Major Problems with Three Trails Crossings aka Grandview Triangle

[ShawnP]

I see a state that possibly could have in rush to cover up it's poor design violated a major federal enviromental rule. Also I think by removing the evidence so to speak MODOT could be guilty of covering up it's poor work. It doesn't look good to me and if you were a taxpayer in Missouri as I once was it looks even less inviting.

[ShawnP]

Interesting information concerning major projects like the Three Trails repair projects. Permits must be issed if you ask me for storm water runoff and a Supplemental EIS must be issued.

[Revive 755]

Does the original EIS cover this redo or should have MODOT commissioned and conducting a revised EIS with this major rework and water from this rework will flow directly into a creek? In their haste to build has MODOT committed a crime?

The project likely only requires an environmental assessment, if even that much since it is on existing ROW and is of small scope.

I must say signage on WB US 50 and on WB I-470 is lacking.  The advanced signage on US 50 is unclear as to whether traffic from I-470 can access US 71 or I-435 NB.

(Edited for clarity)

[US71]

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=150470968298117&ref=nf

Basically, water got under the retaining wall, the wall shifted, the road collapsed.

[rarnold]

It is easy to understand how people are distrusting of government spending, when a small oversight(intentional or otherwise) costs millions of dollars to correct. Plus, an EIS should not have to replace common sense that when you stop the path of least resistance, water finds a new, often more destructive path.

[Scott5114]

Not trying to raise a ruckus but a major rework I would think would require a new EIS. If MODOT did violate the law then the fines could be hefty and a stop work order could be put in place and the nightmares would be horrendous.

You seem to feel pretty strongly on the matter! I think raising a ruckus may just be in order!

[J N Winkler]

Just a few observations:

*  Work on the Grandview Triangle almost certainly required, at most, an EA.  This is because the freeways intersecting at the Triangle are all established corridors and are not being widened over substantial distances with consequent impacts to traffic and hydrology, so improving the interchange is not considered a "major action" requiring an EIS.  EAs are very common for urban freeway widenings and interchange improvements (the Katy Freeway in Houston was a bit of an exception since it went forward under an EIS).

*  The permitting agency most directly involved in drainage matters is the USACE and it typically takes an interest only if discharges into jurisdictional waters are greater than those allowed in the permit.  The problems with the Grandview Triangle are unlikely to lead to permit noncompliance because the amount of water that reaches jurisdictional waterways is related to rainfall and is ultimately the same--the problem is that, at a specific location, MoDOT clearly did not make adequate arrangements to keep it away from embankment fill.

Frankly, I doubt USACE will do anything more than ask for assurances from MoDOT that permit conditions will still be met.

[ShawnP]

I am very strong on my feelings of workmanship on our roads. Tax dollars are few and getting fewer these days. We cannot and should throw them away rebuilding stuff after two years that should have lasted fifty plus years.

[ShawnP]

Fixed but no one will really be punished except the taxpayers who will be out millions of dollars. Now MODOT has a 4.5 million or more hole in it's roads funds which are scarce already.

http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2010/08/23/daily33.html

[US71]

Fixed but no one will really be punished except the taxpayers who will be out millions of dollars. Now MODOT has a 4.5 million or more hole in it's roads funds which are scarce already.

http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2010/08/23/daily33.html

Have you discussed this with MoDOT so they can properly affix the blame?

[ShawnP]

MODOT seems more interested in crowing about how quick they fixed their mistake. Than actually figuring it out and not repeating it and wasting dollars for fixing roads that shouldn't need fixing.

[ShawnP]

MODOT said they finished the deck pour last weekend. This leaves around a 5-6 day cure period for the concrete. I am not a engineer but seems a bit quick to let vehicles especially heavy tractor trailers drive on it. Any one have a set number of days that other states wait for vehicles to drive on new concrete pours?

[US71]

MODOT said they finished the deck pour last weekend. This leaves around a 5-6 day cure period for the concrete. I am not a engineer but seems a bit quick to let vehicles especially heavy tractor trailers drive on it. Any one have a set number of days that other states wait for vehicles to drive on new concrete pours?

Y'know: you're very quick to criticize MoDOT when you have very few facts. Have you ever spoken to them about your concerns? It sounds to me as if you have a bit of a grudge the way you keep criticizing them. Last I saw, they were still crunching the data regarding what happened. Perhaps you should offer to help them? 

[Alps]

MODOT said they finished the deck pour last weekend. This leaves around a 5-6 day cure period for the concrete. I am not a engineer but seems a bit quick to let vehicles especially heavy tractor trailers drive on it. Any one have a set number of days that other states wait for vehicles to drive on new concrete pours?

