Major Problems with Three Trails Crossings aka Grandview Triangle

[ShawnP]

Less than 2 years after finishing a 200 million dollar plus rebuild of this area it's falling apart. MODOT should be ashamed of itself for allowing such poor quality workmanship. This interchange closing is one of the more major one's in town. How many millions will us taxpayers have to pay to correct MODOT's poor work again?

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/07/17/2090176/i-470-interchanges-at-i-435-closed.html

[ShawnP]

MODOT website information. The webcam picture shows just how bad this problem is and how much major rework will have to be done to correct the bad design, engineering and workmanship. Sorry the rain excuse doesn't cut it with me. It's not like it just started raining in this area. HELLO it rains in KC always has and always will. What it is MODOT didn't design it right to funnel the rainwater away from the roadway and roadbase. This is the second major sinkhole problem with MODOT interchanges rebuilt in the KC area over the last five years. Noland Road in Independence had a sinkhole problem this spring also. Hmmmmmmmm.....


http://www.modot.mo.gov/kansascity/major_projects/3-TrailsCrossing.htm

[US71]

MODOT website information. The webcam picture shows just how bad this problem is and how much major rework will have to be done to correct the bad design, engineering and workmanship. Sorry the rain excuse doesn't cut it with me. It's not like it just started raining in this area. HELLO it rains in KC always has and always will. What it is MODOT didn't design it right to funnel the rainwater away from the roadway and roadbase. This is the second major sinkhole problem with MODOT interchanges rebuilt in the KC area over the last five years. Noland Road in Independence had a sinkhole problem this spring also. Hmmmmmmmm.....


http://www.modot.mo.gov/kansascity/major_projects/3-TrailsCrossing.htm

Makes me wonder if MoDOT did their homework before building the interchange?

[J N Winkler]

I think I would wait for a detailed postmortem before concluding misfeasance.  There are cost/risk tradeoffs in carrying out geotechnical investigations because they cost money and do not always turn up evidence of ground conditions which require unusual design measures.  Also, sometimes products and processes do not always perform as expected.  Long lengths of US 50 in Kansas between Newton and Florence, which were reconstructed in Portland cement concrete in the mid-1990's, have required extensive and expensive repairs (slab replacements, mudjacking, dowel installation, etc.) because KDOT decided to innovate with a sealant to prevent water intrusion into the subgrade.  The sealant failed and in due course the slabs started shifting and cracking as they lost support from the subgrade.

As an aside, the contracts to rebuild the Grandview Triangle all predate 2007, which is when MoDOT started its E-plans room.  MoDOT does not (yet) have an online project archive, and charges a mint to retrieve construction plans for past projects.  So at the moment the construction plans--which show how well MoDOT did its "homework"--are not within our reach.

[ShawnP]

They should be FREE to all taxpayers.

[Alps]

They should be FREE to all taxpayers.

Then you'd have to pay more in taxes.  I'm all in favor of taxes covering services either a) used by many/most (such as education) or b) used to help the poor, but in this case, it's a service used by relatively few people, most of whom can afford to pay the fees (and the few who can't can typically get a waiver).  Given how many billions of dollars our state governments have fallen short, any fees they want to charge to cover extra services are fine by me.

[US71]

They should be FREE to all taxpayers.

Then you'd have to pay more in taxes.  I'm all in favor of taxes covering services either a) used by many/most (such as education) or b) used to help the poor, but in this case, it's a service used by relatively few people, most of whom can afford to pay the fees (and the few who can't can typically get a waiver).  Given how many billions of dollars our state governments have fallen short, any fees they want to charge to cover extra services are fine by me.

Just think: the money spent on "free" copies of plans is money that can't be spent upgrading Bruce Watkins Dr 

[J N Winkler]

Then you'd have to pay more in taxes.  I'm all in favor of taxes covering services either a) used by many/most (such as education) or b) used to help the poor, but in this case, it's a service used by relatively few people, most of whom can afford to pay the fees (and the few who can't can typically get a waiver).  Given how many billions of dollars our state governments have fallen short, any fees they want to charge to cover extra services are fine by me.

Your analysis doesn't take into account electronic distribution of construction plans, which typically occurs at near-zero marginal cost to the state DOT and to the private citizen.  In this context it is, I would contend, highly inappropriate to charge fees, or otherwise to restrict access to the construction plans, because they are developed by or on behalf of a government agency at taxpayer expense and relate to work which is of considerable public interest.  MoDOT has distributed construction plans electronically since 2007; paper copies are available, but must be paid for on a per-sheet basis, which is IMO completely fair since the marginal cost to supply in paper is high.  MoDOT does require contractor registration for access to the construction plans but has a "vendor" provision which I use to maintain a personal archive of MoDOT construction projects which have pattern-accurate sign design sheets.

The issue here is that the past project plans for the Grandview Triangle are almost certainly available in electronic format, but because MoDOT does not have an online, publicly accessible project archive which would enable "self-service," we would have to go through the Missouri open-records statute, which allows MoDOT to require reimbursement of MoDOT's direct costs as calculated by MoDOT and thus allows scope for "goldbricking" as an indirect method of denying a records request.  I don't think there is a low-income provision in the Missouri law (and in general I don't think such waivers are common--it doesn't exist in Kansas or Michigan, for example).

There are useful precedents of online construction plan archives in MN, KY, and GA.  The latter two are low-tax states.  This indicates that in general it is possible to implement "self-service" for past construction projects without raising taxes.  The state DOT just has to decide to do it.

[J N Winkler]

P.S.  Just got a blast email from MoDOT's planroom:  "Please look at the plans for the Emergency Letting for job J4I2341."  I have a feeling this is the Grandview Triangle repair job . . .

Edit:  Yup, it is.  Project is described as being on I-470 north of Hickman Mills Drive, which means nothing to me (I haven't been to KC in seven years).  But the email comes with a PDF attachment containing truly horrifying photos.  The MSE wall immediately below the collapsed ramp looks like a bomb hit it.  Plans (including old shop drawings and MSE wall plans) were to be uploaded to MoDOT's planroom yesterday, and MoDOT wants the letting to happen ASAP, maybe as early as tomorrow.

[Alps]

Then you'd have to pay more in taxes.  I'm all in favor of taxes covering services either a) used by many/most (such as education) or b) used to help the poor, but in this case, it's a service used by relatively few people, most of whom can afford to pay the fees (and the few who can't can typically get a waiver).  Given how many billions of dollars our state governments have fallen short, any fees they want to charge to cover extra services are fine by me.

MoDOT has distributed construction plans electronically since 2007; paper copies are available, but must be paid for on a per-sheet basis, which is IMO completely fair since the marginal cost to supply in paper is high.

I was only referring to the plans that are not supplied electronically, in reference to YOUR comment: "MoDOT does not (yet) have an online project archive, and charges a mint to retrieve construction plans for past projects."  I'd say "read the comment," but you yourself wrote it...

[J N Winkler]

I was only referring to the plans that are not supplied electronically, in reference to YOUR comment: "MoDOT does not (yet) have an online project archive, and charges a mint to retrieve construction plans for past projects."  I'd say "read the comment," but you yourself wrote it...

Let me clarify.  All letting plans since 2007 have been available, at the time of advertising, in electronic format.  Before 2007, plans were available, at the time of advertising, only in paper format, but MoDOT has been scanning them after letting (previously they were microfilmed and kept available in vertical files in MoDOT's design office in Jefferson City) and my understanding is that MoDOT has an electronic archive of letting plans which goes back a number of years before 2007--certainly as far back as 2004, and by now probably much further back.  This does not include as-builts, going back to earliest days, which MoDOT has had in microfilm for decades and which (judging by the old as-builts included in new projects as "Reference Information Sheets") are being scanned in on a programmatic basis.

The problem is that if you have been watching MoDOT since 2007, as I have, you will probably have every major project MoDOT has advertised since then, but if you want a pre-2007 project and specify electronic format only, you will still have to reimburse MoDOT for materials and staff time to search an electronic database, find scans of the plans, transfer them to optical media, and mail the CD or DVD to you.  These charges are all legitimate in principle.  The problem is that it gives MoDOT too much scope to manipulate the charges and service parameters in order to make a request unworkable or unaffordable.  As examples:  staff time:  how much?  Even with a rule of "lowest paid person with skills to do the job" you could still be paying $25/hour minimum.  You also don't know if the time quoted for locating a project, given appropriate metadata (MoDOT job number or contract number), corresponds to the time that is really needed.  Optical media charge:  MoDOT can require CDs only, not DVDs or FTP upload, in which case you pay for the additional time to burn to CD over and above time to burn to DVD or initiate a FTP upload.  (Most state open records laws are not yet "E-aware," so what usually happens is that you can specify electronic format, but modalities of provision are at the state DOT's discretion.)

I am not saying that MoDOT plays any or all of these games, but I know for a fact that Michigan DOT does (CD only, least qualified person pulls > $20/hour, and their open records person not only refuses to consider FTP upload, but also denies that Michigan DOT even has a FTP server at all).  This is why it is nice to have access to an online project archive when it is available--you get to pick and choose what you want, you do research on your own and at your own expense in time and effort rather than funnelling it through a state employee and getting caught up in state civil-service pay schedules, the facility is accessible 24/7 through your Web browser, etc.  There is of course the question of "Where's the payoff for the state DOT in having an online project archive," but it is often justified in terms of easier access to PEFs.  For example, MnDOT has its project archive linked to from its "A to Z" page but with a note that it is geared for MnDOT consultants.

[Alps]

I understand a lot better now - the plans aren't available online per se, they're just stored electronically.  Certainly no reason to spend to put them online, either.

[J N Winkler]

There are efficiency savings to be had from a flexible and easy-to-use online interface to the project archive.  The transparency benefits are harder to value but not negligible either.  I think this is why there are already three states which have online project archives and, if the diffusion of E-distribution of letting plans is any guide, we can expect similar facilities in about 20 additional states in a decade's time.

[US71]

Well, MoDOT was going to announce their findings this afternoon, but instead announced they are extending a bridge over the area:

http://www.modot.org/kansascity/newrelease/District4News.shtml?action=displaySSI&newsId=57859
I suppose if you watch one hand, you won't see what the other is doing.

[US71]

MoDOT has now explained "the dirt moved causing a retaining wall to fail which caused the road collapse".

[J N Winkler]

Duh.  Obvious.  What they haven't explained is why the dirt moved when (according to the as-builts released with the repair plans) it was supposed to be select granular backfill.  They released shop drawings for the wall too, with a prominent red stamp on each page indicating "filing only" (i.e., this stamp does not indicate engineering review) and "does not absolve contractor of responsibility" (I paraphrase in both cases).

[ShawnP]

Something not smelling right here IMHO. Get rid of the evidence if you ask me about doing a bridge extension. If they have problems with this part of the Three Trails how many more problems are awaiting to pop up or fall down so to speak. Hey KDOT........wanna do a nice review of MODOT's engineering and design of this project? I don't trust MODOT at all as they are in a CYA mode right now.

[J N Winkler]

Something not smelling right here IMHO. Get rid of the evidence if you ask me about doing a bridge extension. If they have problems with this part of the Three Trails how many more problems are awaiting to pop up or fall down so to speak. Hey KDOT........wanna do a nice review of MODOT's engineering and design of this project? I don't trust MODOT at all as they are in a CYA mode right now.

I can't see KDOT coming in and doing an independent engineering review on this--they have to work with MoDOT on KC Scout and metro Kansas City freeway planning in general.  That doesn't mean there aren't people in the State Bridge Office in Topeka watching MoDOT stew in its own juices.

It is hard to say how all of this is likely to play out in terms of attribution of responsibility, but overall I would say the likelihood of "forgive and forget" is high, because the worst consequences of this wall failure are motorist inconvenience and added cost--this is not like the Hyatt Regency balcony collapse, where dozens of people died and there was a systematic effort to assign responsibility which resulted in several professional engineers losing their licenses to practice in Missouri.

The construction plans for the retaining wall were developed by HNTB, which is a Kansas City-based PEF with offices all over the country.  HNTB:  "What if we move our HQ out of Kansas City?"  Moreover, the wall plans have only three sheets, and the shop drawings, which were developed by the Reinforced Earth Company out of Vienna, Virginia, have 17 sheets.  The two sets of drawings are in broad agreement as to the basic design parameters for the wall, i.e. select backfill immediately behind the precast wall panels, and "random backfill" deeper inside the embankment.  Retaining wall design is actually fairly specialized and it looks like crucial elements of the design may have been devolved to the contractor, possibly with Reinforced Earth Company acting as a subcontractor for engineering design of the wall.

As a generalization, the liability of a party to a contract for bad effects resulting from good-faith performance of the actions agreed to under the contract is constrained by whether the party could reasonably have predicted the bad effects.  The basic principle involved is that you cannot be held responsible for things outside your knowledge or control.  By contracting out wall design, MoDOT has in theory transferred the risks associated with wall failure to the contractors, but this transfer of risk will not in reality have occurred if the contractors can show that (1) MoDOT knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, of circumstances which would lead to the failure of the wall as designed; (2) that this knowledge was not passed on to the contractors; and (3) that they could not reasonably have been expected to find it out for themselves.

My suspicion is that the wall has failed for reasons which were not known to MoDOT, HNTB, Reinforced Earth Company, or the prime construction contractor prior to the start of construction.  If this matter is litigated and the courts find this to be the case, then MoDOT will pay to resolve this because it has the underlying responsibility.  I actually doubt MoDOT will litigate this because I don't see how they could be confident that they would win in court, and even if they were, they would still have to consider ulterior costs such as loss of capacity within the highway construction industry within Missouri.  So--"forgive and forget."

But this is all speculation at this point because we don't have the full set of documentation that would have been involved in the design of this wall.  For starters, calculations would have had to be performed to determine things like soil pressure and length of reinforcing rod needed.  These would have been carried out by certain individuals and would have been based on certain assumptions about ground conditions at the wall site.  This information, in turn, would tell us who knew what when the wall was being designed.  This information would not need to be publicized in order to replace the wall with a bridge extension, but you can bet that it would form part of the record in any court case between MoDOT and the other parties involved in building the wall.

The really smart thing for MoDOT to do in this situation, IMO, would be to commission the state transportation research center (is that based in Columbia?) to carry out an independent review and find out why the wall failed.  It would be a shame to lose the chance to learn from a mistake.

[J N Winkler]

Additional information--it seems MoDOT is doing what I think they should do, and investigating the cause of the collapse:

http://www.lsjournal.com/2010/07/22/53538/modot-announces-accelerated-solution.html

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/07/22/2101005/olathe-firm-hired-to-fix-collapsed.html

I paraphrase:

*  "When we did soil surveys in 2001, we didn't find any water.  When we did them just now, we found groundwater within 10' of the wall base."

*  District 4 engineer:  "I haven't seen anything like this in 26 years working for MoDOT.  This doesn't happen in Missouri."  MoDOT director:  "Slides due to groundwater accumulation have occurred elsewhere in the state--see SR 79 near Hannibal."

*  MoDOT director (again):  "We could have predicted groundwater accumulation, but not the collapse of the wall.  Wall collapses are random acts of God."

Obviously they haven't quite gotten their story straight.  I am not sure I believe the MoDOT director either when he says that wall failures cannot be predicted even with the ability to predict groundwater accumulation--and even if he is right to the extent that the present state of the art does not allow such predictions to be made with any reliability, he and his engineers will be under enormous pressure as a result of this mess either to advance the state of the art or to require that walls be designed and built to more conservative assumptions.

[ShawnP]

I'm not a engineer and didn't stay at a national Hotel chain lately. So I am just a interested road geek and taxpayer. I was always taught in the Navy that water will go exactly where you make it go. Water is kinda stupid that way. Ok so you build the wall but did you account for drainage of said water coming into the area aka a drainage system at the lowest point because after all that little thing called gravity makes water flow downhill. Or was the ideal that it wasn't a high water content area anyways we will just put more water into it and go with it. This road repair will cost at low end 5 million plus on a department that doesn't have extra money at this time.

[ShawnP]

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?

[US71]

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?

Perhaps you or your lawyer should contact MoDOT directly

[Scott5114]

Or the Star. Government agency hastefully violates federal law? Juicy!

[ShawnP]

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.

[InterstateNG]

So your online outrage doesn't match your offline outrage?