Loading ...
HCConserv...
Nature
ELAPP
11
0
Try Now
Log In
Pricing
Filename.ppt/1South County One Water Program HI L L S B O RO UG H CO UNT Y M a r c h 2 9 , 2 0 2 1 P ot abl e Wat er T r ans m i s s i on M ai n EL APP Ba l m B oy et t e & B a l m S cru b P re se rve Filename.ppt/2Agenda 1. Project Background/Objective 2. Route Identification 3. Non-Cost Evaluation 4. Summary Filename.ppt/31. Project Background/Objective • Identify viable routes Direct path (roadway ROW or dedicated easements) Consider future One Water Program pipelines • Identify baseline route • Evaluate alternative routes Potable water delivered from Tampa Bay Water Filename.ppt/41. Project Background/Objective • Identify viable routes Direct path (roadway ROW or dedicated easements) Consider future One Water Program pipelines • Identify baseline route • Evaluate alternative routes Potable water delivered from Tampa Bay Water Filename.ppt/52. Route Identification: Sun City Center Routes 5 Filename.ppt/62. Route Identification: Sun City Center Routes 6 WC. New Water Facility Routes Filename.ppt/72. Route Identification: Sun City Center Routes 7 WC. New Water Facility Routes A.1 TECO Joint Use Corridor A.2 Private/ELAPP Easement B. Balm Wimauma Rd C. Carlton Lake Rd Filename.ppt/82. Route Identification: Sun City Center Routes 8 WC. New Water Facility Routes A.1 TECO Joint Use Corridor A.2 Private/ELAPP Easement B. Balm Wimauma Rd C. Carlton Lake Rd SC.2 ELAPP Easement SC.1 SR 674 ROW Filename.ppt/93. Non-Cost Criteria 9 Criteria Definition Environmental Impacts from wetlands, protected species or habitats, historical protected areas, potential contaminated sites/Brownfields Property/ROW Access (Public right-of-way, permanent easement) and land use (rural, residential, commercial, etc.) Duration Overall project duration due to work area constraints (overhead power, along or in roads), easement acquisition, special construction requirements (trenchless), difficult restoration requirements, permitting requirements (road and railroad), required coordination (governmental agencies, special interest groups, etc.) Utility Conflicts Impacts/risk to existing utilities, relocation requirements, issues with maintaining required clearances, outage requirements, issues for future maintenance/repairs Public Impacts Impacts to business, residents, and visitors; traffic/accessibility impacts, complaints (noise, dust, traffic, etc.), public safety, loss of customers, critical facilities (hospitals, schools, fire stations, airports, etc.) Functionality/ Reliability O&M access (under road, congested ROW utility corridor, level of effort for O&M (number of appurtenances), safety issues for crews performing O&M (traffic control requirements) Filename.ppt/10Criteria A. Environmental B. Property/ ROW C. Duration D. Utility Conflicts E. Public Impacts F. Functionality/ Reliability A. Environmental A B. Property/ROW B B C. Duration C C C D. Utility Conflicts A B C D E. Public Impacts A E E E E F. Functionality/ Reliability A B C F E F Number of Selections 4 4 5 1 5 2 Relative Weight 19% 19% 24% 5% 24% 10% 3. Non-Cost Criteria Weighting 10 Filename.ppt/11Criteria A. Environmental B. Property/ ROW C. Duration D. Utility Conflicts E. Public Impacts F. Functionality/ Reliability A. Environmental A B. Property/ROW B B C. Duration C C C D. Utility Conflicts A B C D E. Public Impacts A E E E E F. Functionality/ Reliability A B C F E F Number of Selections 4 4 5 1 5 2 Relative Weight 19% 19% 24% 5% 24% 10% 3. Non-Cost Criteria Weighting 11 Filename.ppt/12Criteria A. Environmental B. Property/ ROW C. Duration D. Utility Conflicts E. Public Impacts F. Functionality/ Reliability A. Environmental A B. Property/ROW B B C. Duration C C C D. Utility Conflicts A B C D E. Public Impacts A E E E E F. Functionality/ Reliability A B C F E F Number of Selections 4 4 5 1 5 2 