South Side Red River Bridge Corridor Study Phase III Preliminary Geotechnical Study Phase IV New Alignment Alternatives Evaluation.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Project Development Process (PDP) Structures. PDP – Three Project Levels Major Project ~ 14 Steps Major Project ~ 14 Steps Minor Project ~ 10 Steps Minor.
Advertisements

Southside Flood Protection Red River Channel Extension Clay County Courthouse September 8, 2008.
Harlan to Hazard Study Public Workshop #2 Harlan to Hazard Study Public Workshop #2 Harlan, Leslie, & Perry Counties, KY December 2003 Harlan, Leslie,
City of Omak Central Avenue Bridge Replacement Project Prepared by Highlands Associates Photos by FlyBy Photos.
CEM-512 Value Engineering Highway Project: South Interchange.
Friends of the Fox River November 9, 2014 Longmeadow Parkway Fox River Bridge Corridor.
New I-65 Interchange at Worthsville Road Welcome!.
JANUARY 9, 2002 SCAJAQUADA CORRIDOR STUDY Grant Street to Parkside Avenue City of Buffalo Fisher Associates Joseph Passonneau & Partners In Association.
Environmental Assessment Public Meeting
Narcoossee Roadway Corridor Analysis Osceola County Board of County Commissioners Meeting December 4, 2006
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Metro Green Line Eastern Extension Summary of January 1993 Final Environmental Impact Report.
Tysons 1 Operational Analysis of Dulles Toll Road Ramps to Tysons Board Transportation Committee Meeting September 17, 2013 Seyed Nabavi Fairfax County.
Fargo Flood Control Southside Flood Protection Prairie View Estates Fargo, ND October 2, 2008.
Feasibility Study FOREST GLEN PASSAGEWAY April 10, Isiah Leggett Montgomery County Executive Arthur Holmes, Jr. Director Department of Transportation.
Longmeadow Parkway Fox River Bridge Corridor
Texas Department of Transportation Corpus Christi District Harbor Bridge Project U.S. 181 (Harbor Bridge)/SH 286 (Crosstown Expressway) Agency Scoping.
Southside Flood Protection Red River Channel Extension September 15, 2008.
1 Welcome! West Valley-Taylorsville Transit Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement Public Open House/Hearing July 19, 2006.
Acquisition of Flood Control Easements Triangle High-Ground Area City of West Sacramento, Yolo Co. Meeting of the Central Valley Flood Protection Board.
Clinton Street Bridge over the Maumee River ODOT Project DEF May 14, 2015 Public Meeting.
Schools Jobs Revenues Services Recreation Environment Transportation Transportation Connectivity Housing Public Safety Pontiac’s.
Anacostia Streetcar Phase 2 Environmental Assessment & Section 106 Evaluation: Community Workshop January 12, 2011.
Highway 169 Phase 2 (Part 2) – Cross Range Expressway April 30, 2014 Public Information Meeting Taconite Community Center.
Environmental Assessment Public Information Meeting – September 2010 Realignment of a Portion of a Utah Lake Drainage Basin Water Delivery System (ULS)
Congressional District Projects New CD-3 SMART 160 Trail: — This trail will be a multiple use trail and will offer access to a network of current and proposed.
Gaviota Beach Road – Transportation Division County Project Summer Crossing – Pre 1997 Located west of Highway 101 Access to Gaviota Beach and Hollister.
CEAL January 31, Existing Alternative (Preferred Align) Objectives SR-76 Corridor Expand Mobility Improve Safety Enhance natural resources Synergy.
Project Briefing Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Transportation Policy Board Project Briefing Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
Capital Improvement Program. During the Annual Strategic Action Plan (SAP) evaluation, long-term needs and priorities are identified by City Council Capital.
Regional Transportation Investments: Alaskan Way Viaduct / Seawall Port of Seattle Commission Meeting March 28, 2006 Item No. xx Supp. Meeting.
ILLINOIS ROUTE 23 (LaSalle St.) DOWNTOWN RE-ALIGNMENT December 2, 2008.
AGENDA OPEN HOUSE 6:00 – 8:00 PM  Review materials  Ask questions  Provide feedback on purpose, needs, and alternatives  Sign up for list  Fill.
Preliminary Development Plan – Continuation of August 28, 2012 BoCC Hearing Board of County Commissioners September 18, 2012.
WELCOME! July 31, 2012 ODOT District July 31, 2012 PURPOSE OF TONIGHT’S MEETING Introduce the project –Reconstruct I-75.
Metro South Planning MetroLink in South St. Louis County Metro South MetroLink Extension Alternatives Analysis and Draft Environmental.
February 20, 2007 Macon County Planning Board. Structure Height Ordinance Allows construction to 4 stories or 48 feet, whichever is greater Measured from.
North Section 1 st Avenue to RR North Section NP to RR South Section 1 st Avenue to 4 th Street Levee South Section 1 st Avenue to 4 th Street Levee.
I-70 Second Tier Environmental Studies SIU #7 Presentation to TEAM September 16, 2004.
Request for Environmental Services (RES) Missouri Local Programs How to Complete The Request for Environmental Services.
Regional Transportation Investments: Alaskan Way Viaduct / Seawall Port of Seattle Commission Policy and Staff Briefing March 14, 2006 Item No. xx Supp.
Fred Luna, SBCAG Paul Martinez, Caltrans District 5 April 3, 2013 SBCAG North County Subregional Committee State Route 246 Passing Lanes.
Texas Department of Transportation Corpus Christi District Harbor Bridge Project U.S. 181 (Harbor Bridge)/SH 286 (Crosstown Expressway) Citizens Advisory.
PROJECT UPDATE PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE #5 MARCH 12 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM Northern Service Center.
HDR | Presentation Update to Flood Project Working Group Shawn Gooch, P.E. City of Sparks February 27, 2008 North Truckee Drain Relocation Project.
HOOSIER HEARTLAND HIGHWAY SR25 Segment Four Cass County Public Information Meeting December 10, 2009 Design Consultant – United Consulting Engineers.
August 19, 2015 Port Bienville Rail EIS Scoping Meeting Presented by: Rhea Vincent Mike McGuire.
© 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved. North Country Access Improvements Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting No. 9 January 19, 2016.
South/West Corridor Transit Improvements ZARZAMORA AND MILITARY PRIMO BRT PROJECTS ENVIRONMENTAL AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN PHASE September 9, 2014 VIA Community.
APPLICATION NO LEVEE DISTRICT No. 1 Of SUTTER COUNTY STAR BEND SETBACK LEVEE SUTTER COUNTY April 17, 2009.
Planning Commission Study Session: Preferred Plan July 23, 2015.
1% Sales Tax Commission Board Meeting June 3, 2015.
Waterdown Road Corridor Class Environmental Assessment (Phase 3 & 4) Community Services Committee May 9, 2012.
The purpose of the US 53 project is to address the termination of the 1960 easement agreement that affects the current highway location in order to continue.
Iron Range Tourism Bureau April 25, 2013 Hwy 53 Update.
PAC Meeting July 2, Agenda  Introductions and thanks  Project to date  Next steps  Questions.
Technical Issues Design Status Due Diligence Materials Tony DeVito, Project Director Jan. 28, 2016 I-70 East Project.
Multnomah County Central Courthouse Site Due Diligence Update April 9, 2015 JD Deschamps Mike Pullen Mike Day.
County Road 19(Manning Road) & County Road 22 Improvements Environmental Study/ Preliminary Design Report November 2008.
Arizona Forward Update
The Central Avenue Connector Trail
Residential Building Height Standards
PROJECT LOCATION Project begins at Garden Lane (East of I-4)
15th Street north corridor Study
Measure A Financial Oversight Committee August 7, 2013
S.R. 26 Road Rehabilitation in Clinton County
Northeast Area Transit Evaluation (NATE) II Update FasTracks Monitoring Committee August 5, 2014.
Design and Engineering Services
White Flint North Entrance Feasibility Study
I Street Bridge Replacement Project
Greater Pittsburgh Airport Area Property
Presentation transcript:

South Side Red River Bridge Corridor Study Phase III Preliminary Geotechnical Study Phase IV New Alignment Alternatives Evaluation

Study Review Committee (SRC) Members Jack Cousins - Clay County Engineer Tim Magnusson - Clay County Planner Brian Gibson - Transportation Analyst, F-M Metro COG Richard Lane - Traffic Engineer, Fargo Cindy Gray - Senior Planner, Fargo Bob Bright - Executive Director, F-M Metro COG Mark Bittner - City Engineer, Fargo

Project Timeline Spring 1998 – Initiated Study July 1998 – Public Meeting #1 September 1998 – Public Meeting #2 December 1998 – Joint Planning Commission Meeting January 1999 – Neighborhood Rebuttal March 1999 – Phase I Final Report 2000 – Initiated Phase II Supplemental Study and Neighborhood Response 2000 – Completed Land Use Analysis for Study Area May 2001 – Neighborhood Response May 2001 – Phase II Report June 2001 – Joint Planning Commission Meeting Initiated Phase III Geotechnical Study January Phase III Geotechnical Study Report February Initiated Phase IV Study Report March Phase IV Study Report

Overall Study Goals & Objectives w Preserve a corridor between 52nd Avenue S. and 88th Avenue S. that will be needed years from now. w Decision will allow the City of Fargo, Clay County, Cass County, and the City of Moorhead to do long range planning for one type of corridor or the other. w Decision will allow the affected residents to do their own long range planning.

Phase I Study Results w Technical evaluations of 11 alignment alternatives. w 70th Avenue S. and 76th Avenue S. were both feasible and met study objectives. w The Forest River Neighborhood Preservation Committee prepared a detailed review of the Phase I Report. w This feedback resulted in a response document and the development of the Phase II Supplemental Report.

Phase II Study Results w Added a new alternative: The combined 70th/76th Avenue S. alternative. w Sub-Alternative A for the 76th Avenue S. Alternative was selected to minimize both the impacts of the arterial upon the neighborhood and the impacts of the neighborhood streets upon the arterial. w All three alignment alternatives feasible.

Final Three Alternatives

Criteria System Continuity and Route Direction Interchange Spacing Land Use Planning Traffic Operations Mainline Length Length of Supporting Roads Residential Acquisitions Neighborhood Severance Homes Adjacent to New Roadways Farmland Severance Cost 70th Avenue S. Alternative No direct connections 1.5 miles Introduces.5 mile arterial spacing Optimal 6.2 miles 0 feet None 8 Greater $22.2 million 76th/70th Avenue S. Alternative Direct connection to the west 2 miles Introduces.5 mile arterial spacing Indirect travel route 6.4 miles 0 feet None 8 Greater $22.7 million 76th Avenue S. Alternative A Direct connections to the west and east 2 miles Consistent with 1 mile arterial planning Add’l full accesses 6.2 miles 3,600 feet 10 Minimized 14 Least $23.5 million Phase II Technical Comparison of Final Three Alternatives

Phase III Study Goals & Objectives w Determine the geotechnical feasibility of crossing the Red River at 70th and 76th Avenues. w Refine alignment alternatives and bridge lengths based upon study findings. w Update Cost Estimates based upon study findings.

Soil Stability Analysis w Soil borings provided a cross-section of soils near the crossing locations of 70th and 76th Avenues w Analysis resulted in top of riverbank setback requirements at 70th and 76th crossing locations and approach embankments. w Additionally, river bed rip-rap is required at the crossing location and adjacent to the approach embankments of the 76th Avenue Alternative.

Soil Stability Analysis Results w 70th Avenue Setbacks: –30 feet from elev. 905 on west riverbank –0 feet on east riverbank w 76th Avenue Setbacks: –120 feet from elev. 905 on west riverbank –140 feet from elev. 902 on east riverbank –60 feet from elev. 905 on west approach embankment (from oxbow to the north) –220 feet from elev. 902 on east approach embankment (from oxbow to the north) w Additional geotechnical analysis recommended at final bridge location

Geotechnical Considerations

Backwater Effects w A preliminary backwater (flooding) analysis was conducted at each river crossing location using a draft HEC-RAS (Hydraulic Engineering Center River Analysis System) model developed by Houston Engineering. w With the recommended setbacks, neither crossing alternative will affect the hydraulic capacity of the river channel.

Bridge Adjustments w All bridges aligned to cross on a tangent w 70th Avenue: 1,170-foot bridge length w 76th Avenue: 1,200-foot bridge length, 2 300’x10’x10’ Box Culverts to cross County Ditch 32

Alignment Adjustments & Impacts w No change under the 70th Avenue Alternative. w No change under the 76th/70th Avenue Alternative. w Significant changes under the 76th Avenue Alternative due to abutment and approach embankment setbacks.

Phase III Conclusions & Recommendations w Applying the required setbacks and rip-rap, both the 70th and 76th Avenue crossings are technically feasible. w Hydraulic capacity of the Red River channel can be maintained with the proposed bridge abutment setbacks and bridge profile. w An additional bridge crossing location south of the 76th Avenue Alternative should be considered in a fourth phase of the study. w The Phase IV study will identify this new alternative(s) to be evaluated alongside the current alternatives, for the purpose of selecting a preferred alternative.

Phase IV Study Goals & Objectives w Identify new alternatives to ease impacts and reduce construction costs. w Evaluate new alternatives against the three previous alternatives. w Update Cost Estimates based upon study findings. w Select a preferred alignment alternative.

70th Avenue Alternative

76th/70th Avenue Alternative

76th Avenue Alternative

New South 76th Avenue Alternative (Dismissed)

New “Jogged” South 76th Avenue Alternative

New “Jogged” 76th/70th Avenue Alternative

FEMA Flood Buyout Properties w The 76th Avenue, “Jogged” South 76th Avenue and “Jogged” 76th/70th Avenue alternatives require the use of lots purchased with FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds. w If the preferred alternative uses any HMGP buyout lots, FEMA would want to investigate the environmental consequences of the alignment versus other alignments. w Approval of use would be subject to environmental review. Reimbursement of funds is unlikely.

Comparative Cost Estimate

Phase IV Conclusions & Recommendations w All five of the bridge location and corridor alignment alternatives are technically feasible. w With the exception of the original 76 th Avenue Alternative, all other alternatives have similar costs. w The “jogged” alignments are less desirable for an arterial roadway serving east-west trips. w Each alternative results in different pros and cons as they relate to residential impacts, route continuity, traffic operations and cost. w Elected officials should weigh these factors in the selection of a preferred alternative.

Next Steps w Who should complete this??