Wilson bridge project

Anonymous

Question Description

Evaluate and analyze each step Based on the wilson bridge project from the sources and links and give me a summery for each step. For the steps that you won't find in sources, give me what you expected to see in this step in brief based on the wilson bridge project. include all information in this attachment and can you please add summary and objectives of the cases and also can you make presentation of the case summary of the Wilson and issues and lessen learned and environmental problems came with bridge and solutions

these are the SOURCES/ Do it for each table of the three

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/073945...

Woodrow Wilson Bridge – Construction, Capital Beltway dot com. http://capital-beltway.com/Woodrow-Wilson-Bridge-C...

Woodrow Wilson Bridge, Potomac River, Maryland, Virginia, Road Traffic Technology

https://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/wo... (Note that there are multiple sections per the Project Overview Menu on the Left Side of the Page)

Woodrow Wilson Bridge in Maryland and Virginia, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=968110

Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project: A Mega Project Success Story, National Science Foundation

https://www.largefacilitiesworkshop.com/wp-content...

and use any other source that is suitable for the matter.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Case Study WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA FHWA Leads the Planning Process for Bridge Redesign Accelerating solutions for highway safety, renewal, reliability, and capacity © 2010 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. This case study was developed through SHRP 2 Capacity Project C01: A Framework for Collaborative ­Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. It is integrated into Transportation for Communities: Advancing Projects through Partnerships, a website that is a product of research conducted under Capacity Project C01 (www.transportationforcommunities.com). The Transportation for Communities website provides a systematic approach for reaching collaborative decisions about adding highway capacity that enhance the environment, the economy, and the community and improve transportation. It identifies key decision points in four phases of transportation decision making: long-range transportation planning, corridor planning, programming, and environmental review and permitting. The case studies for Capacity Project C01 were prepared by ICF International, Research Triangle Park, North ­Carolina; URS Corporation, Morrisville, North Carolina; and Marie Venner Consulting, Lakewood, Colorado. This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. It was conducted in the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Copyright Information Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from ­publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. The second Strategic Highway Research Program grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, or FHWA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing material in this document for educational and not-for-profit purposes will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from SHRP 2. Notice Capacity Project C01 was a part of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review this case study were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The case study was reviewed by the technical committee and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this case study are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the second Strategic Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the case study. Case Study WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA FHWA Leads the Planning Process for Bridge Redesign Executive Summary 1 Background 3 Major Project Issues 6 Institutional Framework for Decision Making 7 Transportation Decision-Making Process 9 Key Decisions 11 Lessons Learned 11 Summary 15 References 15 Executive Summary Since 1961, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge has carried traffic over the Potomac River between ­Maryland and Virginia. It is part of the I-95 system, the main north-south route on the East Coast. Initially designed to carry 75,000 vehicles per day, the bridge experienced traffic volumes of 195,000 vehicles per day by 2004. Consequently, heavy traffic congestion and major delays became daily occurrences on the bridge, leading to regional demands for a new and larger bridge. Excessive traffic loading also took a toll on the bridge, accelerating its deterioration and raising valid safety concerns. Because the federal government owned this aging bridge, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) petitioned Congress for funds to replace it, with both Maryland and Virginia being major players in this effort as well. FHWA led the planning for the bridge replacement, starting in 1989, and completed a final environmental impact statement (EIS) in 1997. The adequacy of that statement was quickly challenged in court, but ongoing project redesigns also cast doubt on the sufficiency of the EIS to support pending federal permitting decisions. When the project was enjoined by the District Court for the District of Columbia, FHWA had to decide whether to appeal, comply with the court’s order, or take a combination approach. This decision was complicated by the fact that the existing final EIS had already had its draft EIS supplemented twice. Nevertheless, FHWA decided to prepare new supplemental draft and final EISs while also appealing the district court’s decision. Although deciding to move forward with additional impact analyses, FHWA did not change its position on the basic issue that was being litigated: selection of a 12-lane bridge as the preferred alternative in the first EIS and dismissal of a 10-lane structure for detailed analysis on the basis that 10 lanes could not meet long-term traffic capacity needs and, therefore, could not meet the purpose of and need for the project. A federal district court agreed with opponents who requested that a 10-lane bridge be analyzed in the EIS as a reasonable alternative. FHWA appealed this decision. The court of appeals, in reversing the district court, agreed with FHWA’s position that only the alternatives that meet the project’s purpose and need must be analyzed in the EIS, and accepted as reasonable FHWA’s position that a 10-lane bridge did not meet the purpose and need. Not only did this court decision resolve a fundamental question on the design of the bridge, but it also set a significant national precedent in framing the scope of alternatives that need to be analyzed in an EIS. In addition to the challenge of addressing this litigation, FHWA had to address difficult inter­ agency and community coordination issues given the bridge’s location within two states and the District of Columbia. To address these issues, FHWA • Assembled an experienced team of managers and consultants to address complex environmental impact questions on dredging, aquatic resources, and cultural resources; • Reopened direct and effective communications with numerous federal and state resource ­agencies; and • Established collaborative decision-making teams that included local communities and citizens. Through this collaborative approach, FHWA reached consensus on a high-quality design for the bridge. Because FHWA identified potential adverse environmental impacts in the supplemental EIS process, the agency worked closely with the resource agencies to develop mitigation measures. In  WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA consultation with the cooperating agencies on the EIS, FHWA took a broad perspective in considering potential mitigation measures; that is, discussions and decisions were not limited to minimum protections but included efforts to improve affected resources in a more regional, ecosystem-based approach. This perspective resulted in a comprehensive package of mitigation measures. Excellent examples include the establishment of fish reefs in the Chesapeake Bay with thousands of tons of the old bridge and the installation of fish passageways on Rock Creek and Anacostia River tributaries. To assist in the implementation of the mitigation and to ease potential concerns, FHWA established an independent environmental monitor to observe and report on the completion status of all agreed-on mitigation. FHWA complemented this monitoring approach with development of a comprehensive database, tracking, and reporting system and made that system accessible to the regulatory agencies involved. The independent monitor and tracking system were successful from FHWA’s and the resource agencies’ perspectives and have been replicated on other large highway projects. FHWA met its goal of completing concurrent National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 404 permitting processes and used the draft and final supplemental EISs to serve as the initial and final permit applications, respectively. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was a cooperating agency on the supplements, held joint public hearings with FHWA, and issued its Section 404 permit approximately 2 weeks after FHWA completed its final supplemental EIS and signed a Record of Decision (ROD).  WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA Background than the original and will allow most boats to pass underneath. FHWA predicted that once the project is complete, the number of bridge openings will be reduced to about 65 a year, or less than two-thirds of the current number of yearly openings. The project also includes the redesign and reconstruction of the Capital Beltway as it approaches the new bridge from both the Maryland and Virginia sides. Four new interchanges will allow travelers to more easily enter and leave the highway. The current estimate of the entire cost of this ongoing project is $2.5 billion, including a federal share of $1.6 billion. Project Overview The Woodrow Wilson Bridge project area is a 7.5-mile section that runs from west of Telegraph Road in Virginia to east of Indian Head Highway in Maryland along the I-95/I-495 Capital Beltway (Figure 1). The bridge component includes two new, side-by-side drawbridges with 12 lanes and 70 feet of vertical navigational clearance at the draw span. Ten of the 12 lanes are conventional highway lanes, and the two additional lanes are for alternative transportation options that may become feasible during the 75-year life expectancy of the bridge. These options may include trains, buses, high-occupancy vehicles, express toll lane service, high-occupancy toll lanes, or another special purpose (1). The lane configuration separates local and longdistance travelers. Full shoulders are provided across the bridge. The new bridge also accommodates a pedestrian/bicycle path. The design of this box-girder bridge features 32 fixed spans supported on V-shaped piers. These piers offer the look of arches but provide a more open appearance with smaller foundations than a true arched design. The new bridge is 20 feet higher Project Drivers The Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge opened in 1961 as a six-lane structure designed to carry a volume of 75,000 vehicles per day (Figure 2). Con­ structed and owned by the federal government, the bridge carries the Capital Beltway over the Potomac River, connecting Alexandria, Virginia, to Prince George’s County, Maryland. The Capital Beltway (I-495) is a part of I-95, the main north-south interstate route on the East Coast of the United States. The bridge is also a drawbridge that opened approximately 200 times per year. Over the decades, traffic increased on the bridge as a result of both through traffic and regional commuters. In September 2004, the daily traffic volume was 195,000 vehicles, far surpassing the design capacity. This heavy traffic resulted in severe congestion, aggravated by an eight-lane beltway feeding into a six-lane bridge. The congestion contributed to a particularly high accident rate and expedited the bridge’s deterioration. Regional businesses and the commuting public frequently voiced their complaints to the political establishment inside the Capital Beltway, emphasizing frequent congestion on the bridge and resulting major delays as the most noticeable bridge problems. Because the bridge was federally owned, FHWA testified Figure 1. Project area. Courtesy of Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project.  WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA Figure 2. Woodrow Wilson Bridge, ca. 1962. Courtesy of Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project. • Protect and improve the character and nature of the surrounding environment. before Congress on several occasions in support of funding requests for planning and construction. The existing and growing problems of traffic congestion on the bridge, deteriorating structural conditions, safety, the region’s almost daily frustration with this congestion, and congressional oversight were the major drivers for replacing the bridge. In 1989, FHWA, along with agencies in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, began examining alternative approaches to solving the bridge’s capacity and structural problems. FHWA also studied the potential effects on the adjacent communities of rebuilding the bridge, including potential impacts to well-known archeological and historic resources located on the Virginia side of the Potomac River. FHWA issued a draft EIS in August 1991. This draft EIS analyzed five alternatives for replacing the bridge, each of which would expand the bridge to 12 lanes. Because this draft EIS met with significant public dissatisfaction, FHWA formed a Project ­Coordination Committee to assist in the identification of additional alternatives. The membership included senior-level officials from FHWA; the Virginia, Maryland, and District of Columbia transportation agencies; USACE; the National Park Service; the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments; the Maryland-National Capital Park and ­Planning Initial Concept and Planning FHWA maintained the following four goals for the project: • Provide adequate capacity for existing and future travel demand by improving operating conditions and fixing the bottleneck caused by eight Capital Beltway through lanes converging into six lanes across the river; • Facilitate intermodal travel, such as transit or highoccupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, bicycling, and maritime access up the Potomac River; • Improve safety by reducing the number of accidents and improving access for emergency response vehicles; and  WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA Commission; the City of Alexandria, Virginia; Fairfax County, Virginia; Prince George’s County, Maryland; and state-level elected leaders from the affected region. The committee subsequently considered more than 350 alternatives, and on a consensus basis recommended many of these for more thorough screening by the EIS development team. FHWA also facilitated public involvement in the identification of alternatives by establishing panel groups and focus groups. To accommodate consideration of the alternatives, FHWA supplemented its 1991 draft EIS twice, releasing the first supplemental draft EIS in January 1996 and the second in July 1996. Also in the mid-1990s, the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge Authority Act of 1995 granted consent to Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia to establish, by interstate agreement, the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge Authority, and authorized the transfer of ownership of the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge to that authority. Maryland and Virginia eventually negotiated an agreement for joint ownership of the new bridge. FHWA issued its final EIS, which included consideration of eight alternatives, in September 1997. FHWA included one “no build” alternative and seven build alternatives that all envisioned a 12-lane structure. The preferred alternative consisted of two parallel, six-lane drawbridges. In November 1997, FHWA selected this preferred alternative in its ROD. Approximately 2 months later, in January 1998, the City of Alexandria filed a lawsuit alleging that FHWA violated several requirements of NEPA, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. Alexandria eventually reached a settlement with FHWA in March 1999 and before the first trial (2), but the lawsuit was continued by three Alexandria-based organizations acting as plaintiffs. In April 1999, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on all three allegations. Under NEPA, the court concluded that FHWA had not afforded detailed consideration to a 10-lane river crossing as a reasonable alternative and had only given cursory treatment to the potential impacts of the construction phase. The court found FHWA’s implementation of Section 106 to be defective, reasoning that the agency could not adequately take into account the impacts to protected historic properties because it postponed identification of the sites that were to be used for ­construction-related purposes. Because compliance with Section 106 is an initial procedural step in completing the Section 4(f) requirement to minimize harm to historic properties, the court also concluded that FHWA failed to comply with Section 4(f). FHWA appealed the district court’s opinion to the D.C. Circuit Court, which reversed the lower court’s decision in December 1999 (3). Plaintiffs then asked for a hearing before the Supreme Court, which ­denied that request. In overruling the lower court, the D.C. Circuit Court did not agree with the district court’s position that a 10-lane bridge was a reasonable alternative. The district court had found it to be a reasonable alternative based on the smaller bridge’s ability to reduce much of the projected traffic congestion while having less of an adverse environmental impact than a larger bridge. However, the circuit court concluded that for an alternative to be reasonable, it must meet all of the objectives of the federal action. The circuit court further concluded that it was reasonable for FHWA to narrow the project’s objectives to resolving the transportation and safety issues being experienced by the bridge, and a 10-lane bridge was only a partial solution to them. On the less critical issues regarding the adequacy of the analysis of construction impacts, the circuit court found the analysis not to be as tersely presented as the district court had found. Postponing the identification of construction sites was also determined to be permissible for Section 106 and Section 4(f) compliance purposes because the sites were primarily construction staging areas that were ancillary to the project, not normally identified until the design stage of the project, and subject to a Section 106 memorandum of agreement with the appropriate cultural resource protection agencies. While litigation was proceeding, FHWA continued to implement commitments from the 1997 ROD, including a bridge design competition. Four firms, which submitted a total of seven concepts, were declared finalists. A panel chaired by former Maryland Governor Harry Hughes announced the winning concept at a November 18, 1998, press conference.  WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA This case study primarily addresses the remaining project development process that occurred after FHWA signed its November 1997 ROD. Constructability reviews during the bridge design concept competition revealed that the construction concepts assumed in the 1997 final EIS would not work with the type and size of structure now being considered. Providing access for the heavy equipment that would be necessary to handle the proposed large steel girders and foundation elements was projected to require a substantial increase in the amount of dredging and sediment removal with associated larger impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation. Other increased adverse impact ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

Thomas574
School: Purdue University

Hello, I'm done with your ta...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Tutor went the extra mile to help me with this essay. Citations were a bit shaky but I appreciated how well he handled APA styles and how ok he was to change them even though I didnt specify. Got a B+ which is believable and acceptable.

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors