I (\1
I J__
I I
-, I I
l I
I -- -::1..
1
1 I
I I
I I
, I :--
t\j
I I I
I I
I I !
l I::: J
--= -
f-
(i':
WW 0
Q.
f-f- W
W<t (i':
0::2
00: f-
ZW Z
Of- W
O...J :2:
<t w
0 0
Wal <t
O<t ...J
0::...J Q.
OUl W
LLf- Q::
2<t W
-...J (!)
WLL 0
0::
a:
t CO
~
~, <t
..... Z
...J
<t
Ul
".';3
0'
. I ' ,
...." ('I
""I '
, '''\.'
.. \,
;~~. \1
!
<I.
,.J
n.
b
~I
~
'~
.,~::.:::::..:--:::~~~-=- -=
I
III
1,).1;11
-.. --illl/
1:11
Iii
II
.
<:)
~,
~
.
I\)
~I
....
::::>
o
I-
c:t
>
W
-.J
W
Ul
...J
...J
==
cO
0:
W
:I:
o
::)
CO
TABLE 12
MULBERRY STREET BRIDGE
ESTIMATE OF COST
ALTERNATE VIII - WELDED STEEL FRAME
BRIDGE
Class I Excavation (Dry) 98 cu. yds.
Class AAA Concrete (Superstr.) 100 cu. yds.
Class A Concrete (Piers & Abut.) 38 cu. yds.
Reinforcing Steel 20,570 lbs.
Structural Steel 88,400 lbs.
Piles, 12-in. 1,300 lino ft.
Handrail 186 line ft.
APPROACH PAVEMENT
6-in. Reinf. Conc. Pavement
Concrete Curb & Gutter
772 sq. yds.
215 line ft.
@ $ 6.00
@ 60.00
@ 55.00
@ 0.15
@ 0.22
@ 6.50
@ 8.00
@ $ 5. 00
@ 2.50
$ 588.00
6,000.00
2,090.00
3,085.50
19,448.00
8,450.00
1,488.00
$41,149.50
$ 3,860.00
537.50
.L..!!}9r;- . 50
$45,547.00
Total Estimated Construction Cost
Removal of Existing Structure & Pavement
Engineering & Contingencies
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF COST
1,000.00
6,853.00
$ 53,400.00
I m
I ILl
~
..J
a..
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
w
I w
lr
lii
I >-
lr
lr
W
CO
-'
I ::>
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
5' 2'6' Roadwaq 5'
n n n n
I II II -
I II
II II
" II
I II
I I'
,I II :...
, I t\J
I ,I II
, I' II
I I' II
I II
l, II II
II " II
-- II II
II I
I I II -
II ~
,j Ii II II - - ~
-- II II
II C\J
II II I
,I I I
II I I I
II I I
I' I I
II I I
/I I I
II I I
II I , ~
II I ~
I
II I
II I
II I I
II J I
u lJ I I.J
2
<t
....I
a..
I-
Q:
ILl 0
~ a..
<t ILl
Q: 0::
l1. ILl I-
..J I- Z
ILl <( ILl
ILl 2 :E
l- ll::: ILl
(f) ILl 0
0 ~ <(
ILl ....J
0 <( a..
....J ILl
ILl ll:::
:;: ILl
(!)
. Cl
,~ ll:::
" al
<(
2
..J
<t
(f)
~
~C)
, ,I
~~
",-"'-'
z
o
l-
e:{
>
W
....I
W
)p
"
(f)
:J
..J
:=
10
ll:::
ILl
:I:
o
::>
m
TABLE 13
MULBERRY STREET BRIDGE
ESTIMATE OF COST
ALTERNATE IX - REINFORCED CONCRETE RIGID FRAME
BRIDGE
Class I Excavation (Dry)
Class II Excavation (Wet)
Class AAA Concrete (Frame)
Class A Concrete (Footings)
Reinforcing Steel
Piles, 12-in.
Handrail
APPROACH PAVEMENT
6-in. Reinf. Conc. Pavement
Concrete Curb & Gutter
128 cu. yds.
240 cu. yds.
337 cu. yds.
154 cu. yds.
120,250 lbs.
2,300 lin. ft.
204 lin. ft.
772 sq. yds.
215 lin. ft.
@ $ 6. 00 $
@ 20.00
@ 60.00
@ 55.00
@ 0.15
@ 6;.50
@ 8.00
768.00
4,800.00
20,220.00
8,470.00
18,037.50
14,950.00
1,632.00
$68,877.50
$ 3,860. OQ.
537.50
$ 4,397.50
$73,275.00
@ $ 5.00
@ 2.50
Total Estimated Construction Cost
Removal of ExIsting Structure & Pavement
Engineering & Contingencies
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF COST
1,000.00
11,025.00
$85,300.00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(1)
W
f-
<t
.J
Q.
+
t!'6' Roadwo:
I
!' I
i I I
II i I I ~
'i' I
' I
Ii I j' ! II I
l!1 --- ---tJiU
!~L__-L__ I II
l-~ ~ ill I 1'1
~! I : ! Ii,
1-1 ! I ! I I \\
(j) I I 10_ ,Y
I -, ~ I 1ll
>- Ii, I I
a:: :
lY. .', I I
ll.i! 1 I
WI I, 0 I I
-n il 1 i __,_
~II_TI,I'--=-- ,,- -- ~ I
'I !fi-- II
' il , I I
I: I i
,:' I '
II: I I
I! I I
I
I I
I I
I
11
......
~
z
<.(
..J
CL
,
Cl
"
~
....
r
I
I
ra ---
- '=:::..-: -Jt~~~~~
I
/
I
/
I.-~::.=:.~
-.L-:l Cj==-=_
- ~tc:J----
I
....
a:
w 0
Wf- fu
t;j ~ Q:
ll: 0:: '-'
(.) W z:
Z f- W
O..J :'i!:
(.) <( IJJ
o lJJ 0
lJJ ~ <(
(.) <{ ..J
a: ll: n.
o LL lJJ
LL Q:
Z 0 W
Lij ~ (!)
ll: ~ Cl
0::
rn
<(
z
-'
<(
U)
z
o
-
f-
<(
>
W
..J
W
(/)
:;
..J
~
to
Q:
lJJ
J:
o
::>
CD
o
(\/
W
I--
<t
-1
a.
t
I-
tl.l
lu
a::
l-
(/)
>-
cc:
CiC
W
CO
..J
::>
Z
I
I II
I I
I I
5'1 2(o'Roa iwG.l,I 1.1'
1
I I
I ...
I I ~
I I
I 1--- --- n
~ f------- ~ ,
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I ~
()
H- II \
- ,
- -- I' ~
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
r'----:- -- H
LI- -- -_.- H
I ' I
I I
I I ....
.,
I I ~
I I
I I!
I
I-
0::
W 0
a.
I- W
W a:
0:: W
OI- l--
2 <( Z
02 W
00: :E
OW W
W~ 0
<(
o <t ..J
0: Q.
o J: IJJ
LL 0 a:
2 a:: W
- <(
\ W <.!>
0: 0
\ 0::
\ CD
\ <t
Z
\ :;
\ <(
\ (/)
\
\-:n
'" I I
-U
I,
II
1\ III
. :2
,II -~!I 0
~ ~~ I-
Z a <l
<1: .1 ( >
~ ~ w
-' -....:: lilli, -'
a.. Ii W
!if
II
(/)
3
==
<0
a::
W
:I:
(}
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
C\J
W
I-
<t
.J
Cl..
1
~
w
W
0::
~
en
>-
0::
0::
W
m
-'
::>
~
I
5' ~6' Rcxx:I~L/ 5'
-,- -,
I
I I
I I
I I
,.
I I
I
I i I ......
