 |
| Hairline cracks have been found on three ICC bridges |
According to the ICC Project Office, the safety inspectors found 40 to 50 cracks in the concrete pier caps of all three overpasses. Those concrete caps sit atop the supporting piers and connect them to the overpasses’ steel understructure. The cracks are .005 to .035 inches wide and range from seven inches to 3 feet 8 inches long. The cracks appear to be a design flaw caused by the construction firms that used an inaccurate model to determine how many steel rods were needed inside the concrete pier caps to properly fortify them .
The ICC Project Office is now reviewing overpasses on the unopened stretch of the ICC, which is still scheduled to open to the public on Tuesday, November 22, 2011. However, the remaining piers were designed by another firm, and no problems have been found so far.
There is some good news for the ICC Project Office and taxpayers. The construction firm responsible for the concrete caps has agreed to reinforce or replace them at no cost to the State of Maryland.
Full article and reader comments available after the jump:
Hairline cracks found in three Intercounty Connector overpasses
By Katherine Shaver,
Inspectors for the Maryland State Highway Administration discovered the cracks last week on bridges that carry traffic across the six-lane ICC on Georgia Avenue, Emory Lane and Needwood Road in Montgomery County, officials said. The $2.56 billion toll highway’s 7.2-mile western segment opened in February between Interstate 370 and just east of Georgia Avenue.
ICC officials said the overpasses are safe for motorists to continue using but will need to be reinforced or rebuilt to last for the 50 to 100 years of a typical bridge’s life span.
“This has absolutely nothing to do with the safety of people traveling over the bridges,” said ICC project spokesman Ray Feldmann. “These bridges have functioned absolutely fine since they opened. This is really about the long-term durability of the bridge structures.”
Some lanes of the ICC will probably be closed over the next two weeks as workers reinforce the pier structures with tensioned steel wire until a long-term solution can be found, ICC officials said. All three bridges will remain open, they said.
Feldmann said inspectors found 40 to 50 concrete cracks total in all of the three overpasses’ combined 13 “pier caps.” Those concrete caps sit atop the supporting piers and connect them to the overpasses’ steel understructure. The cracks are .005 to .035 inches wide and range from seven inches to 3 feet 8 inches long, Feldmann said.
Melinda Peters, the state’s director of the ICC construction project, said that the cracks stem from a design flaw and that Intercounty Constructors, the joint venture of construction firms that built the project, will pay to fix them. The design firm used an inaccurate model to determine how many steel rods were needed inside the concrete pier caps to properly fortify them, she said.
The State Highway Administration reviewed the engineering calculations that the designs were based on, she said, but not the actual computer model that designers used. The design firm’s model made inaccurate assumptions about how the pier caps would attach to the bridges, she said.
“We don’t get into every detail of the models they use as part of our review,” Peters said.
Project officials are still reviewing overpasses that have been built on the rest of the 18.8-mile ICC, which is still scheduled to open east to Laurel by the end of the year. However, Peters said, the remaining piers were designed by another firm, and no problems have been found so far.
Peters said workers will wrap steel cable around the pier caps to prevent the cracks from growing until a long-term fix is found. If the caps need to be rebuilt, she said, most of that can be done while traffic runs on the overpasses, something routinely done when older bridges are repaired.
The ICC has been criticized for its relatively steep construction costs, funded in part by bonds that will be paid off via some of the highest toll rates in the country.
Montgomery council member Phil Andrews (D-Gaithersburg-Rockville), a longtime ICC opponent, said he’d still like to know how such a design mistake was allowed to occur. He said some of his constituents who use the Needwood Road overpass daily “might wonder if that assurance [that the overpasses are safe] is 100 percent reliable given that these problems happened in the first place.”
Design on the overpasses with cracks was done under a joint venture of Parsons Transportation Group and Jacobs Engineering, ICC Officials said. The construction on the first segment has been done by Intercounty Constructors, a joint venture of Granite Construction Co., Corman Construction and G.A. & F.C. Wagman Inc., ICC officials said.
A spokeswoman for Parsons Transportation Group referred questions to state officials.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/hairline-cracks-found-in-three-intercounty-connector-overpasses/2011/10/18/gIQAzf5ZvL_story.html
READER COMMENTS:
Melinda Peters . . . hairline cracks . . . design flaw . . . what a piece of work. Peters, how did YOU miss the design flaw? Certainly you, as Chief Poo-Bah, couldn't dirty yours hands with checking 'design work'. Is your staff incompentent?? Take the repair costs out of your salary. The ICC saga just gets better and better!!!
"Melinda Peters, the state’s director of the ICC construction project, said that the cracks stem from a design flaw and that Intercounty Constructors, the joint venture of construction firms that built the project, will pay to fix them. The design firm used an inaccurate model to determine how many steel rods were needed inside the concrete pier caps to properly fortify them, she said."
"Design Firm" means engineering error.
"Design Firm" means engineering error.
Respectively, the ICC toll take will be tiny and will never...even with generous estimates...will never pay for the construction. Additionally, there are not any other toll roads around to close...if we are considering closing the ICC. All the other free roads are functional, safe, and heavily used. The toll alone will keep ICC usage minimal...then there's the fact that not many people need to go where it takes you. I can't figure out if this ICC toll road is closer to the "Bridge to Nowhere" or the "Big Dig".
@B-rod - Aren't we already paying for the roads through existing taxes? Why should this road be treated any differently than 95 (yeah, I know there are tunnel/bridge tolls, but let's remove them too), 495, 270, etc...? Why does it make sense to have some roads as toll roads and others funded by taxes? If having the ICC funded by tolls makes sense, then why aren't most other roads funded this way and transportation related taxes decreased/eliminiated?
jim_maryland1 the real criminal part of it is the tolls are not used for their intended purposes but to fund other programs while the bridges, roads and tunnels rot. An example is the massive increases to the Dulles Toll Road which is funding the Metro Line not maintain the road.
The money being spent on the Metro line is to not have to increase the Dulles Toll Road. It is a matter of relative cost. The cost of providing parking at the Airport and widening the Toll Road dwarfs the cost that MWAA will pay for the Metro line. In addition, Northern Virginia will have greatly reduced the air pollution load from automobile traffic because of the Metro line.
As a taxpayer hearing about structural cracks developing in the unfinished ICC, I'd like to express to ex-governor Ehrlich and his friend George W. Bush,
"I want my money back!"
I don't have to pay the huge toll and I have no need to drive on the ICC, but I was force to pay for the construction. We all did! ...to the tune of $3,200,000,000!
"I want my money back!"
I don't have to pay the huge toll and I have no need to drive on the ICC, but I was force to pay for the construction. We all did! ...to the tune of $3,200,000,000!
@free-donny,
" I was force to pay for the construction. We all did! ...to the tune of $3,200,000,000!
Still at it with the lies, Donny?
According to the article, the ICC cost less than you claim - significantly less.
I've been asking you for more than 5 years, Donny: where did you get your numbers?
" I was force to pay for the construction. We all did! ...to the tune of $3,200,000,000!
Still at it with the lies, Donny?
According to the article, the ICC cost less than you claim - significantly less.
I've been asking you for more than 5 years, Donny: where did you get your numbers?
@brettkuk,
Not to worry.
free-donny is one of the stubborn ICC opponents who could never be reasoned with and to whom facts and reality are meaningless. I've been following and rebutting free-donny for years and his/her refusal to accept their loss and move on would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
The ICC opponents are much like to sore-loser kids in pee-wee football or soccer who can't accept their loss. You know, the kids who pout and pump tears and have to literally pushed and dragged to the post-game high-fives with the other team.
Not to worry.
free-donny is one of the stubborn ICC opponents who could never be reasoned with and to whom facts and reality are meaningless. I've been following and rebutting free-donny for years and his/her refusal to accept their loss and move on would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
The ICC opponents are much like to sore-loser kids in pee-wee football or soccer who can't accept their loss. You know, the kids who pout and pump tears and have to literally pushed and dragged to the post-game high-fives with the other team.
Since when do we each get to pick and choose what our government spends money on? Maybe you should brush up on how democratic principles, governments and taxes function in a society. You can influence government policies through democratic principles, but at the end of the day you have to accept the results even if you don't get your way.
The Maryland Department of Transportation is at least one source for the $3.1 billion cost figure for the ICC. http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/Planning/BRAC/Documen...
The $3.1 billion cost figure includes the interest payments on the debt financing.
Enjoy paying extra 15 cents/gallon State tax to pay for the ICC.
The $3.1 billion cost figure includes the interest payments on the debt financing.
Enjoy paying extra 15 cents/gallon State tax to pay for the ICC.
So you're happy sitting in traffic and idling your car, wasting untold gallons in your daily commute. The ICC is a solution that would significantly reduce your daily consumption if only you pay a little more per gallon.It's a bargain for local commuters, it's a good investment for the state, AND to top it all off, the environmental activists got what they wanted too! The cost of the ICC also included one of the largest environmental mitigation programs in regional history! Honestly, what is not to like?
Edna_Mode and juliemartinkorb your ignorance is evident by your statements. The funding mechanisim for ICC is not the same and is not through tax dollars though it is secured by them. The current transportation fees and taxes have been stolen not by ICC but by Governor OMalley to buy the votes of those who pay no taxes but expect those that do to pay their freight. The ICC will reduce accidents on the beltway and is a safe road that in itself will have fewer accidents. This hicup is not a safety issue and Edna_Mode the sky is not falling.
Pilot1, careful whom you accuse of "ignorance." Here is my letter to the Washington Post, published (in slightly edited form) on May 19, 2007, at A16 under the headline "Higher Gas Taxes for Maryland?"
With gas prices soaring, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) is exploring raising the state’s gasoline tax to pay for transportation projects that the state cannot otherwise afford. Here’s an idea worth exploring: Drop the intercounty connector. Then the state would have $2.4 billion (not counting debt interest) that can be used for the state’s real transportation needs.
That $2.4 billion includes:
— $1.23 billion in Maryland Transportation Authority funds — the tolls from every toll collection facility in the state that will be diverted to pay for the ICC
— $264.9 million from the Maryland general fund — the fund that is facing a $1.5 billion shortfall next year
— $180 million from Maryland transportation trust fund — the fund that is already depleted from repeated diversions to balance the state’s budget
— $750 million in GARVEE bonds — borrowing against the state’s future allocations (if any) from the federal government (the Federal Highway Trust Fund is projected to have a
$2.3 billion deficit in fiscal 2009).
I repeat: Do not raise our taxes, Mr. O’Malley. Drop the ICC.
JULIE MARTIN-KORB
Rockville
The facts that I cited regarding the funding of the ICC came from the Maryland State Highway Administration and Maryland Transportation Authority's Intercounty Connector 2006 Initial Financial Plan (June 13, 2006), available at http://www.iccproject.com/PDFs/icc-financial-plan....
at App. F, p. 79; see also 1000 Friends of Maryland, "The IntercountyConnector: Financial, Economic, and Regional Development Costs and Choices" (March 2007), available at http://www.friendsofmd.org/Publications/ICC%20Fina...
at p. 3, Table 1.
The facts that I cited regarding the diversion of all the tolls in the state toward funding the ICC is available in the 2006 Initial Financial Plan at p. 4-1; see also 1000 Friends of Maryland report at pp. 4-5.
The facts that I cited regarded the anticipated $1.5 billion shortfall in the general fund came from general knowledge, verified by today's Washington Post article “O’Malley Considers Gas Tax Increase”, Metro, B1, May 15, 2007.
The facts that I cited regarding the depletion of the Maryland Transportation Trust Fund to balance the budget came from general knowledge, verified by a letter to the editor of the Baltimore Sun written by John Leopold, Anne Arundel County Executive, "Secure public trust in the trust fund" (March 18, 2007), available at http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/letters/b...
