08.2 - 2100 Barton Springs Rd - presentation — original pdf

Backup

Barton Springs Road Bridge Capital Delivery Services | 04 Feb 2026 Project Project Background Background Project History About the Bridge Nearly 100years old built in 1926 20,000 Vehicles per day 1946 Bridge Expansion Key Entrance to Zilker Park and for Major City Events 3 Project Site Protect Park Monuments Bridge Site Challenge and Constraint Categories: Park and Historic Environmental Roadway Intersection Bridge 4 Project Purpose and Need Project Needs Project Goals / Outcomes Age of Structure  100 yrs old, Associated structural degradation Safety  Barton Springs roadway not aligned  Hillside instability at Umlauf Gardens  Provide 75 Year Bridge Service Life  Improve Safety  Stabilize Umlauf Gardens Insufficient Paths  Not enough bike or pedestrian paths on bridge  Add Multi-modal and Connect with Park Trails Intersection Congestion  At Barton Springs / Azie Morton intersection  Reduce Congestion with addition of right turn 5 Project Purpose and Need Roadway Alignment Issues 6 Project Purpose and Need Goal During Construction  Maintain two-way traffic during construction  Maintain the Azie Morton / Barton Springs intersection during construction 20,000 Vehicles per day on Barton Springs Road (cid:127) Important commuter route (cid:127) Key access to Zilker Park (cid:127) Access to many special events (Trail of Lights, Austin City Limits, Blues on the Green, Zilker Park) 7 Project Options Project Options Rehabilitation or Replacement Options 9 Project Elements Elements Required for Rehabilitation or Replacement Bike Lanes Sidewalk / Path Shared Use Path Proposed Bridge  Widened Bike Lane  Accommodates  Accommodate hiking Trails  Wider Ped. Paths off-road biker trail users  Accommodates Pedestrians for Special Events  Multimodal areas to accommodate off-road hike and bike trail users  Longer service life length  Wider bridge  Better alignment for safety  Dedicated bike lanes 10 Bridge Inspection Bridge Inspection Findings  Deck (with integral longitudinal joint), floor beams, and spandrel columns exhibited the most degradation.  All structural components exhibited some degradation. Degraded Concrete Spandrel Column Spalling Exposed and Corroded Rebar Exposed and Corroded Rebar 11 Rehabilitation Options Spandrel Columns Arch Ribs Bridge Inspection Findings Rehabilitation for increased service life requires removal of deck, floor beams, and spandrel columns  Demolish the structure to the arch ribs.  Significant work is needed: major rehabilitation or bridge replacement. Do Nothing is not an option 1 Preserve Rehabilitation Option 1 is not feasible 12 Rehabilitation Options Improve Paths Arch ribs Bridge Rehabilitation Considerations Widen for Pedestrians Maintain Structural Integrity 13 Rehabilitation Options Bridge Rehabilitation Option CURRENT BRIDGE SIZE Arch Lines: Potential Support Placement Location 14 Rehabilitation Options Bridge Rehabilitation Features Add Substructures Concrete Repairs Widen and Replace Deck, Barriers, and Spandrel Columns Strengthen Arch Ribs at Abutments 15 Rehabilitation Options Bridge Structure Rehabilitation 1 Remove Existing Bridge Deck and Spandrel Columns 2 Remaining Portion of Existing Structure 3 New Components: Exterior Pairs of Arch Ribs, Spandrel Columns, Deck, and Abutment Extensions Less than half of the original historical structure will remain  Remaining historical structure will require refacing with new material surfaces  View of historical structure will be mostly blocked by new structure 16 Rehabilitation Options Bridge Rehabilitation Features Bridge Rehabilitation (Board 3) Foundations and arch lines in pairs to be added on both sides General Overall appearance of existing bridge will be maintained Rehabilitation Option Rendering New arches, columns, and beams will have similar details to existing additional 75 year target life 17 Rehabilitation Options Bridge Design Initial Concepts 18 18 Replacement Options Bridge Design Early Replacement Concepts 19 19 Replacement Options Bridge Replacement Options by Span Arrangement 1 One-Span 2 Two-Span 3 Three-Span Single Arch  Four Arch ribs spanning creek  Arch references existing bridge form “Y” Pier Longitudinal  Four Y-Piers in the center of the creek  Arch-like Appearance “Y” Pier Transverse  Eight Y-Piers in two sets of four  Opens center channel of the creek 20 Replacement Options Bridge Design Initial Concepts Single Arch 21 21 Replacement Options Bridge Design Initial Concepts Longitudinal Y-Pier 22 22 Replacement Options Bridge Design Initial Concepts Transverse Y-Pier 23 23 Replacement Options Bridge Replacement Option Comparison 1-Span 2-Span 3-Span One-Span Structural Complexity Visual Openness (cid:127) Complex system (cid:127) Less complex (cid:127) Uses conventional foundations (cid:127) Least Complex (cid:127) Obstructed visuals (cid:127) Views along center line maintained (cid:127) Potential scour and bank/trail complexities (cid:127) More visually open than 1-span option (cid:127) View along center of creek obstructed (cid:127) Most visually open (cid:127) Clear views along center line of creek Constructability (cid:127) Most complex to build (cid:127) Requires temporary piers and falsework to make the arches (cid:127) Fewest number of foundations in water (cid:127) Top of bridge requires specialty construction and falsework (cid:127) Specialty construction with fewest challenges Initial Const. Cost (cid:127) $$$ Most Expensive (cid:127) $$ More Expensive (cid:127) $ Least Expensive 24 Rehab vs. Replacement 25 Rehab vs. Replacement 26 Preferred Option Preferred Option Preferred Option 28 Preferred Option 29 Preferred Option 30 Preferred Option 31 Preferred Option 32 Preferred Option 33 Preferred Option 34 Preferred Option 35 Preferred Option 36 Preferred Option 37 Preferred Option 38