VENETIAN CAUSEWAY (Venetian Way) Project Development & - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
venetian causeway
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

VENETIAN CAUSEWAY (Venetian Way) Project Development & - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 22, 2022 222 likes •473 views

VENETIAN CAUSEWAY (Venetian Way) Project Development & Environment (PD&E) Study FROM NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE TO PURDY AVENUE FM No. 422713-2-22-01 Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM): 12756 Project Advisory Group (PAG) Meeting

slide-1
SLIDE 1

FM No. 422713-2-22-01

Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM): 12756

Project Advisory Group (PAG)

Meeting No. 3

March 9, 2016 Florida Department of Transportation - District 6

VENETIAN CAUSEWAY

(Venetian Way)

Project Development & Environment (PD&E) Study

FROM NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE TO PURDY AVENUE

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

Project Team

PROJECT MANAGER Dat Huynh, PE CONSULTANT PROJECT MANAGER: Enrique “Rick” Crooks, PE EAC CONSULTING, INC.

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Agenda

3

  • Project Status
  • Alternatives Flowchart
  • Alternatives/Screening Matrix
  • No-Build Alternatives
  • Build Alternatives
  • Life Cycle Costs
  • Environment
  • Next Steps

Purpose and Need for Project

The purpose of the proposed project is to address identified structural and functional deficiencies of the twelve existing bridges (ten low-level fixed spans and two movable bascules), through potential alternatives such as replacement or rehabilitation.

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

Project Status

Project Scope Development

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Alternatives Flowchart

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Highest Ranked Alternatives shown in Red

6

Alternatives Matrix / Ranking Ballot Results

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

Screening Matrix

7

Highest ranked alternatives shown in Red

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

No-Build Alternatives

  • Existing Deficiencies will Remain
  • Continued Deterioration
  • Extensive Periodic Repairs and Maintenance
  • Alt. 1 - Do Nothing

Does not meet purpose and need for project

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

  • Enhanced Bus service
  • Facilitate Pedestrians and Bicyclists
  • Existing Deficiencies will remain, but safe

bridges required for effective TSM

No-Build Alternative

  • Alt. 2 – Transportation System Management

Does not meet purpose and need for project

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Typical Section

Build Alternatives

  • Alt. 4 - Fixed Bridge Rehab with Beam Strengthening
  • Expand Sidewalk to 5 feet to meet minimum requirement for ADA
  • 4 foot Shoulder does not meet 5.5 foot shoulder requirement for bike lane

Rehabilitation includes:

  • Deck Replacement Beam and Foundation Strengthening
  • 41’-10” Overall width to remain, Venetian Railing to remain

10

Rehabilitation Alternatives

Estimated Cost Range: $42 - $44 Million

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

Build Alternatives

  • Alt. M1 - Bascule Bridge Rehabilitation

Estimated Cost Range: $8 - $9 Million

Rehabilitation Alternatives

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

Build Alternatives

Replacement Alternatives – Typical Section Selection

Wider Replacement Typical Section allows for Phased Construction and Facilitates Maintenance

  • f Traffic
slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

Typical Section

  • Alt. 7 – Arched Beam

Replacement Alternatives – Fixed Bridges

Build Alternatives

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

  • Alt. 7 –Arch Beam

Replacement Alternatives – Fixed Bridges

Estimated Cost Range: $36 - $41 Million*

Build Alternatives

Plan View Elevation View

*High Range for Phased Construction

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15

Build Alternatives

Replacement Alternative – Movable Bridges

  • Alt. M4 – Double Leaf Bascule Bridge

Estimated Cost Range: $29- $33 Million

Elevation

slide-16
SLIDE 16

16

Build Alternatives

Replacement Alternative – Movable Bridges

  • Alt. M4 – Double Leaf Bascule Bridge
slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

Life Cycle Costs

Life Cycle Costs

  • Sections 1024 and 1025 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency

Act of 1991 (ISTEA) specified that consideration should be given to life-cycle costs in the design and engineering of bridges, tunnels, and pavements.

  • Guidance for Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)
  • National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 483 – Bridge

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

  • Elements to be considered include:
  • Project Costs (Construction, Design etc.)
  • Service Life
  • Maintenance Costs,
  • Maintenance Cycle
slide-18
SLIDE 18

18

Life Cycle Costs – Possible Scenarios

REHABILITATION (25-year Service Life)

25 years 50 years 75 years

REPLACEMENT (75-year Service Life)

25 years 50 years 75 years Project Costs Maintenance Costs Project Costs Maintenance Costs

NO BUILD (Unknown Service Life)

25 years Maintenance Costs

slide-19
SLIDE 19

19

Environment

Environmental Impacts of No-Build vs Build

  • No Build Alternatives result in no environmental

impacts

  • Build Alternatives (Rehab. or Replacement)
  • Similar natural resource impacts for both

rehabilitation and replacement.

  • Potential impact to corals on substructure & scour

protection areas

  • Temporary impacts due to construction methods
  • Barge Use, water quality, noise, air quality
  • Minimal threatened & endangered species

involvement

  • Informal Section 7 (of the Endangered Species

Act) Consultation with USFWS & NMFS

  • Retain and improve bicycle and pedestrian access
slide-20
SLIDE 20

20

Environment

  • No Build Alternatives result in No Adverse Effects/Impacts to

the historic resources

  • Build Alternatives
  • Rehabilitation - May Likely Result in Adverse

Effects/Impacts to the historic resources

  • Replacement - Adverse Effects/Impacts to the historicResources
  • Adverse Effects
  • Section 106 Effects Determination Case Study Report, Memorandum of Agreement,

and further consultation with affected parties will be necessary.

  • Section 4(f) documentation also required.

Historic Resource Impacts of No-Build vs. Build

slide-21
SLIDE 21

21

Environment

Class of Action (COA) Determination

  • Scope development revealed that extensive bridge rehabilitation or bridge

replacement are viable alternatives for the Project.

  • These alternatives could have a significant impact on the historic bridges.
  • The future PD&E/NEPA study may be assigned an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) class of action.

  • The future PD&E/NEPA study will evaluate all build and no-build alternatives.

The No-Build Alternative will be carried throughout the study.

  • FHWA will make the determination if the COA is an EIS.
slide-22
SLIDE 22

22

Next Steps

Project Scope Development Future PD&E / NEPA Study

slide-23
SLIDE 23

23

Drive Safely

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Stay Informed

FDOT Contact Miami-Dade County Contact

Project Manager: Dat Huynh, PE Email: Dat.Huynh@dot.state.fl.us Phone: 305-470-5217

ONLINE

  • Project webpage - Updates posted weekly

http://www.fdotmiamidade.com/venetianbridgestudy

  • Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM)

https://etdmpub.fla-etat.org/est/

  • Click on Project Number
  • n left hand menu
  • Type in 12756
  • Click "Go" or press Enter

24

Public Information Officer: Bobbie C. Crichton Department of Transportation and Public Works Email: bclc@miamidade.gov Phone: 786-469-5384