Work Plan - Final - Maricopa County Department of Transportation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

7.0 Public and Stakeholder InvolvementBuilding consensus between MCDOT, local agencies, jurisdictions, key stakeholdersand the public is vital to the success of the Hidden Waters Parkway North Study. ATechnical Advisory Committee (TAC) will be established to solicit feedback frompartnering agencies and key stakeholders at multiple stages of the corridor study.Potential members of the technical advisory committee are as follows: Maricopa County(Transportation and Planning, Traffic, Design, Planning and Development), FloodControl District of Maricopa County, Town of Buckeye, MAG, Arizona Department ofTransportation (ADOT), ASLD, Arizona Game and Fish, BLM, Toyota Technical TestingCenter, utility providers (SRP, APS, WAPA), Developers (El Dorado Holdings, LKYHoldings, Harvard Investments) and select private land owners. It is the responsibilityof MCDOT to finalize the committee members (See Appendix B for TAC contactinformation). The TAC will meet up to five times over the course of the study to reviewprogress and provide direction. Three of the TAC meetings will be held prior to thepublic open houses.Up to ten study-coordination meetings will be held with the affected agencies andjurisdictions, principal land developers, private property owners, and utility companiesas needed to understand concerns and establish consensus.Input from the public will be solicited on three separate occasions. The first of thesemeetings will be a Public Scoping Meeting. It will be held during the planning phase toallow TAC members to inform the public of the intent of the study and gather feedback.The second open house will be used to present the alternative alignment options andthe evaluation criteria to the public. At the third public meeting, TAC members willpresent the recommended alignment to the public.Hidden WatersFinal Work PlanCorridor Feasibility Study April, 2011Maricopa County Department of Transportation 13 EPS Job No. 10-092
8.0 Criteria for Evaluation of AlternativesThe alignment alternatives will be objectively reviewed based upon defined evaluationcriteria. These criteria may include but are not limited to:Affected ParcelsConsistency with approved Development/MPC PlansAdditional Right of Way Required (sf/acre)Estimated Right of Way CostBuildings AffectedConstructability IssuesEngineering ComplexityEnvironmental IssuesPotential Utility ConflictsPublic AcceptabilityFunctionalityAs the study progresses, these criteria will be further refined as additional informationbecomes available. Each alignment will be qualitatively scored based upon theevaluation criteria, and the results will be reviewed by the TAC to determine whichalignment/alignments should be carried forward to preliminary design.8.1 Performance MeasuresIn addition to the alternative evaluation criteria identified in the previous section, thecorridor study will be assessed by the following performance measures:Has the purpose for the project been adequately been met?Have all of the stakeholders’ concerns/issues been addressed/mitigated?Are the identified key issues satisfied by the study recommendations?Hidden WatersFinal Work PlanCorridor Feasibility Study April, 2011Maricopa County Department of Transportation 14 EPS Job No. 10-092
Page 1 and 2: Hidden Waters Parkway NorthCorridor
Page 3 and 4: AbbreviationsArizona Department of
Page 5 and 6: 2.0 Study Area Definition/Project U
Page 7 and 8: 3.0 Key IssuesThe intent of this st
Page 9 and 10: 3.2 DrainageThe Hidden Waters Corri
Page 11 and 12: 5.0 Study Process and ApproachThe H
Page 13 and 14: Figure 5-2 Project ScheduleHidden W
Page 15: Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interc
Page 19 and 20: xHiddenWaters Parkway: Interstate 1
Page 21 and 22: xAttendeesHidden Waters Parkway: In
Page 23 and 24: x444AgendaHidden Waters Parkway:Int
Page 25 and 26: xHiddenProject GoalsWaters Parkway:
Page 27 and 28: xHiddenTechnical Advisory Committee
Page 29 and 30: x111Scope of WorkHidden Waters Park
Page 31 and 32: ContentsStudy Overview ............
Page 33 and 34: the first step in the development p
Page 35 and 36: • Topography from existing source
Page 37 and 38: Product: Technical Memorandum #2 -
Page 39 and 40: o CAP drainage studies that address
Page 41 and 42: 3.1. Technical Advisory Committee (
Page 43 and 44: o Douglas Rancho Toyota Proving Gro
Page 45 and 46: • Study Purpose/Need,• Study Go
Page 47 and 48: The Consultant will prepare the cor
Page 49 and 50: x222Project NotesProject Budget:$50
Page 51 and 52: Type First Name Last Name Title Com
Page 53 and 54: HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CFS: QUALITY
Page 55 and 56: verification of verbal conversation
Page 57: □ Preferred Alignmento Standard c

Work Plan - Final - Maricopa County Department of Transportation

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?