introduction experience of team – pd&e projects for fdot statewide – cemo general services...

Introduction

Experience of Team– PD&E projects for FDOT statewide– CEMO general services consultant– District One experience

I -75 Sarasota I -75 Lee/Charlot te US 17 re-evaluat ion SR 29 PD&E D/W

Introduction

Project Manager– Degree in Environmental Engineering– Environmental services– Design– Planning

D7 SIS Distr ictwide D1 Planning services

– PD&E project management D1: I-75 PD&Es D7: I-75 PD&E

Approach and Understanding

General– Project history– Categorical exclusion– Main issues

Babcock Webb Moveable/f ixed br idge Indirect & cumulat ive effects analysis Traff ic analysis


Public Involvement– Scope

Project Ini t iat ion Letter Four newsletters Public workshop and publ ic hear ing (both with FAW ads) Project video Comments and coordinat ion report MPO and committee meetings Bil ingual mater ials

– Staffing Cella Molnar – project and context knowledge Jacobs – D1 knowledge


Public Involvement– Issues

Br idge Development Plan consis tency Traff ic analys is Access Management Construct ion Cost

– Stakeholders Residents and Proper ty Owners Kitson/Babcock Ranch ALVA, Inc. East Lee County Counci l Concerned Ci t izens of Bayshore


Public Involvement– Techniques

Standard – newslet ters, v ideos, meet ings, hear ing, websi te

Innovat ive – iTownhal l meet ings, socia l media, 3D render ing

– Process Knowledge of Dis tr ic t 1

preferences and pract ices Pre-meet ing rehearsals wi th

Dis tr ic t 1 FAW Ad pr ior to meet ing and

hear ing


Engineering Analysis– Scope

Exist ing condit ions analyses 3 alternat ives each (minimum) for roadway and br idge Cost est imat ion Suggest PAAM to document al ternat ive screening

– Staffing Jacobs – roadway engineer ing and f ixed structures Hardesty & Hanover – moveable br idge AIM – traff ic analysis FTE – traff ic counts


Existing Traffic Analysis– Data collection– Existing roadway

conditions– Smoothing of the existing

traff ic volume– Existing LOS will be

calculated using HCS

Key 8-Hour Turning Movement Counts

24-Hour Tube Counts 72-Hour Tube Counts


Traffic Forecasting for Opening & Design Year

Historical Counts & TRENDS Analysis


Traffic Forecasting for Opening & Design Year– Lee County’s approved

joint Lee-Coll ier model– Model growth rates are

compared to the TRENDS growth rate

– DDHVS for opening & design year are developed by mult iplying AADTS by the K & D factors


LOS will be determined by using SYNCHRO/SimTraffic/HCS– No build alternatives for opening year– Build alternatives for opening & design year– Comparison of no build and build alternatives

From To 2-Lane LOS 4-Lane LOSLee/Charlotte County Line 35,100 F 35,100 CNalle Road SR 78 23,400 F 35,200 CSR 78 Caloosahatchee River 23,400 F 37,400 CCaloosahatchee Bridge 26,000 F 38,100 CCaloosahatchee River SR 80 26,000 F 28,600 B

The following Levels of Services are based on Urbanized Areas:2-Lane LOS D = 15,100 (Uninterrupted Flow Highway)4-Lane LOS B = 31,400 (Uninterrupted Flow Highway)4-Lane LOS C = 45,400 (Uninterrupted Flow Highway)


Safety analysis (2009 data)11-15 Intersection Crashes

5-7 Intersection Crashes 1 Motorcycle Crash 1-2 Lane Departure

Crashes 2-4 Lane Departure

Crashes


Engineering Analysis – Roadway Design Criteria– Urban minor arterial from SR 80 to Old Rodeo Dr.– Rural minor arterial from Old Rodeo Dr. to CR 78– Non-SIS– Design Speed

45 – urban 55 – rural/suburban

– Hurricane Evacuation Route


Engineering Analysis – Mult imodal Considerat ions– Lee County Greenways Master P lan (2005)

Segmen t IV o f t he P ine I s land -Hend ry Tra i l G reenway Connec to r Tra i l Pa in ted de l i nea t ion o f rou te as paved shou lde r mee ts gu ide l i nes

