Stakeholders Working Group August 22, 2012 1 Project Update How - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

stakeholders working group
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Stakeholders Working Group August 22, 2012 1 Project Update How - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Stakeholders Working Group August 22, 2012 1 Project Update How we got New Information here 2 How we got here Need to fix bridge / Colorado Bridge Enterprise funding Environmental Assessment to determine best way to address


slide-1
SLIDE 1

1

August 22, 2012

Stakeholders Working Group

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

Project Update

 How we got

here

 New Information

slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

How we got here

 Need to fix bridge / Colorado Bridge

Enterprise funding

 Environmental Assessment to determine

best way to address this need

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

How we got here (cont.)

 Alternatives development and evaluation

process to select best alternative

 Public input to understand issues and gain

input

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

How we got here (cont.)

 Independent Peer Review  Current Alternatives 1 and 3

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

Alternatives

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

Alternatives

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

Alternatives

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

Viewsheds – View to Downtown

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

Viewsheds – View from Hot Springs

1A 1B 3A & E 3D

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

Viewsheds – View from I-70 WB

1A 1B 3A & E 3D

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

Viewsheds – View from 7th Street

1A 1B

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

Viewsheds – View from 7th Street

3A & E 3D

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

Bicycle Pedestrian Options

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15

Bicycle Pedestrian Options

Alternative 3A

slide-16
SLIDE 16

16

Bicycle Pedestrian Options

Alternative 3E

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

Bicycle Pedestrian Options

slide-18
SLIDE 18

18

Traffic Simulations

slide-19
SLIDE 19

19

Other Considerations

slide-20
SLIDE 20

20

Next Steps

slide-21
SLIDE 21

21

THANK YOU

for attending the Public Open House

slide-22
SLIDE 22

22

Background Informationi

slide-23
SLIDE 23

23

Project Schedule

If the project receives the federally required approvals, construction would begin in late 2014.

Tasks Initiation & Feasibility Alternatives NEPA Documentation Design Construction Start 2011 2012 2013 2014

slide-24
SLIDE 24

24

Alternatives Screening Process

slide-25
SLIDE 25

25

Level 2 Screening Criteria

Purpose & Need Criteria

Purpose & Need Element #1: Improve Connectivity Between Downtown and Hot Springs For Through Traffic Purpose & Need Element #2: Address Functional, Structural, Emergency Service, Reliability Relative ability to minimize risk of bridge closure Relative ability to address structural deficiencies Relative ability to improve emergency access Relative ability to address functional deficiencies Relative bridge life

Additional Criteria (continued)

Community Relative harmony with community Consistent with City Planning Relative ability to reduce and minimize construction impacts Relative ability to minimize private property impacts Relative ability to incorporate sustainable elements into design Transportation Relative ability to safely accommodate transportation users Relative ability to reduce and minimize construction impacts Relative ability to maintain and improve multimodal connections Relative ability to maintain or improve transportation

  • perations

Additional Criteria

Design and Feasibility Relative cost of alternative Relative ability of alternative to meet design standards Relative ability to construct Environmental Relative impacts to historic resources Visual/aesthetics - General-from river, pool, etc. Visual/aesthetics - Cooper and/or Colorado Visual/aesthetics - Grand Avenue Relative noise and air quality impacts Relative impacts to parks and recreation resources Relative impacts to water and aquatic resources

slide-26
SLIDE 26

26

Under this phasing option, new bridge supporting structures would be built to the outside of the existing bridge, leaving 4 lanes on the existing bridge during most of the construction period. Once the outer supporting structure is completed, the driving surface of the new bridge would be filled in either incrementally or during a full closure (+/- 1 month). The existing bridge would ultimately be removed.

Phasing Possibilities and Options

Outside – Inside Concept

slide-27
SLIDE 27

27

Phasing Possibilities and Options

Half – Half Concept

slide-28
SLIDE 28

28

Phasing Possibilities and Options

Slide-in Concept

Prefabricated bridge parts are built off site but nearby, and slid into place.

Slide in Unit Prefabricated Spans

slide-29
SLIDE 29

29

Phasing Possibilities and Options

Slide-in Concept

Build superstructure to west on falsework

Build new columns under existing bridge

Remove existing bridge

Slide new superstructure onto new columns

Phase 1 Phase 2