The facts that I cited regarding the impending Federal Highway Trust Fund deficit came from TRIP, "Rough Ride in the City: Metro areas with the Roughest Rides and Strategies to Make our Roads Smoother" (October 2006), available at http://www.trip
With gas prices soaring, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) is exploring raising the state’s gasoline tax to pay for transportation projects that the state cannot otherwise afford. Here’s an idea worth exploring: Drop the intercounty connector. Then the state would have $2.4 billion (not counting debt interest) that can be used for the state’s real transportation needs.
That $2.4 billion includes:
— $1.23 billion in Maryland Transportation Authority funds — the tolls from every toll collection facility in the state that will be diverted to pay for the ICC
— $264.9 million from the Maryland general fund — the fund that is facing a $1.5 billion shortfall next year
— $180 million from Maryland transportation trust fund — the fund that is already depleted from repeated diversions to balance the state’s budget
— $750 million in GARVEE bonds — borrowing against the state’s future allocations (if any) from the federal government (the Federal Highway Trust Fund is projected to have a
$2.3 billion deficit in fiscal 2009).
I repeat: Do not raise our taxes, Mr. O’Malley. Drop the ICC.
JULIE MARTIN-KORB
Rockville
The facts that I cited regarding the funding of the ICC came from the Maryland State Highway Administration and Maryland Transportation Authority's Intercounty Connector 2006 Initial Financial Plan (June 13, 2006), available at http://www.iccproject.com/PDFs/icc-financial-plan....
at App. F, p. 79; see also 1000 Friends of Maryland, "The IntercountyConnector: Financial, Economic, and Regional Development Costs and Choices" (March 2007), available at http://www.friendsofmd.org/Publications/ICC%20Fina...
at p. 3, Table 1.
The facts that I cited regarding the diversion of all the tolls in the state toward funding the ICC is available in the 2006 Initial Financial Plan at p. 4-1; see also 1000 Friends of Maryland report at pp. 4-5.
The facts that I cited regarded the anticipated $1.5 billion shortfall in the general fund came from general knowledge, verified by today's Washington Post article “O’Malley Considers Gas Tax Increase”, Metro, B1, May 15, 2007.
The facts that I cited regarding the depletion of the Maryland Transportation Trust Fund to balance the budget came from general knowledge, verified by a letter to the editor of the Baltimore Sun written by John Leopold, Anne Arundel County Executive, "Secure public trust in the trust fund" (March 18, 2007), available at http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/letters/b...
The facts that I cited regarding the impending Federal Highway Trust Fund deficit came from TRIP, "Rough Ride in the City: Metro areas with the Roughest Rides and Strategies to Make our Roads Smoother" (October 2006), available at http://www.trip
Ran out of space. Last citation was to http://www.tripnet.org/RoughRideReportOct2006.pdf,
at pp. 3, 23.
at pp. 3, 23.
The sky may not be falling, but this construction BRAND NEW AND UNSAFE.
This brand new LOOOOONG awaited project is already, literally, cracking apart.
They’re already scheduling having to close some lanes down to fix it.
I’m genuinely glad you’re ok with it.
But I’m not. I think this is terrible. But that must be because I'm ignorant.
This brand new LOOOOONG awaited project is already, literally, cracking apart.
They’re already scheduling having to close some lanes down to fix it.
I’m genuinely glad you’re ok with it.
But I’m not. I think this is terrible. But that must be because I'm ignorant.
@juliemartinkorb,
Have you ever paused in your ranting and badmouthing against the ICC to consider how much money was wasted on the repetitive studies demanded by the ICC opponents (whenever a study proved their environmental paranoia to be unfounded, they demanded another study)?
Or how much was spent on legal expenses to respond to the repeated frivolous lawsuits filed by opponents?
Not to mention the significant increase in the cost of labor, materials, and financing over the years it took to deal with opponents?
Whenever you whine about the $3billion + you allege is being spent on the ICC, keep in mind it could have been built for under a billion back in 1996 when "Green" Glendening pulled the plug after his own studies proved his environmentalist puppeteers were wrong.
You got a problem with the cost of the ICC? Thank the opponentnts.
