2026-09-14 - Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

00:00Good afternoon to the committee. My name

00:02is Colin Alexander and I serve as the

00:04program manager in the Birmingham

00:05Department of Transportation. Um, as I

00:08think many of you are aware, for the

00:10last several years, we have had the

00:12Richard Arrington Jr. Boulevard bridge

00:14closed between 1 Avenue North and 1st

00:16Avenue South due to deterioration

00:18concerns. Um, and we have are now in a

00:22position where we are going to go after

00:24and do a an RFQ process to get an

00:27engineering firm under contract to

00:30evaluate the structural integrity of

00:32both Richard Arrington and the 22nd

00:34Street Bridge, which is of a similar

00:35age, and to make some recommendations as

00:38going forward. Before we can do that,

00:40however, we need we are asking to enter

00:43into an agreement with Rev. Birmingham

00:45to help us capacitywise to manage this

00:49um this study. So they would help us set

00:52up the RFQ RFQ process, help us to kind

00:55of manage the the meeting schedules and

00:58cadences of the project and then also

01:01would help provide public engagement

01:03services um as we embark on this um

01:08structural assessment study. Uh it's

01:10obviously a high-profile area, so we

01:12believe that there's going to need to be

01:13some public engagement in that process.

01:15Rev has a lot of contacts and and and

01:17connections in the area and so we think

01:19it's a good partnership. So this is the

01:21first phase and then after we get this

01:25under contract, we will start putting

01:26out a request for qualifications for a

01:29uh structural study.

01:32>> Okay.

01:34So Rev is not going to be managing that

01:36part of it. They will be helping us with

01:38the day-to-day activities. So, just kind

01:40of like getting like organizing meetings

01:42and things like that. The B dot will

01:44still be the entity overseeing the

01:46study. They're just giving us some

01:48capacity help.

01:49>> Okay. Yeah, I'm looking at the um

01:54exhibit A, attachment A, the looks like

01:57the, you know, scope of work here.

02:00Um,

02:04so there there'll be

02:07helping with the RFP process for that

02:11structural assessment,

02:12>> right? Helping us develop that, helping

02:14us once we'll still be the ones doing

02:16the selection process. We'll still be

02:18the ones who are the who the consultant

02:21will have the contract with, but then

02:22Rev is just going to help us with sort

02:23of the back of house management and also

02:25organizing public engagement.

02:28>> Okay.

02:31What's the

02:33term of

02:34>> um so it goes through December of 2027

02:38which is why it's coming to you guys.

02:39Normally professional services don't but

02:41it's going over two fiscal years which

02:43is why it has to go to council.

02:44>> Okay. Gotcha. All right.

02:49>> Question.

02:49>> I do have a question. So looking at the

02:51scope of services, the total budget is

02:54125,000. But then looking at the table,

02:59it goes through December 2028 and it's

03:02100,000

03:04for the rev contract.

03:06>> The rev contract should be 125. I I

03:09think that may have been an old

03:10attachment that was there. So 125 is

03:12what we're looking at. It's inclusive of

03:13the public engagement strategy to help

03:15us manage that.

03:16>> Okay. And through 2027.

03:18>> Through 2027. And so we we plan to do

03:20this whole structural assessment within

03:21a year.

03:56Okay. And it looks like we're

04:00projecting that the actual structural

04:03engineering

04:05uh component

04:07of the project is Our

04:12goal is to is to have it set up by the

04:13end of the year or early Q1 of

04:15>> 2017. That'll be additional cost.

04:17>> That's the next step, right? So, we have

04:19to get this all set up to the to for us

04:21to start the process.

04:23>> Gotcha. All right.

04:26>> So, the 400,000 is

04:28>> that's our estimate for how much we

04:29think this the total with the

04:32engineering study is going to cost.

04:33That's our full budget. And then the 125

04:35is what out of that for the rev

04:37contract. Gotcha. Okay.

04:42>> [snorts]

04:47>> So, um, you know, I know there's been

04:50previous work done on this. Um I can't

04:53[clears throat] remember the name of the

04:54firm but there was a 60% design plan

04:57that was developed.

05:00>> So yeah we Neil Schaefer there and I I

05:03don't exactly know all the details that

05:04was it predates me a little bit but um

05:07they we had them doing some design work

05:08and it became

05:11[sighs]

05:11clear that the a rebuild of the bridge

05:14was just probably not going to be

05:16fiscally sp possible for the city to

05:19take on. So, we put a hold on that and

05:21we're re-evaluating to see what our

05:23entire range of options is, including

05:25potentially preserving the bridge and

05:27then what it could be used for if we do

05:29preserve it. We never did a a structural

05:31analysis really considering that option

05:34previously. So, we really want to put

05:35all of our options on the table before

05:37moving forward with, you know, a

05:38potentially large ticket item.

05:42>> In the meantime, um I would suppose that

05:46B do regular inspections. That's

05:49correct. We we do uh as required we do

05:52regular inspections of all of our

05:53bridges just you know across the city

05:56but we don't have the in-house team

05:58capacity to do this kind of a structural

06:00analysis.

06:01>> Okay.

06:07Okay.

06:08Um

06:11yeah. So

06:13there's no other questions. So, I'll

06:15make a motion that we uh recommend this

06:18to the full council for approval.

06:20>> Second.

06:22>> All in favor say I.

06:23>> I.

06:24>> I. All right. So, that will pass. Um the

06:28next up we have an intergovernal

06:30intergovernmental agreement with

06:32Jefferson County for

06:35Roosevelt City pedestrian bridge.

06:38>> Yes. So, back in the mid to late 90s,

06:42the city built a pedestrian bridge um

06:46connecting the Roosevelt City Park

06:48across Valley Creek back to the Blockton

06:51Avenue, Sugar Ray Drive part of

06:53Roosevelt City to give those residents

06:55access to the city park. Um over the

06:58last couple years, there has been some

06:59deterioration to a lot of the and

07:01rotting to a lot of the boards of the

07:03bridge and it's been a cicklic fix

07:05request that we've been trying to

07:06address. So, we've identified funding

07:08for a capital project and we're moving

07:10forward and discovered that the br that

07:12part of the bridge lies on parcels

07:14outside of the city of Birmingham and

07:16actually inside unincorporated Jefferson

07:18County. So, in order for us to move

07:20forward, this is just an IGA with with

07:22the county granting us permission to

07:25step onto county right away and and

07:27county property to make the repairs to

07:30the bridge.

07:35I see here in the exhibit

07:40uh looks like

07:42looks like the creek is the dividing

07:44line, right?

07:45>> That's correct. And and so there's a

07:48couple of uh parcels right on the creek

07:51that fall into the county and then

07:52you're back in the city of Birmingham.

07:55>> Okay.

08:01>> Yeah. It's pretty

08:04straightforward. Just establishing

08:06permission to enter into their property.

08:09>> Correct.

08:09>> Yeah. Okay.

08:17>> So, um

08:20there there's already a capital

08:22improvement project.

08:23>> We've got it funded. We we we've got it

08:25roughly scoped, but once we discovered

08:27that we had to go through this, we kind

08:28of put a hold until we could get this

08:30IGA executed. Okay. Gotcha.

08:34All right. Any questions? All right.

08:38>> So, the bridge was built with what type

08:40of product? Wood.

08:41>> Yep.

08:42>> So, what are you guys doing different

08:44this time?

08:44>> Um, we're probably going to go back with

08:46wood, but I'm not exact I'm not 100%

08:49sure that it's still going to be

08:50determined by our engineering team as we

08:52as we scope out the project. But, I

08:55think we're probably going to go back

08:56with what's there because we're not

08:57replacing the bridge. We're just making

08:59spot repairs to bad spots. So, we want

09:01to make sure that's consistent with

09:03what's there.

09:04>> Okay. So,

09:07and I guess I'm asking that because if

09:10the wood is deteriorating, what's the

09:11maintenance plan to make sure that it

09:13doesn't um

09:15you know,

09:16>> well, I mean the curse problems.

09:18>> Yeah. I mean, the bridge is 30 something

09:20years old. It's about time to to make

09:23these kind of repairs. I think this is

09:24pretty standard. I don't think that this

09:26is unforeseen maintenance. It's just a

09:29matter of the logistics of not realizing

09:32that part of the bridge was outside the

09:33city of Birmingham when it got built.

09:37>> Okay.

09:38Thank you.

09:40>> All right.

09:42Um

09:44so I'll make a motion that we recommend

09:46this to the full council for [snorts]

09:48approval.

09:49>> Second. Right.

09:51>> All in favor say I. I. All right.

09:55That one moves on to the council. And

09:57next up, we have a rightaway maintenance

09:59agreement with the city of Mountainbrook

10:01for Kahaba Road roundabout art

10:03installation.

10:04>> Yes. Um last year we completed a long

10:08awaited project in partnership with the

10:10city of Mountain Brook um to build two

10:13roundabouts near the Birmingham Zoo and

10:15Botanical Gardens. Um, now the city of

10:18Mountainbrook would like to commission

10:20an public arts p piece to go in the

10:23middle of the larger of the two

10:24roundabouts and so they are asking

10:27permission to install that sculpture.

10:29Um, that larger roundabout is actually

10:31in the city limits of Birmingham as well

10:34in the in the agreement. Mountain Brook

10:36would agree to maintain the sculpture

10:38going forward as part of that.

10:42Wow.

10:45And so this this rendering that's

10:47included in the packet is that

10:51>> that's that's as far as Mountain Brook

10:53has gotten in the design concept. Um it

10:56still needs some refining, but that's

10:58what they provided us to get to this

11:00point.

11:05>> So this is the the roundabout right in

11:08front of the the zoo entry.

11:09>> Yes.

11:10>> Okay.

11:41And as part of that, to your point about

11:44the rendering, you know, part of the

11:45agreement is obviously that they would

11:46finalize a rendering and it would be

11:48reviewed by our department and by our

11:50capital projects team to make sure it

11:51meets all of our safety specs and things

11:53like that before we approve it. This

11:55just provides the framework for them to

11:57get that done.

11:58>> Okay.

12:00I think it's [snorts]

12:02I'm glad that Mount Brookke is taking on

12:04the maintenance responsibilities because

12:09um my experience is that uh anything you

12:12put in or next to a roadway eventually

12:16gets hit by a car.

12:17>> [laughter]

12:17>> So,

12:20um,

12:22you know, there's Miss Fancy and

12:24Aenddale that's, uh,

12:28had some close calls.

12:37All right, any questions?

12:41>> All right, so I'll make a motion that we

12:43recommend this to the full council for

12:44approval.

12:46>> Second. All right. All in favor say I.

12:49>> I. And next up we have the Birmingham MO

12:53Transportation Improvement Program

12:55application for the Red Rock Trail

12:57Action Plan Corridor C.

12:59>> Yes. So the NPO which is housed here at

13:03the regional planning commission

13:05oversees the management of the

13:07transportation improvement program which

13:08is their program for administering

13:11federal um

13:14sorry excuse me um allocated funding

13:18um block funding if you would to

13:20transportation sectors in in the region

13:22um from the carbon mitigation and

13:25congestion mitigation and air quality

13:27program, the surface transportation

13:29program and in the carbon reduction

13:30program. And so every four years the no

13:34has to create a new tip, right? And they

13:38get new funding and that's the funding

13:39that's available every four years. Over

13:42the last eight plus years, the no has

13:46not been accepting new grant

13:48applications. Um rather they've been

13:50allocating those funds to cover overages

13:52in older projects. We had a lot of

13:55projects in the region from the early

13:572000s that were stuck in various phases.

