Wilma Dykeman Riverway Road Intersection Re-modernization


Published on

Civil Engineering Technical Project for an existing T intersection needing to be updated. Plans submitted to NCDOT, City of Asheville, and to Wilbur Smith Engineering company over the Wilma Dykeman Riverway Project in Asheville North Carolina. This was submitted by the Senior Project Class Spring 2011

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Wilma Dykeman Riverway Road Intersection Re-modernization

  1. 1. Wilma Dykeman Riverway<br />Transportation Project<br />Project team: <br />M. Dooly <br />J. Ensley<br />S. Escobar<br />D. Kestner<br />J. Lovelace<br />L. Roselli<br />T. Wyatt<br />
  2. 2. Scope of Work<br /><ul><li>Design a Modern Roundabout for the Three leg intersection of:
  3. 3. Amboy Rd
  4. 4. Meadows Rd
  5. 5. Lyman Rd
  6. 6. Roadway Connection at or near the Proposed Roundabout for direct access to Asheville-Buncombe Technical Community College.
  7. 7. Design a Vehicular Bridge or Refurbish Existing Bridge to Accommodate Increased Vehicular Traffic as well as Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic. </li></li></ul><li>Reference Material<br />ASHTO<br />USGS<br />NCDOT<br />http://www.ncdot.org/travel/statemapping/default.html<br />Steel Design Text Book <br />Reinforced Concrete Design Textbook<br />Buncombe County<br />http://www.buncombecounty.org/Governing/Depts/GIS<br />United States Department of Agriculture<br />http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/<br />
  8. 8. Hydrology Design Guides<br /><ul><li>FEMA Maps
  9. 9. Flood Data
  10. 10. 100 yr.
  11. 11. 500 yr. </li></li></ul><li>AMBOY ROAD BRIDGE <br />PEDESTRIAN AND BICICYLE BRIDGE<br />
  13. 13. Bridge Design<br />Dillon Kestner<br />
  14. 14. Design Methodology<br /> Evaluation of current intersection of Amboy/Meadows Roads<br /> Evaluation of existing bridge over French Broad River<br />
  15. 15. Existing Bridge and intersection<br />
  16. 16. Design Methodology<br />Evaluation of current intersection of Amboy/Meadows Roads<br />Existing intersection causes excessive traffic queuing and delays onto the Bridge/Amboy Road as well as traffic coming from Biltmore Ave onto Meadows Road<br />Evaluation of existing bridge over French Broad River<br />In need of remediation if not removal<br />Poor pedestrian facilitation<br />Bottleneck to proposed 4-lanes of Amboy Road in the feasibility study<br />
  17. 17. Existing bridge does not have a walkway but pedestrians daringly still try to use the 2 foot wide curb.<br />
  18. 18. The Riverway Project demands a more pedestrian/bicycle friendly bridge and intersection in this area to link the rest of the parks and walkways along the river.<br />The traffic volume projections for 2025 (24000 vehicles per day versus the current 16000 vehicles per day from 2004 estimates) indicate that a 4-lane rather than 2-lane bridge would accommodate this flow of traffic as well as be a more cohesive design with the proposed 4 lanes of Amboy Road.<br /> A 4-lane bridge over the French Broad calls for a new intersection.<br />
  19. 19. What should a new bridge feature?<br />It should provide better traffic flow to and from Amboy Road.<br />It should have pedestrian traffic facilities.<br />Its design should be cohesive with the proposed Amboy Road alignment.<br />It should have few negative impacts on the surrounding park areas or the French Broad River.<br />It should be aesthetically pleasing and reflect the spirit of the River Arts District.<br />
  20. 20. The Alternatives Considered:<br /><ul><li> Rehabilitation of current bridge/intersection
  21. 21. Construction of New Bridge only
  22. 22. Construction of New Intersection only
  23. 23. Construction of New Bridge with Roundabout Intersection
  24. 24. Do Nothing</li></ul>Focus on alternative to construct a new bridge and roundabout intersection <br /> <br />
  25. 25. A Roundabout is a more modern intersection that can help to ease congestion on Amboy/Meadows Roads<br />Key Features:<br /><ul><li>High capacity
  26. 26. Safer than signalized intersection
  27. 27. Low delay times
  28. 28. More on Roundabouts Later!</li></li></ul><li>Decisions before design<br />A new bridge should be constructed while existing bridge is still in operation for better traffic mitigation.<br />Design should be cohesive with Amboy Road and aesthetically pleasing.<br />Design should not effect river channel dramatically.<br />New bridge will operate while existing bridge is removed for construction of another bridge making the total 4 lanes.<br />
