6.

DEVELOPMENT OF BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES

EAST END BRIDGE 6.1Introduction
This chapter provides information about the development of the alternatives for the East End
Bridge, explaining in detail the 4 Step Bridge Type Selection Process. The year-long Bridge
Type Selection Process involved extensive engineering, public outreach, environmental review and
development of an innovative and enduring Kentucky Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBE)
Program. Information is also provided regarding the projects mandatory requirements and budget.
The objective of Step 2 was to use the guidelines established and the public feedback collected
during Step 1 to develop the bridge concepts to be used during the Bridge Type Selection Process.
Step 2 was performed during October, November and December 2005.
The objective of Step 3 was to take the 6 bridge alternatives developed following Step 2 and refine
them into the 3 recommended bridge alternatives. Step 3 was performed during January,
February, and March 2006.

6.2TheBridgeTypeSelectionProcess
In the spring of 2005, the Bridge Type Selection Process was initiated. This 4 step process will
culminate in the selection of the East End Bridge that will be designed and built crossing the Ohio
River between Prospect, Kentucky and Utica, Indiana. This bridge will help complete the I-265
loop connecting the two states.
Section Design Consultant 5s (SDC5) main objective for Step 4, the final step of the Bridge Type
Selection Process, was to refine the 3 recommended bridge alternatives to meet all of the key
criteria and present them to the Executive Bridge Selection Committee. Step 4 began in April 2006
and will end with the public announcement of the bridge type to be designed and built.
6.3Step1DevelopGuidelines

BRIDGE TYPE SELECTION PROCESS The objective of Step 1 was to develop the guidelines to be used during the Bridge Type Selection
Process and to introduce the concept of how the aesthetics of various bridge elements affect how
STEP 1 Assemble Criteria AAT/RAC Input a bridge fits into its surrounding context. Some of the guidelines reflected navigational, structural,
Draft Public Final
DEVELOP Clearances Aesthetics
Cultural
Guidelines
BSMT Meeting
Guidelines
and highway limitations and physical restrictions that exist with the bridge site, while other
Lane Configuration
GUIDELINES Coast Guard Issues
Budget
Community Issues
guidelines represented environmental commitments and financial restrictions necessary to meet
budgetary goals. These guidelines were used to help select and develop the preliminary bridge
concepts. These key evaluation guidelines consisted of:
STEP 2

Concept Data AAT/RAC Input

DEVELOP Bridge Themes Draft

BSMT
Public Design Parameters (Mandatory Requirements)
Concepts

Pier Placement Aesthetics Concepts Meeting

CONCEPTS Height Restrictions

Cost Estimates
Historic
Other
Design Guidelines (Desirable Objectives)
Evaluation Matrix (Pass/Fail Evaluation)

STEP 3 In addition to using the general guidelines developed in Step 1 for concept development, the
DEVELOP Develop Draft AAT/RAC Input
Refine Draft
Alternatives
BSMT
Public
Meeting Alternatives guidelines identified were also used by SDC5 in the initial public outreach efforts. Working with the
Alternatives
ALTERNATIVES Bi-State Management Team (BSMT), SDC5 communicated the rural, historic and scenic context of
the Design Section to the project stakeholders. Step 1 followed the general outline of the Bridge
Type Selection Process flow chart, and ended with established guidelines for the above items to
STEP 4 Refine Alternatives Executive be used in Step 2 to develop bridge concepts. Step 1 included the following Section 5 major public
SELECT AAT/RAC Input
Final Bridge Bridge meetings. (There was no preference polling of the stakeholders at the Step 1 public meetings.)
Refine Cost Estimates Alternatives Selection
Obtain Preliminary Committee Type
BRIDGE TYPE

Coast Guard Approval
Cost Estimate
SDC4 & SDC6 Area Advisory Teams (Utica, 6/28/05)
SDC4 & SDC6 Area Advisory Teams / Regional Advisory Committee Meeting (Louisville,
9/15/05)
Views from the River Tour (Ohio River, 10/6/05)
We begin with a brief overview of the objectives of each of the 4 steps, followed by a detailed SDC5 Open House (Utica, 10/18/05)
explanation of each step. SDC5 Open House (Louisville, 10/20/05)

The objective of Step 1 was to develop the guidelines to be used during the Bridge Type Selection SDC5 explained at these stakeholder meetings that there are 4 basic bridge types that are suitable
Process and to introduce the concept of how the aesthetics of various bridge elements affect how for a long span bridge such as the East End Bridge. These 4 bridge types are Arch Bridges, Truss
a bridge fits into its surrounding context. Step 1 was performed during July, August and Bridges, Cable Stayed Bridges and Suspension Bridges. The following chart graphically illustrates
September 2005, with the Views from the River Tour and Open Houses held in October of 2005. the 4 bridge types.

Bridge Type Selection Report Design Section 5 6-1

 6. DEVELOPMENT OF BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES

EAST END BRIDGE 4 Basic Bridge Types 6.4DesignParameters

The 14 design parameters identified for the East End Bridge are items that must be complied with
throughout the Bridge Type Selection Process and future phases of the project. These parameters

ARCH
are summarized in the table below.

East End Bridge Design Parameters

No. Description Source
Design must provide minimum final horizontal clearance of 900 Meeting with Coast Guard,
1
(perpendicular to the river) in navigation channel. October 5, 2005
TRUSS

Design must provide minimum of 71 of vertical clearance above Coast Guard letter, August
2
normal pool. 26, 2004
Minimum vertical clearance above normal pool during construction Meeting with Coast Guard,
3
will be reviewed by Coast Guard during Phase 3 design. October 5, 2005
Design must provide minimum horizontal clearance of 600 Meeting with Coast Guard,
4
(perpendicular to the river) in main span during construction. October 5, 2005
Proposed channel closure restrictions and durations during
Meeting with Coast Guard,
5 construction will be reviewed by Coast Guard during Phase 3
October 5, 2005
STAYED

design.
CABLE

Final Environmental Impact

Design must take into account the cultural landscape of the historic
6 Statement (Section 106
Belleview property.
Memorandum Of Agreement)
Bridge must be able to be constructed in a manner meeting the FEIS Final Environmental Impact
7
recommendations (pages 8-6 and 8-7) for Wellhead protection. Statement
Design must be able to obtain permits from Coast Guard, Corps of
SUSPENSION

Engineers, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Final Environmental Impact

8
Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection, and Federal Statement
Aviation Administration.
Design must provide three adjacent traffic lanes in each direction, a
26 median with a center barrier, two 12 shoulders and one 17 Final Environmental Impact
9
pedestrian walkway/bike path on the west (downstream) side of the Statement
bridge.
Kentucky Transportation
10 Bridge construction cost must not exceed construction budget. Cabinet/Indiana Department
In order to verify the foundation conditions and determine if a long span suspension bridge was of Transportation
required, preliminary geotechnical borings were done at each of the 4 proposed pier locations. Design must meet all applicable roadway and structural design Kentucky Transportation
11
codes and specifications. Cabinet Contract
The preliminary borings indicated that there was sound rock at each of the proposed pier locations
in the river. Suspension bridges are more expensive than other bridge types, and are typically Design must take into consideration site-specific loading conditions Kentucky Transportation
12
used only for extremely long spans. Since an extremely long span is not required, a suspension as applicable, including seismic, barge impact and wind. Cabinet Contract
bridge was eliminated due to the high cost. Design must allow all bridge deck runoff to be collected and Final Environmental Impact
13
transferred to the Kentucky shore. Statement
Also, steel deck arch and steel deck truss bridge types were eliminated in this step because Final Environmental Impact
14 Construction must not impact any Section 4f properties.
placing the deck on the top of the truss or arch raised the profile grade and resulted in too steep a Statement
grade leading down into the tunnel in Section 4.

The bridge types being considered as the process moved forward therefore included a Steel
Through Arch, a Steel Through Truss, and a Cable Stayed Bridge.

Step 1 was essentially performed during July, August and September of 2005, with the Views from
the River Tour and Open Houses held in October of 2005.

Bridge Type Selection Report Design Section 5 6-2

 6. DEVELOPMENT OF BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES

EAST END BRIDGE 6.5DesignGuidelines East End Bridge Design Guidelines

The 24 design guidelines identified for the East End Bridge are items to be considered throughout No. Category Description Source
the Bridge Type Selection Process and future phases of the project. These guidelines were River are allowable. Guard on
developed through the public involvement process. The guidelines provide direction to the section Oct. 5, 2005
design team where some degree of flexibility is allowed by the Final Environmental Impact B1 Budgetary The design should consider long-term maintenance and Open Houses Oct. 18 &
Statement (FEIS), Record of Decision (ROD), Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for inspection costs. 20, 2005
historic properties, and permit requirements during design activities. Design guidelines include Advisory Team Meeting
navigational, environmental, constructibility, structural, budgetary and aesthetic considerations. Sept. 15, 2005
A1 Aesthetic / The new bridge should be of symbolic importance to the Advisory Team Meeting
Context community. It should be a bridge of which the local Sept. 15, 2005
East End Bridge Design Guidelines
Sensitive residents can be proud. The structure should be a Open Houses Oct. 18 &
memorable and visually outstanding bridge with which the 20, 2005
No. Category Description Source
local residents can identify.
N1 Navigational The new bridge should provide main span of Final Environmental A2 Aesthetic / The new bridge should be as visually transparent and Advisory Team Meeting
approximately 1100 over the navigational channel (Per Impact Statement Context unobtrusive as possible in order to fit within the context of Sept. 15, 2005
SDC5 East End Bridge Parameters, the minimum Meeting with Coast Sensitive the river and shorelines. The new bridge should Open Houses Oct. 18 &
navigational channel is 900). Guard on Oct. 5, 2005 complement its surroundings and not dominate the site. 20, 2005
N2 Navigational 550 approach spans to the main 1100 navigational span Meeting with Coast A3 Aesthetic / The pedestrian walkway / bike path should be user- Advisory Team Meeting
are desirable. Shorter approach spans with additional Guard on Oct. 5, 2005 Context friendly, maximize the feeling of safety and separation Sept. 15, 2005
piers in water may be considered subject to Coast Guard Sensitive from traffic lanes, and encourage pedestrian and bicycle
approval. usage as much as possible. The pedestrian walkway /
N3 Navigational A temporary 600 horizontal navigational span during Meeting with Coast bike path should be attractive, and the location should
construction will be considered by Coast Guard Guard on Oct. 5, 2005 allow for uninterrupted vistas of the river and the
depending on time of year and duration. surrounding environment.
E1 Environmental The design should minimize impacts to the historic Final Environmental A4 Aesthetic / The design should enhance the important views and Advisory Team Meeting
Belleview property, and it must create no more impacts Impact Statement Context vistas. The view of the underside of the bridge is very Sept. 15, 2005
than identified in Final Environmental Impact (Section 106 Sensitive important because not many areas along the river are
Statement/Memorandum Of Agreement. Memorandum Of open to the public but the river can be used for
Agreement) recreational purposes. One of the most important views
E2 Environmental The design of the approaches should provide noise Final Environmental will be on the river looking at the bridge from a distance.
mitigation consistent with Sections 4 and 6 designs. Impact Statement The view from the approach roadways is important and
E3 Environmental The maximum height of the new bridge should be Final Environmental must be considered, as well as the view from the
approximately 300. Impact Statement surrounding neighborhoods.
Chapter 5 page 5-78. A5 Aesthetic / The new bridge should create an architectural legacy Advisory Team Meeting
E4 Environmental Infiltration of bridge runoff water into aquifer should be Final Environmental Context through attention to detail. The main structural elements Sept. 15, 2005
prevented. Impact Statement Sensitive should be well proportioned, and the details (barriers,
Open Houses Oct. 18 & superstructure elements, lighting, signing, etc.) should be
20, 2005 open-looking and not visually imposing.
C1 Constructibility The design should minimize temporary staging, storage of Final Environmental A6 Aesthetic / The aesthetic features of the new bridge and the Advisory Team Meeting
materials, and other construction impacts. Impact Statement Context approaches (Design Sections 4 and 6) should be Sept. 15, 2005
C2 Constructibility The design should minimize vibration caused by any deep Final Environmental Sensitive compatible.
foundations on or near the approaches. Impact Statement A7 Aesthetic / Bridge lighting should be subtle and non-intrusive to Final Environmental
C3 Constructibility The design schedule should be consistent with the overall Final Environmental Context neighborhoods. Impact Statement
project timeline. Impact Statement Sensitive
C4 Constructibility Cofferdams should minimize amount of stream Final Environmental A8 Aesthetic / The color of the bridge and all its components should Open Houses Oct. 18 &
disturbance. Impact Statement Context blend in with the sky and the landscape. Features of the 20, 2005
C5 Constructibility Techniques to construct and maintain the bridge type Kentucky Sensitive local historic landscape should be considered as
should not require unique or unusual methods that would Transportation Cabinet/ inspiration for architectural themes in terms of color or
adversely impact design of the structure or approaches Indiana Department of texture (Utica Quarry, Limestone bluffs and outcropping,
with respect to project schedule, project costs, Transportation Louisville Water Tower, and covered bridges).
construction staging or normal maintenance activities. A9 Aesthetic / The bridge should be complementary to the native Open Houses Oct. 18 &
S1 Structural Design should minimize maintenance and bridge painting. Open Houses Oct. 18 & Context vegetation, landforms and materials in the area. 20, 2005
20, 2005 Sensitive
S2 Structural Piers perpendicular to the structure and skew to the Ohio Meeting with Coast

Bridge Type Selection Report Design Section 5 6-3

 6. DEVELOPMENT OF BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES

EAST END BRIDGE 6.6EvaluationMatrixBridgeTypes

The evaluation matrix was used to evaluate bridge concepts and alternatives, and to assist in
selecting preferred concepts and alternatives as the number was narrowed down during the Bridge
Type Selection Process. The evaluation matrix was used to determine the acceptability of
concepts and alternatives, not to rate their relative merit.