13:59They were over budget for various

14:01reasons. And so the MO is being

14:03conservative and helping those projects

14:04get to to conclusion. Now for the first

14:07time in eight plus years, the MO is

14:09opening up applications um for the 2027

14:132031 TIP. And so we have two uh

14:16applications we want to present um to

14:19them for this cycle. The applications

14:21are due October 8th, I believe. Um so

14:25the first is back in 2022 [snorts]

14:28um Freshwater Land Trust completed an

14:31action plan what they called the Red

14:33Rock Trail action plan which outlined a

14:35loop around the city. And so we've been

14:38partnering with them looking at

14:39corridors to implement. Corridor C is

14:42the corridor between Vulcan Trail and

14:45Red Mountain Park. And so the proposal

14:48here would be a project that would focus

14:51on Robert Gemson Road from 24th Avenue

14:53South to the city limits. We'd do a road

14:55diet. We would repave. We'd add in a uh

14:58a shared use path. And 24th Avenue. We

15:02uh previously about two years ago put in

15:04bike lanes. So now we were going to put

15:05in sidewalks on both sides of that to

15:07connect down to Green Springs where we

15:08have a sidewalk project that is pending.

15:10And then we would work to connect the

15:12end of Vulcan Trail to get it down to

15:15Green Springs. So that way you would

15:16have a a continuous trail network. So

15:18that's the first project

15:23and that's we're we are asking for a

15:25total of $5 million for that project and

15:28it's an 8020 uh federal local split.

15:32>> Okay. And you want to go ahead and just

15:35talk about the other

15:37>> Sure. So, the other one that we are

15:39proposing um over on the eastern side of

15:41town um near the robot golf course, Don

15:45Hopkins Park, we need to replace the

15:49bridges and culverts at West Boulevard

15:51as well as at First Court North. Both of

15:53those bridges are deteriorating. They

15:55need to be replaced. Um it's a little

15:57more than what we can afford to do just

15:58in house. Um there's some flooding

16:00issues that we hope to um mitigate by

16:03replacing these bridges. We'd also um

16:06extend the end of the village creek

16:09trail that terminuses at First Court and

16:11get it all the way to West Boulevard as

16:13part of that just a couple more blocks.

16:16>> Okay.

16:16>> And that also is about $4.5 million

16:20total ask at an 8020 split.

16:23>> Yeah. So these two resolutions are just

16:28you know the council authorizing the

16:30mayor to

16:31>> to apply for the grants. That's correct.

16:35So, just because we asked doesn't mean

16:37that we get included on the tip.

16:39>> That's correct.

16:40>> Right.

16:42All right.

16:44Any questions about this one? All right.

16:48Uh All right. So, I make a motion that

16:51we approve that we recommend these two

16:54items to the council for approval.

16:57>> Second.

16:58>> All right. All in favor say I.

17:00>> I.

17:03Um, all right. Uh,

17:06any new or old business that we need to

17:09discuss?

17:21>> Yeah. Um, I just guess as a FYI, we uh

17:30some of the neighborhood associations

17:32are starting to be notified about their

17:35requested traffic calming projects and

17:39um so we're I know for for district 5,

17:45we've we had several neighborhoods that

17:48applied for those traffic calming

17:50projects and uh

17:53uh for one reason or another, most of

17:56those requests uh were not granted. So

18:02um the plan is to have follow-up

18:05conversation with BOT about you know the

18:08process. Um because my my biggest

18:12concern is is that you know I think it's

18:16the right approach to engage do

18:19community engagement when we're trying

18:21to identify the locations where those

18:24types of projects need to happen. Um

18:28what I don't want us to

18:33get in the position

18:35of of doing is

18:38um

18:39allowing people to ask but then telling

18:42them no, you know, more often than not.

18:45So um

18:48I think for our own skin um we don't

18:52want to be putting ourselves in a

18:54position where we

18:57um create false expectations

19:01[laughter]

19:02and and then have to uh deal with the

19:06the yeah aftermath of you know telling

19:09people no most of the time. So, um,

19:13anyway, the plan is to to follow up with

19:16BOT on that and, um,

19:20you know, modify the process. You know,

19:22hopefully we can still pres preserve the

19:25community engagement component of it.

19:28Um,

19:29um, but, you know, the folks who are

19:33making these requests need to have, you

19:38know, an understanding on the front end.

19:41of you know what situations

19:46uh are likely to be approved so that you

19:49know

19:51they can make the appropriate request.

19:53Um you know I don't I don't think

19:57anybody is going to spend their time you

20:00know asking for something that they're

20:03more than likely going to be to told no

20:06we can't do that. So, want to position

20:09them so that they're able to have some

20:14reasonable e expectation that if they

20:16make a request um that it it you know

20:19it's possible that it could be uh

20:21granted. So, keep you up.

20:26>> I I hear you know what you're saying.

20:28So, what about the people prior to you

20:32guys um you know coming up with this new

20:36way of um individuals as council Quinn

20:38saying applying for

20:41um traffic coming because we often

20:44experience and we have to carry the

20:46burden of trying to explain to those

20:49individuals in community how traffic

20:52comes. And I think the Birmingham

20:56Department of Transportation should be

20:58um where you all need to be as council

21:02Quinn saying going out explaining the

21:04process to the community rather the

21:07community hammering down on us because

21:09we only translating information you guys

21:12have given us.

21:14>> Yeah. And so, um, we were able to talk

21:18with Director Blevens, uh, yesterday

21:21actually and mentioned to him that,

21:24>> you know, ba, basically the way this

21:26getting getting communicated is that the

21:28community resource representatives are,

21:31you know, just being told what the

21:34outcome of the evaluation was, uh,

21:38whether it's an eligible project or

21:40ineligible,

21:42and that there was no accompanying

21:45information, you know, with that. It was

21:47just really that one-word response. Um,

21:51and I think it's, you know, just natural

21:54for the people who are making the

21:57request to say, well, well, why is it

21:59ineligible? And that type of um, you

22:03know, information didn't come, you know,

22:06with with the response. So, um,

22:12you know, that's part of what we think

22:14is important is it's like, okay,

22:19if it's ineligible for a tracker calling

22:22project, tell me

22:25>> what types of projects are going to be

22:26eligible so, you know, I can frame my

22:30request appropriately.

22:33>> I think I I would like to know those

22:35requests, you know, that have been

22:37pending. um

22:40what's the out you know what what's the

22:42outcome going forward I know we talked

22:45about Card way a lot Clemens Grand

22:48Boulevard um and I did see a a letter

22:54that the Smithfield estates neighborhood

22:56president had written I mean you guys

22:58had sent to them that they you know this

23:01is your half and the city is responsible

23:03for um their half. So I think what I

23:07would like to know is those projects

23:10that are pending, when will work begin

23:14on those projects?

23:16>> I think that's what I would like to

23:18know. And as councelor Quinn stated,

23:20then the broader

23:22um

23:24you know explanation of how people

23:28properly apply for traffic come should

23:30come from you all. So we shouldn't be

23:32out here getting beat up about things

23:35that we only translating information

23:37that we have been given. And so I think

23:40people deserve uh you know a robust

23:43answer than saying hey this is not you

23:45can't get it. So I you know we

23:48definitely like to see um you know a

23:52reason why and how people really need to

23:55be applying you know to receive traffic

23:58come you know in their neighborhoods. So

24:00I guess for me I guess my question going

24:03forward and what I want from B do is an

24:07update on those

24:11individuals that

24:13um has have been waiting for traffic

24:15coming and this new process of those

24:19that have been denied. like how do you

24:21go back and um give the people a clear

24:26precise

24:28way that they need to be applying for

24:30traffic coming. I mean, not giving

24:32somebody a cookie cutter answer saying

24:34this is not going to get you what you're

24:37you're looking for. I think people

24:39deserve to know more than what's being

24:42told to them. So, if you guys can um you

24:46know

24:48have some engagement and tell

24:50individuals this is what we're looking

24:53for when we um approving traffic coming.

24:57I I think people in the neighborhoods

25:00and constituents, they deserve to know.

25:01But I think for me, I want an update on

25:04those traffic coming requests that

25:07people have been waiting for for years

25:10um from you guys. Thank you.

25:13>> Yeah.

25:15Right.

25:16Anything else? All right. Motion to

25:19adjurnn.

```*