I-395 Reconstruction

Project Advisory Group Meeting A1

PRESENTATION November 15, 2011

1

Meeting A1 Agenda

• Project Overview

• Project Evolution

• Sample of VQ Process

• Small group exercise

• Next Step – Meeting A2

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

Project Overview

I-395 Port Tunnel 83611 83628 Auxiliary Lanes & Interchange

Improvements

SR 826 / SR 836

Section 5

83622 EB

Auxiliary Lanes

N L

EJEU

NE

RD

NW

57th

AVE

NW

42nd

AVE

NW

27th

AVE

NW

17th

AVE

BIS

CA

YNE

BLV

D

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

On-Going Activities

6

• Public Involvement • Right of Way Acquisition • Preliminary Design

Public Involvement

7

• 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

Right of Way Acquisition

8

• Total Parcels: 69

• Acquired Parcels: 18

• Parcels is Progress: 11

• Right of Way funded thru 2015

Parcels Acquired

Parcels Required

LEGEND

Preliminary Design

9

• Complete Survey, Traffic Analysis and Soil Testing

• Establish final horizontal & vertical alignment

• Develop Visual Quality Process and Manual- Bridge Alternatives & Architecture

Funding • Construction Cost – $ 400 - $500 Million • Priority 3-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan

Schedule

11

• Survey: Nov. 2011

• Traffic Analysis: Dec. 2011

• Soil Testing: Dec. 2011

• 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 2015

Visual Quality Process

12

• 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

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

Driving Selection Criteria

Functionality Requirements

• 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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bridge Alternatives

Bridge types:

– Steel Box Girder

– Concrete Girder

– Concrete Box Girder

– Extradosed

– Arch

– Cable-Stayed

– Suspension

Project Evolution Visual Quality Process

23

Tower Configurations

24

Concept Development

25

Design Development

26

Design Development

27

Design Development

28

Preferred Alternate

29

Bridge Architecture • SCULPTING THE STRUCTURE

• STRUCTURE IN CONTEXT

• DETAILS OF DESIGN

• SCALE

• USER EXPERIENCE

• REVIEW MAJOR STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

30

Sculpting the Structure

Integration of architectural and structural concepts.

31

32

Sculpting the Structure

Sculpting the Structure

33

Structure in Context

• Place

• Time

• Community

34

Scale

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

35

User Experience

• Drivers

• Cyclists/Pedestrians

• Boaters

• Residents

36

37

User Experience

38

User Experience

39

User Experience

User Experience

40

Details

41

Towers

42

Arches

43

Piers

44

Aesthetic Lighting

45

Aesthetic Lighting

46

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

Selection Matrix

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.

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?

Place and Time

Some thoughts are:

• Boat like

• Modern

• Futuristic

• Historic

• Neighborhood Scale

• Citywide Scale

• Iconic

• Others…

Developing Themes

THANK YOU !!!

I-395 Reconstruction

52