Flawed O.C. Ramp: Fixer-Upper or Do-Over?

Even as contractors and transportation officials say they want to avoid the blame game and concentrate on fixing a $12-million carpool bridge, the groundwork is being laid for a legal battle over defects in the connector between the Costa Mesa and San Diego freeways.

By all accounts, it is far too early to tell what is needed to get the half-mile span into service, let alone who is responsible. Engineers have until the end of the year to decide how to repair structural flaws that have stalled the opening of the towering flyover ramp.

There has been much speculation that the entire roadway, except for the columns and foundations, will need to be replaced at tremendous cost to taxpayers and delays for motorists. Estimates for a worst-case scenario have run as high as $10 million, and the opening could be postponed almost eight months.

“The findings and conclusions change daily,” said George Urch, a spokesman for the Orange County Transportation Authority, which is funding the project. “What if we tear down the ramp and we didn’t need to? What if we don’t and there is a safety issue?”

The two-way carpool connector is part of a $125-million project to relieve congestion at the junction of the Costa Mesa and San Diego freeways. The curving bridge was scheduled to open in April, but that now could be delayed until the end of 2003.

Work was stopped in August when construction crews found that concrete had cracked and fallen off supporting walls of large sections that run the length of the bridge. Although the span is in no danger of collapsing, its ability to withstand heavy traffic is in doubt, officials say.

All parties are cooperating to find a remedy, but that quest is proceeding under the guidance of attorneys who have outlined legal issues and helped to hire engineering consultants for Caltrans and the county agency. The various parties involved, meanwhile, talk of “potential litigation” to hold people accountable once repairs are made.

Last week, Caltrans said the bridge designer, CH2M Hill, and builder C.C. Myers Inc. are responsible for “apparent” design and construction defects. Department officials gave both companies 60 days to come up with plans to fix the bridge.

Caltrans is administering the interchange project and provides some oversight as well as design criteria. Jacobs Engineering of Cypress, the project inspector, was hired by OCTA but reports to Caltrans.

CH2M Hill and Myers, which is based in Rancho Cordova near Sacramento, disagree with Caltrans’ assessment and want to be paid for the repairs. Caltrans officials said the companies have given notice that they might file claims for damages against the agency -- a preliminary step toward legal action.

C.C. Myers officials referred all inquiries to Caltrans.

But representatives of the engineering firm emphasized that the paramount focus for all parties is fixing the ramp.

“We are working with all the agencies and trying to find the best solution,” said Tom Peters, Orange County area manager for CH2M Hill, an international engineering firm. “Every option is still open. Safety above all is the No. 1 concern.”

If there are design and construction defects, CH2M Hill and C.C. Myers could be held responsible for the cost of the repairs, sparing taxpayers. Contracts for the San Diego-Costa Mesa freeways interchange project contain language that holds designers, builders and management companies responsible for the services and products they provide.

Construction companies and engineering firms hired by Caltrans also are required to have insurance to cover the costs of repairing construction and design problems.

However, if Caltrans’ design criteria are determined to be at fault, then the department could have to pay to repair the bridge. Committees of Caltrans engineers set standards for a variety of construction activities and projects, including grading, roads, ramps, bridges and highways.

While the legal maneuvering goes on, the contractors, Caltrans and OCTA have been working to assess the damage. They are beginning the process of analyzing the findings and determining the soundest methods to repair the bridge.

Officials say the defects involve about 5% of the concrete that covers the bridge’s reinforcing steel. Layers of concrete have broken off in 14 places, and cracks run along the interior supporting girders.

Two of the bridge’s three sections have been damaged, which leaves the possibility that the unaffected span won’t need rebuilding. Meanwhile, repairs needed on the two sections could be limited to repouring concrete or partial replacement of the roadbed.

The defects have weakened the structure and exposed the bridge’s interior reinforcing steel, which could cause it to rust and deteriorate faster than normal. The middle section contains most of the damage.

“Our concern is the impact on the road’s load-carrying capacity,” said Hank Alonso, deputy director of Caltrans District 12, based in Irvine. “We need to determine how much the design load has been compromised. We can’t open the bridge until it is determined to be safe.”

More than two weeks ago, CH2M Hill officials warned Caltrans officials that the entire roadway might have to be replaced. But Peters said the company has backed off that initial statement. “All the recommendations are being explored,” he said. “Until the facts are in, we cannot make a final conclusion.”

Officials suspect that the concrete might have fallen off when construction crews using hydraulic machinery applied tension to reinforcing cables that run inside the ramp. The tension, which is designed to keep the structure from sagging, could have caused the cables to move unexpectedly, damaging the concrete.

Caltrans records show that C.C. Myers told the transportation department about the potential for such a problem in June 2001, more than a year before the defects were discovered. The report indicated that on-site personnel thought cable connecting ducts that provide extra strength along the length of the bridge needed additional supporting rings, or ties.

A weekly report from a Caltrans engineer assigned to the project said Bob Schneider, Myers’ project manager, “called and informed us that the ironworkers were concerned that not enough pre-stress duct ties were called out on the plans for the curved girder section of the [high-occupancy-vehicle] connector. They were concerned that the girder ducts may blow out during pre-stressing.”

The records indicate that the Caltrans official looked into the matter and called Daniel Sun of CH2M Hill, who confirmed that additional duct ties were not warranted by Caltrans design criteria -- the minimum standards set by the department to ensure the durability and safety of roads and bridges. Sun, however, “did mention that the design was very close to the limit of when additional duct ties would be needed.”

According to the weekly report, the Caltrans official then called Schneider and “let him know.” Caltrans and OCTA officials say there are no indications that CH2M Hill, C.C. Myers or the ironworkers expressed further concerns to Caltrans about the need to add more duct ties.

Whether the lack of reinforcement caused the defects remains unclear. Project records also show there were concerns about poor concrete work in the damaged sections.

Caltrans officials say they stand by their statements that the designer and the builder are responsible for the construction defects.

Cindy Quon, head of Caltrans’ Orange County office, told OCTA’s board of directors Friday that designers and contractors have a professional responsibility to go beyond the agency’s minimum standards if unusual conditions are encountered in the field.

Though some battle lines are being drawn, OCTA officials have been trying to keep the accusations about responsibility to a minimum until all the facts are known and repairs are made. Supervisor Todd Spitzer, the authority’s board chairman, has described Caltrans’ initial attempt to assign blame to the designer and contractor as “inappropriate.”

“The inclination is to hunker down and be protective of ourselves,” Spitzer said. “As the funding agency, we have a responsibility to hold those accountable for their work and to protect the taxpayer. But we don’t want to jeopardize the relationships we have with others in the transportation field.”