  29. 29. Basic Cross Section of Bridge<br />Lane width at 11 ft for continuity with proposed Amboy Road alignment<br />2 lanes each direction<br />18 inch curb and gutter outside travel way<br />60 inch side walk outside travel way<br />Aluminum parapet railing along sidewalk for traffic/pedestrian safety <br />
  30. 30. Aluminum parapet<br />Weight savings advantage over steel/concrete<br />No need to treat for weather corrosion<br />Higher than steel initial cost but much lower maintenance cost<br />
  31. 31. Roundabout and 2D New Bridge Drawings over GIS Image<br />
  32. 32. New Bridge Alignment with Roundabout <br />
  33. 33. Image Drawn in 3D showing ground surface<br />
  34. 34. Image Drawn in 3D showing ground surface<br />
  35. 35. Image Drawn in 3D showing ground surface<br />
  36. 36. Conceptual Rendering <br />
  37. 37. Alternatives to Consider<br />5 foot median between sides of bridge can be mulched and flowered for beautification purposes, or parapet divided.<br />Sidewalks can be tied into facilities on Amboy and Meadows Roads and to the park not shown in Rendering.<br />Bridge section could be widened to better accommodate cyclists that do not use sidewalks.<br />
  38. 38. Alternatives to Consider<br />Steel members and Piers analyzed for current span lengths but larger members can be considered to increase span lengths and reduce any negative impacts on the French Broad River.<br />
  39. 39. Next Phase Planning<br />Evaluation of concrete reinforcement<br />Pier installation feasibility in river<br />Bolted/welded connection analysis<br />Impacts on local wildlife and park areas<br />
  40. 40. An Introduction and Overview of Modern Roundabouts<br />Presented By: Truman Wyatt<br />
  41. 41. General Terminology<br />Comparison of Traffic Circles<br />Applications and Examples<br />General Information<br />Topics<br />
  42. 42. Many misperceptions<br />Not simply a circular intersection<br />Roundabouts Include:<br />Yielding at entry<br />Low speeds due to the curve<br />Designed precisely based on peaked traffic volumes<br />What is a Modern Roundabout<br />
  43. 43.
  44. 44. Slowing Down/Calming Effect<br />Very Safe <br />Low Maintenance Cost<br />Easily Modified<br />Eliminates Red lights<br />Good Traffic Operations/Few Delays<br />RoundaboutsPros<br />
  45. 45. Concepts almost identical to traffic signals<br />Pavement Markings will guide you<br />SELECT YOUR LANE BEFORE THE YIELD LANE<br />YIELD TO TRAFFIC WITHIN CIRCLE<br />LEFT TURNS ARE MADE FROM THE LEFT (inside) APPROACH LANE <br />How to Drive a Roundabout<br />
  46. 46.
  47. 47.
  48. 48.
  49. 49. Lyman Rd.<br />2, 12ft lanes w/ 5 ft bike lane<br />Truck Lane<br />Circle<br />Amboy Rd.<br />Meadow Rd.<br />
  50. 50. Pedestrian Bridges<br />
  51. 51. Proposed Pedestrian Bridge Location<br />
  52. 52. Types of Pedestrian Bridges<br />
  53. 53. Types of Pedestrian Bridges<br />
  54. 54. Types of Pedestrian Bridges<br />
  55. 55. Proposed Pedestrian Bridge <br />
  56. 56. Jonathan Lovelace<br />Proposed AB Tech Bridge/Roadway<br />
  57. 57. Preliminary Data<br />AB Tech Growth<br />Annual student growth of 8.2%<br />Annual Faculty growth of 21.8%<br />ADT<br />17, 500 (2010)<br />75,000 (2025)<br />20% added for business traffic<br />
  58. 58. Proposed Road Design<br />Turning Bay <br />2010 – 175 ft.<br />2025 – 500 ft. <br />Calculated by 25 ft bumper to bumper distance<br />2000 ft allowable<br />Specifications<br />Four lanes<br />Currently two lanes are needed<br />Non divided<br />Double Yellow, no turning lanes<br />1176 ft. traffic circle to proposed Lyman Rd. intersection<br />3500 ft. Lyman Rd. to AB Tech intersection (Behind Maple)<br />
  59. 59. Proposed Road Design Cont.<br />Next phase planning<br />Cut and fill<br />Switchbacks<br />Currently placed to grade<br />radius to small for 4 lane road<br />Tie in point at intersection of AB Tech campus<br />4 lane to 2 lane<br />Currently road between 3% and 7% grade<br />Topo survey needed to obtain proper grade<br />Landscape buffering between road and residential properties<br />
  60. 60. Proposed Bridge to A-B Technical C.C.<br />
  61. 61. Proposed AB Tech Bridge<br />Design Specifications<br />240 Ft Bridge span<br />Minimum height 26 ft.<br />With in specifications for railroad crossing<br />Allowed for two tracks on either side of previous tracks<br />Next phase planning<br />Currently 9% grade from bridge to Lyman Rd intersection<br />Approximately 20 ft of fill needed to obtain reasonable grade<br />Bridge Piers<br />Bridge Gerters<br />
  62. 62. Proposed Bridge location to A-B Tech C.C.<br />
  63. 63. Proposed Bridge to A-B Tech C.C. Over Rail Road Yard<br />