Relative Weight 19% 19% 24% 5% 24% 10% 3. Non-Cost Criteria Weighting 12 Reflects relative importance to WRD Filename.ppt/133. Non-Cost Criteria Weighting (Scoring Example) 13 A. Environmental Enter Score of 0 - 5 in Highlighted Cell (0 Worst, 5 Best) 0 40% + of segment impacted 1 30 - 40% of segment impacted, mitigation is needed 2 3 4 5 No impact along segment 20 - 30% of segment impacted, some issues can be avoided through alternative construction methods but mitigation is needed 10 - 20% of segment impacted, most issues can be avoided through alternative construction methods but some amount of mitigation is needed Up to 10% of segment impacted, issues can be avoided through alternative construction methods Filename.ppt/143. Non-Cost Criteria Weighting (Scoring Example) 14 Filename.ppt/153. Non-Cost Criteria Weighting (Scoring Example) 15 Segment Name Score Segment Length (ft) Wetland Length (ft) ELAPP Length (ft) % Impacted Balm to Triple Creek 13,265.0 282 0 2% S.1 CR 672 from Water Facility to Old Balm Rd 4 766.8 15 0 2% S.2 CR 672 from Old Balm Rd to TECO Esmt 4 3,009.4 60 0 2% S.3 TECO Esmt South to Hwy 672 3 1,375.5 250 0 18% S.4 Private Esmt South to Hwy 672 3 1,405.9 250 0 18% S.5 Old Balm Rd from CR 672 to TECO Esmt 4 3,726.3 25 0 1% A.1a TECO Esmt Hwy 672 to Balm Rd 0 1,470.4 1,470.4 0 100% A.1b Private Esmts Hwy 672 to Balm Rd 0 1,501.2 1,501.2 0 100% A.2a TECO Esmt Hwy 672 to Solar 0 4,769.3 4,769.3 0 100% A.2b Private Esmts Hwy 672 to Solar 3 4,755.3 650 0 14% A.3a TECO Esmt Solar to ELAPP 4 12,152.0 1058 0 9% A.3b ELAPP West of TECO Esmt 4 12,175.5 100 12,075.5 100% A.4a TECO Esmt ELAPP to Dirt Rd 5 1,539.3 0 0 0% A.4b Private Esmts ELAPP to Dirt Rd 5 1,540.3 0 0 0% A.5a TECO Esmt Dirt Rd to Hwy 674 5 1,562.9 0 0 0% A.5b Edina Rd ROW Dirt Rd to Hwy 674 5 1,627.6 0 0 0% B.1/C.1 Hwy 672 TECO Esmt to BW Rd 1 2,601.9 1000 0 38% B.2 BW Rd Hwy 672 to Balm Rd 4 2,918.5 75 0 3% B.3 BW Rd to Solar 3 3,958.4 500 0 13% B.4 BW Rd Solar to Dirt Rd 1 12,405.8 4100 0 33% B.5 BW Rd Dirt Rd to Hwy 674 5 1,662.9 0 0 0% B.6/C.5 Hwy 674 BW Rd to TECO Esmt 4 7,480.8 710 0 9% C.2 Hwy 672 BW Rd to Carlton Lake Rd 5 2,823.1 0 0 0% C.3 Carlton Lake Rd 4 21,144.8 330 0 2% C.4 Hwy 674 Carlton Lake Rd to BW Rd 4 10,080.8 450 0 4% AB.1 Balm Rd TECO Esmt to BW Rd 2 983.7 220 0 22% AB.2 Solar TECO Esmt to BW Rd 0 3,466.2 3466 0 100% AB.3 Dirt Rd TECO Esmt to BW Rd 3 7,453.7 1100 0 15% SC.1 Hwy 674 from TECO Esmt to W Lake Dr 5 7,084.8 0 0 0% SC.2 TECO to W Lake Dr - north SR674 route alt 4 8,694.8 85 735 9% SC.3 W Lake Dr 5 2,644.6 0 0 0% SC.4 SR 674 from W Lake Dr to US 301 4 5,084.2 30 0 1% Filename.ppt/163. Route Non-Cost Criterion Scores 16 Route A. Environmental B. Property/ ROW C. Duration D. Utility Conflicts E. Public Impacts F. Functionality/ Reliability Total Score Relative Weight 19% 19% 24% 5% 24% 10% 100% New Potable Water Facility to Balm Road WC.1 3.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.4 WC.2 3.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.4 WC.3 4.0 3.2 3.0 3.8 3.2 3.2 3.3 Balm Road to SR 674 A.1 (TECO) 3.0 5.0 0.6 4.4 4.9 5.0 3.5 A.2 (ELAPP) 1.0 4.9 0.8 4.8 5.0 4.7 3.8 B (Balm Wimauma) 2.5 4.2 3.4 2.4 3.9 3.0 2.9 C (Carlton Lake) 3.9 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.9 3.1 3.0 SR 674 to Sun City Center SC.1 (SR 674) 4.6 1.4 1.4 0.4 1.6 0.0 1.7 SC.2 (ELAPP) 4.2 3.2 1.6 2.6 2.7 3.1 2.9 Filename.ppt/173. New Potable Water Facility to Balm Rd Routes 17 Construction in TECO or private property easement is significantly shorter and approximately 1/3 the cost of construction in CR 672/Balm Rd ROW Filename.ppt/183. Route Non-Cost Criterion Scores 18 Routes have similar non-cost scores Route A. Environmental B. Property/ ROW C. Duration D. Utility Conflicts E. Public Impacts F. Functionality/ Reliability Total Score Relative Weight 19% 19% 24% 5% 24% 10% 100% New Potable Water Facility to Balm Road WC.1 3.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.4 WC.2 3.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.4 WC.3 4.0 3.2 3.0 3.8 3.2 3.2 3.3 Balm Road to SR 674 A.1 (TECO) 3.0 5.0 0.6 4.4 4.9 5.0 3.5 A.2 (ELAPP) 1.0 4.9 0.8 4.8 5.0 4.7 3.8 B (Balm Wimauma) 2.5 4.2 3.4 2.4 3.9 3.0 2.9 C (Carlton Lake) 3.9 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.9 3.1 3.0 SR 674 to Sun City Center SC.1 (SR 674) 4.6 1.4 1.4 0.4 1.6 0.0 1.7 SC.2 (ELAPP) 4.2 3.2 1.6 2.6 2.7 3.1 2.9 Filename.ppt/193. Balm Rd to SR 674 Routes 19 A.1 TECO Joint Use Corridor A.2 Private/ELAPP Easement B. Balm Wimauma Rd C. Carlton Lake Rd Filename.ppt/20Route A. Environmental B. Property/ ROW C. Duration D. Utility Conflicts E. Public Impacts F. Functionality/ Reliability Total Score Relative Weight 19% 19% 24% 5% 24% 10% 100% New Potable Water Facility to Balm Road WC.1 3.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.4 WC.2 3.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.4 WC.3 4.0 3.2 3.0 3.8 3.2 3.2 3.3 Balm Road to SR 674 A.1 (TECO) 3.0 5.0 0.6 4.4 4.9 5.0 3.5 A.2 (ELAPP) 1.0 4.9 0.8 4.8 5.0 4.7 3.8 B (Balm Wimauma) 2.5 4.2 3.4 2.4 3.9 3.0 2.9 C (Carlton Lake) 3.9 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.9 3.1 3.0 SR 674 to Sun City Center SC.1 (SR 674) 4.6 1.4 1.4 0.4 1.6 0.0 1.7 SC.2 (ELAPP) 4.2 3.2 1.6 2.6 2.7 3.1 2.9 3. Route Non-Cost Criterion Scores 20 Routes have similar non-cost scores ELAPP and TECO routes score higher Filename.ppt/2121 Variations of ELAPP Routes Filename.ppt/223. SR 674 Routes 22 Avoiding construction along a portion of SR 674 significantly reduces public impact at a slightly lower estimated construction cost Filename.ppt/23Route A. Environmental B. Property/ ROW C. Duration D. Utility Conflicts E. Public Impacts F. Functionality/ Reliability Total Score Relative Weight 19% 19% 24% 5% 24% 10% 100% New Potable Water Facility to Balm Road WC.1 3.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.4 WC.2 3.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.4 WC.3 4.0 3.2 3.0 3.8 3.2 3.2 3.3 Balm Road to SR 674 A.1 (TECO) 3.0 5.0 0.6 4.4 4.9 5.0 3.5 A.2 (ELAPP) 1.0 4.9 0.8 4.8 5.0 4.7 3.8 B (Balm Wimauma) 2.5 4.2 3.4 2.4 3.9 3.0 2.9 C (Carlton Lake) 3.9 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.9 3.1 3.0 SR 674 to Sun City Center SC.1 (SR 674) 4.6 1.4 1.4 0.4 1.6 0.0 1.7 SC.2 (ELAPP) 4.2 3.2 1.6 2.6 2.7 3.1 2.9 3. Route Non-Cost Criterion Scores 23 Routes have similar non-cost scores ELAPP and TECO routes score higher ELAPP route scores higher than SR 674 Filename.ppt/24Questions? 24 WC. New Water Facility Routes A.1 TECO Joint Use Corridor A.2 Private/ELAPP Easement B. Balm Wimauma Rd C. Carlton Lake Rd SC.2 ELAPP Easement SC.1 SR 674 ROW Alternative Underground Filename.ppt/254. Summary: Benefits of ELAPP Alternative Routes 25 • Construction out of road ROW Significantly reduces public impact • Construction in dedicated easements Simplifies future maintenance of water transmission main Effectively eliminates risk of future impacts • Also significantly reduces construction costs and schedule Opportunity: Cost-sharing partnership to expand ELAPP restoration Filename.ppt/26Extra Slides Filename.ppt/273. Easements Under Consideration – North Area 27 Filename.ppt/283. Easements Under Consideration – South Area 28 Filename.ppt/29Summary: Baseline Sun City Center Route 29 Balm Wimauma Rd ROWSR 674 ROW (requires temporary lane) CR 672/Balm Rd ROW Filename.ppt/302. Route Identification: Triple Creek Route 30 Filename.ppt/315. Summary: Viable Sun City Center Routes 31 Filename.ppt/323. Non-Cost Evaluation 32 • 6 non-cost criteria identified • Quantitative scoring system: 0 (worst) to 5 (best) • Assign scores to identified segments for each criterion • Calculate route non-cost score for each criterion:
