 |
 |
USDOT Home | FHWA Home | Feedback |
February 17, 2011
Revised June 28, 2012
Revised September 13, 2012
Table of Contents
I-95 Betsy Ross Interchange (BRI) & Bridge Street Ramps (BSR) Project
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Project Management Plan
February 17, 2011
Revised June 28, 2012
Revised September 13, 2012
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) propose to reconstruct portions of Interstate Route 95 (I-95), Sections Betsy Ross Interchange (BRI) and Bridge Street Ramps (BSR) and in the City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. These two sections are among the first of several sections which make up the larger corridor reconstruction effort as shown in Figure 1. The reconstruction of I-95 is being undertaken by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT). This Project Management Plan (PMP) establishes the framework for administering the project from detail design through construction and project closure. This document has been prepared to conform to FHWA Project Management Plan Guidance, dated January 2009. It formulates the project's management methodology and organization while providing guidance for the orderly interaction of multiple parties that are involved for the successful completion of the project. This PMP will be updated annually through the life of the project. Significant changes in the project limits, delivery schedule or budget will trigger an update of this document. The PennDOT Project Management Team will be responsible for updating the PMP. The PMP will be reviewed and approved by members of the I-95 Executive Leadership Team.
Figure 1
The project area extends in a linear fashion from the west side of Wheatsheaf Lane at the southwestern end of the study area to the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge Interchange at the northeastern end. The study area also includes areas of the surrounding city street network located to the north and south of S.R. 0095 (Figure 1). The surrounding city street system consists of a number of high-volume arterials including Aramingo Avenue, Richmond Street, Torresdale Avenue, Bridge Street, Harbison Avenue, and Tacony Street. The study area is extensively developed with a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional properties, and is located within a number of local northeast Philadelphia neighborhoods including Richmond, Bridesburg, Tacony, and Wissinoming. The overall project consists of two sections that are each divided into three subsections:
A map of the project is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2
View a full-sized version of Figure 2
The purpose of the proposed I-95, Sections BRI and BSR project is to replace the structurally deficient bridges that carry the mainline, improve safety along the mainline and surrounding city street network, to enhance mobility along the mainline, to increase capacity of the mainline, to provide an efficient transportation facility, and to improve components of the transportation system which are near the end of their design life.
Improvements are needed to protect public safety and to maintain the transportation corridor. PennDOT, the City of Philadelphia, and local community leaders have been involved in the project since early 2000 and have discussed the project needs at various points during project development. The project needs are described below.
A high level of traffic congestion (poor levels of service) at the interchange ramps and intersections on the surrounding street system are due to the high traffic volumes along the mainline I-95. The current volumes on I-95 range from 126,100 to 166,500 vehicles per day. These Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes are projected to increase to 152,300 to 201,700 vehicles per day in the 2030 No Build condition. Eighty percent of the interchange ramps at the Betsy Ross Interchange are level of service E or lower. In addition, all of the intersections that tie into I-95 are at a level of service F. These areas are worse than PennDOT's level of service D minimum. Also, there are fracture-critical and structurally deficient bridges carrying the mainline that are beyond their service life and in need of replacement.
The existing configuration constricts the mainline from four to three travel lanes per direction between ramps. The existing secondary streets also experience high crash rates. The crash rate for I-95 is twice as high as the state average for urban divided roadways with full access control.
There are three main interchanges servicing the surrounding city street system within the study area. These interchanges include: the Betsy Ross Bridge/Aramingo Avenue South/I-95 interchange, the Aramingo Avenue North/I-95 interchange, and the Bridge Street interchange. According to American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) criteria, interchange spacing to maintain efficient traffic movement in urban areas is one mile. The distance between each of the above-noted interchanges is significantly less than one mile. See Figure 3 for the locations of the main interchanges. Due to the interchange spacing, there are numerous northbound and southbound lane drops at each interchange within the project limits where the corridor quickly changes from eight lanes wide to six lanes wide.
The current Tacony Street Viaduct structure consists of 11 steel multi-girder spans supported by ten steel box-beam pier caps. These box girder pier caps are fracture-critical members, which means that the loss of any one due to collision damage, fire, or fatigue failure would result in the loss of both directions of traffic on I-95. Currently, there are fatigue cracks where the multi-girders frame into the webs of the box girders due to out-of-plane bending of the box girder webs.
The existing interchange configuration within the project area (described in Section 3.4) has evolved as a result of several construction projects over a 35-year span. The original mainline and the Bridge Street Interchange were constructed in 1966. The northbound off-ramp to Bridge Street via Aramingo Avenue, the northbound on-ramp from Bridge Street, the southbound off-ramp to Bridge Street via James Street, and the southbound on-ramp from Aramingo Avenue were then constructed. The Betsy Ross Bridge and its associated collector-distributor roadways were constructed in 1975. The Section H03 connector ramps were constructed in 1999. These ramps provide access to and from Aramingo Avenue to I-95 directly to the west of the Betsy Ross Bridge interchange; these ramps comprise the Aramingo Avenue South and Aramingo Avenue North interchange.
The proposed project will involve the rehabilitation and/or the replacement of structures and retaining walls within the BRI and BSR sections of I-95. The project also calls for the elimination of lane drops in both directions, allowing for four lanes of through-traffic throughout the project area. The project will also include roadway reconstruction as well as upgrades to drainage, lighting, signage, and pavement markings. Limited landscaping may also be required as part of the project.
The Environmental documents including the Environmental Commitment Mitigation Tracking form (ECMTS) can be found in Section 2.7 below. A Level 2 Categorical Exclusion Evaluation (CEE) was prepared for the combined BRI/BSR project. The CEE was approved by FHWA on July 26, 2011.
The approved preliminary design document identified a total of 43 properties to be acquired. For BSR, this includes 34 residential properties and seven commercial properties. For BRI, while no residential properties will be acquired, two commercial properties will be acquired. These are described in the project's CEE.
SECTION BSR
Coordination with various utilities, including; PECO, Philadelphia Gas Works, Philadelphia
Water Department, and Verizon are anticipated throughout the project area. The extent
of utility involvement is noted in the project's CEE. A preliminary utility meeting
was held for the Section BSR on December 6, 2006. This meeting provided the necessary
information to accurately locate the existing utilities. All of the utilities have
been plotted and potential impacts have been recognized. The overhead conflicts
have been shown on the plans. The potential underground conflicts will need to be
analyzed in more detail during final design. Many of these potential conflicts will
depend on the depth of the utility line.
| Contact | Utility | Type | Roadway | Approximate Location | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PECO | electric | overhead | Aramingo Ave | various along entire project for pole relocations | yes |
| PECO | electric | overhead | Bridge St | entire project LT | yes |
| PECO | electric | overhead | Comly St | LT | yes |
| PECO | electric | overhead | Ex Carver St | entire project | yes |
| PECO | electric | overhead | Tacony Decel/James Ext | Crossing James Street Ext at approx 52+80 | potential |
| PECO | electric | over/under | Tacony St | entire project LT and at Aramingo intersection ADA ramps | overhead lines - yes, underground lines - potential |
| Phila City | unknown | 23"x9" conduit | Tacony St | 1059+00 to 1096+00 CL and RT | potential |
| Phila Gas Works | gas | 30"S | Aramingo Ave | 350+15 to 353+50, 15'RT crossing at 353+50 | potential |
| Phila Gas Works | gas | 30"S | Aramingo Ave | 353+50 to 356+00 RT under prop sidewalk | potential |
| Phila Gas Works | gas | 30"S | Aramingo Ave | 356+00 to 356+25 crossing at 45 deg angle | potential |
| Phila Gas Works | gas | 30"S | Aramingo Ave | 374+50 to Orthodox intersection, 5' RT | potential |
| Phila Gas Works | gas | 20" and 6" | Aramingo Ave | 387+00 intersection with Bermuda | potential |
| Phila Gas Works | gas | 6"S and 30"S | Aramingo Ave | 391+00 intersection with Margaret | potential |
| Phila Gas Works | gas | 30"S | Aramingo Ave | 391+00 to 394+00 under median | potential |
| Phila Gas Works | gas | 6" | Bridge St | entire project LT under sidewalk | potential |
| Phila Gas Works | gas | 20" & 6" lines | Comly St | RT under sidewalk | potential |
| Phila Gas Works | gas | 6"S and 6" | Fraley St | LT and RT sides | potential |
| Phila Gas Works | gas | 20"S | Tacony St | 1061+50 to end RT under sidewalk | potential |
| Phila Gas Works | gas | unknown | Tacony St | 1061+50 to 1073+75 RT under sidewalk | potential |
| Phila Gas Works | gas | 16" | Tacony St | 1082+50 to end RT under sidewalk | potential |
| Phila Gas Works | gas | 6" | Tacony St | 1066+00 RT to 1082+00 LT, crosses @ 1073+00 & 1074+50 & 1080+50 | potential |
| Phila Gas Works | gas | 6"D | Tacony St | 1057+25 to 1061+50 LT | potential |
| Phila Gas Works | gas | 16"S | Van Kirk St | RT and crosses at 330+50 | potential |
| Phila Water Dept | water | 12" | Aramingo Ave | 355+70 crosses | potential |
| Phila Water Dept | water | 12" | Aramingo Ave | 355+50 to 364+50, 38' LT under ramps/shldr/sw | potential |
| Phila Water Dept | sanitary/combo | Aramingo Ave | entire project due to separation of combo system and reconstruction/widening | yes | |
| Phila Water Dept | storm sewer | Aramingo Ave | entire project due to separation and tie-in and reconstruction/widening | yes | |
| Phila Water Dept | water | 12" | Aramingo Ave | 355+70 to Church then crossing Aramingo | potential |
| Phila Water Dept | water | Aramingo Ave | 375+00 to 384+00 crossing then along LT | potential | |
| Phila Water Dept | water | 12" | Aramingo Ave | 380+00 RT to Orthodox St | potential |
| Phila Water Dept | water | 6" and 12" | Aramingo Ave | crossing at intersection of Orthodox/Aramingo | potential |
| Phila Water Dept | water | 6" | Aramingo Ave | crossing at 387+00 intersection with Bermuda | potential |
| Phila Water Dept | water | 6" | Aramingo Ave | crossing at 391+00 intersection with Margaret | potential |
| Phila Water Dept | water | Aramingo Ave | 387+00 to 391+00 LT under sidewalk | potential | |
| Phila Water Dept | water | 8" | Aramingo Ave | 404+00 to 407+00 LT | potential |
| Phila Water Dept | water | 1-12", 2-6" | Aramingo Ave | 407+00 intersection with James/Wakeling | potential |
| Phila Water Dept | water | 20" and 12" | Bridge St | entire project LT | potential |
| Phila Water Dept | sanitary | 4'-6" Dia BR | Bridge St | entire project LT | yes |
| Phila Water Dept | water | 12" | Bridge St | intersection of Bridge/Bridge St accel ramp | potential |
| Phila Water Dept | water | 2-12" | Comly St | LT | potential |
| Phila Water Dept | sanitary | 4'X2'-8" Br | Comly St | LT | potential |
| Phila Water Dept | water | 12" | Ex Carver St | Note: will be filled replaced with relocated Carver | potential |
| Phila Water Dept | water | 12" and 8" | Fraley St | RT & LT | potential |
| Phila Water Dept | sanitary | 3'X2' Br | Fraley St | RT | potential |
| Phila Water Dept | sanitary | 5'X6' RC or 6' BR | Tacony Decel/James Ext | Crossing James Street Extension | potential |
| Phila Water Dept | sanitary/combo | Tacony St | entire project due to separation of combo system and reconstruction/widening | yes | |
| Phila Water Dept | storm sewer | Tacony St | entire project due to separation and tie-in and reconstruction/widening | yes | |
| Phila Water Dept | water | 3-60" | Tacony St | entire project | potential |
| Phila Water Dept | water | 10" to 12" | Tacony St | entire project RT | potential |
| Phila Water Dept | water | 6" | Tacony St | 1050+00 to 1056+50 LT & 1059+00 to end LT | potential |
| Phila Water Dept | sanitary | Van Kirk St | CL | potential | |
| Phila Water Dept | water | 12" | Van Kirk St | RT | potential |
| Unknown | unknown | conduit | Tacony St | 1084+00 CL | potential |
| Unknown | unknown | 15"DPTT conduit | Tacony St | 1059+00 to 1061+00 | potential |
| Unknown | unknown | 2'X3' & 2'X10" DPTT conduit | Tacony St | 1052+00 to 1079+50 LT | potential |
| Unknown | storm sewer | 2 - 8'x12' lines | Van Kirk St | LT and RT | potential |
| Verizon | telephone | underground | Aramingo Ave | intersection of Orthodox/Aramingo | potential |
| Verizon | telephone | underground | Aramingo Ave | 387+00 intersection with Bermuda | potential |
| Verizon | telephone | 2 underground | Aramingo Ave | 391+00 intersection with Margaret | potential |
| Verizon | telephone | 2-underground | Bridge St | intersection of Tacony/Bridge | potential |
| Verizon | telephone | underground | Comly St | RT | potential |
| Verizon | telephone | underground | Ex Carver St | Note: will be filled replaced with relocated Carver | potential |
| Verizon | telephone | underground | Fraley St | RT | potential |
| Verizon | telephone | 2-underground | Tacony St | entire project LT | potential |
| Verizon | telephone | underground | Van Kirk St | RT | potential |
| NOTE: Currently do not have full survey and utility information for proposed Adams Ave. | |||||
SECTIONS BRI
Existing utility verification was performed by Chilton Engineering, Inc and is plotted
on the plans. The PA One-call series numbers are also listed on the plans. So-Deep,
Inc provided Quality Level A tests to verify selected subsurface utility lines underneath
Aramingo Avenue. This was completed during the preliminary alternative investigation
for the relocation of Philadelphia Water Department box culvert which runs under
I-95, during which the culvert was to be relocated under Aramingo Avenue. Since
then, the culvert relocation alignment has been revised with close coordination
with PWD. Additional Quality level A tests will be performed in Final Design to
ensure that each subsurface utility conflict are accurately identified and relocated.
There will be water line, hydrant and storm sewer relocations at Orthodox and Pearce Streets. Also, several grade adjustments will be needed for Gas, Electric, Telephone, Water and Sewer valves and manholes. Some utility poles will need to be relocated along Ramp YY.
SECTION BSR
Coordination with Conrail to avoid the impacts to the Conrail Meadows Yard are associated
with the BR0 project are anticipated. Additionally, an existing at-grade railroad
crossing that services the Sun Chemical Plant will be impacted. Coordination with
the railroad and Sun Chemical is anticipated throughout final design. The extent
of railroad involvement is noted in the project's CEE. Currently, an existing at-grade
railroad exists at the Orthodox Street intersection with Aramingo Avenue. The rail
line connects from the Sun Chemical Plant to an existing rail yard. This line is
approximately 3500 feet long. As part of the project, Aramingo Avenue is being widened
to provide left and tight turn lanes at intersections, where necessary. Because
of this widening, the at-grade crossing will be impacted. The existing crossing
can be shifted to the south t provide an at - grade crossing across Orthodox Street.
This shift will also require approximately 1500 feet of track realignment.
SECTION BRI
The impacts to the railroad are associated with the SR 0095 Section BR0 construction
of the ramps over, and relocated culvert within, the Conrail Meadows Yard. The Conrail
Meadows Yard is leased by Sunoco, Inc. as a storage yard for the nearby Sun Chemical
Plant. Planned development of the Conrail Meadows Yard includes the construction
of a trash transfer station which would include access points to Aramingo Avenue.
Proposed Section BR0 structures within the limits of the planned trash transfer
facility align the piers with existing to avoid potential conflicts and provide
flexibility for future development. SR 0095 Sections BR2 and BR3 have no impacts
within the Conrail Meadows Yard.
Currently, an existing at-grade railroad crossing exists at the Orthodox St intersection with Aramingo Avenue. The rail line connects from the Sun Chemical Plant to an existing rail yard. This line is approximately 3500 feet long. As part of the SR 0095 Section BSR project, Aramingo Avenue is being widened to provide left and right turn lanes at intersections where necessary. Because of this widening, the at-grade crossing will be impacted and a portion of this rail line will be realigned. The existing crossing can be shifted to the south to provide an at-grade crossing across Orthodox St. This shift will also require approximately 1500 feet of track realignment. SR 0095 Sections BR2 and BR3 have no impacts with this track.
Throughout Preliminary Design, the project team worked to design the improvements to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the environmental and cultural resource impacts. Environmental resources and impacts to them are described in the project's CEE, on the following ECMTS, and in Section 13 of this Project Management Plan.
View a full-sized version of the Environmental Summary
Figure 3
View a full-sized version of Figure 3 map.
The project's purpose and needs are described in Section 3 of this PMP. This section focuses on overall project goals and objectives and identifies how the requirements of the project will be met. The project objectives are as follows:
Ultimately the opening of the Project to traffic will be evidence of success. The degree of success will be measured on how well the project objectives are completed. Cost and schedule tracking will play a very important role in monitoring the progress of the project. The cost and schedule tracking will also be used as an early warning system for any issues that might arise during the project's development. PennDOT will use these methods throughout the life of the project: in the Preliminary and Final Design Phases, right-of-way acquisition, and construction.
The project leadership team has been decided by PennDOT and consists of PennDOT leadership, Project Managers, designers, and design reviewers. The team will provide leadership under the following guidelines:
PennDOT has implemented an I-95 PennDOT Management Team and a Project Delivery Team (design management and review team structure) for BRI/BSR, as depicted in the following high level organizational chart. The organization chart illustrates the structure of the BRI/BSR Project Teams.
This structure features one Consultant Project Manager dedicated to each ongoing project. Each Consultant Project Manager is supported by a team of senior technical experts and reviewers from their respective organizations. The primary function of this team is to conduct technical design reviews. The Consultant Project Managers are also supported by a team of Corridor Coordinators who are charged with coordinating project elements that span multiple projects along the corridor. The total group is managed by senior members of the Program Team and various support staff.
The project Team consists of three levels: Executive Leadership, PennDOT Management and Project Delivery, with roles as described in the table that follows:
| Name | Role on this Project | Company |
|---|---|---|
| Executive Leadership Team | ||
| Les Toaso | District 6-0 Executive | PennDOT District 6-0 |
| George Fleagle | FHWA I-95 Project Champion | FHWA |
| Thomas Macioce | PennDOT Central Office Technical Unit-Bridge | PennDOT Central Office |
| Keith Highlands | PennDOT Central Office Technical Unit-Highway | PennDOT Central Office |
| Gary Fawver | PennDOT Central Office Technical Unit-Environmental | PennDOT Central Office |
| Lydia Peddicord | PennDOT Central Office Technical Unit-Pavement | PennDOT Central Office |
| Mark Chapel | PennDOT Central Office Technical Unit-ROW | PennDOT Central Office |
| PennDOT Management Team | ||
| Chuck Davies | Assistant District Executive-Design | PennDOT 6-0 |
| Scott Fletcher | Assistant District Executive-Services | PennDOT 6-0 |
| George Dunheimer | Assistant District Executive-Construction | PennDOT 6-0 |
| Nicholas Martino | Assistant District Executive-Maintenance | PennDOT 6-0 |
| Eugene Blaum | Assistant Press Secretary | PennDOT 6-0 |
| Elaine Elbich | Portfolio Manager | PennDOT 6-0 |
| Project Delivery Team | ||
| Paul Shultes | PennDOT Project Manager-BSR/BRI | AECOM |
| Kenneth R. Reber, Jr. | Design Review Consultant | Michael Baker Corporation |
| David Marchese | Project Design Manager - BSR | CDM Smith |
| Leonard Smith | Project Design Manager - BRI | STV Incorporated |
| Elizabeth Lankenau | SAC Coordinator-BSR | KSK Architects Planners Historians, Inc. |
| Leonard Smith, PE | SAC Coordinator-BRI | STV Incorporated |
The Executive Leadership Team will provide regional oversight for the entire I-95 Program and act as the final authority on major revisions. The Executive Leadership Team, lead by the PennDOT District Executive, is made up of the PennDOT Project Champions, the FHWA Project Champion, and PennDOT Central Office Technical Unit Leads. Les Toaso the District Executive has the following responsibilities for the project:
PennDOT Central Office Technical Unit Leads identified for the I-95 Program are responsible for technical reviews and approvals of the projects in accordance with PennDOT and I-95 requirements and guidelines.
The PennDOT Management Team includes the PennDOT District 6-0 Assistant District Executives for Services, Design, Construction and Public Relations, and the Program Consultant Team. The PennDOT Management Team will provide oversight on a program level for the projects and provide continuity between all projects in the I-95 Program. The PennDOT Portfolio Manager has the following responsibilities:
The Assistant District Executives have the following responsibilities for the project:
Project Delivery Teams
The Project Delivery Teams, led by the PennDOT Consultant Project Manager, includes the Design Review PennDOT Consultant, and the Design Consultant Project Team. The Project Delivery Teams are directly involved with the everyday activities of managing the design projects including: preliminary engineering through final design plan preparation, right of way acquisition, utility and third party coordination, public and stakeholder involvement, and construction. Each member of the Project Delivery Team will have the authority to make decisions within their area of technical expertise and level of authority. However, this authority comes with the responsibility to consult with each group that will be affected by the decision and to identify, address and resolve issues or concerns.
The PennDOT Consultant Project Manager has the following responsibilities:
The PennDOT Design Review Consultant has the following responsibilities:
The Design Consultant Team, led by a Project Manager, is responsible for preparing preliminary and final designs for the project in conformance with PennDOT standards, Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, and I-95 corridor program guidelines. This includes responsibilities for:
The Sustainable Action Committee (SAC), led by SAC Coordinators' to ensure that the open space along and under the highway will be maintained and accounted for after construction has concluded - either by PennDOT, City agencies, and/or civic organizations with the capacity for stewardship (or a combination thereof) - so that the highway is no longer a barrier between the adjacent communities and the Delaware River.
The SAC Coordinators have the following responsibilities:
The Consultant Environmental Manager has the following responsibilities:
The Construction Management Consultant has the following responsibilities.
Contractual authority to make decisions during construction will be defined in the construction managers Scope of Work as defined in PennDOT Publication 8, Construction manual.
The Public Information Team, led by the ADA for Public Relations, has the following responsibilities:
Each project in BRI/BSR will follow PennDOT's Transportation Program Development and Project Delivery Process. The Project Delivery Process consists of several phases of design outlined in Publication 10, Design Manual Part 1, Transportation Program Development and Project Delivery Process. Preliminary Engineering concludes with the Design Field View Submission (DFV). The DFV Submission contains pans, profiles, typical sections, representative cross sections, cost estimates and other supporting documents prepared to support the engineering analysis of the selected alternative developed during preliminary engineering. This report is the main engineering product of Preliminary Engineering and is filed as support for the project's environmental document.
As of the date of this PMP the BRI/BSR project has completed the NEPA Decision phase. Two of the six projects, BRO and BS3, are in Final Design. The other four projects (BR 2, BR3, BS1, BS2) are in Preliminary Engineering, Step 6 of PennDOT's Transportation Program Development and Project Delivery Process.
Final Design occurs during Step 7 of the Transportation Project Delivery Process and involves the development of detailed working drawings, specifications, and estimates for approved transportation projects. Final Design follows the receipt of necessary design and/or environmental approval and it includes right-of-way acquisitions, utility relocation, and construction contract advertisement and award. During the Final Design process, final Right-of-Way plans are prepared and approved. The Right-of-Way process is completed and the ROW plans are recorded prior to the advertisement of the individual construction projects. Figure 4, on the following page, illustrates the tasks that are completed in Steps 6 and 7 of PennDOT's project delivery process.
Transportation Program Development and Project Delivery Process
| 6. Preliminary Engineering/NEPA Decision | 7. Final Design and Construction | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Figure 4
Figure 5
View a full-sized version of Figure 5 map.
BRI/BRI consists of two sections that are each divided into three subsections or projects. The six construction projects are illustrated in Figure 5 and are described below:
SR 0095 Section BSR - Bridge Street Ramps from Orthodox St. to Levick St.
This section of I-95 will eliminate the SB lane drop at the James Street Ramp, eliminate the NB add lane at Bridge Street, and widen I-95 to four lanes in each direction from Orthodox Street to Levick Street. Exclusive acceleration/ deceleration lanes will be added at the interchanges. Six dual mainline bridges and one ramp bridge will be replaced and one mainline structure will be widened. Long retaining walls will line I-95 through much of this section and two sound barriers will be constructed. It is anticipated that Section BSR will be constructed in three stages or subsections as follows:
SR 0095 Section BRI - Betsy Ross Interchange and Mainline from Wheatsheaf Lane to Bridge Street in the City of Philadelphia.
Description - The project, SR 0095, Section BRI extends from the northern limit of the structure over Wheatsheaf Lane at Segment 0254, Offset 1771 and Segment 0255, Offset 1771 to the southern limit of the structure over Bridge Street at Segment 0270, Offset 0487 and Segment 0271, Offset 0529. The approximate mainline construction length is 6,995 feet. The mainline will be widened to carry four lanes in each direction and eliminate the Collector/Distributor roadway on each side of the mainline. Included within the project area is the reconstruction/rehabilitation of the interchange with the Betsy Ross Bridge, including two new ramps from Aramingo Avenue to the Betsy Ross Bridge. Section BRI consists of 19 bridge structures as either new, replacement, or rehabilitation, five bridge structures for removal, one combination sewer relocation for the Philadelphia Water Department, four retaining walls for removal and replacement, one retaining wall for removal, and sound walls along the eastern side of I-95 for removal and replacement. Section BRI will be subdivided into three separate construction sections: BR0, BR2, and BR3.
Currently, the entirety of BRI and BSR is planned to be delivered via the traditional Design/Bid/Build process. Preliminary Engineering, Final Design, and some elements of Right of Way Acquisition have already been contracted and work is underway. Construction contracts will be let for the projects individually, beginning in 2014.
PennDOT has developed and follows Publication 93 (February 2011) Policy and Procedures for the Administration of Consultant Agreements for all design phase related procurements.
PennDOT currently has two Design Consultant Teams (See table on page 20) to design the six construction projects within BRI/BSR. All projects are in or just beginning the final design phase.
The Design Consultant Teams were selected and procured through an advertisement in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. The BSR advertisement is below:
Philadelphia County
Project Reference No. 08430AG2438
The Department will retain an engineering firm to perform preliminary engineering, environmental documentation, final design and services during construction for S. R. 0095, Section BSR, Delaware Expressway (I-95) in the City of Philadelphia from Orthodox Street to Levick Street, a distance of approximately 2.91 km (1.81 miles). The estimated construction cost of this project is $60.0 million. The expressway reconstruction will include interchange improvements, roadway reconstruction and bridge widening, rehabilitation and replacement.
Philadelphia County
Project Reference No. 08430AG2460
The Department will retain an engineering firm to perform preliminary engineering, environmental documentation, final design and services during construction for S.R. 0095, Section BR1, Delaware Expressway (I-95) in the City of Philadelphia, from Wheatsheaf Lane to Orthodox Street, a distance of approximately 1.294 km (0.804 miles). The estimated construction cost of this project is $60 million. The expressway reconstruction will include structure replacement, structure rehabilitation and modification, roadway reconstruction, roadway improvements (signs, lighting and drainage) and landscaping.
Typical requirements include the following:
The full advertisements can be found in the Appendix C.
This subsection of the PMP will be developed to document how procurement decisions will be made including selection of contractors and the types of contracts to be utilized. Consideration will be given to the size and length of contracts as they relate to bonding capacity, the number of likely bids, and other market conditions.
Currently all projects with the BRI/BSR sections will be traditional Design Bid Build. PennDOT is considering alternate methods of delivery such as Design Build and is exploring potential pre-qualification approaches. PennDOT Publication 448, Innovative Bidding Toolkit, defines options and requirements for alternative delivery options, such as design-build, and other alternative delivery tools.
PennDOT Publication 408, Specifications, Section 100 describes the Bidding requirements and conditions, award and execution of construction contracts as well as other subjects pertinent to the Bidding process.
At the FHWA Cost Estimate Review held October 19-21, 2011, FHWA approved an estimate for the project of $954 million Year of Expenditure (YOE) dollars. The proposed anticipated date for completion of all projects with the BRI/BSR sections is January 2023.
The approved project estimate of $954 million is broken down as follows:
The base estimate includes all engineering, construction, right of way, third party, construction management, and public involvement costs estimated for the project.
The major risks were identified and quantified in the Cost Estimate Review and are incorporated into the project risk plan.
Detailed Cost and schedule data will be included in the project's Finance Plan and Annual Updates. The initial Financial Plan will be prepared and approved prior to the first federal authorization for construction funds. This will occur prior to February 2014, which is the first planned construction let (bid) date for BRI/BSR construction projects. The Financial Plan will be prepared in accordance with the FHWA Financial Plan Guidance, dated January 2007 and as stated as such is a:
"comprehensive document that reflects the Project's cost estimate and revenue structure and provides a reasonable assurance that there will be sufficient financial resources available to implement and complete the project as planned. A Financial Plan provides a description of how a project will be implemented over time by identifying project costs and the financial resources to be utilized in meeting those costs. The plan should clearly explain the assumptions about both cost and revenue upon which the plan is based. In addition, the annual updates to the plan will enable decision makers to track the financial progress of the project over time by highlighting significant deviations from the Initial Financial Plan and the subsequent annual updates and explaining the mitigating actions taken to adjust for those deviations. In essence, the financial plan process is a subset of the overall Project Management Plan that is required for every Major Project."
The Finance Plan and Annual Updates are an integral part of the PMP and as such will include the process of how cost estimates and schedules are validated and their frequency. The annual updates will be the responsibility of the Consultant Program team in conjunction with the Executive Leadership Team identified in Section 4 of this report.
Detailed project estimates for each construction project will be prepared as part of the final design and submitted for PennDOT approval as part of the final PS&E (Plans, Specification and Estimate). Construction cost estimates are also prepared at the Design Field View (DFV) stage that completes Preliminary Engineering and may be prepared at subsequent design stages prior to PS&E for each project.
Estimated construction schedules will be prepared by PennDOT's design consultant and reviewed by PennDOT prior to construction. These will be used to establish the construction duration and completion date for the construction contract.
A second FHWA Cost Estimate Review (CER) will be performed prior to the start of construction. The results from the second review at the 70% confidence level is the minimum amount of funding that must be shown for the approval of the initial Financial Plan. This second CER will include a schedule risk analysis.
Independent validations of the cost and schedule at significant milestones will be conducted to avoid sudden and unexpected cost overruns and schedule delays. Independent validations will be performed by an unbiased team, which does not have a stake in the outcome of the validation.
The project reporting and tracking system for this project is outlined below. Its purpose is to do the following:
The project team will produce monthly cost, schedule, and status reports and hold monthly status meetings. Project costs, schedule, quality issues, compliance with Federal requirements, and other status items will be discussed in sufficient detail to allow all involved parties to be fully aware of the significant status issues and actions planned to mitigate any adverse impacts. In addition, the project team will be directed to immediately communicate any significant issues that occur between status meetings to the Project Manager and the Executive Leadership Team.
The monthly status reports will be formatted as follows:
The executive summary will present a concise narrative of the current status of the project and will contain a bulleted list of all issues considered to pose a potential threat to the project's scope, budget, schedule, quality, or safety. As a minimum, the following items will be listed on each status report:
At a minimum, the following items will be included:
This section will outline issues that could negatively impact project budget, schedule, quality, safety, or agency compliance. Any public or political concerns or statements will be included as well. The status, responsible person(s), and due dates will be tabulated for each action item/outstanding issue. The status, responsible person(s), and completion date will be tabulated for each action item/outstanding issue reported on the previous status report.
The updated master project schedule reflecting the current status of the program activities will be included in this section. A Gantt (bar) type chart created in OpenPlan will be used for monthly reporting purposes. The baseline program schedule as well as all updates will be developed in accordance with standard PennDOT scheduling guidelines and will reflect the PennDOT project development protocol.
Narratives, tables, and/or graphs are developed on a monthly basis to accompany the updated baseline schedule to detail current schedule status, delays and potential exposures, and recovery efforts. Internally PennDOT monitors the percent complete and the monthly progress made through the use of WelcomHome scheduling software.
An updated cost spreadsheet reflecting the current forecasted cost vs. the latest approved budget vs. the baseline budget will be included in this section.
All project elements that influence overall project costs and budgets, such as right-of-way, structure costs, SWM components, roadway materials, utilities, and retaining walls will be developed in greater detail as the project progresses and the existing Design Field View (DFV) cost proposals will be updated.
Narratives, tables, and/or graphs will accompany the updated cost spreadsheet, to detail the current cost status, reasons for cost deviations, impacts of cost overruns, and efforts to mitigate cost overruns. The following information will be included:
The purpose of this section is to summarize the QA/QC activities performed during the previous month (reporting period), to highlight any items identified as being deficient in quality, and detail a recovery plan.
Deficient items noted will be accompanied by reasons and specifics concerning the deficiencies, and corrective actions taken or planned. In addition, the individual or team responsible for the corrective action will be documented. Planned corrective actions will then be included as Action Items/Outstanding Issues.
The Department and FHWA may agree that other reports may be beneficial in ensuring that project status issues are fully and openly communicated. If so, such reports will be added to the PMP.
Such reports may include contractor safety performance (as compared to the National average or other benchmark), wrap-up insurance payments and reserves, and/or actual DBE utilization versus DBE goals. Other reports may be more appropriate to include on a semi-annual or annual basis, such as the public relations plan, value engineering and constructability review plan, environmental compliance report, and/or compliance with the Buy America requirements.
In addition to the formal reporting and tracking of the project discussed above, internal communications and stakeholder communications are integral to a successful major project. The following is an overview of the protocol for communications between project team members and stakeholders that outline how informal and formal communications will be conducted and managed.
Effective and timely communication between all parties will be an essential key to the success of this project. Communication failures and shortcomings can translate into time delays and difficult issues to resolve in the final hours of the project. This can cause an increase in project costs and general frustration on the part of all involved.
Externally, public outreach and communication mechanisms have been created to keep the public informed during the Final Design and Construction phases and to perform traditional public relations roles. Internally, multiple forms of communication have been identified for use by the various working groups for the sharing of information. During Preliminary Engineering the following meetings have been held with the public:
The purpose of the SACs is to ensure that the open space along and under the highway will be maintained and accounted for after construction has concluded - either by PennDOT, City agencies, and/or civic organizations with the capacity for stewardship (or a combination thereof) - so that the highway is no longer a barrier between the adjacent communities and the Delaware River. There are two types of SACs: 1) a corridor-wide SAC (the "Corridor SAC"), which is formed primarily by State and City agencies and major non-profits, such as the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society, and 2) a community-based SAC (the "Section SAC"), which is formed primarily by neighborhood civic organizations and other representatives.