Depends on the concrete used, but that's not out of the ordinary for roadway concrete where they want traffic back on it.  Normal concrete cures in 28 days (well, it cures for months, but achieves near-final strength in 28 days), but there are all sorts of additives that can hasten curing, provided that you're equipped to stop it from getting too hot.  Concrete is several inches thick, so heat is definitely an issue, but I believe the quickest-set concrete that can be opened to roadway use is as little as 3 days.

[Alps]

MODOT said they finished the deck pour last weekend. This leaves around a 5-6 day cure period for the concrete. I am not a engineer but seems a bit quick to let vehicles especially heavy tractor trailers drive on it. Any one have a set number of days that other states wait for vehicles to drive on new concrete pours?

Y'know: you're very quick to criticize MoDOT when you have very few facts. Have you ever spoken to them about your concerns? It sounds to me as if you have a bit of a grudge the way you keep criticizing them. Last I saw, they were still crunching the data regarding what happened. Perhaps you should offer to help them? 

No personal attacks in the forum.

[US71]

No personal attacks in the forum.

Yes, dad.

[ShawnP]

My animosity comes from driving on poor roads for a long time and watching MODOT throw away money. Then in the name of saving they underbuild projects or use less than quality materials. Which leads to projects being functionally obselete well before their time and then projects needed repaving within a year or two of the original paving projects. For instance I-435 north of Kansas City from US-169 to I-435 was repaved in 2008. This was during the high asphalt prices during the summer of 08 so MODOT went with a thinner mix. This mix was so thin that it is currently coming up in large chunks and this area already requires repavement. I understand the high price issue but MODOT should have chosen to use the proper mix but in a lesser stretch. That way no rework required in a few short years. Now MODOT is back to the start line with this project after spending large amounts of money to start. MODOT used the proper mix east of US-169 to MO-291 and it is fine shape with no potholes and problems. I have tried with the help of the local State representative to give MODOT funding ideals and quality control checks.

[Scott5114]

I've lived in both Missouri and Oklahoma. Guess which state had the more competent DOT.

[US71]

Illinois is guilty of using substandard materials as well. Circa 1980, major parts of I-57 had to be rebuilt. In this case, though, the contractor used the wrong kind of rock for the base and the road fell apart within a couple years of being built.

[ShawnP]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm it appears to me that it was a poor design issue followed up poor construction pratices. The only real loser here is the taxpayers of the state of Missouri. Millions spent to fix this issue. Millions that could go to fix roads in Missouri. No one got fired and no one was held accountable.

http://www.kmbc.com/r/26852314/detail.html

[US71]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm it appears to me that it was a poor design issue followed up poor construction pratices. The only real loser here is the taxpayers of the state of Missouri. Millions spent to fix this issue. Millions that could go to fix roads in Missouri. No one got fired and no one was held accountable.

http://www.kmbc.com/r/26852314/detail.html

Most road contracts don't include a stipulation that if the work fails within X years, the contractor is responsible. Everything is left to the lowest bidder and if they screw up, the state has to fix the problem.

[J N Winkler]

Most road contracts don't include a stipulation that if the work fails within X years, the contractor is responsible. Everything is left to the lowest bidder and if they screw up, the state has to fix the problem.

It actually depends on the provisions of the specific contract.  Many contracts do in fact have a pavement warranty provision.  Moreover, the state DOT can require the contractor to post a bond and additional costs resulting from the contractor's failure to perform can be charged against that bond.  The issue for the state is that the risk of contractor errors has to be balanced against the possibility that warranty and bonding requirements are seen by contractors as so onerous that the state does not get competitive bids on the contract.

What can seem like almost criminal misfeasance on the part of state officials is not always so--often lack of capacity and professionalism in the contracting community can be a contributing factor.  This is why many state DOTs reach out and try to support contractors through thick and thin:  they see it as being in their interest to have access to contractors who do reliable, professional work and turn in competitive bids.

[ShawnP]

I have to blame the Engineers. They either ignored possible problems with using two different fill types or they weren't competent enough to recognize such problems with fill types.

[mightyace]

Most road contracts don't include a stipulation that if the work fails within X years, the contractor is responsible. Everything is left to the lowest bidder and if they screw up, the state has to fix the problem.

I like what is quoted as being the old Roman Empire's public work system.

You get half when it's complete and half sometime in the future (30 years?).  And, gee, there are Roman roads that survive to this day 2,000 years later.

And, even if it is partly or completely a legend, I still like the idea.

[J N Winkler]

Modern Italy tried something similar with the Mussolini-era system of quindecennial delegations.  Do the work now, get paid in level installments over the next 15 years.  A great way for contractors to go bust!