~
I I
I I
I I
1= ===== ====.:: M
I I
I I
I
I I ~
b ~~-----~r~= ~-= ~ CJ
----- ...--...--- , I
----- ---- ~
I I
I I
I I I ---
~ ::.-- -- -=- -:: -::... - -:-~ = bJ
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I ......
"
I I \\)
I I
I I
J . 1
--
_.............h_
z
(:)
,I
~
"
c:t
-1
a..
~ta.:lIJ:~.IJ~~i.ll!lu.;......u''"'I'....-.r
-"'-''''"'','i~'
w ~gs
I- llJ [, CL
~ ~ ~~
Cl.. Z "
~ ~ I~
=><t ~
:2 ,~w
lit)
~ ~ i~
I- <l.: .! llJ
Ii
~n::
~(I)
~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
: ",c. 1- ). f== :::
I /' i
: {------"j,,111111 5
: \ ,II '1/ ~
'- --~T=' 110!!!!!- CJ=~~ ~:,i
i C'" .-'1/1 ~il,r _s - - - ~ ~
i Ji~1 _ w!
L____~- 2J~=_--=.
:-- -- '---1iA===
I /
: /
: /
L_ jCJ===
'- - -r' r-I----
,- I Lr--
: /
\
\
\
\
\
-. \
.~~
\
'.J
-~~
I~
;4
~
.'~
~
11
'i.1
~~
~
~l
,j
14
~
"
"
~
~l
I
~~
,J
~1
~~
~---1
I' ---1
1 ~ ::-::
11 (AJ
~ i
~ f.~)
tt c~:
-... ~~""A1&'#.;.&I.:-~';..l.tr.I'\i;~..tP.JH~....;;:t!:::";<;'i:~
TABLE 14
WALNUT STREET BRIDGE
ESTIMATE OF COST
ALTERNATE I - 18 FOOT DIAMETER MULTI-PLATE WITH WINGWALLS
CULVERT WITH WINGWALLS
Class I Excavation
Class A Concrete
Reinforcing Steel
18 ft. Multi-Plate Pipe
Piles, 12 inch
Handrail
267 cu. yds.
210 cu. yds.
26,200 lbs.
45 lin. ft.
1,200 lin. ft.
220 lin. ft.
APPROACH BACKFILLING & PAVEMENT
6 -in. Reinf. Conc. Pa vem ent
Concrete Curb & Gutter
Backfill
755 sq. yds.
200 line ft.
1,760 cu. yds.
@ 6. 00
@ 45.00
@ 0.15
@ 175.00
@ 6. 50
@ 8. 00
@ 5. 00
@ 2. 50
@ 2.00
$1,602.00
9,450.00
3,930.00
7,875.00
7,800.00
1,760.00
3,775.00
500.00
3,520.00
Total Estimated Construction Cost
Removal of Existing Structure & Pavement
Engineering & Contingencies
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF COST
$32,417.00
7,795.00
$40,212.00
1,000.00
6,088.00
$47, 300.00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A summary estimate of cost of replacing all seven bridges considered in
this report is shown on Table 20. The type of ,structure found to be most economi-
cal at each location was used in arriving at the total estimated cost of $305,.700.00.
The existing bridges, with their poor alignment, broken gradients, and
narrow roadways, warrant replacement on the basis of obsolesence. In addition
to being obsolete, it is evident from a standpoint of structural stability that they
have seen their "best days". In the case of the bridge at Elm Street, which has
been severely battered by past floods, there is a question as to how much longer
it can remain in service. Assuming however, that traffic demands can be given
primary consideration in a recommended construction sequence, the first priori-
ty should be given to the crossing at South Ohio Avenue, since there is no structure
in existence at this location. The construction of a South Ohio Avenue crossing
and improvement of this street between Crawford Avenue and Iron Avenue will
provide a much needed north-south arterial through the eastern limits of the Ci ty
and will remove some of the traffic load from Front Street and Oakdale Avenue
thru the parks, as well as, Fifth Street and Santa Fe Avenue. In addition, the
crossing at South Ohio will hasten the development of areas already within the
City limits, but heretofore rather inaccessible.