The Corridor and Section SACs receive guidance from PennDOT and its design consultants about issues to consider when planning for the future use of open space. The Corridor SAC is concerned with addressing public space issues that apply to the five sections of the highway improvement project (GIR, AFC, BRI, BSR, and CPR), such as lighting and stormwater management, to ensure consistency and avoid redundancy of effort. It is also interested in some of the site-specific open space areas in each section, although its level of involvement may vary. The Section SACs address Section-specific local issues related to the open space.
Both external and internal communications are detailed below. All external media, website and public communications are approved by PennDOT District 6-0 Assistant District Engineer (ADE) for Public Relations.
A critical objective for this project is to maintain the trust, support, and confidence of the media and public throughout the life of the project. A critical component to successfully meet this objective is a Public Information and Outreach Plan that will provide proactive, effective, and responsive project communications. The external project communications protocol is outlined below:
Underlying the media and public communications process is the need for all team members to be as accurate and forthright as possible, and to respond in a professional and timely manner. This will help to successfully maintain the media and public trust, support, and confidence.
A Public Information and outreach plan for BRI/BSR will identify all potential media and public stakeholders. These include businesses along the project corridor, communities along the corridor and others impacted by the project, local media, governmental agencies (elected/appointed officials and their staffs), civic associations, and citizen groups.
In addition to the Public Information and Outreach Plan, an internal communications strategy will be implemented to establish the communications protocol for the Project Delivery Team members. The internal communications network will provide for open lines of communication and support between all project and functional teams, and allow for all external communication to flow through the public information team or office. The major Project Team members and their function, responsibilities, and authorities are outlined in Section 5 above.
Internal communications on this project will include meetings, email, and phone calls. All phone calls where decisions or direction regarding project issues are discussed will be documented and filed in the form of telephone memoranda. Likewise, all email communication will be saved in .pdf form to the project's digital files. The monthly project status meetings will be attended by the group/task leaders, as well as FHWA and PennDOT Champions. The FHWA and PennDOT Champions will provide assistance to the PennDOT Project Managers and Project Delivery Team.
The PennDOT Management Team will assist the PennDOT Project Manager for this project with his or her main goals: delivering the project within budget, on schedule, in high-quality form, and safely. Members of the PennDOT Management Team will be responsible for delivering specific tasks in accordance with the above listed project requirements and for producing task/phase reports, scopes of work, schedules, budgets, and quality reviews. The PennDOT Project Managers will ultimately be accountable for overall project performance.
At a minimum, the PennDOT Management Team will use the following tools:
Risk Management Plan
The purpose of the Risk Management Plan is to define the process by which the project
team identifies, assesses, plans mitigation strategies for, and manages project
risks throughout the project life. Effective risk management results in successful
accomplishment of project objectives. The compiled risk register will present risks
to PennDOT in the delivery of the projects within the Program and the overall Program
itself.
The STV/CDM Smith Teams will prepare a Risk Management Plan for the the BRI and BSR projects. These plans will be completed by mid 2012 after the start of Final Design. It will describe the process and requirements for identifying, evaluating and quantifying risks; managing and updating risks through the risk register; and implementing mitigation actions when risks arise.
A risk register for the BRI/BSR project has been prepared from the Cost Estimate Review conducted in October 2011 (see Appendix E). This register will be incorporated into the BRI/BSR risk management plan to be completed in 2012 after the Corridor Risk Management Plan. The Risk Register is comprised of four parts:
The focus of this process is to identify risks to the projects and program, compile the information that will allow for a qualitative risk analysis, and to perform the required risk mitigation and response planning. The Executive Leadership Team, the Program team and the Project delivery team have all provided input into the Risk Register. A systematic process to identify, analyze, and respond to project risk throughout all phases of the project will be documented in the Project Risk Management Plan. This plan will identify any potential issues that may negatively impact the project and present avoidance measures. The project risk register will be part of the monthly project review and reporting process and will continue throughout the project's life cycle. At a minimum, the following issues will be evaluated.
The Project Risk Management Plan will be a "living process", with the risks evolving as the project matures and the project focus moves through design and construction. Amendments to this document will include the updated Risk Register. The Project Risk Management Plan will be submitted to the PennDOT Management Team for review and approval. Once approved the Project Risk management Plan will be appended to this Project Management Plan.
Scope Management Plan
The purpose of the Scope Management Plan will be to outline the procedure for identifying
whether scope creep is occurring and, if so, how to best develop a supplemental
agreement or avoid the changes. The PennDOT Management Team will develop an I-95
Corridor Scope Management Plan. This plan will be completed in 2012.
At a minimum, the following outline will be followed and reported as part of the monthly project review and reporting process:
Scheduling Software
The project will be scheduled using WelcomHome Open Plan software. The PennDOT Management Team will help with the schedule effort and review each task for relationships, durations, and appropriateness. PennDOT District 6-0 templates will be used as the starting point for the baseline schedule. The schedule will be reviewed in detail monthly and the Design Consultant will report upon the schedule status of tasks. The Project Manager will be responsible for the overall project schedule.
Cost Tracking Software
Microsoft Excel worksheets will be used to report the financial status of the project. CDM Smith and STV will use its corporate accounting software (BST or Oracle) to track all tasks and sub-consultant progress. Information for the corporate accounting software will be rolled up to Excel worksheets for ease of presentation. Cost status will be included in the monthly project review and reporting process.
Project Metrics
Project metrics will be in accordance with Chapter 3 and reviewed and reported monthly. The purpose of the metrics is to ensure that appropriate analyses are conducted to identify trends and forecast project performance. The metrics will be used to identify and address challenges to eliminate potential problems/issues. Reports on project metrics will be incorporated into the Project Reporting and Tracking procedures outlined above. In addition, project status meetings are held monthly to review project status, discuss potential issues, scheduling and scope concerns. The project status are held throughout the design process and will continue into construction.
Value Engineering, Value Analyses, and Constructability Reviews
Individual Value Engineering Reviews will be conducted in accordance with PennDOT Publication 10A, Design Manual Part 1A early in the final design phase of each project within BRI/BSR. Procedures for documenting the acceptance or rejection of the individual proposals, documenting potential cost savings, and approvals for the actions taken will be identified during the evaluation.
Constructability Reviews will be conducted periodically throughout the final design phase for each project within the BRI/BSR section. The reviews will be performed to identify potential construction problem areas, possible cost savings, means to expedite construction, and alternate methodologies. PennDOT has advertised for a Construction Management Team to conduct a Value Engineering conference. The VE Conference is expected to be held during the final design phase.
Contractor Outreach Meetings
Contractor Outreach Meetings are not yet included in the Design contract, but are anticipated to be added during Final Design. If contractors are to be consulted during the design process, protocol will be developed and included in the Project Management Plan. The level of involvement by contractors will be determined and discussed along with any procurement restrictions on contractors involved in the outreach meetings.
