I-395 Reconstruction. Project Advisory Group Meeting A1. PRESENTATION November 15, 2011

Transcription

1 I-395 Reconstruction Project Advisory Group Meeting A1 PRESENTATION November 15,

2 Meeting A1 Agenda Project Overview Project Evolution Sample of VQ Process Small group exercise Next Step Meeting A2

3 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

4 Project Overview SR 826 / SR 836 Section EB Auxiliary Lanes Auxiliary Lanes & Interchange Improvements I-395 Port Tunnel NW 57 th AVE NW 42 nd AVE NW 27 th AVE NW 17 th AVE BISCAYNE BLVD N LEJEUNE RD

5 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

6 On-Going Activities Public Involvement Right of Way Acquisition Preliminary Design 6

7 Public Involvement 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 7

8 Right of Way Acquisition Total Parcels: 69 Acquired Parcels: 18 Parcels is Progress: 11 Right of Way funded thru 2015 LEGEND Parcels Acquired Parcels Required 8

9 Preliminary Design Complete Survey, Traffic Analysis and Soil Testing Establish final horizontal & vertical alignment Develop Visual Quality Process and Manual- Bridge Alternatives & Architecture 9

10 Funding Construction Cost $ $500 Million Priority Long Range Transportation Plan

11 Survey: Nov Schedule Traffic Analysis: Dec Soil Testing: Dec 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

12 Visual Quality Process 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 12

13 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

14 Functionality Requirements Driving Selection Criteria 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.

15 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.

16 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

17 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

18 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

19 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

20 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

21 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

22 Bridge types: Bridge Alternatives Steel Box Girder Concrete Girder Concrete Box Girder Extradosed Arch Cable-Stayed Suspension

23 Project Evolution Visual Quality Process 23

24 Tower Configurations 24

25 Concept Development 25

26 Design Development 26

27 Design Development 27

28 Design Development 28

29 Preferred Alternate 29

30 Bridge Architecture SCULPTING THE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE IN CONTEXT DETAILS OF DESIGN SCALE USER EXPERIENCE REVIEW MAJOR STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS 30

31 Sculpting the Structure Integration of architectural and structural concepts. 31

32 Sculpting the Structure 32

33 Sculpting the Structure 33

34 Structure in Context Place Time Community 34

35 Scale Integrate the structure into the landscape at both the macro (traveler) scale and micro (pedestrian) scale. 35

36 User Experience Drivers Cyclists/Pedestrians Boaters Residents 36

37 User Experience 37

38 User Experience 38

39 User Experience 39

40 User Experience 40

41 Details 41

42 Towers 42

43 Arches 43

44 Piers 44

45 Aesthetic Lighting 45

46 Aesthetic Lighting 46

47 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

48 Selection Matrix

49 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.

50 Place and Time 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?

51 Developing Themes Some thoughts are: Boat like Modern Futuristic Historic Neighborhood Scale Citywide Scale Iconic Others

52 I-395 Reconstruction THANK YOU!!! 52