East End Bridge Step 1 Evaluation Matrix

Bridge Type 2 Steel

Bridge Type 1 Bridge Type 3 Steel Bridge Type 4 Steel Bridge Type 5 Cable
Deck Arch or Steel
Parameter

Suspension Bridge Through Arch Through Truss Stayed

Deck Truss
Description
Fails to Fails to Fails to Fails to Fails to
Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets
Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet

1 Provides minimum final horizontal clearance of 900 feet in navigational channel 9 9 9 9 9

2 Provides minimum of 71 feet of vertical clearance above normal pool 9 9 9 9 9
3 Provides Coast Guard acceptable minimum vertical clearance above normal pool during construction 9 9 9 9 9
4 Provides minimum horizontal clearance of 600 feet in main span during construction 9 9 9 9 9
Any expected channel closure restrictions and durations during construction are acceptable to Coast
5
Guard 9 9 9 9 9
6 Design takes into account the Cultural Aspects of the historic Belleview property 9 9 9 9 9
Design is able to be constructed in a manner meeting the FEIS recommendations (pages 8-6 and 8-7)
7
for Wellhead protection 9 9 9 9 9
8 Design facilitates obtaining permits from Coast Guard, Corps of Engineers, IDEM, KDEP, and FAA 9 9 9 9 9
Design provides three adjacent 12 traffic lanes in each direction, a 26' median with a center barrier,
9 two 12 shoulders and one 17 pedestrian walkway/bike path on the west (downstream) side of the 9 9 9 9 9
bridge

10 Design does not exceed construction budget of $255M (2006 Dollars) 9 9 9 9 9

11 Design meets all applicable roadway and structural design codes and specifications 9 9 9 9
Design takes into consideration site-specific loading conditions as applicable, including seismic, barge
12
impact and wind 9 9 9 9 9
13 Design allows bridge deck runoff to be collected and transferred to the Kentucky shore 9 9 9 9 9
14 Construction does not impact any Section 4f properties 9 9 9 9 9

Bridge Type Selection Report Design Section 5 6-4


6.7Step2DevelopConcepts
EAST END BRIDGE
Step 1 of the Bridge Type Selection Process involved establishing the key evaluation guidelines to
be used. It also included collecting comments and feedback from the project stakeholders relative
to the feasible bridge elements presented, including how the aesthetics of these bridge elements fit
into the rural context surrounding the bridge. The initial objective of Step 2 was to use the
guidelines established and the public feedback collected during Step 1 to develop the bridge
concepts to be evaluated during the Bridge Type Selection Process.
Step 2 began by analyzing the Step 1 feedback, establishing early trends and preferences of the
project stakeholders, and assembling the bridge elements presented during Step 1 into 15 bridge
concepts, or generic bridge alternatives.
These 15 bridge concepts included 4 Steel Arch Bridges, 4 Steel Truss Bridges, and 7 Cable Stayed
Bridges. They are highlighted on the following pages.
Working with the Bi-State Management Team (BSMT) during Step 2, SDC5 made presentations on
these 15 bridge concepts to the project stakeholders to determine their preferences on the feasible
bridge concepts. This stakeholder input was received by preference polling of the attendees at the
public meetings listed below and on the projects Web site (www.kyinbridges.com).
SDC4 & SDC6 Area Advisory Teams / Regional Advisory Committee Meeting (Jeffersonville,
11/17/05)
SDC5 Open House (Utica, 12/13/05)
SDC5 Open House (Louisville, 12/15/05)
The scores for the polling at these public meetings were based on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being the
least favorable and 10 the most favorable. It was emphasized during the polling that the project
stakeholders were to only consider the aesthetics of the bridge concepts being presented. The
concepts would all be assessed by the design team for other factors, such as technical feasibility,
construction cost, and maintenance issues.
The stakeholders were also advised that they were not voting to select any specific bridge concept,
but expressing their aesthetic preferences on the bridge elements being presented. The design
team could still mix and match various elements of the different bridge concepts being presented,
based on the stakeholders expressed preferences for the elements of these various bridge
concepts.
Bridge Type Selection Report Design Section 5
6. DEVELOPMENT OF BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES
Section5Step2PreferencePolling
DesignConceptsinOrderofAvg.ScorebyAllParticipants
C-3 C-2 C-7 C-5 C-1 C-6 C-4 A-2 A-3 A-1 A-4 T-4 T-2 T-3 T-1
Cable Stayed Arches Trusses
The chart above summarizes the results of this preference polling for all of the participants. (All of
the Step 2 polling results are shown in the Appendix.) As can be seen, the seven most popular
bridge concepts were all cable stayed bridge concepts. The four steel arch bridge concepts were
ranked next. The four steel truss bridge concepts were all the least popular, by a considerable
margin.
There seemed to be several factors involved in the preferences expressed by the project
stakeholders. The stakeholders indicated a preference for bridge concepts with fewer, and more
slender, piers in the water. They also indicated a preference for thin rather than thick bridge decks.
They expressed a desire for visual transparency, and for a bridge that blended into the rural and
scenic context of the bridge site. There was also a strong preference indicated for a low
maintenance bridge with a minimum of painted steel.
In assessing why the stakeholders rated the steel truss bridges so low, there seemed to be several
of these factors involved. The public seemed very concerned about bridge maintenance, and the
steel truss bridge was considered a high maintenance bridge type. Also, it seemed to be perceived
as not fitting well in the visual context in this vicinity. As a result of this input from the public
meetings, the steel truss bridge type was eliminated from further consideration.
The chart on the following page highlights the 15 concepts that were originally proposed to the
project stakeholders. Based on the Step 2 polling results and feedback from the stakeholders, the 6
bridge alternatives developed following Step 2 include:
1 Steel Arch Bridge
2 Diamond Tower Cable Stayed Bridges
3 Median Tower Cable Stayed Bridges
Step 2 was performed during October, November and December 2005.
6-5
 EAST END BRIDGE

15 CONCEPTS
Concept 1

Description Diamond Tower Cable Stayed (Outside Cables)

Spans 100-150-500-1100-500-150-100

Concept 2

Description Basket Handle Steel Arch (Diagonal Hangers)

Spans 100-100-250-150-1400-150-250-100-100

Concept 3

Description Three Span Steel Deck Truss

Bridge Type Selection Report Design Section 5

Spans 100-150-500-1100-500-150-100

Concept 4

Description Median Tower Cable Stayed (Outside Cables)

Spans 100-150-500-1100-500-150-100

Concept 5

Description Median Dual Steel Arches

Spans 100-100-250-150-1400-150-250-100-100

Concept 6

Description Single Span Steel Deck Truss

Spans 100-100-250-250-1200-250-250-100-100

Concept 7

Description Median Tower Cable Stayed (Outside Cables)

Spans 100-150-500-1100-500-150-100

Concept 8

Description Single Span Steel Deck Truss

Spans 100-100-250-250-1200-250-250-100-100

Concept 9

Description Single Span Outside Steel Tied Arches (Not Connected)

Spans 200-250-250-1200-250-250-100-100

Concept 10

Description Median Tower Cable Stayed (Median & Outside Cables)

Spans 100-100-200-300-1200-300-200-100-100

Concept 11

Description Median Tower Cable Stayed (Median Cables)

Spans 100-150-500-1100-500-150-100

Concept 12

Description Single Span Steel Tied Arch (Diagonal Hangers)

Spans 100-150-250-250-1100-250-250-150-100

Concept 13

Description Single Span Median Steel Tied Arch

Spans 250-250-250-1100-250-250-150-100

Concept 14

Description Median Tower Cable Stayed (Median Cables)

Spans 100-150-500-1100-500-150-100

Concept 15

Description Median Tower Cable Stayed w/Suspension Cables (Median Cables)

Spans 100-150-500-1100-500-150-100
6-6
6. DEVELOPMENT OF BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES
 6. DEVELOPMENT OF BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES

EAST END BRIDGE

1 3
(C1)
(T1)

2 4
(A1) (C2)

Bridge Type Selection Report Design Section 5 6-7

 6. DEVELOPMENT OF BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES

EAST END BRIDGE

5 7
(A2) (C3)

6 8
(T2) (T3)

Bridge Type Selection Report Design Section 5 6-8

 6. DEVELOPMENT OF BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES

EAST END BRIDGE

9 11
(A3) (C6)

10 12
(C4) (T4)

Bridge Type Selection Report Design Section 5 6-9

 6. DEVELOPMENT OF BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES

EAST END BRIDGE

13 15
(A4) (C7)

14
(C5)

Bridge Type Selection Report Design Section 5 6-10

 6. DEVELOPMENT OF BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES

6.8EvaluationMatrix15Concepts
The Evaluation Matrix for the 15 Concepts is shown below.
EAST END BRIDGE
East End Bridge Step 2 Evaluation Matrix
Concept 11 Concept 14
Concept 10 Concept 15
Concept 7 Median Median
Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 4 Concept 9 Median Tower Concept 12 Median
Median Tower Tower Tower
Diamond Basket Concept 3 Median Concept 6 Concept 8 Single Span Variable Depth Single Span Concept 13 Tower Cable
Concept 5 Variable Depth Variable Variable
Parameter
Tower Cable Handle Steel Three Span Tower Cable Single Span Single Span Outside Deck Cable Steel Tied Single Span Stayed with
Median Dual Deck Cable Depth Deck Depth Deck
Stayed Arch Steel Deck Stayed Steel Deck Steel Deck Steel Tied Stayed Arch Median Steel Suspension
Description Steel Arches Stayed Cable Cable
(Outside (Diagonal Truss (Outside Truss Truss Arches (Not (Median & (Diagonal Tied Arch Cables
(Outside Stayed Stayed
Cables) Hangers) Cables) Connected) Outside Hangers) (Median
Cables) (Median (Median
Cables) Cables)
Cables) Cables)
Fails Fails Fails Fails Fails Fails Fails Fails Fails Fails Fails Fails Fails Fails Fails
Meets to Meets to Meets to Meets to Meets to Meets to Meets to Meets to Meets to Meets to Meets to Meets to Meets to Meets to Meets to
Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet
Provides minimum final
1 horizontal clearance of 900 feet 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
in navigation channel
Provides minimum of 71 ft of
2 vertical clearance above normal 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
pool
Provides Coast Guard
acceptable minimum vertical
3 clearance above normal pool 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
during construction
Provides minimum horizontal
4 clearance of 600 feet in main 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
span during construction
Any expected channel closure
restrictions and durations during
5 construction are acceptable to 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Coast Guard
Design takes into account the
6 Cultural Aspects of the historic 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Belleview property
Design is able to be constructed
in a manner meeting the FEIS
7 recommendations (pages 8-6 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
and 8-7) for Well Head protection
Design facilitates obtaining
permits from Coast Guard, Corps
8 of Engineers, IDEM, KDEP, and 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
FAA
Design provides three adjacent
12 traffic lanes in each direction,
a 26' median with a center
9 barrier, two 12 shoulders and 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
one 17 pedestrian walkway/bike
path on the west (downstream)
side of the bridge
Design does not exceed
10 construction budget of $255M 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
(2006 Dollars)
Design meets all applicable
11 roadway and structural design 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
codes and specifications
Design takes into consideration
site-specific loading conditions
12 as applicable, including seismic, 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
barge impact and wind
Design allows bridge deck runoff
13 to be collected and transferred to 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
the Kentucky shore
Construction does not impact
14 any Section 4F properties 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Bridge Type Selection Report Design Section 5 6-11

 6. DEVELOPMENT OF BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES

6.9Step3DevelopAlternatives
The chart below depicts the 6 alternatives that were selected to advance to Step 3.
EAST END BRIDGE
6 ALTERNATIVES
Alternative Description Spans
A-1 Single Span Steel Tied Arch with Basket Handle Arch Ribs 250-327-1446-327-250

Step 3 began with the 6 bridge alternatives developed following Step 2. Working with the BSMT,
SDC5 evaluated all of the feedback received to date and used it to refine the 6 bridge alternatives
developed into the 3 recommended bridge alternatives to be carried into Step 4. These 6 bridge
alternatives included 1 Steel Arch Bridge, 2 Diamond Tower Cable Stayed Bridges, and 3 Median Alternative Description Spans
Tower Cable Stayed Bridges. A-2 Concave Diamond Tower Cable Stayed (Outside Cables) 250-450-1200-450-250

SDC5 used feedback from the presentations of the 6 alternatives to the project stakeholders to
develop the 3 recommended bridge alternatives to carry into Step 4. This stakeholder input was
received by polling of the attendees at the following public meetings:

SDC4 & SDC6 Area Advisory Teams / Regional Advisory Committee Meeting (Louisville,
Alternative Description Spans
2/16/06)
A-3 Convex Diamond Tower Cable Stayed (Outside Cables) 250-450-1200-450-250
SDC5 Open House (Utica, 3/7/06)
SDC5 Open House (Louisville, 3/9/06)

The chart below summarizes the results of this preference polling of the 6 alternatives for all of the
participants. (All of the Step 3 polling results are provided in the Appendix.) As can be seen, all of
the 6 alternatives scored well. The SDC5 design team heard any number of times from the project
stakeholders an enthusiastic we like them all. Alternative Description Spans
A-4 Median Tower Cable Stayed with Variable Depth Deck (Outside Cables) 250-450-1200-450-250
Section5Step3AlternativesPreferencePolling

Alternative Description Spans

A-5 Median Tower Cable Stayed with Variable Depth Deck (Median Cables) 250-450-1200-450-250

Alternative Description Spans

A-6 Median Tower Cable Stayed with Suspension Cables (Median Cables) 250-450-1200-450-250

A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6

Bridge Type Selection Report Design Section 5 6-12

 6. DEVELOPMENT OF BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES

In addition to the preferences expressed by the public, SDC5 also made preliminary construction Overall the preference polling on the 6 alternatives was relatively equal. The selection of the 3
cost estimates for the 6 alternatives. These preliminary construction cost estimates, shown below, recommended alternatives was therefore made on the following basis.
EAST END BRIDGE were one of the factors used to select the 3 recommended alternatives.
Alternative 1, the Single Span Steel Tied Arch with Basket Handle Arch Ribs, was the first
alternative eliminated from further consideration. The initial construction cost estimate for
East End Bridge Alternative 1 was the highest estimated cost of any of the alternatives. SDC5 looked at ways to
6 Alternatives possibly reduce this cost but was unable to do so. In addition, due to the extremely long span
Alternative required the refined steel arch was much bulkier and less visually transparent than the alternative
Rendering Brief Tower Cross Advanced to shown in the renderings during the polling process.
(Aerial View) Description Section Step 4
Also, Alternative 1, the Steel Arch, had the highest maintenance costs of any of the 6 alternatives.
As part of the polling process SDC5 had asked Which is more important in evaluating bridge
designs: Maintenance Issues, Aesthetics, Construction Costs or Construction Methods? (Detailed
Steel Tied Arch
with Basket information on this preference polling is included in the Appendix.) Maintenance Issues rated
A-1 No slightly more important in the stakeholders eyes than Aesthetics, and a great deal more important
Handle Arch
Ribs than Construction Costs and Construction Methods. In light of the highest estimated construction
cost, the less visually pleasing steel arch, and the stakeholders expressed aversion to a high
maintenance bridge, Alternative 1 was eliminated from further consideration.

Concave Original Alternatives 2 and 3 were both variations of a Diamond Tower Cable Stayed Bridge. Their
Diamond Tower estimated construction costs fell within the construction cost budget. Combining the best elements
A-2 Yes*
Cable Stayed
(Outside Cables)
of original Alternatives 2 and 3, SDC5 developed Recommended Alternative 1, a Straight Leg
Diamond Tower Cable Stayed Bridge with Outside Cables. The upper tower legs are straight and
come together at the top, minimizing the short stubby look of original Alternatives 2 and 3.

Convex
Alternate 4 was a Cable Stayed Bridge with Outside Cables and a Median Needle Tower. The
Diamond Tower stakeholders indicated a preference for the appearance of this tower design which became
A-3 Yes*
Cable Stayed Recommended Alternative 2.
(Outside Cables)
Finally, Alternatives 5 and 6 were both Median Tower Cable Stayed Bridges with Median Cables.
Initially both Alternative 5 and Alternative 6 were considerably over the construction budget. The
main difference between the 2 alternatives was that Alternative 6 also had suspension cables and
Median Tower
Cable Stayed hangers. Both Alternatives 5 and 6 were essentially equally popular in the initial polling. However,
A-4 with Variable Yes the rating for Alternative 6 went down when the drive through video was shown and the
Depth Deck stakeholders were able to see the dense crisscrossing network of cables in the median. In light of
(Outside Cables) this fact, it was decided to focus on Alternative 5 and try to reduce the estimated construction cost.

To reduce this cost the footing of Alternative 5 was raised to the water line and the median
Median Tower shoulder width at the tower was reduced from 12 feet to 8 feet 9 inches. (The median shoulder
Cable Stayed width between the towers remains at 12 feet.) These two changes did bring the estimated
A-5 with Variable Yes
Depth Deck construction cost of Alternative 5 within the construction cost budget, and it became
(Median Cables) Recommended Alternative 3.

As noted above, the objective of Step 3 was to take the 6 bridge alternatives developed following
Median Tower Step 2 and refine them into the 3 recommended bridge alternatives following the Bridge Type
Cable Stayed Selection Process previously described. These 3 recommended bridge alternatives include
A-6 with Suspension No Alternative 2, a Straight Leg Diamond Tower Cable Stayed Bridge with Outside Cables; Alternative
Cables (Median 4, a Median Tower Cable Stayed Bridge with Outside Cables; and Alternative 5, a Median Tower
Cables)
Cable Stayed Bridge with Median Cables.

* Note: A-2 and A-3 were combined to develop what would become R-1.

Bridge Type Selection Report Design Section 5 6-13

 6. DEVELOPMENT OF BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES

These selections were consistent with the publics expressed preference for cable stayed bridges
EAST END BRIDGE throughout the polling process, and all 3 bridges were within the allowable construction cost and

comply with the previously developed parameters and guidelines.
Step 3 was performed during January, February, and March 2006

6.10 EvaluationMatrix6Alternatives
The Evaluation Matrix for the 6 alternatives is shown below.

East End Bridge Step 3 Evaluation Matrix

Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Median Tower Median Tower Median Tower
Single Span Steel Concave Diamond Convex Diamond
Cable Stayed with Cable Stayed with Cable Stayed with
Parameter

Tied Arch with Tower Cable Tower Cable

Variable Depth Variable Depth Suspension
Description Basket Handle Stayed (Outside Stayed (Outside
Deck (Outside Deck (Median Cables (Median
Arch Ribs Cables) Cables)
Cables) Cables) Cables)
Fails to Fails to Fails to Fails to Fails to Fails to
Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets
Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet

1 Provides minimum final horizontal clearance of 900 feet in navigational channel 9 9 9 9 9 9

2 Provides minimum of 71 feet of vertical clearance above normal pool 9 9 9 9 9 9
3 Provides Coast Guard acceptable minimum vertical clearance above normal pool during construction 9 9 9 9 9 9
4 Provides minimum horizontal clearance of 600 feet in main span during construction 9 9 9 9 9 9
5 Any expected channel closure restrictions and durations during construction are acceptable to Coast Guard 9 9 9 9 9 9
6 Design takes into account the Cultural Aspects of the historic Belleview property 9 9 9 9 9 9
Design is able to be constructed in a manner meeting the FEIS recommendations (pages 8-6 and 8-7) for
7 Wellhead protection 9 9 9 9 9 9
8 Design facilitates obtaining permits from Coast Guard, Corps of Engineers, IDEM, KDEP, and FAA 9 9 9 9 9 9
Design provides three adjacent 12 traffic lanes in each direction, a 26' median with a center barrier, two 12
9 shoulders and one 17 pedestrian walkway/bike path on the west (downstream) side of the bridge 9 9 9 9 9 9
10 Design does not exceed construction budget of $255M (2006 Dollars) 9 9 9 9 9 9
11 Design meets all applicable roadway and structural design codes and specifications 9 9 9 9 9 9
Design takes into consideration site-specific loading conditions as applicable, including seismic, barge impact
12 and wind 9 9 9 9 9 9
13 Design allows bridge deck runoff to be collected and transferred to the Kentucky shore 9 9 9 9 9 9
14 Construction does not impact any Section 4F properties 9 9 9 9 9 9
Note: The truss bridge type was eliminated due to the consistently low public evaluation of this bridge type.

