1 / 47

Comprehensive Environmental and Traffic Analysis for Florida Department of Transportation Projects

This document outlines the extensive experience and capabilities of our team in managing Project Development and Environment (PD&E) projects for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) statewide. With a strong focus on public involvement, innovative communication techniques, and rigorous traffic analysis, we aim to address key issues while ensuring stakeholder satisfaction. Our expertise includes the analysis of various alternatives, design considerations, and comprehensive reports, including newsletters, public workshops, and bilingual materials to engage residents and property owners effectively.

haile
Télécharger la présentation

Comprehensive Environmental and Traffic Analysis for Florida Department of Transportation Projects

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Introduction • Experience of Team • PD&E projects for FDOT statewide • CEMO general services consultant • District One experience • I-75 Sarasota • I-75 Lee/Charlotte • US 17 re-evaluation • SR 29 • PD&E D/W

  2. Introduction • Project Manager • Degree in Environmental Engineering • Environmental services • Design • Planning • D7 SIS Districtwide • D1 Planning services • PD&E project management • D1: I-75 PD&Es • D7: I-75 PD&E

  3. Approach and Understanding • General • Project history • Categorical exclusion • Main issues • Babcock Webb • Moveable/fixed bridge • Indirect & cumulative effects analysis • Traffic analysis

  4. Approach and Understanding • Public Involvement • Scope • Project Initiation Letter • Four newsletters • Public workshop and public hearing (both with FAW ads) • Project video • Comments and coordination report • MPO and committee meetings • Bilingual materials • Staffing • Cella Molnar – project and context knowledge • Jacobs – D1 knowledge

  5. Approach and Understanding • Public Involvement • Issues • Bridge • Development • Plan consistency • Traffic analysis • Access Management • Construction Cost • Stakeholders • Residents and Property Owners • Kitson/Babcock Ranch • ALVA, Inc. • East Lee County Council • Concerned Citizens of Bayshore

  6. Approach and Understanding • Public Involvement • Techniques • Standard – newsletters, videos, meetings, hearing, website • Innovative – iTownhall meetings, social media, 3D rendering • Process • Knowledge of District 1 preferences and practices • Pre-meeting rehearsals with District 1 • FAW Ad prior to meeting and hearing

  7. Approach and Understanding • Engineering Analysis • Scope • Existing conditions analyses • 3 alternatives each (minimum) for roadway and bridge • Cost estimation • Suggest PAAM to document alternative screening • Staffing • Jacobs – roadway engineering and fixed structures • Hardesty & Hanover – moveable bridge • AIM – traffic analysis • FTE – traffic counts

  8. Approach and Understanding • Existing Traffic Analysis • Data collection • Existing roadway conditions • Smoothing of the existing traffic volume • Existing LOS will be calculated using HCS Key 8-Hour Turning Movement Counts 24-Hour Tube Counts 72-Hour Tube Counts

  9. Approach and Understanding • Traffic Forecasting for Opening & Design Year • Historical Counts & TRENDS Analysis

  10. Approach and Understanding • Traffic Forecasting for Opening & Design Year • Lee County’s approved joint Lee-Collier model • Model growth rates are compared to the TRENDS growth rate • DDHVS for opening & design year are developed by multiplying AADTS by the K & D factors

  11. Approach and Understanding • 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 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)

  12. Approach and Understanding 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

  13. Approach and Understanding • 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

  14. Approach and Understanding • Engineering Analysis – Multimodal Considerations • Lee County Greenways Master Plan (2005) • Segment IV of the Pine Island-Hendry Trail Greenway • Connector Trail • Painted delineation of route as paved shoulder meets guidelines • FDEP Florida Trails Network • High Priority Multi-Use Opportunity Corridor • “Opportunity Corridor” = swath of land not yet analyzed • Lee County MPO 2030 LRTP • No bike or pedestrian projects listed • Alva Planning Community Plan Update • Multi-modal pedestrian path on North River Road “wherever possible” • LeeTran • Route #100 on SR 80 near the SR 31 intersection • No existing service on SR31 • No plans to add service on SR 31

  15. Approach and Understanding • Engineering Analysis – Typical sections • SR 80 to Old Rodeo Dr. – urban

  16. Approach and Understanding • Engineering Analysis – Typical sections • Old Rodeo Dr. to CR 78 – suburban

  17. Approach and Understanding • Engineering Analysis – Typical sections • Old Rodeo Dr. to CR 78 - rural

  18. Approach and Understanding • Engineering Analysis • Roadway alignment alternatives • East – minimize number of parcels impacted • Centered • Intersection analysis and alternatives • SR 80 • Marina Access • SR 78

  19. Approach and Understanding • SR 78 – Alternative 1 • Keeps essential existing configuration • Additional storage vs. existing • Flattens existing curve

  20. Approach and Understanding • SR 78 – Alternative 2 • Dual-left turn SR 78 to SR 31 • Facilitates left turn movement

  21. Approach and Understanding • SR 78 – Alternative 3 • Allows NB traffic to flow concurrent with SR 78 to NB SR 31 single left turn • Could facilitate event traffic control at Civic Center

  22. Approach and Understanding • Engineering Analysis – Access Management • Public involvement sensitivity • Access Class 5 • 2640’ full • 660’ directional • Civic Center • Consideration for event traffic control • Possible temporary opening

  23. Approach and Understanding • Engineering Analysis - Structures • Existing structure deficient – posted weight restriction • 3 alternatives – low and mid-level moveable, high-level fixed • Minimum 21’ vertical clearance moveable/55’ fixed • Minimum 90’ channel width • Coast Guard coordination and possible boat survey • Horizontal alternatives • Parallel existing alignment • Straighten structure

