Design Constraints Railroad

Transcription

1 Design Constraints Railroad 46

2 Design Constraints Railroad 47

3 Design Constraints 75 Interchange 48

4 Design Constraints MSD Lick Run Project 49

5 Alternatives - Rehabilitation 50

6 51 Alternatives - Rehabilitation Requires major reconstruction. Remove both decks and superstructure. Salvages lower columns, arches, and foundations. New lower ramps connecting I-75 and Harrison.

7 52 Alternatives - Rehabilitation Design Considerations Part width construction not practical. Long term (3 years +) closure. User costs for closure est. $115 M. Cannot meet all current design standards. Limited ability to improve bike/ped facilities. Diminished life expectancy. Less right of way requirements. Lower construction costs.

8 Alternatives - Replacement 53

9 54 Alternatives Replacement on Northern Alignment Design Considerations Requires partial demolition of Viaduct during construction (1+ years). Interferes with Lick Run VCS. Unfavorable approach geometry. Impacts CSX Fuel Storage Facility and Hump Track. Additional right of way requirements. Greater life expectancy. Avoids CSX Intermodal Yard. Provides improved bike/ped facilities.

10 55 Alternatives Replacement on Southern Alignment Design Considerations Shortest duration of road closure (6 months or less) due to use of existing Viaduct to maintain traffic during construction. Favorable approach geometry. Greater life expectancy. Provides improved bike/ped facilities. Additional right of way requirements. Impacts Duke Energy Brighton Substation

11 56 Alternatives Analysis Alternative Corridor Type Major Reason(s) for Not being Selected A Southern New Double Deck Conflicts with pedestrians and a need to reconfigure Central Parkway B Southern New Double Deck Conflicts with pedestrians and a need to reconfigure Central Parkway C Southern New Double Deck Conflicts with CSX intermodal facility (would bifurcate the facility) D Middle New Single Level Long term roadway closures E Middle New Single Level Long term roadway closures F Southern New Single Level Conflict with CSX intermodal facility G Northern New Single Level Unfavorable approach geometry, impact to adjacent projects and H Middle New Single Level Long term roadway closures I Middle New Double Deck Long term roadway closures J Southern New Double Deck Conflicts with CSX intermodal facility (would bifurcate the facility) K Existing Rehabilitation Long roadway closure L Existing Rehabilitation Long roadway closure M Existing Rehabilitation Long roadway closure N Southern New Double Deck Conflicts with CSX intermodal facility (would bifurcate the facility) O Southern New Double Deck Conflicts with CSX intermodal facility (would bifurcate the facility) P Southern New Double Deck Conflicts with CSX intermodal facility (would bifurcate the facility) Q Southern New Double Deck Construction of a curved bridge would greatly impact rail yard R Southern New Single Level Conflict with CSX intermodal facility, western approach problematic S Southern New Double Deck Similar to T, but tied into Westwood two-way pair, which was abandoned T Southern New Double Deck Selected Alternative prior to VE Session with ODOT, RRs and FHWA

12 57 Alternatives Analysis Preferred Alternative Alternative T

13 58 Alternatives Analysis Value Engineering Workshop 30 participants representing the City, County, ODOT, FHWA and Railroads Evaluated all alternatives developed to date and chose four replacement options for more in-depth study Alternate D - Replacement with Single Level in Middle Corridor Alternate F Replacement with Single Level in Southern Corridor Alternate I - Replacement with Double Deck in Middle Corridor Alternate T Replacement with double Deck in Southern Corridor Developed the following recommendations to Alternate T for further study Shift alignment of the bridge at the west end closer to the existing viaduct to potentially take advantage of the existing viaduct for staging and material delivery Reduce the footprint in the RR yard during construction. Move east pier further to the east and out of the intermodal yard. Shift the most western railroad tracks to the east to allow for construction of west tower without interference with railroad operations.

14 59 Preferred Alternative Alternative T Modified

15 60 Project Costs Design Right-of-Way Construction Demolition Total $ 14 M $ 22 M $ 243 M $ 40 M $319 M

16 61 Construction Phasing Plan Years Construction Phases PID Estimated Costs Design Right-of-Way Construction Demolition Total Phase 1 - Western Approach $1M $7M $7M $15M Phase 2 - Eastern Approach $1M $3M $6M $10M Phase 3 - Duke Substation Relocation $10M $10M Phase 4 - Mill Creek Bridge & RR Track Relocation $1M $1M $6M $8M Phase 5 - Viaduct Construction $10M $1M $224M $235M Phase 6 - Demolition of Existing Viaduct $1M $40M $41M TOTALS $14M $22M $243M $40M $319M

17 62 Right-of-Way Section Name Number(s) Owner Section Name Project Parcel Estimated Acquisition and Relocation Costs 1 Viaduct Ventures $850 k 2 Harnist & Corcoran $800 k 3 Zainab Osman $200 k 4 InfoA1 Baron Storage $350 k Info 21 MTK $3,900 k 22 E&T Real Estate N/A CSX, Norfolk Southern $2,000 k Differential Holdings $2,000 k 28 ODOT N/A TOTAL: $10.1 M

18 Duke Energy Relocations (Substation and Transmission Lines) 63

19 64 Secured Funding Grant Source Grant Amount Committed Local Matching Funds Total OKI STP (R/W) $5.4 M $1.35 M $6.75 M TRAC (Design) $5.0 M $1.25 M $6.25 M TRAC (R/W) $5.0 M $1.25 M $6.25 M Earmarks (Design) $2.6 M $0 $2.6 M LBR (Construction ) $5.0 M $1.25 M $6.25 M Other TBD $66.0 M $66.0 M Total $23.0 M $71.1 M $94.1 M

20 65 Funding Requests 13 Applications 3 Awards 2 Pending

21 66 Funding Applications DATE SUBMITTED SUBMITTED BY FOR GRANT PROGRAM GRANTOR 07/18/18 City Construction Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development 06/05/18 Hamilton Co. Ohio Jobs & Commerce R/W TID House Bill 26 County Local Bridge 05/31/18 Hamilton Co. Construction Replacement and Rehabilitation (LBR) 05/31/18 Hamilton Co. Construction Surface Transportation Funds (STP) 11/02/17 City Construction Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects (INFRA) Transportation Investment 10/16/17 City Construction Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) 05/31/17 Hamilton Co. Ohio Jobs & Commerce Design TID House Bill 26 06/30/16 Joint City/Co. R/W & Design Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC) 05/31/16 City R/W & Constr. Surface Transportation Funds (STP) 06/30/14 Joint City/Co. R/W & Design Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC) 03/28/14 Hamilton Co. R/W Surface Transportation Funds (STP) FUNDING SOURCE AMOUNT REQUESTED AMOUNT AWARDED LOCAL MATCH TOTAL USDOT Federal $5.6M TBD $1.4M TBD ODOT State $250k $0 N/A $0 CEAO Federal $5.0M $5.0M $1.25M $6.25M OKI Federal $6.0M TBD $1.5M TBD USDOT Federal $25.2M $0 N/A $0 USDOT Federal $15M $0 N/A $0 ODOT State $250k $0 N/A $0 TRAC Federal/State $10M $10M $2.5M $12.5M OKI Federal $6.0M $0 N/A $0 TRAC Federal/State $14.50 $0.00 N/A $0 OKI Federal $4.8M $0 N/A $0 09/30/12 Joint City/Co. Entire Project Local Major Bridge (LMB) ODOT Federal $187.6M $0 N/A $0 03/31/10 Hamilton Co. R/W Surface Transportation Funds (STP) OKI Federal $3.2M $5.4M $1.35M $6.75M

22 67 Potential Funding BUILD STP SCIP/LTIP Major Local Bridge TRAC INFRA

23 68

24 69 ODOT Partnership I-75 Interchange Joint grant applications

25 70 Questions? William Shefcik, P.E Visit the project website for more Information: