Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presenters: Mark Bouma, P.E. Michael Bauer, P.E. Technical Oversight LeaderNorth Texas Operations Manager North Texas Tollway AuthorityJacobs Engineering.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Presenters: Mark Bouma, P.E. Michael Bauer, P.E. Technical Oversight LeaderNorth Texas Operations Manager North Texas Tollway AuthorityJacobs Engineering."— Presentation transcript:

1 Presenters: Mark Bouma, P.E. Michael Bauer, P.E. Technical Oversight LeaderNorth Texas Operations Manager North Texas Tollway AuthorityJacobs Engineering ASCE Presentation Sam Rayburn Tollway/ US 75 Interchange (Segment 4)

2 2

3 3 Milestones & Schedule Approved Schematic – June 2005 Approved for Tollway Facility in May 2007 NTTA awarded development rights in 2007 NTTA awards design contract in 2007: –Segment 4 in October Open the Corridor by Jan. 1, 2011

4 4 Segment 4 Schedule Challenges 38 months to open the Corridor –Largest single NTTA construction contract at the time Approved schematic –Expensive and presented construction challenges –Different functional goals than for a toll facility For success, set goal to let contract by Oct –3 months to address schematic –9 months for complete PS&E –26 months to open, 31 to complete construction

5 5 The TEAM Corridor Management Team –Corridor Manager – HDR –Design Manager - Halff Assoc. –NTTA Project Delivery Dept. – HNTB Schematic and PS&E Team –Jacobs Engineering - Prime –Bridgefarmer & Assoc. –ARS, IEA, STL

6 6 Interchange Reconfiguration Effort Identified Alternative that: –Cost Less –Easier to construct in required schedule –Better met functional goals of toll facility –Maintained or improved access w/in ROW Staring at daunting schedule Need State and Local buy-in –Allen, Fairview, Frisco, McKinney –TxDOT & NTTA

7 7 Schematic Evaluation Enhance Safety through Design & Constructability Improve Mobility and Accommodate Growth –Design capacity for high volume movements –Minimize typical congestion conditions (short weaves, unbalanced ML/FR usage, etc) –Segregation of local and highway traffic –Facilitate local access by ramp locations Reduce Capital and O&M Costs

8 8 Approved TxDOT Schematic US75 – 8 lane divided –Space for future HOV lanes –Depressed below grade through interchange SH121 – 6 lane divided Single lane DC Bridges Long-span steel bridges through interchange Boxed (signalized) frontage connections –Texas U-Turns

9 9 Approved TxDOT Schematic:

10 10 US75 – 8 lane divided –Space for future HOV lanes –Remains at or near current grade SH121 – 6 lane divided Two lane DC Bridges All bridges pre-stressed concrete Loop ramp frontage connections Additional on/off ramps Proposed Schematic:

11 11 Proposed Schematic:

12 12 Interchange Enhancements: Safety Replaced signalized traffic conflicts with dedicated right turn movements Eliminated DC/ML-to-FR conflicts Improved merge/weave conditions –Full two lane merge for heaviest DC movements Balanced highway and local access movements Safety during construction

13 13 Interchange Enhancements: Mobility Loop ramps for continuous flow FR movements Two lane DCs & full ML merge conditions –Improve through-put –Accommodates long-term traffic demand Segregates local traffic from highway traffic –Benefits both –Access is maintained or improved Mobility during construction

14 14 Interchange Enhancements: Value & Costs Material selection reduced Capital and O&M costs Reconfiguration reduced costs –Afforded additional improvements for Safety & Mobility Context Sensitive Solution –Toll facility attributes –Improved access increases development value –Aesthetics and configuration provide identity Design for future capacity –Reduces future construction impacts –Sustained mobility and access

15 15 Interchange Enhancements: Get In, Get Out, Stay Out Proposed Configuration Improves Constructability –Eliminate one level of the interchange –US75 at grade –DC realignment away from interchange core –Natural staging areas –Standardized construction elements for bridges Less Commuter impacts during construction –Fewer stages result in fewer traffic adjustments –Use of existing roadways during construction Design and Materials promote longevity

16 16 Design Approach Project Segmentation –Design Teams for SRT and US 75 –Focus initially on geometric tie-down –Teams run concurrent design Essentially an Alternative Delivery Style –Weekly Task Force Meetings –Constant client interaction and collaboration Bentley ProjectWise used for coordination and organization of project files

17 17 Tools & Automation Best practices developed and applied –Design Cross Sections –3D Modeling Highly accurate in pinpointing ponding areas Provided finished grades for structures –Drainage Utilized Geopak Drainage.Tools Utilized excel Macros to insert drainage callouts on P&P sheets –Quantity Take-offs Setup of database for all ‘smart’ design elements Produced accurate numbers in minutes instead of days

18 18 Review & QA Redundant checks employed for critical items –Bridge clearances triple checked Spreadsheet calculations Geopak model cross-check Inroads model cross-check Design Reviews –Peer Review (In-House) –Ongoing Client Reviews –OTS Workshop

19 19 Construction NTTA Construction Manager – KBR Contractor - W.W. WEBBER –Bid 65% plans, issued 100% PS&E after award –Low Bid $219.8M –NTP October 23, 2008 Largest NTTA construction contract at the time 2.5 years start-to-finish Phased opening with the DC’s being top priority

20 20 Construction Interactive and Collaborative Construction Worked Together to further reduce costs –Adjust North Limits on US 75 –Change Pavement Section –Build-out two lanes on SPUR 366 –Modified phasing to further support construction Additional 5-6% in cost reductions realized

21 21 Photos

22 22 Photos (cont’d)

23 23 Photos (cont’d)

24 24 Photos (cont’d)

25 25 Photos (cont’d)

26 26 Photos (cont’d)

27 27 Photos (cont’d)

28 28 Photos (cont’d)

29 29 Construction by the Numbers Tallest Point – 80’ (~6 stories) Concrete used – ~5M ft 3 ; enough for a sidewalk from Dallas to New Orleans (450mi) Longest Continuous Bridge – 4,800 ft; length of ~16 football fields Concrete barriers and rail – ~36mi; enough to stretch from McKinney to DFW International Airport Concrete Beams – 24mi worth; laid end-to-end would stretch from Allen to downtown Dallas Soil used as fill – ~1.3M yd3; amount which would fill 130,000 dump trucks (lined end-to-end would stretch 620mi from Dallas to St. Louis) Sod placed – 75 football fields worth or 1-18 hole golf course

30 30 THE END QUESTIONS


Download ppt "Presenters: Mark Bouma, P.E. Michael Bauer, P.E. Technical Oversight LeaderNorth Texas Operations Manager North Texas Tollway AuthorityJacobs Engineering."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google