10-27-16 CWG Meetings Tier II Draft Findings Final

COMMUNITY
WORKING GROUP #9
LAFAYETTE PUBLIC LIBRARY l OCTOBER 27, 2016
State Project Number: H.004273.5
Federal Aid Project Number: H004273
AGENDA
Status Update on Tier II AcMviMes of Concept Renement Phase
PresentaMon of Results from Technical Analysis of Series 4 and 6
Renement Concepts
Technical Analysis Results
Series 4 Features
Series 6 Features
Comparison Concepts Developed within Series 4 and 6 using the feasible
individual design elements
High-level evaluaMon of overall core area consideraMons
Comparison Concept matrix
Upcoming Project Schedule/Next Steps

2
UPCOMING PROJECT SCHEDULE / NEXT STEPS

October 27-28, 2016
IniMal Findings from Technical Analysis of Series 4 & 6 Renement Concepts
November 3-4, 2016

Present IniMal Results of PotenMal Design ModicaMons (PDMs)
November 11 - Deadline for comments on IniMal Findings of TM & PDMs

November 17-18 Present Final TM Findings
November/December
Develop End-to-end Hybrid Concepts
Mid-December 2016
Public MeeMng
Present Hybrid Concepts to CSS Commi_ees and Finalize Tier II Concepts
that will move forward into Tier III
3
TIER II TECHNICAL MEMO
TIER II TECHNICAL MEMO PROGRESSION

Tier I results: Series 4, Series 6 and Concept 1A move forward
Tier II First Step: Develop Technical Memo
High-level evaluaMon: Key Series 4 & 6 Design Elements
Core Area Project Limits: Pinhook Road to RR Spur
Develop Comparison Concepts for Series 4 and 6
High-level evaluaMon of overall core area consideraMons
Develop Comparison Matrix
5
TIER II TECHNICAL MEMO

STUDY LIMITS
TIER II TECHNICAL MEMO - STUDY LIMITS
Core Area Study Limits

Approx. 1.5 miles
REFINEMENT CONCEPT 1A
2 0 0 3 FEIS / ROD SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
SERIES 4
REFINEMENT CONCEPTS
EVANGELINE THRUWAY CONNECTIVITY SYSTEM
(WITH ADDITIONAL RR GRADE SEPARATIONS)
11
REFINEMENT CONCEPT 4B
EVANGELINE THRUWAY CONNECTIVITY SYSTEM
(WITHOUT ADDITIONAL RR GRADE SEPARATIONS)
12
REFINEMENT CONCEPT 4C
EVANGELINE THRUWAY PAIRED TWO-WAY CONNECTIVITY
SYSTEM (WITHOUT ADDITIONAL RR GRADE SEPARATIONS)
13
REFINEMENT CONCEPT 4D
EVANGELINE PARKWAY CONNECTIVITY SYSTEM
14
REFINEMENT CONCEPT 4E
EVANGELINE THRUWAY PAIRED TWO-WAY CONNECTIVITY
SYSTEM ( W I T H A D D I T I O N A L R R G R A D E S E PA R AT I O N )
15
REFINEMENT CONCEPT 4F
EVANGELINE PARKWAY CONNECTIVITY SYSTEM
( W I T H A D D I T I O N A L R R G R A D E S E PA R AT I O N )
16
SERIES 4
TYPICAL SECTION: ELEVATED MAINLINE
17
SERIES 6
REFINEMENT CONCEPTS
SEMI-DEPRESSED I-49 CONNECTOR MAINLINE
19
SERIES 6
TYPICAL SECTION: SEMI-DEPRESSED MAINLINE SECTION
20
REFINEMENT CONCEPT 6B
C U T A N D C O V E R I - 4 9 C O N N E C TO R M A I N L I N E
21
REFINEMENT CONCEPT 6C
C U T A N D C O V E R I - 4 9 C O N N E C TO R M A I N L I N E W I T H
R E L O C AT E D J O H N S TO N S T R E E T
22
REFINEMENT CONCEPT 6D
C U T A N D C O V E R I - 4 9 C O N N E C TO R M A I N L I N E
23
REFINEMENT CONCEPT 6E
C U T A N D C O V E R I - 4 9 C O N N E C TO R M A I N L I N E & R A I L R O A D
Rail shown in current locaIon

based on Tier I input
24
SERIES 6
TYPICAL SECTION: CUT & COVER MAINLINE
25
SERIES 4 & 6
KEY DESIGN FEATURE
CONSIDERATIONS
SERIES 4 & 6
K E Y D E S I G N F E AT U R E C O N S I D E R AT I O N S
Interstate Access
Eliminate Johnston & 2nd/3rd
Evangeline Thruway
ExisMng One-Way Couplet
Ramp Pairs
Two 2-way Roadways

Grand Boulevard
Geometrics
Mainline Tangent
Mainline Prole & Drainage
Cross Road Proles
BNSF Crossings
Over / Under
Structural Systems & Elements

Elevated
Semi-Depressed
Cut and Cover (Tunnel)
At-Grade
27
SERIES 4
H I G H L I G H T S : K E Y D E S I G N F E AT U R E C O N S I D E R AT I O N S
Interstate Access
Evangeline Thruway
Ramp Pairs
Two 2-Way Roadways

Grand Boulevard
Geometrics
Mainline Tangent
Cross Road Proles
BNSF Crossings
Over / Under

Elevated
Semi-Depressed
At-Grade
28
SERIES 6
H I G H L I G H T S : K E Y D E S I G N F E AT U R E C O N S I D E R AT I O N S
Interstate Access
Evangeline Thruway
Ramp Pairs
Two 2-way Roadways

Grand Boulevard
Geometrics
Mainline Tangent
Cross Road Proles
BNSF Crossings
Over / Under

Elevated
Semi-Depressed
At-Grade
29
SERIES 4
EVANGELINE THRUWAY OPERATIONS
Two 2-way Roadways
30
SERIES 4
EVANGELINE THRUWAY OPERATIONS
Two 2-way Roadways

Geometric elements:
o Increases conict points due to added intersecMon movements
o Safety is decreased due to addiMonal conict points
o Eliminates one-way frontage road conMnuity & complicates evacuaMon
rouMng
Trac operaMons:
o Increased congesMon due to added signals
o Increased maintenance due to added signals
RecommendaMon:
o OpMon will not be considered further
31
SERIES 4
ELEVATED STRUCTURE ELEMENTS
SERIES 6
Bridge Development Report March 2016

IniMated for Concept 1A
Design Parameters Applied to Series 4 and 6 Structures
Report Components Applied:
o Preliminary Design Data
o Bridge Development Report Criteria
o Cost EsMmate Summary
33
SERIES 4
MulI-Column Bents
UIlized for
Base Design Costs
EXAMPLE:
34
SERIES 4
Straddle Bent Piers
Used for Underlying
Roadways
EXAMPLE:
35
SERIES 6
CROSS ROAD GEOMETRY
SERIES 6
C R O S S R O A D G E O M E T RY - J O H N S TO N STREET PROFILE
Realigned Johnston St
3-Step progression
to determine prole
37
SERIES 6
1
1
Realigned Johnston St
At-Grade BNSF Crossing
38
SERIES 6
Johnston Street Prole At-Grade BNSF Crossing

Insucient length between the Semi-Depressed structure and BNSF for the prole to
touch down and provide adequate approach landing at the RR crossing.
39
SERIES 6
Johnston Street Prole At-Grade BNSF Crossing

Insucient length between the Cut and Cover (Tunnel) structure and BNSF for the
prole to touch down and provide adequate approach landing at the RR crossing.
40
SERIES 6
1
2
Avoid FTPR Intrusion
41
SERIES 6
Johnston Street Prole Avoid FTPR Intrusion

Steep grade lowers design speed on a UA-1 state route considered not acceptable.
42
SERIES 6
Johnston Street Prole Avoid FTPR Intrusion

Steep grade lowers design speed on a UA-1 state route considered not acceptable.
43
SERIES 6
J O H N S TO N STREET PROFILE SEMI-DEPRESSED
1
3
Johnston Street Prole

Grades meet acceptable DOTD grade criteria but not desirable
44
SERIES 6
J O H N S TO N STREET PROFILE CUT AND COVER
1
3
Johnston Street Prole

Grades meet acceptable DOTD grade criteria but not desirable
45
SERIES 6
Creates FTPR Intrusion
46
SERIES 6
C R O S S R O A D G E O M E T RY - 3 R D S T R E E T P R O F I L E
3rd Street Prole is similar to

6th, Jeerson and 2nd Streets
Four At-grade BNSF Crossings

47
SERIES 6
C R O S S R O A D G E O M E T RY S E M I - D E P R E S S E D
3rd Street Prole Similar to 6th, Jeerson and 2nd