Partnering
Partnering is not currently in the Design contract SOW. Successful projects usually depend on the development of mutual confidence and respect between the project delivery team and the contractors. Therefore, the Project Delivery Team anticipates developing a documented process to enhance working relationships in its contract administration activities with the contractors during the Construction Consultation phase of the project. This will likely be done through a formalized partnering process. The PMP will be updated to document the level of organizational involvement and the professional facilitation for the key partnering processes, including any partnership development and team-building workshops.
Change Order and Extra Work Order Procedures
The procedure for addressing change orders and extra work orders during the project design is summarized as follows:
The key elements of managing change orders and supplemental contracts are as follows:
The procedure for addressing change orders and extra work orders during construction is summarized in PennDOT Publication 408, Specifications, Section 110, Payment.
Claims Management Procedure
The PMP will also define the claims review and management process that will be followed in cases of contractor claims during construction. This section of the PMP will be developed during the Construction Consultation phase of the contract. The roles and responsibilities of those who will be responsible for reviewing and approving the claims, including legal reviews will be established and documented. A graphical flowchart (and where necessary, a narrative) showing the claims review and management procedure, parties involved, and approval authorities will be included in the PMP. Status of significant claims will be incorporated into the Project Reporting and Tracking procedures outlined above.
Other Programs
Should the need arise, the PMP will be expanded to include the management of other unique programs that develop during the project's lifespan are to be managed. Such other programs may include the following:
The following is an overview of the Design Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) plan that will be used during the design phase. The design consultants QA/QC documents are included in Appendix D
Quality Assurance (QA) describes the planned and systematic actions necessary to provide confidence that a product or service meets the needs and expectations of the client, reducing both errors and omissions, and meeting schedule and budget targets. Included in the processes are assignments of quality coordinators at various levels of operation, project audit procedures, project review procedures, and quality improvement committees.
Quality Control (QC) is a core component of quality assurance referring to the operational activities put in place to monitor and control the quality of a service or deliverable product. Timely reviews are required of completed activities for accuracy and completeness, with accurate documentation of all decisions, assumptions, and recommendations.
The purpose of the QA/QC plan is to ensure the Design Team provides high quality consulting services at the project level under the Project Manager's leadership. This is accomplished by requiring and identifying a comprehensive, well defined, written set of operations procedures and activities aimed at delivering consulting service deliverables that meet and/or exceed a client's expectations. Client quality assurance and quality control requirements will always take precedence if they exceed our own internal standards in providing high quality work.
The design consultants QA/QC documents included in Appendix D are intended for their internal use. While they demonstrate the team's commitment to quality and, as such, is a guideline, the team's responsibilities to the client are defined through negotiations with the actual client and bound by the design contract.
The QA/QC manual is focused on setting quality assurance standards for project execution as well as requirements for project specific quality control plans addressing quality control issues for a variety of client project needs.
This quality program will be strictly followed. Significant deviations from this plan will be approved by the group or regional manager prior to implementation, with a copy forwarded to the director of quality and project controls.
Applicable Federal and State guideline and design manuals will be adhered to for this project. PennDOT Design Manual Part 1 Transportation Program Development and Project Delivery Process, Chapter 4 defines Quality Control and Assurance procedures for delivery of PennDOT projects, including the BRI/BSR project. Chapter 4 incorporates PennDOT's Quality Management Manual as defined in PennDOT Publication 10X will provide guidance for the BRI/BSR project quality plan.
At the appropriate time, the PMP will be revised to set up the general requirements for Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) to be used during the construction phase. At a minimum, the construction QA/QC procedures will include the following:
PennDOT Specifications, Publication 408, discusses construction QC/QA in various sections. PennDOT Publication 2, Project Office Manual, also addresses contractor QC/QA throughout. PennDOT Publication 8 includes requirements for the construction personnel as to what is required and expected in order to achieve a quality finished product.
ECMTS is a tracking system developed by PennDOT to track environmental commitments and mitigation through the design, construction, and maintenance & operations phases of transportation projects. The project ECMTS is attached to the CEE and is included in Section 2.7 of this document. As the project moves into Final Design and construction, the ECMTS will be reviewed, adhered to, and updated as needed.
It will be the responsibility of the Final Design Environmental Consultant and the District Environmental Unit to ensure that the commitments noted in ECMTS are followed.
When changes are made to the project in the form of additional impacts or a reduction of impacts, the project team will coordinate with the District Environmental Unit to determine whether the changes result in "significant" changes warranting a reevaluation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), or a change to the mitigation commitments, resulting from the NEPA process. As necessary, mitigation commitments identified in the ECMTS will be updated and evaluated by the Project Team to reflect impact changes for each construction section. During Final Design, the CEE will be reevaluated; one CEE reevaluation will be developed for each construction section.
A variety of permits and approvals will be required for the construction of the project. The types of permits include, but are not limited to the following: US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit, PADEP's Section 401 Water Quality Certification, PADEP Chapter 105 Permits, and PADEP NPDES Permits. Pre-application meetings will be conducted with PADEP during final design. The strategy for managing these permitting activities is one of proactive compliance where the project team will develop methods to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the environmental impacts before they occur.
A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was prepared for this project and was approved in June 2010. The MOA Stipulations are included below. It is the responsibility of the Final Design Environmental Consultant and the District Environmental Unit to ensure these stipulations are completed.
1. An Addendum to the Philadelphia Schools Thematic Nomination will be prepared. The addendum will focus on the late 20th century, especially the 1960s-1980s, and will focus on, but not be limited to, redistricting, campus expansion and neighborhood school closings.
2. All of the schools within the Philadelphia Schools Thematic Nomination will be resurveyed. The survey will include color digital photographs of each school and a summary of the alterations and changes in use experienced by each school within the nomination. Any schools within the district that were not in the original nomination form will also be included in this survey. This survey will include color digital photographs of each new school and a brief description of each school. Drafts of the survey documents will be submitted to FHWA and the SHPO for review; PennDOT will consider their comments in the preparation of a final product.
The project area will require re-analysis of noise impacts and mitigation utilizing refined engineering, traffic, and other project data available during Final Design. It is the responsibility of the Final Design Environmental Consultant and the District Environmental Unit to ensure the re-analysis occurs.
The following environmental procedures will be followed for each construction section during Final Design and Construction. It will be the responsibility of the Final Design Environmental Consultant and the District Environmental Unit to ensure compliance with the following:
PennDOT acquires all required Rights-of-Way in accordance with their Publication 378 Right of Way Manual July 2, 2007 Edition. The purpose of this manual is to describe the PennDOT's right-of-way organization and provide policies and procedures to guide PennDOT employees and others in acquiring and managing real property for the construction and maintenance of transportation projects.
The Right-of-Way Manual and the policies and procedures by which the Utilities and Right-of-Way Section of the Bureau of Design and the District Right-of-Way Units operate were developed in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, the implementing regulation 49 CFR Part 24, 23 CFR Part 710, and the Eminent Domain Code of Pennsylvania.
This section defines the requirements that will be incorporated into the project in order to complete the project in a safe and secure environment for all individuals working on the project. The prevention of accidents during execution of the project will be a primary concern of all participants, and will be the responsibility of all levels of management. Safety should never be sacrificed for production, but should be considered an integral part of an efficient and quality project. The safety and security procedures are outlined as follows:
In addition, appropriate threat and vulnerability assessments will be made and taken into consideration throughout the project's life cycle. It is recognized that the transportation elements of this project could have a significant impact on regional safety and security plans.
