1 / 32

Practical Design for Nice Bridge Replacement - A Cost-Effective Approach

Learn about the importance of practical design in the evaluation and planning of the Nice Bridge Replacement project, focusing on cost savings and efficient project delivery.

samanthap
Download Presentation

Practical Design for Nice Bridge Replacement - A Cost-Effective Approach

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. November 15, 2017 Alternative Delivery with Nice Bridge Case Study

  2. Alternative Delivery Evaluation Long Range Needs defines 20 year, known needs Evaluated upcoming projects to “prescreen”

  3. Alternative Delivery Evaluation Detailed evaluation prior to each project start

  4. MDTA’s 1st CMAR Project Curtis Creek Rehabilitation

  5. Project Background Nice Bridge Fast Facts • Construction dates: March 1938 – December 1940 • Original cost to construct: $5 million • Named in 1968 for Maryland GovernorHarry W. Nice • Length of entire facility (including bridge and approaches): 2.2 miles • Bridge length: 1.7 miles of two-lane bridge • CY 2015 traffic volume: 6.6 million vehicles (average annual daily traffic: 18,600) • FY 2016 toll revenue: $21.0 million

  6. Practical Design Practical Design can make the difference between “go” and “no go” • Original Project Estimate = $1B • Practical Design reductions = ~$230M • Current Budget = $769M

  7. Program Costs Funding = $769 M

  8. What is Practical Design? https://policymanual.mdot.maryland.gov/mediawiki/index.php?title=MDOT_701_Practical_Design_Policy

  9. Practical Design Benefits • Realize cost savings by utilizing flexibility that exists in current design guidance and regulations (i.e. use Engineering Judgment). • Giving our customers what they want: efficient, cost-effective projects, focused on system performance. • Enables States to deliver a greater number of projects, and thus a better transportation network.

  10. Project Background Purpose & Need Most Significant Needs forBridge Replacement: • From NEPA Documents: • Geometric inconsistencies • Safety issues • Traffic capacity limitations • Traffic impacts due to incidents, maintenance & wide-loads Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) • Major rehab needed in the near future (i.e., re-decking) very problematic, and a cost driver in the LCCA timing

  11. Project Background Purpose & Need Condition Assessment for EXISTING Bridge’s Major Elements Paint Superstructure steel Not in verygood shape, 10 year life at most. Some section loss, Condition Rating = 5 (Fair) Deck Substructure • 30 year old wearing surface nearing end of its lifespan, Condition Rating = 5 (Fair) • Some spalling & cracking, Condition Rating = 5 (Fair)

  12. Project Background Purpose & Need Safety Issues

  13. Project Background Existing Bridge Traffic Current Traffic Conditions - Routine Summer, Weekend Congestion Average Friday (Southbound) July 2016 Maryland Virginia Average Sunday (Northbound) July 2016 ~3.5 Miles 10-20 MPH “Rolling Queue” Maryland Virginia ~3.5 Miles <10 MPH “Standing Queue”

  14. Project Background Existing Bridge Traffic August Weekends - Up to 4 mile backups Friday Aug. 12th Friday Aug. 19th Friday Aug. 12th MD Approach SB Sunday Aug. 14th Waze @ 5 mph Sunday Aug. 14th VA Approach NB

  15. Project Background Purpose & Need MAINTENANCE and inspection Limitations

  16. Actions to DateExisting Site Investigations • Landside and Hydrographic Surveys

  17. Actions to DateExisting Site Investigations (Cont’d.) • Geotechnical: • Borings - Field work completed May 2016, Geotechnical Data Report compiled. • Test Piles - Accomplished small test pile program in February 2016 (2 – 24” steel pipe piles)

  18. Actions to DateExisting Site Investigations (Cont’d.)

  19. Actions to DateExisting Site Investigations (Cont’d.) • MEC/UXO Investigation • Completed side scan sonar and electromagnetic sensor array testing • 2 dive investigations completed. 151 anomalies investigated. • No UXO indicated; mostly construction, fishing debris, crab pots

  20. Actions to DateExisting Site Investigations (Cont’d.) • Utility Investigation: • Completed level ‘C’ Utility Mosaic Basemap • Confirmed AT&T under river crossing well clear of proposed new bridge location

  21. Actions to DateRight-of-Way Right-of-Way Acquisition Status

  22. Actions to DatePermitting

  23. Delivery Method Evaluation DELIVERY METHODS EVALUATED Methodology Overview 1. Screen Delivery Models 2. Assess Pros & Cons of Delivery Models 3. Identify Models for Consideration Project delivery options evaluated included: • Design-Bid-Build (DBB) • Design-Bid-Build with Alternative Technical Concepts (DBB/ATC) • Construction Manager At Risk (CMAR) • Design-Build (DB) • Public Private Partnerships (P3)

  24. Delivery Method – DB Selection BENEFITS Risk-based decision, assigning risk to the parties best positioned to manage the risks. Design-Build also offers a number of project specific benefits: • Nation-wide industry trend • National Expert Panel recommended • Contractor customized design. • DB Team better positioned to design to minimize environmental impacts. • Alternative Technical Concepts offer innovation opportunities prior to award.

  25. Delivery Method – DB Selection BENEFITS No project specific barriers to Design-Build: • No anticipated 3rd Party agreements requiring upfront full design. • No anticipated permits, ROW or utilities that would materially delay construction. • No anticipated complex staging requirements potentially meriting MDTA control to avoid public impacts. • No specific site characteristics presenting significant risks of unknowns (e.g., UXO low risk, boring data reasonably consistent, no HAZMAT identified, etc.). • Based on advertisement RFQ date of October 2018 and Start-of-Construction in 2020, DB deemed to be best method to meet the schedule:

  26. Practical Design Stakeholder Coordination – Coast Guard EXISTING Clearance • Existing Clearance = 700 feet • Existing Clearance w/ sufficient Vert. Clearance = 480 feet • USCG Bridge Guide Clearance (Potomac River) = 250 feet • Upstream bridges = 175 feet (max.) • Downstream buoys = 450 feet • * Objective: Proposed bridge safely meets the needs of all stakeholders.

  27. Practical DesignStakeholder Coordination – Coast Guard Proposed Clearance Changes • Proposed Horizontal Clearance = 250 feet • Proposed Vertical Clearance = 106.5 feet (Under Review)

  28. Practical DesignBridge Types Bridge Type COST EVALUATION Pre-TS&L (Type, Size and Location) Bridge alternatives analysis completed based on reduced main span length: I-95 ETL Ramps Max. Spans 290 feet 28

  29. Practical DesignTypical Section Option 1 Option 2 Thomas J. Hatem Bridge

  30. Practical DesignAlignment • Roadway Design • Large radius curve in bridge shortens project limits.

  31. Practical DesignAlignment • Roadway Design • Roadway alignment options have been evaluated to shorten the bridge and minimize MDTA campus facility impacts. NEPA Preferred Alternative Alignment Alignment Option to Minimize Facility Impacts

  32. Questions?

More Related