  64. 64. Preliminary Soil StudyFrom the United States Department of Agriculture<br />Jared Ensley<br />
  65. 65. Amboy Bridge<br />
  66. 66. Soil Report<br /><ul><li> Sandy Clay soil
  67. 67. Requires certain depth
  68. 68. Assumptions made, need to be reviewed at next stage
  69. 69. If replacement needed, soil cut could be placed </li></li></ul><li>Abutments<br /><ul><li> Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE)
  70. 70. Drilled Shaft </li></li></ul><li>Mechanically Stabilized Earth Abutment<br />Pros:<br /><ul><li> Earthwork is usually cheaper
  71. 71. Speed of construction
  72. 72. Multiple contractors may be used</li></ul>Cons:<br /><ul><li> Excavated soil would be wasted
  73. 73. Reusable soil would need to be stored off site temporarily </li></ul>http://www.sr85-123.com/gallery_past.php<br />http://www.berlinvt.org/1057-01%20Report.pdf<br />
  74. 74. Drilled Shaft Abutment<br />Pros:<br /><ul><li> Limited excavation
  75. 75. As long as it is placed in the bedrock, no rehabilitation needed on back slope</li></ul>Cons:<br /><ul><li> Auger cuttings would likely be wasted
  76. 76. More expensive than MSE abutment</li></ul>http://northwest.construction.com/northwest_construction_news/2010/1001_DBMCompletes.asp<br />http://www.berlinvt.org/1057-01%20Report.pdf<br />
  77. 77. Bridge to AB-Tech<br />
  78. 78. Soil Report<br /><ul><li> Loamy Clay Soil (fill)
  79. 79. Good base
  80. 80. Assumptions made
  81. 81. More testing needed</li></li></ul><li>Hydrology & Hydraulics for Bridge Design<br />
  82. 82. Bridge Design Objectives<br />Provide for the safe traveling of the public across a waterway.<br />Allowing for transportation of storm discharges through the structure without impacting the traveling public, damage to properties or the environment.<br />
  83. 83. Real-Time Water Data for French Broad Watershed<br />
  84. 84. Asheville Flood, 2004<br />
  85. 85.
  86. 86.
  87. 87.
  88. 88. FRENCH BROAD RIVER AT ASHEVILLE, NC <br /> Daily stream flow Avg.;  <br />(Min)(Max)<br /> 2,420(ft3/s)   3,050(ft3/s) <br />
  89. 89. PeakRunoff (existing)<br />
  90. 90. PeakRunoff (proposed)<br />
  91. 91. PeakRunoff (comparison)<br />Proposed 3,000,000(cfs)<br />Existing 1,200,000(cfs)<br />An addition of 1,800,000 cfs<br /><ul><li>37% more runoff then existing road.
  92. 92. 3,000,000 cfs can fill a basketball court 10 feet high in 1 min.</li></li></ul><li>Storm Water<br />Increase of 60-75 percent of impervious area due to lane widening and proposed design.<br />Probably exceed design criteria for current storm water removal.<br />Removal to be evaluated in the next phase.<br />
  93. 93. Hydraulic Consideration for Bridge design<br />Scour<br />Bank<br />Piers<br />Backwater elevation change<br />
  94. 94. Scour<br /><ul><li>Recommended Prevention Methods
  95. 95. Rip Rap (Piers and Bank)
  96. 96. A-Jacks (Piers only)
  97. 97. Further detail in the next phase
  98. 98. Placement
  99. 99. Size
  100. 100. Amount</li></li></ul><li>ScourPrevention<br />
  101. 101. Design for Scour Prevention<br />Round piers were chosen<br />Round piers allow a smoother transition of flow around pier<br />Creates less backwater elevation<br />
  102. 102. Bridge Requirements <br />Any other structures located within the Downstream<br />and Upstream survey limits should be surveyed like<br />the project structure<br /> Any sharp bends, head cut, or significant changes in<br />the stream channel or floodplain within the survey<br />limits should also be surveyed.<br />Channels that are flatter than 0.0004 ft/ft requires an<br />additional cross section at 4000 ft. downstream of the<br />Bridge.<br />
  103. 103. Allowable Backwater<br />• In general, the bridge should be designed to clear the<br />design frequency flood<br />• Meet NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program)<br />requirements<br />• Limited to 1-foot raise in 100-year backwater<br /> • Backwater should not be allowed to flood “Unreasonably large areas of usable land”<br />• Backwater should not be increased in urban areas<br />
  104. 104. BRIDGE DESIGN CRITERIA:<br /> Bridge was design to pass the 100 year<br />storm with 2 feet of freeboard.<br /> There should be no impact to the<br />upstream water surface elevation or<br />floodway.<br />BRIDGES OVER WATERWAYS<br />
  105. 105. Preliminary estimates:<br /> New Vehicular Bridge Construction Over French Broad: $5,068,000<br /> Removal of Existing Bridge: $483,000<br /> New Pedestrian Bridge: $1,350,000<br /> Roundabout Construction: $1,750,000<br /> Total Construction Cost of $8,651,000<br />