48
SERIES 6
C R O S S R O A D G E O M E T RY C U T A N D C O V E R
3rd Street Prole Similar to 6th, Jeerson and 2nd

49
SERIES 6
C R O S S R O A D G E O M E T RY TA FT STREET PROFILE
4%
4%
4%
4%
Taj Street / SB Evangeline Prole Grades

50
SERIES 6
C R O S S R O A D G E O M E T RY
State and Local Road geometry meets acceptable DOTD criteria

but not desirable.
Taj / SB Evangeline intersecMon on-structure with 4% approaching
grades. Meets acceptable DOTD criteria but not desirable.
IntersecMon angle is 71-degrees greater than 60-degree
preferred by DOTD.
Approach grades to BNSF at-grade crossings meet acceptable
DOTD criteria but not desirable. To be conrmed by local
standards and requirements.
Flat landing zone must be provided for approach grades at BNSF
at-grade crossings. Queue length & grade requirements must be
further invesMgated if carried forward. Eect of buses and other
51
large vehicles must also be considered.
SERIES 6
STRUCTURE ELEMENTS
SERIES 6
SEMI-DEPRESSED STRUCTURE ELEMENTS
Bridge Development Report March 2016

IniMated for Concept 1A
Design Parameters Applied to Series 4 and 6 Structures
Report Components Applied:
o Preliminary Design Data
o Bridge Development Report Criteria
o Cost EsMmate Summary
53
SERIES 6
SEMI-DEPRESSED MAINLINE SECTION
Semi-Depressed Mainline SecIon
54
SERIES 6
SEMI-DEPRESSED STRUCTURE ELEMENTS
Soil Nails Used to Minimize ExcavaIon

Retaining Wall to be Designed to
Maximize AestheIcs
Drainage Pipe on Each Side of Roadway
to Collect Runo and Ouball to
Vermilion River
Retaining Wall
System
55
SERIES 6
CUT & COVER MAINLINE
Cut and Cover (Tunnel) Mainline SecIon
56
SERIES 6
(Saturated)

(Saturated)
Cut and Cover (Tunnel) Structure SecIon

(Buoyancy Force)
57
SERIES 6
SEMI-DEPRESSED S TRUCTURE ELEMENTS
(Saturated)
(Saturated)
Semi-Depressed Structure Bodom Slab

(Buoyancy Force)
58
SERIES 6
TUNNEL SYSTEMS REQUIREMENTS
AND CONSIDERATIONS
SERIES 6
Roads & Tunnels: Whats the Dierence?

Open roads are not conned, tunnels are.
An open road re vents naturally, people can easily
get away.
In a tunnel, venMlaMon and egress have to be
provided and protected.
Other systems required:
o LighMng
o Drainage
o Alarms
o and more...
60
SERIES 6
Guiding Standard
NFPA 502
(2017 EdiMon)

61
SERIES 6
VenIlaIon: OperaIng CondiIons

Normal: free owing trac
Congested: urban Me-ups, accident stoppages
Emergency: crashes, res, spills - combinaMons
62
SERIES 6
VenIlaIon: Modern Longitudinal Approach

Typically vent in direcMon of normal trac ow
o Those ahead of an incident can drive away.
o Those behind cant.
ConguraMons suited to this locaMon examined:

o Jet Fans
Groups of fans along tunnel ceiling
Serviced from roadway
o Saccardo Nozzle / External Plant:

Injects air near start of tunnel, and exhausts at far end
Plants outside tunnel, separate access for service
63
SERIES 6
VenIlaIon: Jet Fans
64
SERIES 6
VenIlaIon: Saccardo Vent Plant
65
SERIES 6
VenIlaIon: How Much do you Need?

Capacity is based on how big a re to address, or
how much emissions to manage.
o Focusing on re, Capacity OpMons examined:
30 MW - buses and less
not recommended
Urban Interstate, Truck route, 30 MW too small
150 MW HGV, but not tankers

alternaMve basis
Unlimited tankers
not recommended
State ban on hazardous/permit materials in tunnels
Hazardous Materials will need to use an Avoidance Route
66
SERIES 6
Emergency Egress: Sidewalks/Cross Passages
67
SERIES 6
Roadway Fire ProtecIon
68
SERIES 6
Electrical:
LighMng Systems
Emergency CommunicaMons
Incident DetecMon / Management
Reliability of Supply key factor
69
SERIES 6
Electrical: Emergency CommunicaIons

Users
o Telephones
o Manual re alarm pull staMons
o Cell system support
Responders
o Radio support