The Department has developed and updates regularly an I-95 Corridor Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to minimize the impacts to the flow of traffic through the I-95 Corridor during construction of planned roadway improvements. The projects extend from the Delaware State Line in the south to the Delaware River to the north, a distance of approximately 51 miles. A copy of the current I-95 TMP dated March 2011 is included in the Appendix F.
The individual Design Consultants for the various projects along the I-95 Corridor are designated as the TMP Managers during the design phase of the project. The individual Design Consultants will create project specific TMP, incorporate elements of the project specific TMP into the PS&Es, and continue to update the TMP until all construction sections are underway. The individual Design Consultants will continue to provide support to PennDOT during the Construction Phase.
PennDOT's Inspector in Charge or his designee will be the Transportation Management Plan Manager for the project during construction. The TMP Manager will be trained in the fundamentals of the Work Zone Safety and Mobility Final Rule at the project level. This person has the primary responsibility and sufficient authority for implementing the TMP and other safety and mobility aspects of the project. The Contractor will have a Traffic Control Coordinator (TCC) who is trained in the fundamentals of Work Zone Safety and Mobility Final Rule at the project level who will manage the TMP activities.
The TMPs for BRI and BSR will be created during the final design phases for the individual projects. At which time the plans are created, they will be forwarded to PennDOT's Traffic Unit for review and approval. The TMP will require approvals in the following order:
The approved TMP is maintained and held at the PennDOT District 6-0, Traffic Unit's office.
The TMP Stakeholders and Review Committee represent the following organizations:
Separate meetings are held with Emergency Responders that include:
All of the above groups were given an opportunity to provide input into the TMP.
Disseminating timely and accurate project information to the media and public is a critical objective for this project for the purpose of maintaining the trust, support, and confidence throughout the life of the project. An outline of the Internal and Stakeholder communications protocol is presented in Section 10 of this document.
Externally, public outreach and communication mechanisms have been created to keep the public informed during the Final Design and Construction phases and to perform traditional public relations roles. Internally, multiple forms of communication have been identified for utilization by the various working groups for the sharing of information. Both external and internal communications will be detailed in the sections that follow.
The Department has made a commitment to communication through existing programs and additional items as outlined in the approved (July 26, 2010) CE for the I-95 BRI/BSR Project. A listing of these communication commitments along with additional communication tools that could be employed is provided in the form of a Project Public Participation Plan (Section 18.2). These communication commitments and communication tools will be evaluated by the Project Management Team and the Sustainable Action Committee (SAC) throughout the Final Design Phase to determine which tools are appropriate and when they should be implemented.
Although it is impossible to define all roles and responsibilities and strictly define all communications paths, Section 5 this document summarizes the basic requirements and flow down.
The information developed at the onset of Final Design is intended to show the Department's other communication commitments that either currently exist or are outlined in the I-95 Section BRI/BSR pending CE, and/or are required by the regulations. Additionally, a menu of Other Communication Opportunities will be developed at the onset of Final Design. The Project Portfolio Manager, throughout Final Design, will evaluate the need for each of the Other Communication Opportunities identified. The Public Participation Plan will indicate the purpose, audience, frequency and the anticipated delivery phase for all of the communication tools identified.
Other Communication Commitments - As the projects move through the final design process, this document will be updated to include additional commitments.
One of the most important objectives of the project is to maintain the trust, support and confidence of the public throughout the life of the project. External communications for the I-95 Section BRI/BSR Project will address this objective. The primary responsibility of External Communication belongs to the Public Outreach Group.
The Public Outreach Group will manage information dissemination to the public and others through project newsletters and brochures, coordination of public informational meetings, and press releases when necessary.
For the compilation of public comments, questions, issues etc, a database will be developed and maintained on the project website. This will serve the purpose of documenting public requests and issues received by the Department's District 6-0 Office, the Consultant Project Manager, the Design Manager, and the Section Designers. Public input that requires follow-up responses will immediately be forwarded to the appropriate entity to ensure a timely response. PennDOT, the Consultant Project Manager, the Design Manager, and the Section Designers will keep the database up to date by logging all requests for information and their respective responses in a timely manner. The responsibility of documentation will fall on the respective group receiving the request.
Internal communications on this project will include, but not limited to, meetings, the various traditional land based delivery services, faxes, email, phone calls, ftp sites, and other web-based services. The FHWA and Department liaisons provide assistance to the Project Team on strategic decision-making and operational management issues.
The PMP and updates will be housed on the Department shared drive.
The Closeout Plan consists of the requirements to provide a transition from design to construction to operations along with the roles and responsibilities of the various agencies and stakeholders.
Design Closeout involves the necessary administrative activities to close out the I-95 BRI/BSR Project. The Section Designer will verify that the following have been accomplished:
The Department utilizes several forms to develop a thorough project close out. Below is a listing of forms that the Department utilizes to ensure a thorough construction closeout:
PennDOT Publication 2, Project Office Manual includes Part D (Project Finalization) which discusses project closeout. A "Close Out" menu for projects is included in PennDOT's ECMS system. This system tracks the different forms and actions that need to be completed.
Michael Baker manages the project documentation for the BRI/BSR project. They are responsible for the following tasks:
The procedure below will be followed for reviewing submissions and distributing review comments.
The submission will then be reviewed and review comments provided on a standard form. Comments made will also be placed directly on paper copies of the plans if requested. The comment form, and the red-lined prints if available, will then be scanned and stored as an Adobe file. If both comments and red-lined prints are available they will be stored in one "_Markups" file. Comments on the plans are to be made in red; scanned copies of the plans are to be made using a color scanner so that the comments are clearly visible.
Following the review, Baker Project Manager will distribute the comments to the Department via e-mail; the comment form (in .pdf format) will be attached to the e-mail.
Baker's comments, together with the District's comments, will be forwarded to the Design Consultant along with the electronic files of the red-lined prints, if available.
Depending on the size of the electronic files, they may be distributed either by e-mail or disk.
The procedure for filing general correspondence is similar to the above.
Convention is set forth for both scanned submissions and general correspondence. The following is to be used for naming the files containing scanned submissions. Since the files will be located in directories containing the construction section designation, i.e. CP1, GR0, etc., the file name does not have to include the construction section. The date of the submission will be part of the file name to assist with locating the correct file.
YY/MM/DD_DESCRIPTION.pdf where:
YY/MM/DD is the year, month, and day (07/04/28) the submission was received. The same date shall be included in the name of the file containing any markups or comments.
DESCRIPTION will clearly identify the nature of the submission; abbreviations shall not be used to avoid confusion. Suggested titles include:
The following is to be used for naming the files containing general correspondence.
YY/MM/DD_DESCRIPTION.pdf where:
YY/MM/DD is the year, month, and day (07/04/28) the correspondence was received or sent.
DESCRIPTION will clearly identify the nature of the submission.
This section is reserved for future use.
FHWA | Privacy Policy To view PDF files download the Adobe Acrobat Reader®