Have you ever paused in your ranting and badmouthing against the ICC to consider how much money was wasted on the repetitive studies demanded by the ICC opponents (whenever a study proved their environmental paranoia to be unfounded, they demanded another study)?
Or how much was spent on legal expenses to respond to the repeated frivolous lawsuits filed by opponents?
Not to mention the significant increase in the cost of labor, materials, and financing over the years it took to deal with opponents?
Whenever you whine about the $3billion + you allege is being spent on the ICC, keep in mind it could have been built for under a billion back in 1996 when "Green" Glendening pulled the plug after his own studies proved his environmentalist puppeteers were wrong.
You got a problem with the cost of the ICC? Thank the opponentnts.
@@juliemartinkorb, Edna_Mode, and free-donny:
I hope you will be as quick to express your "concerns over the cost of public works projects" when the construction defects of the $5.4 billion (plus perpetual operating subsidies) Dulles Rail Silver Line become apparent.
Rest assured, things will come out.
I'll be looking for your input. And please don't respond with some nonsense about the Silver Line being a "Virginia" concern.
I hope you will be as quick to express your "concerns over the cost of public works projects" when the construction defects of the $5.4 billion (plus perpetual operating subsidies) Dulles Rail Silver Line become apparent.
Rest assured, things will come out.
I'll be looking for your input. And please don't respond with some nonsense about the Silver Line being a "Virginia" concern.
Hi Ceefer, I hate to say I told you so, but by now you know Ehrlich and his buddy GW Bush sold Maryland a "pig in a poke". The $3,200,000,000 ICC cost includes the construction costs and the interest that taxpayers will pay bond-holders. By the way - I know you know this - but some don't... our tax dollars DID pay for this ICC toll road (our state taxes and our federal taxes - federal transportation funds went into the ICC and you know it.) The GARVEE bonds only covered part of construction costs and that basically represents Maryland borrowing money from bond holders and paying them back over time WITH INTEREST.
Ceef,
Our pushing match is a long and good one... we disagree on almost every aspect of the ICC Toll Road, but I understand your arguments and I think you understand mine.
Your side won out and the ICC is being built and the connected building contractors got their return on their "Ehrlich investment"
Still, that the concrete supports are cracking so soon, the almost nonexistent usage, and huge debt this put on the state...
You MUST be giving some of these seroius problems thought... you are too smart/logical to ignore/deny those points, right?
- Donny
Our pushing match is a long and good one... we disagree on almost every aspect of the ICC Toll Road, but I understand your arguments and I think you understand mine.
Your side won out and the ICC is being built and the connected building contractors got their return on their "Ehrlich investment"
Still, that the concrete supports are cracking so soon, the almost nonexistent usage, and huge debt this put on the state...
You MUST be giving some of these seroius problems thought... you are too smart/logical to ignore/deny those points, right?
- Donny
"Ad hominem attacks" means an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Abusive ad hominem usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but apparent character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.
This is what "ceefer66" wrote:
The ICC opponents are much like to sore-loser kids in pee-wee football or soccer who can't accept their loss. You know, the kids who pout and pump tears and have to literally pushed and dragged to the post-game high-fives with the other team.
He later argued in response to my postings citing factual information supplied by Maryland State agencies that I was "ranting" and "whin[ing]" and a "road-hater" who tries to make "dumb, stubborn arguments based on emotions, agenda, and twisted statistics".
Again, I will leave it to the able readers to determine whether "ceefer66" comments constitute ad hominem attacks.
This is what "ceefer66" wrote:
The ICC opponents are much like to sore-loser kids in pee-wee football or soccer who can't accept their loss. You know, the kids who pout and pump tears and have to literally pushed and dragged to the post-game high-fives with the other team.
He later argued in response to my postings citing factual information supplied by Maryland State agencies that I was "ranting" and "whin[ing]" and a "road-hater" who tries to make "dumb, stubborn arguments based on emotions, agenda, and twisted statistics".
Again, I will leave it to the able readers to determine whether "ceefer66" comments constitute ad hominem attacks.
No comments:
Post a Comment