Project Advisory Group Meeting A1 PRESENTATION · Meeting A1 Agenda • Project Overview ... •...
Transcript of Project Advisory Group Meeting A1 PRESENTATION · Meeting A1 Agenda • Project Overview ... •...
Meeting A1 Agenda
• Project Overview
• Project Evolution
• Sample of VQ Process
• Small group exercise
• Next Step – Meeting A2
Project Overview
Need for Improvements • Improve safety by alleviating existing operational and geometric deficiencies;
eliminate left hand entrance/exit ramps
• Lane configuration
• Improve local access to and from I-395
• Reduce evacuation time from Miami Beach
Project Overview
I-395 Port Tunnel 83611 83628 Auxiliary Lanes & Interchange
Improvements
SR 826 / SR 836
Section 5
83622 EB
Auxiliary Lanes
N L
EJEU
NE
RD
NW
57th
AVE
NW
42nd
AVE
NW
27th
AVE
NW
17th
AVE
BIS
CA
YNE
BLV
D
Project Overview • Record of Decision issued by FHWA on July 16, 2010
• Alt. No. 3 approved as selected alternative
• Improved geometric design
• Eastbound and westbound elevated connector facilities
• Right hand entrance and exit ramps
Begin Project
End Project
Public Involvement
7
• Technical Advisory Committee mtg. No. 1 held on October 19, 2011
• Project Advisory Mtg. No. 1, November 15, 2011
• Presentation to the MPO on December 8, 2011
• Website and Project Branding
Right of Way Acquisition
8
• Total Parcels: 69
• Acquired Parcels: 18
• Parcels is Progress: 11
• Right of Way funded thru 2015
Parcels Acquired
Parcels Required
LEGEND
Preliminary Design
9
• Complete Survey, Traffic Analysis and Soil Testing
• Establish final horizontal & vertical alignment
• Develop Visual Quality Process and Manual- Bridge Alternatives & Architecture
Schedule
11
• Survey: Nov. 2011
• Traffic Analysis: Dec. 2011
• Soil Testing: Dec. 2011
• Project Advisory Group (PAG) Meetings : Spring 2012 and Summer 2012
• Public Involvement: On-Going
• 30% Plans: Fall 2012
• Draft Request For Proposal (RFP): Summer 2013
• Right of Way Clear: Summer 2015
Visual Quality Process
12
• Balance engineering, architecture and construction with project constraints such as community expectation and cost
• Emphasize Bridge architecture • Establish Selection Criteria • Develop Bridge Type Alternatives • Finalize Aesthetics of bridge based on:
• Input from TAC, PAG and Community • Constructability • Construction costs
Selection Process Selection Process Using Type Selection Matrix: :
Quantitative evaluation of bridge alternatives based on selection criteria ranking and weighting
Selection criteria includes:
Functionality Requirements
Relative construction Cost
Relative Maintenance Cost
Constructability
Maintenance of Traffic
Relative Environmental impact
Aesthetics / landmark structure
Community integration
Right-of-way
Driving Selection Criteria
Functionality Requirements
• the degree to which each alternative contributes to provide a safe and efficient means of moving traffic
• determination is made as to whether the alternative can be designed in such a way it satisfies the project design criteria.
Driving Selection Criteria
Relative Construction Cost
• Estimation of the cost of constructing a particular alternative. Factors include:
– efficiency of the design
– material cost
– ease of construction
– the degree to which conventional construction methods can be used.
Driving Selection Criteria
Relative Maintenance Cost
• a measure of the expected cost required to maintain the structure and keep it operational through its design life. Factors include:
– detailing of the components
– Allowance for easier maintenance
Driving Selection Criteria
Constructability
• a measure of how easily a given alternative can be constructed within the framework of constraints imposed on the project. Factors include:
– Minimizing construction risk
– Construction level of complexity
– Duration of construction
Driving Selection Criteria Maintenance of Traffic
• a measure of how easily traffic staging can be managed within the constraints imposed on the project for a given alternative . Factors include:
– Minimizing Traffic Interruption
– Minimizing complex geometries and transitions
– Reducing costs of temporary
structures
Driving Selection Criteria
Relative Environmental impact
• measures to what extent a bridge alternative changes the current environment, either positively or negatively. Factors Include:
– mitigation measures required
– relative cost to the project
Driving Selection Criteria Aesthetics / Landmark
Structure
• evaluating the form of the overall bridge structure within the site environment. Factors include:
– Structural form aesthetic and landmark impact
– Scale, shapes and details
– Color and texture of elements.
– Design enhancements of appurtenances
Driving Selection Criteria Community Integration
• This criterion evaluates the level of satisfaction a community feels about each particular alternative in the integration of the community and to what extent the visual appearance of the bridge structure represents the community
Bridge Alternatives
Bridge types:
– Steel Box Girder
– Concrete Girder
– Concrete Box Girder
– Extradosed
– Arch
– Cable-Stayed
– Suspension
Bridge Architecture • SCULPTING THE STRUCTURE
• STRUCTURE IN CONTEXT
• DETAILS OF DESIGN
• SCALE
• USER EXPERIENCE
• REVIEW MAJOR STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
30
Scale
Integrate the structure into the landscape at both the macro (traveler) scale and micro (pedestrian) scale.
35
Initiate Selection Criteria Discussion
• PAG has a round table discussion on the essential qualities of a successful project
• FDOT and design team available to answer questions and take comments
• Start defining selection criteria (to be continued at next TAC/PAG meetings)
47
Selection Matrix Type Selection Matrix: Selection process:
1. each member of selection committee evaluates each alternative on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the best.
2. The weight of each alternative shall be assigned by FDOT according to its importance.
3. The evaluation of each alternative is a sum of each criterion evaluation multiplied by the weight of each one.
4. Some of the criteria may have a pre-set fatal flaw limit, such as the construction budget available or the maintenance yearly budget, etc.
5. Selection matrix result provides a recommendation to FDOT to make a final decision. Final selection of the bridge type shall be made by FDOT.
The completed bridge will make a statement about this community and its values.
What should it say in 5, 15 and 75 years from now?
Place and Time
Some thoughts are:
• Boat like
• Modern
• Futuristic
• Historic
• Neighborhood Scale
• Citywide Scale
• Iconic
• Others…
Developing Themes