– FDEP Flor ida Tra i ls Network High P r io r i t y Mu l t i -Use Oppo r tun i t y Co r r i do r “Oppo r tun i t y Co r r i do r ” = swa th o f l and no t ye t ana lyzed

– Lee County MPO 2030 LRTP No b i ke o r pedes t r i an p ro jec t s l i s t ed

– Alva P lanning Communi ty P lan Update Mul t i -moda l pedes t r i an pa th on No r th R ive r Road “whe reve r poss ib le ”

– LeeTran Rou te #100 on SR 80 nea r t he SR 31 i n te rsec t i on No ex is t i ng se rv i ce on SR31 No p lans to add se rv i ce on SR 31


Engineering Analysis – Typical sections– SR 80 to Old Rodeo Dr. – urban


Engineering Analysis – Typical sections– Old Rodeo Dr. to CR 78 – suburban


Engineering Analysis – Typical sections– Old Rodeo Dr. to CR 78 - rural


Engineering Analysis– Roadway alignment alternatives

East – minimize number of parcels impacted Centered

– Intersection analysis and alternatives SR 80 Marina Access SR 78


SR 78 – Alternative 1– Keeps essential

existing configuration– Additional storage

vs. existing– Flattens existing

curve


SR 78 – Alternative 2– Dual-left turn SR 78

to SR 31– Facilitates left turn

movement


SR 78 – Alternative 3– Allows NB traff ic to

f low concurrent with SR 78 to NB SR 31 single left turn

– Could facil itate event traff ic control at Civic Center


Engineering Analysis – Access Management– Public involvement sensit ivity– Access Class 5

2640’ ful l 660’ direct ional

– Civic Center Considerat ion for event traff ic control Possible temporary opening


Engineering Analysis - Structures– Existing structure deficient – posted weight restriction– 3 alternatives – low and mid-level moveable, high-level

f ixed– Minimum 21’ vertical clearance moveable/55’ f ixed– Minimum 90’ channel width– Coast Guard coordination and possible boat survey– Horizontal alternatives

Paral lel exist ing al ignment Straighten structure


Engineering Analysis – Structure profile


Engineering Analysis - Structures– Move high point?

Benefi ts touch-down point on south end Addit ional cost

– New 3-lane structure Provides truck access SB Addit ional cost Prof i le considerat ions Safety considerat ions


Engineering Analysis - Utilities– Florida Gas Transmission (26” high-pressure gas)– TECO Peoples Gas (8” high-pressure gas)– Comcast– FGUA/North Ft Myers Uti l i ty– Florida Power and Light– Level 3 Communications– Lee County Signal Department– Lee County Electric Coop– Lee County Uti l i t ies– CenturyLink


Drainage Overview– Tidal Caloosahatchee

River Basin 5 Sub-basins Impaired Waters TMDLs establ ished Estuary

– Deliverables Prel iminary PSR LHR WQIE checkl ist

W.P. FranklinLock & Dam

Project Location


Preliminary Pond Siting Report– Historic maintenance issues

Flooding Past Hydraul ic Performance

– Floodplain compensation sites 1 per encroachment

– Preliminary pond sizes Potent ial Outfal l Locat ions 1 pond per basin Design Cr i ter ia

– Attenuat ion – Standard– Treatment – Dynamic

LOOK TO THE FUTURE!


WBID 3240CWBID 3240N

PROJECT LOCATION

TMDLs


Location Hydraulic Report– 5 cross drains Floodpla ins

Zone AE Tida l

FEMA Coord inat ion Signi f icance o f

Encroachment Wilson Pigot t Br idge

Cross ing– Conveyance

Ana lys is– S-79 Frank l in Lock

& Dam

BEGINPROJECT

ENDPROJECT


SFWMD Permitting– Pre-application meeting

9/17 with Carmen Quan November 2009 Memo Tidal Floodplain Compensat ion Pre/Post Attenuat ion 25yr/72hr OFW

– Caloosahatchee Nat ional Wi ld l i fe Refuge

– 3 mi les downstream

CHANGINGCLIMATE


Environmental Analyses– Scope

Plan consistency Aesthet ics Tribal Coordinat ion (Seminole & Miccosukee)