Second in line for replacement should be the structure on Oakdale Avenue
in Kenwood Park. A wider bridge with improved alignment and better traffic
control a~ this location will greatly reduce hazard and congestion during periods
of peak traffic generated by the activity area in Kenwood Park.
The replacement of the Elm Street Bridge is recommended for the third
priority in the construction sequence. This structure is of timber construction
and numerous bouts with flood waters have imparied its stability and increased
TABLE 15
WALNUT STREET BRIDGE
ESTIMATE OF COST
ALTERNATE II - 20 x 20 REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX CULVERT - 220 SKEW
. BRIDG E
Class I Excavation
Class A Concrete
Reinforcing Steel
Piles, 12-in.
Handrail
310 cu. yds.
357 cu. yds.
48, 500 lbs.
1,200 Un. ft.
220 lino ft.
APPROACH BACKFILLING & PAVEMENT
6-ino Reinf... Conc. Pavement
Concrete Curb & Gutter
Back Fill
755 sq.yds...
200 line ft.
1,760 cu. yds.
@ $ 6.00
@ 45.00
@ 0.15
@ 6.50
@ 8.00
@ $ 5. 00
@ 2.50
@ 2.00
Total Estimated Construction Cost
Removal of Existing Structure
Engineering & Contingencies
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF COST
$ 1,860.00
16,065.00
7,275.00
7,800.00
1,760.00
$ 34, 760.00
$ 3,775.00
500000
3,520000
_$ 7, 795.00
$42,555.00
1,000.00
6,345.00
$ 49,900000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1\I
(\J
w
~
-l
a.
611
I-
W
W
a::
I-
if)
I-
:::>
z
-1
<:t:
3
II
II \
II \
III \
II I
II' \
II
ll~
01-
wo::
oW
0:>
0...1
lL.:J
~o?:
w><W
o::o:t:
m(f)
o W 0
C\JI-(\J
xw'"
00::
C\JO
Z
o
o
~
I;J
,I I
~
.....
z
o
I-
<:t:
>
W
.....J
W
I-
0=
o
0-
w
a::
I-
z
W
~
'W
MO
~<(
,~.J
'0-
.UJ
'0::
W
(;)
o
0:
m
,<t
!z
.J
<(
(f)
(f)
:i
-J
3=
ct:)
0::
t.LI
::t:
o
::>
m
TABLE 16
WALNUT STREET BRIDGE
ESTIMATE OF COST
ALTERNATE III - 3 - REINFORCED CONCRETE GIRDER - 220 SKEW
BRIDG E
Class I Excavation
Class II Excavation
Class AAA Concrete (Superstr.)
Class A Concrete (Piers)
Reinforcing Steel
Piles, 12-in.
Handrail
48 cu.yds.
96 cu. yds.,
244 cu. yds.
125 cu. yds.
85,050 lbs.
1, 400 line ft.
208 line ft.
APPROACH PAVEMENT
6-in. Reinf. Conc. Pavement
Concrete Curb & Gutter
445 sq. yds.
200 line ft.
@ $ 6. 00
@ 20.00
@ 60.00
@ 55.00
@ 0.15
@ ,6. 50
@ 8.00
@ $ 5. 00
@ 2.50
$ 288.00
1,920.00
14,640.00
6,875,00
12,757.50
9,100.00
1,664.00
$47,244.50
$ 2,225.00
500.00
$ 2,725.00
$49,969.50
1,000.00
7,530.50
$ 58, 500.00
Total Estimated Construction Cost
Removal of Existing Structure & Pavement
Engineering & Contingencies
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF COST
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
rf) i-
N!
wi
r-:
<('
.j
o...!
"('J
,
/
.
-c{." ~
j
I
1 ,-,...c.;," ~ /4./"
II ./" - ~l ~/i "f,f~' \'
'1-'/1 II!;
I ~;;/ 1 /1 I I I .
! _/lt~r;f=-:r-~1 I I I I I I
I ~ -:'~11-i! I: I I I I
-\\1\ \ II_LL' do,;;1o way I !, .~.I1
'\\'1 II' I I -t---liol~l
I \ " I I,ll
, \ i~ I I I I j I I d
. \ I: I II I I I / )::::--1 I i
\ H II: I ).- / /! I
'\ Ii! II 1,../:;';1 1/ I I
1 I II...... ---:....... / I I I t_
: I J .............., I _..----f 1'1 I,
\ \ '; I: i I ____ ~ I ! ll;?()--
\ \:, I;. ,-----l, I 1~'J~I----(: ~ z
I I . v' I "
\;;/!,(~, I ,~1! ii ~
, j; <'''',\ , .: ~rl I I i A/i i~\-'
,.,,,,J~ ,,' '.
:,~i/H":Yj I j j ~ I! I II
--:: l!; ! ~!/11 I q I 'I
;;, ; i! ,/'J;::: I I
.,; 'iJ..../,....-"f II! III
i' I L,'1"'" I I
i i: ~ 1_",'; I
1 i; !.,"';::-'("I" I ,
1; :': ::," - ; I I I ,I i I I
, i I .
; I i III I i ii
, I I ;1,
I ~ i ' I
I I Ii h
, I U- I
II I~/;J!I------
,,: ! I I ..............J ....-{t'," ;)J
, " . I L.............., I/- I
I,' I' l/r'~.....-...........--::-1
;, ~., ~.............. I
i,; ,i,:,; ! ./"/" ,. Y( ....... I
>nl..........,'~~l
i i9.......;,~ I
.I--'-i,.?~
,...__~,~....-; I
~- \ i
I
I
I
L\,~
!J:::j
t~j
(r~
'-'__w~ ~ I~
r--:7 ~
l.J Q: ) a::
Ct: w 11-
o I- i'Z
Z ..J :;". !w
o <t ;.;;o)~
o I.. W '..:2:
r- ~ ~llJ
(I) W (j) iO
~ ~ ~ !~
'- ',"'"
;-- llJ ...
::: w
00::
oJ:
I-
~,...; !
,"'
"-i
.'
~
~ j
I: i :l !
!-',~l ;; I
:1:;-
,illl
fUli
I II
~I! ----
" I,; ----
2 ~.U I ct~::~:
i' d:===-=-
~ 1----
- ----
w
C!>
o
a::
CD
oCt
I~
<t
(j)
(/)
:J
..J
3:
cO
Cl::
w
I~
maintenance costs on the present bridge. From a structural standpoint, re-
placement of the Elm Street Bridge is more urgent than is the replacement of the
other structures.
Next in line, from the standpoint of traffic benefits to be realized, is the
replacement of the bridge at Ash Street. Crossings at North Ohio Avenue, Mul-
berry Street and Walnut Street can follow in any desired sequence.
While the scope of this report was limited to a study of the seven river
crossings which have been discussed herein, it was necessary to observe and
analize the movement of traffic over a large portion of the city to arrive at
recommendations pertinent to these seven crossings. These observations
brought to light several additional recommendations which the authors believe
worthy of mention in considering a long range program for meeting Salina's
future traffic demands.
It is recommended that consideration be given to improving the inter-
section of Oakdale Avenue at Iron Avenue to increase the tr.affic capacity of this
inters ection.
It is recommended that future planning include a new crossing of the
Smoky Hill River at Greeley Avenue. This crossing would serve two needs;
first, it would provide an outlet to the east for traffic generated by the activities
in Kenwood Park and would afford much needed relief for Oakdale Avenue during
the periods of peak demands; secondly, it would provide an access for residen-
tial areas developing east of the Kenwood Park, as well as, a connecting link
between Kenwood, Oakdale, and Indian Rock Parks.
It is recommended that consideration be given to a new crossing near the
intersection of Prescott Avenue and Front Street. This crossing would provide a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
TABLE 17
OAKDALE AVENUE BRIDGE
ESTIMATE OF COST
ALTERNATE I - 18 FOOT DIAMETER MULTI-PLATE PIPE WITH WINGWALL
CULVERT WITH WINGWALLS
Class I Excavation
Class A Concrete
Reinforcing Steel
18~ft. Multi-Plate Pipe
Piles, 12-in.
Handrail
267 cu. yds.
210 cu. yds.
26,200 lbs.
45 line ft.
1,200 line ft.
220 lin. ft.
APPROACH BACKFILLING & PAVEMENT
6-in. Reinf. Con. c Pavement
Concrete Curb & Gutter
Concrete Sidewalk, 4-in.
Ba ckfill
2, 980 sq. yds.
890 line ft.
45 sq. yds.
1,760 cu. yds.
@ $ -6.00
@ 45.00
@ 0.15
@ 175.00
@ 6.50
@ 8.00
@ $ 5.00
@ 2. 50
@ 3.50
@ 2.00
Total Estimated Construction Cost
Removal of Existing Structure & Pavement
Engineering & Contingencies -
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF COST
$ 1,602.00
9,4GO.00
3,930.00
7,875.00
7,800.00
1,760.00
$ 32, 417.00
$ 14,900.00
2,225.00
157.50
3,520.00
$20,802.50
$53,219.50
1,000.00
8,-080.50
$ 62, 300.00
TABLE 18
OAKDALE AVENUE BRIDGE
,ESTIMA TE OF COST
ALTERNATE II - 20 x 20 REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX CULVERT - 220 SKEW
BRIDG E
Class I Excavation
Class A Concrete
Reinforcing Steel
Piles, 12-in.
Handrail
310 cu. yds.
357 cu. yds.
48, 500 lbs.
1, 200 lin. ft.
220 line ft.
APPROACH BACKFILLING & PAVEMENT
6-in. Reinf. Conc. Pavement
Concrete Curb & Gutter
Concrete Sidewalk, 4-in.
Back fill
2,980 sq. yds.
890 lin. ft.
45 sq. yds~
1,760 cu. yds.
@ $ 6.00
@ 45.00
@ 0.15
@ 6.50
@ 8.00
@ $
@
@
@
5.00
2.50
3.50
2.00
$ 1,860.00
16,065.00
7,275.00
7,800.00
1,760.00
$ 34, 760.00
$14,900.00
, 2,225.00
157.50
3,520.00
_$ 20, P02. 50
$ 55, 562.50
Total Estimated Construction Cost
Removal of Existing Bridge & Pavement
Engineering & Contingencies
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF COST
1,000.00
8,337.50
$64,900.00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
v
C\J
W
~
...J
a..
f:,lj
I
I
Ii
1--(~
\
\
\
dp'_l3o?dW,OY
W
:J
Z
W
>
<I: ,
~ ./ ~~
-- ,..... .,.------
///.............~
/"/ ,...,/'""
---../""'"
.-~
W
-l
<I:
o
~
<I:
o
/-
III. \
\ "
:\0
i i
, I
D !-
tJJ 0:
U LU
C-' "~
c5::J
LI.. =>
zo:>-
- .->>
l.JJ >< w
n::0:r.
en(/)
o w 0
C\Jr-~
x W
00::
NO
Z
o
o
\J
,I
~,
"
z
o
f-
<I:
>
W
...J
W
\
1
,,.-
~5
Jo..
,W
~:
12
iW
:a
w
o
<t
...J
0..
W
a::
w
~
a
a:
OJ
<t
,2:
...J
<t
r
(/)
:J
...J
~
cO
cr:
W
J:
{.)
~
TABLE 19
OAKDALE AVENUE BRIDGE
ESTIMATE OF COST
ALTERNATE III - 3 - REINFORCED CONCRETE GIRDER - 220 SKEW
BRIDGE
Class I Excavation
Class II Excavation
Class AAA Concrete (Superstr.)
Class A Concrete (Piers)
Reinforcing Steel
Piles, 12..in.
