1 / 20

What s New COH SB Design 2010

Workload - 9 New (FY11), 48 Active Design, 21 Ph III, Funding $94M ($124M/FY10)Core Responsibilities

Ava
Download Presentation

What s New COH SB Design 2010

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. What’s New – COH S&B Design (2010) Updated Design Guidelines (Chapter 10) Updated S&B Std. and Supp Specs/Details Constructability Reviews Tree Saturation Standard Master Bid List (0410)

    2. Workload - 9 New (FY11), 48 Active Design, 21 Ph III, Funding $94M ($124M/FY10) Core Responsibilities – Mobility Imp - MT/Collector St Street Recon/Rehab Bridge Rehab/Repair On-call S&B Assess/Const Special – Harrisburg G/S, Pavement Study … TIRZ Support Private Utility Coord. COH - S&B Engineering

    3. Typical Projects

    4. Chap 10 – S&B Design Guidelines (Update) Clarification of Terms/Definitions HMAC and RCP Design Pavement Design per AASHTO 6” (min) Subgrade Stab (min) for Clayey Soil; 8” (min) M/T; Recomm by Geot. Eng. Geometric Design Requirements (Append 1) Street Class. (MTFP and Local St) w/ADT Laydown Curb for SFR St only 5’ (min) Side Walks Roadway Corridor Design Section (Append 2/CMP)

    5. S&B Std. and Supp Specs (Update) 02221 Removing Existing Pavements and Structures 02315 Roadway Excavation 02316 Excavation and Backfill for Structures 02582/2893 Traffic Signal Poles/Construction 02714 Flexible Base Course for Temporary Driveways 02741 Asphalt Concrete Pavement 02751 Concrete Paving 02922 Sodding 02915 Pavement Repair and Restoration 02960 Milling Pavement Div 16 Electrical for Traffic Items

    6. S&B Std. Details (Update)

    11. Constructability Reviews 50%, 70%, and 90% Reviews 50% - P&P, Site Features/Cond., Site Visit 70% - P&P, Basic Doc (0410, 1110) & Supp Specs, Tree List, SW3P, TCP, H&H, Geot, ESA, etc. 90% - Const Dur/Calc, Flagman Hrs, Quan. Sht by Sht, PS&E, Const Manual

    12. Tree Saturation Ordinance, Sec 33-121(a)(4), Art V, Chp 33, 12-9-09 Requirements - CIP projects involve entire width of the pavement w/30’ length Tree Saturation Scheme – Equivalent to one tree, each side of the street limit, every thirty feet while NOT over-saturate wrt mitigation requirements Planting NOT impede functions of the existing or proposed public infrastructure or private utilities within or adjacent to the ROW (canopy, s/w, driveways, sight triangle, utility/traffic poles, f/h, street lights …) Implementation – Major thoroughfare projects (new or recon) advertised after March 1, 2010 Prioritize tree planting behind the curb (or sides) of the roadway Planting in median only behind the curb space is inadequate and w/adequate width of 10 ft Available tree space by tree specialist and approved by P&R Planting in median grouped for ease of maintenance per P&R Tree maintenance w/two-year maintenance by contractor Monitor costs for future CIP projects involve street

    13. Tree Saturation (Results) 1. Buffalo Speedway from N. Braeswood to Holcombe (N-000847) Total Construction Cost: $4.9m Tree Mitigation (orig) – 174”/40 trees/$80k Tree Saturation – 180”/60 trees/$99k 2. South Braeswood Reconstruction Kirby to Stella Link (N-000761) Total Construction Cost: $5.56m Tree Mitigation (orig) – 584”/105 trees/$187k Tree Saturation – 507”/169 trees/$228k 3. Sabo Road Paving from Kingspoint to Fuqua Drive (N-000688) Total Construction Cost: $3.3m Tree Mitigation (orig) – 25”/4 trees/$4k Tree Saturation – same as above (no room for add’tl trees)

    14. What’s In Progress Study of COH current Pavement Design Practices MTFP vs CMP Sustainability Design (Green Roadway) Integration of CIP Funding of Pub. Infrastructures

    15. Pavement Design Practices (Study) Review COH design/Const practices for improvement of pavement performance issues Key Recommendations 45’ Exp Joint Spacing and 15’ Sawed Cont Joints 1” Asphalt Bond Breaker (To Be Further Eval) Min Design Traffic Loading (e.g., Annual ESAL for Thoroughfare 200,000, 30 yr design life, 11” conc) Better QA/QC Testing/Inspection during Const. (e.g., pH test for lime %, depth of lime stab., edge of pavement/blockout, …)

    16. MTFP (Current) vs CMP Principal Thoroughfare: More than 5 miles long; connects freeways and other principal thoroughfares; more than 30,000 vehicles a day, usually spaced one-half to one mile apart. Thoroughfares: More than 3 miles long; connects freeways and principal thoroughfares; more than 20,000 vehicles per day; usually spaced one-half to one mile apart. Collector: One to two miles long; connects thoroughfares and locals streets; more than 5,000 vehicles per day; less than one mile spacing. Local: Less than one mile long; carries little traffic; provides access to homes and local businesses; accommodates on-street parking and pedestrians.

    17. City Mobility Planning (CMP) Initiative to analyze local mobility and to enhance growth of the Greater Houston Region. Planning effort to envision 2035 transportation system for Houston. Community values and priorities through HGAC's Envision Houston Region and Blueprint Houston's citizens conference processes. Primary tool for COH transportation system infrastructure. Tool to evaluate projects needs/mobility benefits and impact. Enable conceptual layout of transportation improvements based on population, land use, and development impacts.

    19. Challenges Drainage/Traffic Constituent Concerns ROW Issues Agency Approval Private Project Coord. Private Utility Coord. Railroad Timely Project Delivery

    20. Q&A

More Related