Bridge Type Selection Report Design Section 5 6-14


EAST END BRIDGE 6.11Step4SelectBridgeType establish design wind speeds for future wind loading and stability analysis for the 3 recommended
SDC5s objective for Step 4 of the Bridge Type Selection Process was to refine and present to the
Executive Bridge Selection Committee the relative merits of each of the 3 recommended bridge
alternatives. Step 4 began in April 2006 and will end with the public announcement of the bridge
type to be designed and constructed. These 3 recommended bridge alternatives included:
Alternative R1 A Diamond Tower Cable Stayed Bridge with Outside Cables
Alternative R2 A Median Tower Cable Stayed Bridge with Outside Cables
Alternative R3 A Median Tower Cable Stayed Bridge with Median Cables
Working with the BSMT, SDC5 assessed the suitability of these 3 recommended alternatives
based on an extensive, detailed examination of structural, seismic, wind analysis, construction
cost, constructibility, maintenance and aesthetic criteria. The following are the relative merits of
the 3 recommended alternatives from these perspectives:
6.11.1 Structural Analysis
The goal of the structural analysis in Step 4 was to better define structural member size
requirements and any critical construction requirements.
All 3 recommended bridge alternatives are structurally sound and are capable of safely carrying
the design loads. Alternatives R1 and R2, with outside cables, are inherently stable with a
traditional longitudinal edge girder and transverse floor beam superstructure. Alternative R3, with
median cables, requires a box girder superstructure for stability. Also, Alternative R3 may require
a transverse deck expansion joint at mid-span between the towers due to temperature expansion
and contraction. The expansion joints of Alternatives R1 and R2 are at the ends of the bridge.
Alternative R3 also has expansion joints at the ends of the bridge.
As part of this step, SDC5 produced a preliminary design for each of the 3 recommended
alternatives. The purpose of this effort was to better define structural element sizes and perform
more refined analysis for each of the 3 recommended alternatives. This enabled more accurate
cost estimates for each of the 3 alternatives. Analysis at this stage was preliminary in nature but
was based on computer analysis and anticipated design loads.
SDC5 also used the preliminary geotechnical information developed for this project to establish
foundation sizes and requirements, as well as to perform preliminary design for the piers. SDC5
also reviewed the anticipated staged construction of each alternative to identify any critical stages
of construction that may dictate final structural requirements.
6.11.2 Seismic
The East End Bridge is considered a critical structure. A preliminary assessment has been made
to evaluate the appropriate design ground motion level to be used for seismic analysis of the
bridge and its potential impact. A preliminary seismic review was performed to identify the future
Bridge Type Selection Report Design Section 5
6. DEVELOPMENT OF BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES
seismic design needs. In addition, a preliminary wind climate and site analysis was performed to
bridge alternatives.
According to the current KYTC bridge design manual an acceleration coefficient of 0.09 (g) has
been specified for the proposed bridge site (i.e., Jefferson County, per KYTC Bridge Design
Manual Exhibit 401). This acceleration coefficient is representative of the expected peak ground
acceleration (PGA) defined at bedrock (or, rock-like ground condition) and corresponds to a
potential earthquake event that has a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. Using this PGA
value and following the current American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) seismic design guideline, the design rock response spectra (horizontal
component) are presented in the figure below (represented by the red curve in the figure).
Design Rock Response Spectra (5% Damping)
0.3
Spectral Acceleration (g)
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Period (sec)
5% in 50-yr USGS 2002 Rock Spectra (Future AASHTO)
Current KYTC/AASHTO Rock Spectra (outdated 10% in 50-yr)
2% in 50-yr USGS 2002 Rock Spectra (for Critical Bridges)
10% in 50-yr USGS Rock Spectra
The seismic hazard results used in the current AASHTO guideline (i.e., the 10% probability on 50-
yr) have been considered inadequate by most experts to represent the seismicity and ground
motion characteristics of the Central and Eastern United States. In addition, the 10% in 50-yr
design hazard level specified in the current AASHTO and KYTC manual is not considered
appropriate for a critical bridge such as the one proposed for this project. There have been some
studies in recent years to address these issues, briefly discussed below:
1. United States Geological Survey (USGS) as well as studies for major bridge projects in the
Central and Eastern United States have indicated considerably different seismic hazard
results and ground motion characteristics from those specified by current AASHTO
guidelines. The methodology used by the USGS and the results from its analysis have been
demonstrated to more accurately represent the current knowledge of Central and Eastern
United States earthquakes. The latest (2002) USGS seismic hazard results for the proposed
6-15
 6. DEVELOPMENT OF BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES

project site are shown in the previous figure for three different hazard levels 10%, 5%, and
2% probability of exceedance in 50 years. As the figure indicates, the 10% in 50-yr spectral
EAST END BRIDGE intensity used by current AASHTO/KYTC is significantly higher than the 10% in 50-yr USGS
results.
2. An on-going AASHTO effort to update the current Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
seismic design specifications for highway bridges has recently resulted in the adoption of an
increased seismic design hazard level from 10% in 50-yr to 5% in 50-yr. The revised 5% in
50-yr design response spectra will be based on the 2002 USGS results (see previous figure).
It is anticipated that this new AASHTO Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic
Design of Highway Bridges will be officially adopted in one to two years from now.
Wind speeds at deck level were calculated as a function of return period. For structural design of
bridges a return period of 100 years is normally recommended. A mean-hourly wind speed is
typically used for design. The recommended return period for flutter stability criterion of the
completed bridge is once every 10,000 years. Flutter oscillations can build up over shorter periods
than an hour, therefore a 10 minute-mean speed is applied. Less important return periods are
typically assumed during construction as recommended in the table below.
Wind Speed Criteria at Deck Level
(105 ft above normal water level)

3. The future AASHTO specifications mentioned above are intended for conventional/regular Return Wind Speed (mph) - Without Directionality
Period Application
highway bridges. For a special and critical bridge such as the one proposed for this project, it
(years) 1-Hour Mean (Mean Hourly) 10-Minute Mean
is a general practice to design for a hazard level corresponding to a 2% in 50-yr event.
Structural Design in
20 63.4 --
Based on the discussions presented above, it is recommended that the 2% in 50-yr design rock Construction Stages
response spectra derived based on the 2002 USGS study (the thickest solid curve in the figure on Structural Design for
100 72.3 --
the previous page) be used for the preliminary assessment of the bridge. If vertical response Completed Bridge
spectra are required, they can be taken as 2/3 of the horizontal component. As indicated in the Flutter Speed in
1,000 85.0 90.7
figure, the design peak ground (rock) acceleration is about 0.1g for the 2% in 50-yr event. A Construction Stages
ground motion intensity of this magnitude (in a low to moderate range) should not present any Flutter Speed for
10,000 97.7 104.3
major seismic design issues for the proposed new bridge structure, regardless of what bridge type Completed Bridge
is finally selected. However, rock motion may be significantly modified by the presence of soil
overburden. It is therefore recommended that the effect of soil amplifications and other potential
seismic hazards such as soil liquefaction potential be evaluated during the design phase.
6.11.4 Construction Cost Estimates

SDC5 prepared refined construction cost estimates for each of the 3 recommended alternatives
6.11.3 Wind Analysis 35010.0360 10
340 20 based on preliminary member sizes. A preliminary summary of quantities was tabulated which
330 30
320 40 included those items expected to contribute in a significant way to the overall cost. Contingencies
A wind climate analysis was performed for
310 1.0 50 were included for items that are not estimated or currently anticipated. Historical cost data and
the bridge site. This report summarizes the
300 60 recent unit costs were used to establish an estimate of probable initial construction cost in current
wind climate and turbulence properties for
(2006) dollars for each of the 3 recommended alternatives. A contingency factor for risk was also
the site of the East End Bridge. The wind 290 0.1 70
included in these construction cost estimates.
climate analysis is based on meteorological 280 80
information from the nearby airports, along Bridge 100-Year
270 0.0
Winds 90 With respect to construction cost, the estimated construction cost for each alternative (2006
with USGS topographic data, employed to
dollars) is:
determine probable wind speeds and 260 100

directions. 250
All Winds
110
Alternative R1 $245 Million
240 120 Alternative R2 $250 Million
Wind directionality effects were investigated
from the most probable direction of the 100-
230 130 Alternative R3 $230 Million
220 140
year return period winds. As is shown in the 210 150
figure at right, the most probable directions 200 160 6.11.5 Constructibility
190 180 170
are from 170 to 270 degrees. These
southwesterly winds are close to normal All 3 recommended bridge alternatives represent typically constructed long span bridge types.
to the bridge, which indicates that no Directionality of local wind speeds Alternatives R1 and R2, with outside cables, are somewhat simpler to construct than Alternative
directionality reduction should be applied R3, which has median cables. However, median cable bridges can readily be constructed. The
to wind loads or flutter criteria. foundations of all 3 recommended alternatives are typical of long span bridges everywhere.

The terrain surrounding the bridge site is a combination of open water, suburban terrain, and urban SDC5 has provided a preliminary construction scheme for each of the 3 recommended alternatives
terrain. In the far field, the terrain is a combination of farmland, forest, and hills. that depicts typical means and methods for constructing the structure. These are shown on the
conceptual-level bridge construction sequence drawings for each alternative included in Section

Bridge Type Selection Report Design Section 5 6-16

 6. DEVELOPMENT OF BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES

6.13 of this report (pages 6-23, 6-27 and 6-31). The construction schemes identified for each A comparison chart of the 3 recommended alternatives is provided below:
alternative considered reasonable means for delivery and erection of main structural elements and
EAST END BRIDGE contractor access. SDC5 also estimated the requirements for temporary works in the river,
including erection equipment and temporary cofferdams for construction of water piers. The East End Bridge
construction schemes and assumptions for construction equipment and access were used to help Comparison of the 3 Recommended Alternatives
develop the refined construction cost estimates provided for each alternative.
Recommended Alternative 1 Recommended Alternative 2 Recommended Alternative 3
Diamond Tower Cable Stayed Median Tower Cable Stayed Median Tower Cable Stayed
These constructibility evaluations also included a preliminary estimate of duration of construction. (Outside Cables) (Outside Cables) (Median Cables)
The construction duration for all 3 recommended bridge alternatives is expected to be about 4
years.

6.11.6 Maintenance

All 3 recommended alternatives have concrete towers, concrete decks, and steel stay cables
protected by polyethylene sheathing. The foundations of all 3 alternatives are concrete footings
supported by drilled shafts into rock. These are all extremely durable items. 300-Foot Concrete Needle 300-Foot Concrete Needle
Towers 300-Foot Concrete Diamond
in Median in Median
Alternatives R1 and R2 have a concrete slab deck protecting a steel girder superstructure. Deck 160-Foot Wide, Concrete 184-Foot Wide, Concrete 155-Foot Wide, Concrete
Alternative R3 has median cables supporting the superstructure and requires a box girder Superstructure Steel Girder with Concrete Steel Girder and Steel Box Concrete Box and Steel Box
superstructure for stability. The center span portion of the R3 superstructure is a steel box Type Deck with Concrete Deck with Concrete Deck
supporting a concrete slab deck, while the remainder of the R3 superstructure is a concrete box. Located Outside Deck; Located Outside Deck; Located in Median;
Cables
All of these concrete slab decks and concrete box elements are transversely post tensioned and Sheathed Steel Strands Sheathed Steel Strands Sheathed Steel Strands
are relatively crack resistant. One would not expect to have to replace these decks. The deck Shoulder
surfaces do all include an overlay that would be replaced periodically. However, all of the above Width at 12 feet 8 feet 8 feet 9 inches
elements have proven to be relatively low maintenance items. Tower
Deck
None; Wider Shadow under Yes; Some Sunlight under Yes; Some Sunlight under
With respect to preliminary life cycle costs, any estimate of actual costs at this stage is highly Openings in
Bridge Bridge Bridge
speculative due to the uncertainties in future construction cost inflation. To address this item Median
SDC5 prepared the comparative Life Cycle Cost Matrix shown below. This matrix provides the Slightly Simpler with Slightly Simpler with Slightly More Difficult with
Constructibility
maintenance intervals for the major maintenance items for all 3 recommended alternatives. As Outside Cables Outside Cables Median Cables
can be seen in the matrix, the maintenance requirements are essentially the same for all 3 Slightly Less Maintenance
Maintenance Relatively Low Maintenance Relatively Low Maintenance
than Alternatives R1 and R2
alternatives. The only minor difference in the maintenance needs of the 3 alternatives is that
Cost
Alternative R3, with a concrete box deck on a portion of the superstructure, would be slightly less $245 Million $250 Million $230 Million
(2006 dollars)
expensive to paint.

6.11.7 Aesthetic Criteria

East End Bridge Life Cycle Cost / Maintenance Intervals
Recommended Each of the 3 recommended cable stayed alternatives has distinctive characteristics in terms of
Recommended Recommended
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Alternative 3 their tower, deck and cable configurations, which result in differences on how they are perceived
Life Cycle Cost Matrix Median Tower Cable from the aesthetic point of view.
Diamond Tower Cable Median Tower Cable
Stayed
Stayed (Outside Cables) Stayed (Outside Cables)
(Median Cables) During the public review process a series of visual/aesthetic goals were established. The main
In-Depth Inspection Every 6 years Every 6 years Every 6 years aesthetic goals developed for the East End Bridge are:
Bi-Annual Inspection Every 2 years Every 2 years Every 2 years 1. Visual transparency and simplicity that will help the bridge blend into the existing environment
Expansion Dam without imposing on the landscape.
50 50 50
Replacement 2. Good proportions and scale for all major bridge components, especially the towers which will
Overlay Milling and be the most visible.
25, 50, 75 25, 50, 75 25, 50, 75
Replacement 3. Integration of the bridge into the rural, historic and scenic context of the river and the adjacent
Complete Bridge communities.
25, 50, 75 25, 50, 75 25, 50, 75 4. A distinctive bridge that will be a memorable and attractive landmark for the region and a
Painting
source of pride to the community.
Note: Maintenance levels based on a 100-Year Service Life

Bridge Type Selection Report Design Section 5 6-17


Recommended Alternative R1 - Diamond Tower Cable Stayed (Outside Cables)
EAST END BRIDGE
Key Elements:
Diamond Towers
300 Feet Above
Water
Cables from Top
of Tower to
Outside Edge of
Deck
Construction Cost:
$245 Million (2006
dollars)
In the environmental phase of the project, the view shed analysis limited the tower height to 300
feet. Alternative R1 consists of two 300-foot high diamond towers with a deck width of
approximately 160 feet. The diamond tower design has supporting members located on the
outside of the bridge deck and cables anchored to the outside edges of the bridge deck.
Therefore, the proportion of the 300-foot high tower and a 160-foot wide bridge deck requires
larger structural members above and below the deck than the other two alternatives. To observers
on the shore and to drivers, Alternative R1 is more visible against the landscape than the other two
recommended alternatives.
Similar diamond tower cable stayed designs have been used by Kentucky for other Ohio River
crossings. The towers with inclined legs create a sense of gateway between both states across
the Ohio River. The diamond towers incorporate the use of traditional arches connecting the
inclined legs that are inspired by the architecture of the historic houses and estates in the area.
This deck and tower configuration does not allow for the incorporation of deck openings within the
superstructure. Therefore, sunlight cannot reach the river between lanes of opposing traffic,
resulting in longer shadow coverage over the river.
For the diamond tower design, the cable anchorages are located between the outside shoulder
and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Pathway. This provides additional distance between moving traffic
and the pathway users.
The diamond tower design allows 12-foot wide median shoulders for the entire length of the bridge.
This shoulder could be converted to an additional travel lane in the future, if necessary.
Bridge Type Selection Report Design Section 5
6. DEVELOPMENT OF BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES
Recommended Alternative R2 - Median Tower Cable Stayed (Outside Cables)
Key Elements:
Needle Towers
300 Feet Above
Water
Cables from Top of
Tower to Outside
Edge of Deck
Construction Cost:
$250 Million (2006
dollars)
Alternative R2 consists of two 300-foot high needle towers with a deck width of approximately 184
feet. The cables are anchored to the outside edges of the bridge deck. Due to clearance
constraints, the bridge needs to be quite wide because of the cable angles required to clear the
traffic envelope. At 184 feet in width, if this bridge is selected, it could possibly become one of the
widest cable stayed bridges ever built.
The bridge is visually transparent because the needle towers are slender and do not emphasize
the bridge width. In addition, the cables near the towers have been omitted by using a thicker
variable depth box superstructure allowing more open views of the towers and the landscape. The
needle towers have a shape that echoes traditional historic obelisks that have been used to mark
places, memorials and national monuments. The slender towers are inspired by the classical
architecture of the local historic properties.
The location of the towers in the median and the deck configuration permits the incorporation of
deck openings in the median, which allow sunlight to reach the river level. This feature reduces the
continuous shadow coverage of the river.
By anchoring the cables to the outside edges of the deck, from some view points the very wide
deck is more apparent than in Alternative R3 and the multiple crossings of the cables add visual
complexity. However, the cable anchorages located between the outside traffic lane and the
Pedestrian and Bicycle Pathway do provide additional distance between moving traffic and the
pathway.
Finally, narrowing the median shoulder widths to 8 feet at the towers precludes their use as traffic
lanes in the future.
6-18
 6. DEVELOPMENT OF BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES

Recommended Alternative R3 - Median Tower Cable Stayed (Median Cables)

EAST END BRIDGE 6.11.8 Stakeholder Involvement

As part of the previously described Bridge Type Selection Process, SDC5 held the following
informational public meetings to present these 3 recommended alternatives to the stakeholders:

SDC4 & SDC6 Area Advisory Teams Meeting (7/13/06)

SDC2 & SDC5 Regional Advisory Committee Meeting (7/18/06)

Key Elements:
Needle Towers The Bridge Type Selection - Step 4 process began in April 2006. SDC5s part of the Step 4
300 Feet Above process ends with the presentation of the 3 recommended bridge alternatives to the Executive
Water Bridge Selection Committee. These alternatives were all closely examined to verify that they met
Cables from Top the necessary project criteria. The Executive Bridge Selection Committee will select the bridge
of Tower to type to be advanced into design and construction. SDC5 will also provide support to the BSMT for
Median of Deck the public announcement of the bridge type.
Construction Cost:
$230 Million (2006
dollars)

Alternative R3 consists of two 300-foot high needle towers with a deck width of approximately 155
feet. The cables are anchored to the center median area of the bridge deck. This bridge type has
a narrower deck than Alternative R1 and Alternative R2 because of its cable locations. In
particular, Alternative R3 is more than 30 feet narrower than Alternative R2 and thus has less
shadow coverage of the river. The bridge is visually transparent because the needle towers are
slender and do not emphasize the bridge width.
In terms of their curvilinear shaping, the needle towers take some architectural clues from the
historic Water Tower, which is a 19th Century historic landmark on the bank of the Ohio River. The
needle towers reflect a nautical theme and the recreational sailboats on the river.
One important difference between Alternative R2 and Alternative R3 is the location of the cables.
By having the cables anchored in the center median area, the cable arrangement is simplified and
views of the landscape and river are more open. In addition to having the narrowest deck, the
Alternative R3 cable arrangement and towers are visually minimal and more transparent than the
other two alternatives.
The location of the towers in the median and deck configuration permits the incorporation of deck
openings in the median that allow sunlight to reach the river level in the zone near the towers. This
feature reduces the continuous shadow coverage of the river. The cables near the towers have
been omitted by using a thicker curved box superstructure making the views of the tower and the
landscape more open and less encumbered by cables.
The Pedestrian and Bicycle Pathway is closer to traffic than is the case with Alternatives R1 and
R2. Also, narrowing the median shoulder widths to 8 feet 9 inches at the towers precludes the use
of these median shoulders as traffic lanes in the future.

Bridge Type Selection Report Design Section 5 6-19