70
SERIES 6
Electrical: Incident DetecIon / Management

OperaMng ConsideraMons
o Closed Circuit TV
o Linear heat detecMon
o Intelligent TransportaMon System (ITS) CoordinaMon
o Signals and Signage
tunnel closure
lane closure
trac control / trac reversal
71
SERIES 6
Electrical: SchemaIc Plant Room
72
SERIES 6
Tunnel Drainage: CollecIon & Disposal

Sources
o Rain
o Fire ghMng water
o Tunnel washing, requires disposal to sanitary sewer
Address tunnel grade, elevaMon, adjacent river

Flammable/Hazardous Spills
o Inlets arranged to minimize pool size for spills
o Separator/storage capacity
o Sensors and controls
Pump StaMon at low end of tunnel
73
SERIES 6
Tunnel Drainage: CollecIon
74
SERIES 6

Tunnel Drainage: CollecIon

75
SERIES 6
Tunnel OperaIons & Control

OperaMng ConsideraMons
o Staed versus unstaed faciliMes
Typically are staed 24/7
Enforcement of restricMons (HazMat, over-height)
o Emergency Response
Responding agencies
Expected response Mmes
Agency with Incident Command
Point of response IndicaMon and controls
Response planning and drills
76
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
COMPARISON CONCEPT 4.1
Revised South
Ramp Pair
Tangent
Alignment
Alignments avoid
FTPR between
Taj and Pinhook
Exist. Je U/P
North
Ramp Pair
Local Road
Revisions
Evangeline:
One-way Couplet
78
Revised South
Ramp Pair
Tangent
Alignment
Exist. Je U/P
North
Ramp Pair
Local Road
Revisions
Evangeline:
Grand Boulevard
Alignments avoid
FTPR between
Taj and Pinhook
79
COMPARISON CONCEPT 4.1 & 4.2

TYPICAL SECTION: ELEVATED MAINLINE
80

Johnston
Impacts FTPR
South
Ramp Pair
Jeerson At-grade
Johnston Overpass North
Ramp Pair
Local Road
Revisions
Semi-Depressed
Tangent Alignment
Evangeline:
One-way Couplet
Alignments avoid
FTPR between
Taj and Pinhook
81

TYPICAL SECTION: SEMI-DEPRESSED MAINLINE SECTION
82

Johnston
Impacts FTPR
Jeerson At-grade
North
Johnston Overpass
Ramp Pair
South
Ramp Pair
Local Road
Revisions
Cut and Cover

Tangent Alignment
Evangeline:
One-way Couplet
Alignments avoid
FTPR between
Taj and Pinhook
Note:
Area of embankment footprint required for
TransportaIon Purposes to be determined in future work.
83

TYPICAL SECTION: CUT & COVER MAINLINE
Note:
Area of embankment footprint required for
TransportaIon Purposes to be determined in future work.
84
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM

2040 TRAFFIC VOLUMES NO BUILD
86
COMPARISON CONCEPTS 4.1, 4.2, 6.1 & 6.2

2040 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
87
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
PROFILE GRADES & ROADWAY
PROFILE HEIGHTS

PROFILE GRADES SUMMARY
89

90

91

92
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
STATE AND LOCAL ROAD CONNECTIVITY

94

95
COMPARISON CONCEPT 4.1 & 4.2

STATE & LOCAL ROAD CONNECTIVITY
16th & 15th Street crossing cut o
NB Evangeline:
o Moved to SB Evangeline at 2nd and 3rd (Comp. Concept 4.1)
o Moved to SB Evangeline to create Grand Boulevard (Comp. Concept 4.2)
o Realigned parallel with Connector north of 2nd
Simcoe:
o Combine with 2nd Street east of Mainline
o Divert back to western alignment using Chestnut
o Dudley relocated / Mes Greig and Simcoe
Mudd:
o E. Mudd terminates at exisMng NB Evangeline
o W. Mudd (US 190) Tees into realigned NB Evangeline
Tee into Evangeline / Frontage Road :

o Hobson, Sampson, Goldman, Bello_, Tissington
CirculaMon near St. Genevieve considered in PDM work
96

STATE ROAD & LOCAL ROAD CONNECTIVITY
97

Extend Drain Street to E. Alley for FTPR access
16th , 15th & 14th Street crossing cut o
Taj Street realign to 13th Street (intersecMon w/NB Evangeline on structure)
Chestnut Street eliminated
Half block between Chestnut and NB Evangeline property access cut o
NB Evangeline:
o Moved to SB Evangeline at 2nd and 3rd

98
COMPARISON CONCEPT 6.1 (CONT)

Simcoe:
o Divert back to western alignment using Sherman
Mudd:
o E. Mudd Tees into realigned NB Evangeline
o W. Mudd (US 190) Tees into SB Evangeline


99

STATE ROAD & LOCAL ROAD CONNECTIVITY
100

Extend Drain Street to E. Alley for FTPR access
16th , 15th & 14th Street crossing cut o
Taj Street realign to 13th Street (intersecMon w/NB Evangeline on structure)
Between Taj to 2nd and BNSF to NB Evangeline exisMng roads eliminated
SB Evangeline re-established on ll
Johnston, 6th, Jeerson, 3rd, and 2nd re-connected
NB Evangeline:
o Moved to SB Evangeline at 2nd and 3rd
101
COMPARISON CONCEPT 6.2 (CONT)

Simcoe:
o Divert back to western alignment using Sherman
Mudd:
o E. Mudd Tees into realigned NB Evangeline
o W. Mudd (US 190) Tees into SB Evangeline


102
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
INTERSTATE FACILITY CONSIDERATIONS

HURRICANE EVACUATION
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
Hurricane EvacuaIon ConsideraIons:

I-49 Connector designated a Hurricane EvacuaMon Route
I-49 Connector is part of a regional system to allow porMons of
South Louisiana passage through Lafaye_e to regions north
Key element of Project Purpose and Need
During Phase 3 EvacuaMons (most serious), two outbound lanes
may be converted to three wherever possible (i.e. contraow)
Resilient to emergency events, i.e. back on-line asap
105
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
Lessons Learned / ObservaMons from previous evacuaMons &

catastrophic events:
o Hurricanes / catastrophic events are unpredictable
o Redundancy & back up plan; margin & factor of safety
Examples:
o Mainline Contraow: provides added capacity & ability to avoid incidents
o Frontage Road system / Evangeline Thruway: provides added capacity to
Mainline & ability to avoid incidents
o Possibly design facility to higher design standards / consideraMons
o Minimize dependence on mechanical systems
o Minimize systems dependent on operaMons and maintenance to operate
properly
o Provide mulMple drainage ousalls to minimize ooding hazard
106
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
Hurricane EvacuaIon ConsideraIons

Semi-Depressed Structure Drainage:

8500 Feet of Drainage Pipe / Structure on each side of Connector.
SiltaIon due to at slope (0.1%) increases risk from maintenance of drainage system.
107
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
Hurricane EvacuaIon ConsideraIons

Cut & Cover (Tunnel) Structure Drainage of Semi-Depressed TransiIons:

8500 Feet of Drainage Pipe / Structure on each side of Connector to drain transiIons.
SiltaIon due to at slope (0.1%) increases risk from maintenance of drainage system.
Drainage / runo inside tunnel captured with internal closed system for treatment.
108

PROHIBITED MATERIALS / LOADS
TRANSPORT
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
Prohibited Materials / Loads Transport:

v La. Revised Statues Title 32:264 gives DOTD authority to regulate tunnels
v La. AdministraMve Code Title 73, Part I, SecMon 504 Department RegulaMons
E. Tunnels. Hazardous material, ammable material, combusMble material, oversize and/or
overweight permit loads are specically prohibited from using any tunnel in the state.
Comparison Concept 4.1, 4.2 & 6.1:

o No restricMons apply; typical operaMons can be used
Comparison Concept 6.2:

o Prohibited materials / loads must divert to Evangeline Thruway
110
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
Prohibited Materials /Loads Transport & Diversion Concept 6.2
PotenIal Diversion along North & South Ramp Pairs & Evangeline Thruway
111

EMERGENCY RESPONDERS
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
Emergency Responders:
Acadian Ambulance
Lafaye_e Fire Department
Lafaye_e Parish Sheri
Lafaye_e Police Department
GOHSEP
Louisiana State Police
Emergency Responders Input:

MeeMng was held in Spring 2016 with some local emergency responders

Acadian Ambulance, Fire and Police
Requested formal statements from all
Acadian Ambulance response received; others not yet received
In process of setng up meeMngs with Lafaye_e Parish Sheri, State Police, & GOHSEP

113
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
Emergency Responders Input Acadian Ambulance
infrastructure has always been a keystone

to both our growth and successI have taken
a great deal of interest in the many proposals
being contemplatedI would like to
acknowledge my strong support for
Renement Concept - 4A...
Richard F. Zuschlag,
Chairman and CEO Acadian Ambulance
114

MAINLINE FUTURE WIDENING
COMPARISON CONCEPTS 4.1 & 4.2

FUTURE WIDENING OF MAINLINE - ELEVATED
Future widening to outside of elevated structures

using independent substructure
Ramp Mes / alignments will have to be altered
Frontage Road / Evangeline Thruway alignments
may have to be altered
116

FUTURE WIDENING OF MAINLINE SEMI- DEPRESSED
Future widening by moving and reconstrucMng retaining

walls outside of exisMng walls
Frontage Road / Evangeline Thruway alignments will have
to be altered
Cross Roads over (overpasses) will have to be altered
117

FUTURE WIDENING OF MAINLINE CUT AND COVER
New
Cell
New
Cell
Future widening by construcMng new tunnel cells with all

systems required for original tunnel
Frontage Road / Evangeline Thruway alignments will
have to be altered
Embankment & Cross Roads over will have to be altered
118
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
HIGH-LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
H I G H - L E V E L E N V I R O N M E N TA L C O N S I D E R AT I O N S
EsMmated Required Right-of-Way acreage

EsMmated Number of Total Displacements
Impacts to Historic Districts
120
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
EsImated ROW Acreage & Total Displacements

Concept
1A
Comparison
Concept
4.1
Comparison Comparison Comparison

Concept
Concept
Concept
6.2
4.2
6.1
(See Note)
EsImated
ROW
Acreage
54.4
31.6
33.5
63.3
101.3
EsImated No.
of Total
Displacements
97
58
69
153
212
Note:
TransportaIon need for the ROW may be less than shown.
121
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
EsImated Impacts to Historic Districts

Concept
1A
FreetownPort Rico
Sterling
Grove
Comparison Comparison
Concept
Concept
4.1
4.2
Comparison
Concept
6.1
Comparison
Concept
6.2
Enters District
on Johnston St.;
Enters District on
Johnston St.;
PotenIal
PotenIal
Enters
District in 2 Visual Impact Visual Impact PotenIal Visual
from Mainline from Mainline
locaIons
Impact from
Mainline
Visual
Impact
PotenIal
Visual Impact
PotenIal
Visual Impact
PotenIal Visual
Impact
PotenIal Visual
Impact from
Mainline
PotenIal Visual
Impact
122
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
ESTIMATED PLANNING-LEVEL COSTS
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
ESTIMATED PLANNING-LEVEL COSTS
EsImated Costs for 1.5-Mile Core Area Study Limits

Category
Renement
Concept
Comparison Concepts
1A
4.1
4.2
6.1
6.2
Mainline Roadway & Ramps (At-Grade)1
$46M
$22M
$24M
$45M
$62M
Mainline Structures, Ramps & Walls2
$250M
$263M
$263M
$0M
$0M
$0M
$0M
$0M
$235M
$424M
$179M
$75M
$66M
$92M
$86M
$6M
$2M
$2M
$96M
$96M
$481M
$362M
$355M
$468M
$668M
$96M
$72M
$71M
$97M
$150M
$577M
$434M
$426M
$565M
$818M
Semi-Depressed or Cut-and Cover Tunnel

State & Local Roads, Cross Roads (At-Grade)3
State & Local Roads Structures & Walls4
Total EsImated ConstrucIon & ROW Cost5
OperaIons and Maintenance Costs (Present Value)
EsImated Total Costs (Present Value)
1. Includes 25% minor items allowance & 20% planning-level conMngency.

2. Includes contaminated soil disturbed, other minor items & 20% planning-level conMngency.
3. Includes drainage, MSE walls, signals, at-grade BNSF crossings, 25% minor items allowance & 20% planning-level conMngency.
4. Includes BNSF underpasses, other minor items & all conMngencies.
5. EsMmated costs are conceptual-level probable costs within the Technical Memo Core Area Study Limits.
6. O&M Costs are 20% of bridge and highway costs and 60% of mechanical, electrical, & plumbing porMon of Cut-and-Cover secMon.
124
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
COMPARISON PARAMETERS
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
C O M PA R I S O N PA R A M E T E R S
o Emergency Response
o Mainline Future Widening
Trac OperaMons:
o Mainline & Ramp Pairs
o Evangeline Thruway
o State & Local Roads
High-level Environmental
ConsideraMons:
o Required Right-of-Way Acreage
o Total Number of Displacements
o Impacts to Historic Districts
Roadway Proles &

ConnecMvity:
o State Routes
o Local Roads
EsMmated Probable Costs

o ConstrucMon and ROW Costs
o OperaMons & Maintenance Costs
Interstate Facility
ConsideraMons:
o Hurricane EvacuaMon Route
o Prohibited Materials / Loads
Transport
126
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
COMPARISON MATRIX
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
C O M PA R I S O N M AT R I X
SERIES 4 & 6 COMPARISON
Comparison Concepts
Concept
1A
4.1
4.2
6.1
CORE AREA CONSIDERATIONS

Trac OperaIons
Mainline and Ramp Pairs
Evangeline Thruway
State and Local Roads
Roadway OperaIons
Prole Grades - Street Network - Vehicular Use
Prole Grades - Street Network - Bike / Ped Use
State & Local Road Vehicular ConnecMvity
State & Local Road Bike / Ped ConnecMvity
BNSF Rail Crossing Safety
Interstate Facility ConsideraIons
Hurricane EvacuaMon
Emergency Response
Hazardous Materials Transport
Mainline Future Widening
High-Level Environmental ConsideraIons
Required ROW Acreage
Total Number of Displacements
EsImated Costs: ConstrucIon, ROW, O&M
6.2
Legend
DescripIon
Most Favorable
Moderately Favorable
Least Favorable
128
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
Comparison Concepts
Concept
1A
4.1
4.2
6.1

Trac OperaIons
Evangeline Thruway
Roadway OperaIons
Hurricane EvacuaMon
Emergency Response
6.2
Legend
DescripIon
Most Favorable
Least Favorable
129
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
Comparison Concepts
Concept
1A
4.1
4.2
6.1

Trac OperaIons
Evangeline Thruway
Roadway OperaIons
Hurricane EvacuaMon
Emergency Response
6.2
Legend
DescripIon
Most Favorable
Least Favorable
130
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
Comparison Concepts
Concept
1A
4.1
4.2
6.1

Trac OperaIons
Evangeline Thruway
Roadway OperaIons
Hurricane EvacuaMon
Emergency Response
6.2
Legend
DescripIon
Most Favorable
Least Favorable
131
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
Comparison Concepts
Concept
1A
4.1
4.2
6.1

Trac OperaIons
Evangeline Thruway
Roadway OperaIons
Hurricane EvacuaMon
Emergency Response
6.2
Legend
DescripIon
Most Favorable
Least Favorable
132
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
Comparison Concepts
Concept
1A
4.1
4.2
6.1

Trac OperaIons
Evangeline Thruway
Roadway OperaIons
Hurricane EvacuaMon
Emergency Response
6.2
Legend
DescripIon
Most Favorable
Least Favorable
133
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
Comparison Concepts
Concept
1A
4.1
4.2
6.1

Trac OperaIons
Evangeline Thruway
Roadway OperaIons
Hurricane EvacuaMon
Emergency Response
6.2
Legend
DescripIon
Most Favorable
Least Favorable
134
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
Comparison Concepts
Concept
1A
4.1
4.2
6.1

Trac OperaIons
Evangeline Thruway
Roadway OperaIons
Hurricane EvacuaMon
Emergency Response
6.2
Legend
DescripIon
Most Favorable
Least Favorable
135
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
Comparison Concepts
Concept
1A
4.1
4.2
6.1

Trac OperaIons
Evangeline Thruway
Roadway OperaIons
Hurricane EvacuaMon
Emergency Response
6.2
Legend
DescripIon
Most Favorable
Least Favorable
136
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
Comparison Concepts
Concept
1A
4.1
4.2
6.1

Trac OperaIons
Evangeline Thruway
Roadway OperaIons
Hurricane EvacuaMon
Emergency Response
Prohibited Materials / Loads Transport
6.2
Legend
DescripIon
Most Favorable
Least Favorable
137
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
Comparison Concepts
Concept
1A
4.1
4.2
6.1

Trac OperaIons
Evangeline Thruway
Roadway OperaIons
Hurricane EvacuaMon
Emergency Response
6.2
Legend
DescripIon
Most Favorable
Least Favorable
138
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
Comparison Concepts
Concept
1A
4.1
4.2
6.1

Trac OperaIons
Evangeline Thruway
Roadway OperaIons
Hurricane EvacuaMon
Emergency Response
6.2
Legend
DescripIon
Most Favorable
Least Favorable
139
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
Comparison Concepts
Concept
1A
4.1
4.2
6.1

Trac OperaIons
Evangeline Thruway
Roadway OperaIons
Hurricane EvacuaMon
Emergency Response
6.2
Legend
DescripIon
Most Favorable
Least Favorable
140
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
Comparison Concepts
Concept
1A
4.1
4.2
6.1

Trac OperaIons
Evangeline Thruway
Roadway OperaIons
Hurricane EvacuaMon
Emergency Response
6.2
Legend
DescripIon
Most Favorable
Least Favorable
141
COMPARISON CONCEPTS
Comparison Concepts
Concept
1A
4.1
4.2
6.1

Trac OperaIons
Evangeline Thruway
Roadway OperaIons
Hurricane EvacuaMon
Emergency Response
6.2
Legend
DescripIon
Most Favorable
Least Favorable
142
UPCOMING PROJECT SCHEDULE / NEXT STEPS

October 27-28, 2016
IniMal Findings from Technical Analysis of Series 4 & 6 Renement Concepts
November 3-4, 2016

Present IniMal Results of PotenMal Design ModicaMons (PDMs)
November 11 - Deadline for comments on IniMal Findings of TM & PDMs

November 17-18 Present Final TM Findings
November/December
Develop End-to-end Hybrid Concepts
Mid-December 2016
Public MeeMng
Present Hybrid Concepts to CSS Commi_ees and Finalize Tier II Concepts
that will move forward into Tier III
143
QUESTIONS
SMALL GROUPS
THANK YOU

10-27-16 CWG Meetings Tier II Draft Findings Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10-27-16 CWG Meetings Tier II Draft Findings Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COMMUNITY

Upcoming Project Schedule/Next Steps

UPCOMING PROJECT SCHEDULE / NEXT STEPS

IniMal Findings from Technical Analysis of Series 4 & 6 Renement Concepts

November 3-4, 2016

November 11 - Deadline for comments on IniMal Findings of TM & PDMs

TIER II TECHNICAL MEMO

TIER II TECHNICAL MEMO PROGRESSION

TIER II TECHNICAL MEMO

TIER II TECHNICAL MEMO - STUDY LIMITS

Core Area Study Limits

Rail shown in current locaIon

Two 2-way Roadways

Structural Systems & Elements

Two 2-Way Roadways

Structural Systems & Elements

Two 2-way Roadways

Structural Systems & Elements

Two 2-way Roadways

Two 2-way Roadways

Bridge Development Report March 2016

At-Grade BNSF Crossing

Johnston Street Prole At-Grade BNSF Crossing

Johnston Street Prole At-Grade BNSF Crossing

Avoid FTPR Intrusion

Johnston Street Prole Avoid FTPR Intrusion

Johnston Street Prole Avoid FTPR Intrusion

Johnston Street Prole

Johnston Street Prole

Creates FTPR Intrusion

3rd Street Prole is similar to

Four At-grade BNSF Crossings

3rd Street Prole Similar to 6th, Jeerson and 2nd

3rd Street Prole Similar to 6th, Jeerson and 2nd

Taj Street / SB Evangeline Prole Grades

State and Local Road geometry meets acceptable DOTD criteria

Bridge Development Report March 2016

Semi-Depressed Mainline SecIon

Soil Nails Used to Minimize ExcavaIon

Cut and Cover (Tunnel) Mainline SecIon

Cut and Cover (Tunnel) Structure SecIon

Semi-Depressed Structure Bodom Slab

Roads & Tunnels: Whats the Dierence?

VenIlaIon: OperaIng CondiIons

VenIlaIon: Modern Longitudinal Approach

ConguraMons suited to this locaMon examined:

o Saccardo Nozzle / External Plant:

VenIlaIon: Jet Fans

VenIlaIon: Saccardo Vent Plant

VenIlaIon: How Much do you Need?

150 MW HGV, but not tankers

Emergency Egress: Sidewalks/Cross Passages

Roadway Fire ProtecIon

Electrical: Emergency CommunicaIons

Electrical: Incident DetecIon / Management

Electrical: SchemaIc Plant Room

Tunnel Drainage: CollecIon & Disposal

Address tunnel grade, elevaMon, adjacent river

Pump StaMon at low end of tunnel

Tunnel Drainage: CollecIon

Tunnel OperaIons & Control

COMPARISON CONCEPT 4.1

COMPARISON CONCEPT 4.2

COMPARISON CONCEPT 4.1 & 4.2