– Staffing Jacobs: Land Use and Planning ACI – Cultural Resources AIM – Noise and Air Qual i ty Scheda – Wetlands and T&E species Tierra – Contaminat ion


Existing Conditions– Mostly rural undeveloped– River ine system– No aquatic preserves or class I / I I waters– Big Cypress-f isheating Creek cr i t ical l inkage


Wetlands– Caloosahatchee River

Essent ia l f i sh hab i ta t– Red Mangroves– Seagrass– Cr i t i ca l hab i t a t f o r t he sma l l t oo th

saw f i sh Consu l ta t ion wi th NMFS fo r

po tent ia l impacts to water co lumn and t ida l f la ts

– Herbaceous and Forested Wetlands

– Mit igat ion Direc t secondary impacts Senate b i l l L i t t le P ine Is land Mi t iga t ion Bank


Threatened and Endangered Species– Consultat ion Areas

Grasshopper Sparrow Red Cockaded Woodpecker Caracara Bald Eagle

– East ~ 1 .6 m i les Woodstock

– CFA Manatee

– His to r i ca l observa t ions– Mor ta l i t y

Panther– Outs ide focus area

Permits Required

Environmental Resource Permit (SFWMD)– Sovereign Submerged Lands

Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit (USACE)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System– Coordination with USCG


Traffic Noise Analysis– Changes to FHWA

Guidelines (23CFR772)– Changes to Chapter 17

PD&E Manual (due 1/11)– Isolated Residents

Impacts Barr iers not l ikely to be

reasonable/feasible

– Bridge = perception issue

Map in MicroStation Model in TNM 2.5


BB = 64.8HL = 66.0

BB = 64.2HL = 64.9

BB = 51.3HL = 50.8 BB = 55.8

HL = 55.6

BB = 54.6HL = 54.1

BB = 55.2HL = 55.3

BB = 54.4HL = 54.5I

BB = 51.6HL = 50.8

LegendBB = bascule bridge noise level in dBA.HL = high-level bridge noise level in dBA. Bui ld A l ternat ive Noise

Levels - Compared noise levels of – bascu le b r i dge (BB) – h igh - leve l f i xed (HL)

Impacts (66.0 dBA or h igher)?– At mar ina , a spec ia l use

Can i t be mi t igated?– Yes , w i t h pa rape t o r

b r i dge ba r r i e r ( ra i l i ng ) – t echn ica l l y no t a no i se ba r r i e r

Publ ic percept ion, which br idge is no is ier?– t he same…di f f e rence <3

dBA i s t he same t o human ea r


Environmental Analyses– Cultural Resources

Br idge– Over 50 y rs o ld– His to r i ca l i n tegr i t y l i ke l y i n tac t , bu t– Not l i ke l y to be e l i g ib le fo r FRHP– ACI do ing upda te o f s ta tew ide h i s to r i c b r idge inven to ry

Tr iba l Coord inat ion

– Contamination Histor ic and ex is t ing pet ro leum and drum concerns Fur ther invest iga t ion and coord inat ion requ i red dur ing PD&E

– Section 4(f) No impacts ant ic ipated Wil l per form SOS/DOA act iv i t ies, i f needed Fami l ia r w i th de min imis requ i rements and process

Management

External and Internal Coordination– Proven efficient and proactive communication style– Existing relationships with subs ease coordination

Quality Control– Culture of quality– Project-specif ic QC plan– Checking of subconsultant products

Management

Schedule– 17 months– Crit ical path – traff ic

Management

Availability– Key staff all available and committed to project– Project manager >70% available throughout project

I -75 Sarasota PD&E complete – no other projects in D1 I -75 Hi l lsborough PD&E near ly complete – f inal documents

submitted in August

– Proven commitment and integrity No ‘bait and switch’ We f inish what we star t

Conclusion

Strong, Capable, Available Team Proven Track Record – Solid Foundation of District 1

and Florida PD&E Experience Organized and Proactive Management Innovative Approach to Problem Solving Experience with changing standards Successful, efficient Type II CE experience

introduction experience of team – pd&e projects for fdot statewide – cemo general services...

Documents

fdot guidelines

fdot procedures

fdot practices1

hearing approach

fdot noise abatement

past fdot practices

fhwa input

final rule