Terre Haute Riverfront Rehabilitation Project Engineers Matt Alexander Charity Dudley Brian Kindinger Scott Otto Client Pat Martin of West Central Indiana Economic Development District Long term Project Objectives Turn the city back towards the river Bring commerce back to the riverfront Beautify the area along the river Expand recreation throughout Terre Haute Project Phases Phase I Extension of National Road Heritage Trail from Fairbanks Park to ISU campus and baseball field Phase II Land redevelopment for commerce recreation along the riverfront 1 A 1 B 1 C 1 D 1 E First Segment of Trail Ratings from 1 5 1 poor and 5 excellent Client decided which criteria were more important Trail 1 B 2 A 2 B Second Segment of Trail Decision Matrix Fairbanks Park to ISU Baseball Field Utility River Access Restrictions Environmental 25 20 Concerns 15 Total Trail Option Safety 40 2 A 4 5 2 3 3 7 2 B 4 3 5 5 4 1 Different criteria exist from first segment due to different functionality of the two trails Client still weighed the criteria Trail 2 B Tippecanoe Street Connector Decision Matrix Tippecanoe St to 2nd Leg of Trail Street Trail Option Safety 40 Cost 30 3 A 3 4 Crossings 15 5 Feasability 15 Total 4 3 8 Not rated against any other option but wanted to make sure it was worth suggesting to client Same criteria used as first segment Tippecanoe Street Connector Costs 1st Segment Table H 1 Cost Analysis for Leg 1 Removing narrow sidewalks and replacing with full width Sidewalk concrete 4 in Sidewalk concrete remove Compacted aggregate No 53 Base 1954 SY 26 69 52 152 26 1255 81 SY 1 41 1 770 69 385 4 Ton 11 85 4 566 99 TOTAL 58 500 00 Table H 2 Cost Analysis for Leg 1 Widening existing narrow sidewalks to a full 8 Sidewalk concrete 4 in 923 4 SY 26 69 24 645 55 Expansion joint poured asphalt 2198 LF 0 78 1 714 44 168 625 Ton 11 85 1 998 21 TOTAL 28 400 00 Compacted aggregate No 53 Base Table H 3 Cost Analysis for Leg 1 Replacing narrow sidewalks with an 8 wide asphalt path Sidewalk concrete remove 1255 81 SY 1 41 1 770 69 Compacted aggregate No 53 Base 368 1 Ton 11 85 4 361 99 QC QA HMA Surface 100 6 Ton 31 91 3 210 15 201 Ton 27 30 5 487 30 QC QA HMA Intermediate TOTAL 14 800 00 Costs 2nd Segment Table H 4 Cost Analysis for Leg 2 Constructing the path with concrete Excavation waterway 30000 CY 14 26 6427 800 00 Sidewalk concrete 4 in 4250 7 SY 26 69 113 451 18 Compacted aggregate No 53 Base 838 3 Ton 11 85 9 933 86 TOTAL 617 000 00 Table H 5 Cost Analysis for Leg 2 Constructing the path with asphalt Excavation waterway 30000 CY 14 26 427 800 00 Compacted aggregate No 53 Base 838 3 Ton 11 85 9 933 86 QC QA HMA Surface 228 9 Ton 31 91 7 304 20 QC QA HMA Intermediate 457 7 Ton 27 30 12 495 21 TOTAL 523 000 00 Riverbank Excavation Added access to the river More aesthetically pleasing Bike trail closer to the river Water St El 480 0 100 yr Flood El 472 5 10 yr Flood El 469 5 Avg Low Water El 449 8 8 Rec Trail El 467 0 El 489 0 Retaining Wall Design Located under each U S 40 bridge Each 50 feet in length Reinforced Concrete Gravity Retaining walls chosen Extended toe design to provide flat surface for trail Existing Bridge 100 yr Flood El 472 5 10 yr Flood El 469 5 Trail El 467 0 Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall Avg Low Water El 449 8 Existing Grade Longitudinal Steel 8 7 bars Vertical Steel 5 at 12 OC 15 9 bars Standard 90 degree hook 6 Bars at 12 OC Riverfront Visions Show potential uses for the area in the future Assume the electrical substation and the water company are the only permanent features Rezoning from mostly industrial to commercial and or residential QUESTIONS Billagio Fountain idea Chris Fitzgerald interest Terre Haute Riverfront Rehabilitation Costs 1st Segment Cost Analysis for Leg 1 Removing narrow sidewalks and replacing with full width Leg 1 18 x24 stock signs reflectorized Sign post Transverse marking crosswalk 24 in Sidewalk concrete 4 in Curb ramp Curb and gutter concrete Sidewalk concrete remove Curb concrete remove Compacted aggregate No 53 Base 8 80 203 1954 62 2 100 1255 81 115 385 4 Ea LF LF SY SY LF SY LF Ton 51 40 411 20 3 69 295 20 1 25 253 75 26 69 52 152 26 43 83 2 726 23 16 55 1 655 00 1 41 1 770 69 4 62 531 30 11 85 4 566 99 TOTAL 64 400 00 Cost Analysis for Leg 1 Widening existing narrow sidewalks to a full 8 Leg 1 18 x24 stock signs reflectorized Sign post Transverse marking crosswalk 24 in Sidewalk concrete 4 in Curb ramp Curb and gutter concrete Sidewalk concrete remove Curb concrete remove Expansion joint poured asphalt Compacted aggregate No 53 Base 8 80 203 923 4 62 2 100 94 7 115 2198 168 625 Ea LF LF SY SY LF SY LF LF Ton 51 40 3 69 1 25 26 69 43 83 16 55 1 41 4 62 0 78 11 85 TOTAL 411 20 295 20 253 75 24 645 55 2 726 23 1 655 00 133 53 531 30 1 714 44 1 998 21 34 400 00 Costs con t Cost Analysis for Leg 1 Replacing narrow sidewalks with an 8 wide asphalt path Leg 1 18 x24 stock signs reflectorized Sign post Transverse marking crosswalk 24 in Sidewalk concrete 4 in Curb ramp Curb and gutter concrete Sidewalk concrete remove Curb concrete remove Compacted aggregate No 53 Base QC QA HMA Surface QC QA HMA Intermediate 8 80 203 89 62 2 100 1255 81 115 368 1 100 6 201 Ea LF LF SY SY LF SY LF Ton Ton Ton 51 40 411 20 3 69 295 20 1 25 253 75 26 69 2 375 41 43 83 2 726 23 16 55 1 655 00 1 41 1 770 69 4 62 531 30 11 85 4 361 99 31 91 3 210 15 27 30 5 487 30 TOTAL 23 100 00 Costs 2nd Segment Cost Analysis for Leg Two Constructing the path with concrete Leg 2 Clearing brush with brush saw by hand Cut and chip light trees to 6 diam Cut and chip medium trees to 12 diam Cut and chip heavy trees to 24 diam Silt fence 3 high Retaining walls Benches park precast concrete w backs Trash Receptacle fiberglass 2 6 high Seeding mechanical seeding Excavation waterway Curb ramp Sidewalk concrete 4 in 18 x24 stock signs reflectorized Sign post Compacted aggregate No 53 Base 2 71 2 71 2 71 2 71 2300 100 3 3 6 9 30000 49 …