Handrail
APPROACH PAVEMENT
6-in. Reinf. Conc. Pavement
Concrete Curb & Gutter
Concrete Sidewalk, 4-in.
48 cu. yds.
96 cu. yds.
244 cu. yds.
125 cu. yds.
85,050 lbs.
1,400 line ft.
208 line ft.
2,460 sq. yds.
890 line ft.
45 sq. yds.
@ $ 6.00
@ 20.00
@ 60.00
@ 55.00
@ 0.15
@ 6. 50
@ 8.00
@ $ 5.00
@ 2. 50
@ 3.50
$ 288.00
1,920.00
14,640.00
6,875.00
12,757.50
9,100.00
1,664.00
$47,244.50
$12,300.00
2,225.00
157.50
~14,682.50
$61,927.00
Total Estimated Construction Cost
Removal of Existing Structure & Pavement
Engineering & Contingencies
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF COST
1,000.00
9,270.00
$72,200.00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10
t\l
W
I-
<t
..J
0-
'(,JJ
w
:::::>
z
w
>
<c
~/...
/ ,;.;'; ~I
~ /;;::_;;.; _1"" ~----- I I I
/,'1...... -I - I I I I I
/ i-I :: I II
I I I 'I I I I
____ I _'!~L Ro woo ' I I I
\ \ I I I - I -,---"'- 1- 5'
\ \ I I I I I I I
I I I I I. I_J I
\ I I I I J.............:::......~ 1
\ I I I / ~I 1/- I I I ..-.//
11---....1-;-...........1,1 I -\,
\ I n I J .. /t I I ' \
\\\\1 : I k ----r I I /11 5~- z
\ /111 11..--_(1 \ <l
I U r- - - I (-- _ _I _ 1 1\ ..J
I ~ \ I I I I) 1/ - a..
I I I 1 I / I~ I I \
:: : _... : f I I I
_1 I I I I .....J.~ I
_\\~\'/, I I I J J....;:......1......1 I
I I )./...... 'I I I
'. 11'....:-....../1 I I
\ \ I (I 1 I 1 1 I
\ ::: I': I II I
\ I I I 1 I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I: I I ----
I I I I I //J/ 1 //
II II,)~// ~
I I I~/cj~
--t ~--:'I~ I
) /~ I
~ '
\() . I
" 9
~ '\l'
'::: \t I
W
wI-
1-<1:
WZ
0::0::
UW
zl-
0-'3:
u<tw
(/) 0:: ~
::>w(/)
000
::> 0:: t\l
z-C\1
_C>
I-w
Zw
80::
:r:
I-
l-
n:
o
0-
w
0::
I-
Z
w
~
w
U
<t
..J
0...
W
0:
W
C>
a
0::
co
<t
Z
-'
<t
(/)
(/)
:J
..J
~
d3
0::
W
J:
U
::>
Q)
TABLE 20
REPLACEMENT OF ALL SEVEN BRIDGES
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF COST
North Ohio A venue
Elm Street
Ash & Front Streets
Walnut Street
Mulberry Street
Oakdale Avenue
South Ohio A venue
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF COST
$ 29,700.00
30,200.0u
83,500.00
47,300.00
41,600.00
62,300.00
11,100.00
$305,700.00*
* This total is based on the most economical alternate at each crossing.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
minor crosstown arterial between Ohio and Fourth Street to serve a growing
residential area east of the River. This route would relieve some of the
traffic from heavily loaded Crawford Avenue and would serve as a direct
access to the Indian Rock Park area.
Fourth Street has been recommended to become a major north-south
arterial from the south limits of the City to Iron Avenue. When this vitally
needed improvement is constructed, it is recommended that the Iron Avenue
Bridge across the existing Smoky Hill River be revised to permit construction
of a ninety degree, maximum capacity, intersection at fourth and Iron. It
may be possible to accomplish this without completely replacing the Iron
Avenue Bridge.
These recommendations for future planning are indicated on the
General Plan, Plate 1.
BUCHER & WIL'LIS
Consulting Engineers
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)