  24. Approach and Understanding • Engineering Analysis – Structure profile

  25. Approach and Understanding • Engineering Analysis - Structures • Move high point? • Benefits touch-down point on south end • Additional cost • New 3-lane structure • Provides truck access SB • Additional cost • Profile considerations • Safety considerations

  26. Approach and Understanding • Engineering Analysis - Utilities • Florida Gas Transmission (26” high-pressure gas) • TECO Peoples Gas (8” high-pressure gas) • Comcast • FGUA/North Ft Myers Utility • Florida Power and Light • Level 3 Communications • Lee County Signal Department • Lee County Electric Coop • Lee County Utilities • CenturyLink

  27. Approach and Understanding W.P. Franklin Lock & Dam Project Location • Drainage Overview • Tidal Caloosahatchee River Basin • 5 Sub-basins • Impaired Waters • TMDLs established • Estuary • Deliverables • Preliminary PSR • LHR • WQIE checklist

  28. Approach and Understanding LOOK TO THE FUTURE! • Preliminary Pond Siting Report • Historic maintenance issues • Flooding • Past Hydraulic Performance • Floodplain compensation sites • 1 per encroachment • Preliminary pond sizes • Potential Outfall Locations • 1 pond per basin • Design Criteria • Attenuation – Standard • Treatment – Dynamic

  29. Approach and Understanding

  30. Approach and Understanding TMDLs WBID 3240C WBID 3240N PROJECT LOCATION

  31. Approach and Understanding END PROJECT BEGIN PROJECT • Location Hydraulic Report • 5 cross drains • Floodplains • Zone AE • Tidal • FEMA Coordination • Significance of Encroachment • Wilson Pigott Bridge Crossing • Conveyance Analysis • S-79 Franklin Lock & Dam

  32. Approach and Understanding CHANGING CLIMATE • SFWMD Permitting • Pre-application meeting • 9/17 with Carmen Quan • November 2009 Memo • Tidal Floodplain Compensation • Pre/Post Attenuation 25yr/72hr • OFW • Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuge • 3 miles downstream

  33. Approach and Understanding • Environmental Analyses • Scope • Plan consistency • Aesthetics • Tribal Coordination (Seminole & Miccosukee) • Staffing • Jacobs: Land Use and Planning • ACI – Cultural Resources • AIM – Noise and Air Quality • Scheda – Wetlands and T&E species • Tierra – Contamination

  34. Approach and Understanding • Existing Conditions • Mostly rural undeveloped • Riverine system • No aquatic preserves or class I/II waters • Big Cypress-fisheating Creek critical linkage

  35. Approach and Understanding • Wetlands • Caloosahatchee River • Essential fish habitat • Red Mangroves • Seagrass • Critical habitat for the smalltooth sawfish • Consultation with NMFS for potential impacts to water column and tidal flats • Herbaceous and Forested Wetlands • Mitigation • Direct secondary impacts • Senate bill • Little Pine Island Mitigation Bank

  36. Approach and Understanding • Threatened and Endangered Species • Consultation Areas • Grasshopper Sparrow • Red Cockaded Woodpecker • Caracara • Bald Eagle • East ~ 1.6 miles • Woodstock • CFA • Manatee • Historical observations • Mortality • Panther • Outside focus area

  37. Permits Required • Environmental Resource Permit (SFWMD) • Sovereign Submerged Lands • Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit (USACE) • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System • Coordination with USCG

  38. Approach and Understanding • Traffic Noise Analysis • Changes to FHWA Guidelines (23CFR772) • Changes to Chapter 17 PD&E Manual (due 1/11) • Isolated Residents • Impacts • Barriers not likely to be reasonable/feasible • Bridge = perception issue Model in TNM 2.5 Map in MicroStation

  39. Approach and Understanding Legend BB = bascule bridge noise level in dBA. HL = high-level bridge noise level in dBA. BB = 51.6 HL = 50.8 • Build Alternative Noise Levels - Compared noise levels of • bascule bridge (BB) • high-level fixed (HL) • Impacts (66.0 dBA or higher)? • At marina, a special use • Can it be mitigated? • Yes, with parapet or bridge barrier (railing) – technically not a noise barrier • Public perception, which bridge is noisier? • the same…difference <3 dBA is the same to human ear BB = 51.3 HL = 50.8 BB = 54.6 HL = 54.1 BB = 55.8 HL = 55.6 BB = 64.2 HL = 64.9 BB = 55.2 HL = 55.3 BB = 64.8 HL = 66.0 BB = 54.4 HL = 54.5 I

  40. Approach and Understanding • Environmental Analyses • Cultural Resources • Bridge • Over 50 yrs old • Historical integrity likely intact, but • Not likely to be eligible for FRHP • ACI doing update of statewide historic bridge inventory • Tribal Coordination • Contamination • Historic and existing petroleum and drum concerns • Further investigation and coordination required during PD&E • Section 4(f) • No impacts anticipated • Will perform SOS/DOA activities, if needed • Familiar with de minimisrequirements and process

  41. Management • External and Internal Coordination • Proven efficient and proactive communication style • Existing relationships with subs ease coordination • Quality Control • Culture of quality • Project-specific QC plan • Checking of subconsultant products

  42. Management • Schedule • 17 months • Critical path – traffic

  43. 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 Hillsborough PD&E nearly complete – final documents submitted in August • Proven commitment and integrity • No ‘bait and switch’ • We finish what we start

  44. 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

More Related