DOCSLIB.ORG

SR 520 Montlake Cut Tunnel Expert Review Panel Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SR 520 Montlake Cut Tunnel Expert Review Panel Report SR 520 Project Montlake Cut Tunnel Expert Review Panel Report EXPERT REVIEW PANEL MEMBERS: John Reilly, P.E., C.P.Eng. John Reilly Associates International Brenda Böhlke, Ph.D., P.G.. Myers Böhlke Enterprise Vojtech Gall, Ph.D., P.E. Gall Zeidler Consultants Lars Christian Ingerslev, P.E. PB Red Robinson, C.E.G., R.G. Shannon and Wilson Gregg Korbin, Ph.D. Geotechnical Consultant John Townsend, C.Eng. Hatch-Mott MacDonald José Carrasquero-Verde, Principal Scientist Herrera Environmental Consultants Submitted to the Washington State Department of Transportation July 17, 2008 SR520, Montlake Cut, Tunnel Alternatives, Expert Review Panel Report July 17h, 2008 Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................................5 1.1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................5 1.2. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................................................5 1.3. TUNNELING METHODS CONSIDERED......................................................................................................5 Figure 1 - Immersed Tunnel Construction (General) ......................................................................................6 Figure 2 - Tunnel Boring Machine (Elbe River, Hamburg) ............................................................................6 Figure 3 – Sequential Excavation Method (Beacon Hill Tunnel, Seattle).......................................................7 1.4. GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS .........................................................................................................7 1.5. ALIGNMENTS CONSIDERED.....................................................................................................................8 Figure 4 - Plan of tunnel alignments A, B, C and D considered .....................................................................8 1.6. METHODS, LENGTHS, GRADES AND MINIMUM SOIL COVER..................................................................9 Table A – Alignments, Lengths, Road Grades and Minimum Cover..............................................................9 Alignment B - Modified........................................................................................................................9 Table A-1 – Alignment B Modified................................................................................................................9 Plan of Alignment B Modified......................................................................................................................10 1.7. ACCEPTABLE RAMP GRADES ................................................................................................................10 Table B – WSDOT Design Manual, Maximum Grades for Ramps ..............................................................10 1.8. FINDINGS REGARDING THE TUNNELING METHODS CONSIDERED..........................................................11 2. REPORT, SR520 EXPERT PANEL, MONTLAKE CUT TUNNELS .............................................12 2.1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND, THE COWI REPORT....................................................................12 Figure 5 – General arrangement of the COWI Immersed Tunnel Proposal ..................................................12 This Document...................................................................................................................................12 Project Context..................................................................................................................................12 Expert Review Panel, convening and objectives ...............................................................................13 Input from the Project and Mediation Panel Members .....................................................................13 Cost of the alternatives not addressed...............................................................................................14 2.2. EXPERT REVIEW PANEL - WORKSHOP ..................................................................................................14 Considerations...................................................................................................................................14 2.3. PROPOSED MONTLAKE CUT TUNNEL – PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................14 Tunnel - configuration, coordination and considerations.................................................................14 SR 520 Project Schedule....................................................................................................................15 2.4. INITIAL DELIBERATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS..................................................................................15 3. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................................16 3.1. BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................................16 3.2. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS ...............................................................................................................17 Fisheries and Fish Habitat ................................................................................................................17 Chinook Salmon.............................................................................................................................18 Steelhead ........................................................................................................................................18 Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout.....................................................................................................19 Wetlands and Riparian Vegetation....................................................................................................19 Parks and Recreation ........................................................................................................................20 Historic and Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................20 3.3. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS...................................................................................................................21 Table C - Comparative Environmental Effects of Tunnel Construction Methods ........................................21 Table D – Salmonoids Migration Timing for ESA Listed Species in Montlake Cut ....................................24 4. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS NEAR MONTLAKE CUT........................................................24 Background........................................................................................................................................24 Ground conditions .............................................................................................................................24 Subsurface Data - Cautions...............................................................................................................25 Alignment and depth considerations .................................................................................................25 5. ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................25 SR520, Montlake Cut, Tunnel Alternatives, Expert Review Panel Report July 17h, 2008 Page 3 5.1. ALIGNMENTS CONSIDERED ..................................................................................................................26 Figure 6 - Plan of tunnel alignments considered...........................................................................................27 Considerations regarding the Alignments .........................................................................................28 5.2. METHODS, LENGTHS, GRADES AND MINIMUM SOIL COVER................................................................28 Table E – Alignment, Method, Lengths, Road Grades and Minimum Cover ...............................................28 Table E-1 – Alignment B Modified ..............................................................................................................29 5.3. ACCEPTABLE RAMP GRADES ................................................................................................................29 Table F – WSDOT Design Manual, Maximum Grades for Ramps...............................................................29 6. TUNNELING METHODS CONSIDERED.........................................................................................30 Figure 7, Immersed Tunnel Construction (General) .....................................................................................30 Figure 8 - Tunnel Boring Machine (Elbe River, Hamburg) ..........................................................................30 Figure 9 – Sequential Excavation Method (Beacon Hill Tunnel, Seattle).....................................................31 Discussion..........................................................................................................................................31 7. SPECIFICS OF EACH CONSTRUCTION METHOD .....................................................................32 7.1. SEQUENTIAL EXCAVATION METHOD (SEM) TUNNELING....................................................................32 General
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SDOT 2018 Traffic Report
    Seattle Department of Transportation 2018 TRAFFIC REPORT *2017 data CONTENTS 5 Executive Summary 7 Traffic Volumes and Speeds 8 Motor Vehicle Volumes 11 Traffic Flow Map 13 Bicycle Volumes 18 Pedestrian Volumes 21 Motor Vehicle Speeds 23 Traffic Collisions 24 Citywide Collision Rate 25 Fatal and Serious Injury Collisions 27 Pedestrian Collision Rate 30 Bicycle Collision Rate 33 Supporting Data 33 Volume Data 44 Speed Data 48 Historical Collision Data 50 2016 All Collisions 54 2016 Pedestrian Collisions 63 2016 Bicycle Collisions 75 Glossary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents an end of year review of This report is prepared in compliance with Seattle the core data sets the Seattle Department of Municipal Code 11.16.220, which requires the Transportation (SDOT) collects and maintains City Traffic Engineer to present an annual traffic including volumes, speeds, and collisions. The report that includes information about traffic use of this data, guided by department plans and trends and traffic collisions on City of Seattle policies, serves as the foundation for making streets. Beyond this legal requirement, the informed decisions on nearly all work at SDOT report strives to serve as an accessible reference from safety improvements to repaving to grant of Seattle traffic data and trends for all. applications. It is fundamental to measuring project performance. The breadth and depth of In gathering and compiling the information the data collected allows objective discussion of in this report, the Seattle Department of project merits and results, be it a new crosswalk Transportation does not waive the limitations on or an entire safety corridor. As the demands and this information’s discoverability or admissibility complexity of Seattle’s transportation network under 23 U.S.C § 409.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Qualifications Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project
    Submitted by: Kiewit Pacific Co. Statement of Qualifications Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project Specification No. PW10-0128F Submitted to: Purchasing Office, Tacoma Public Utilities 3628 South 35th Street, Tacoma, WA 98409 June 8, 2010 Tab No. 1 - General Company Information & Team Structure Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project Project TAB NO.1 - GENERAL COMPANY INFORMATION AND TEAM STRUCTURE Kiewit Pacific Co., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kiewit Infrastructure Group, Inc., will be the contracting party for this project, as indicated on Forms 3 and 4 in Tab No. 4 - Appendix C. As a wholly-owned subsidiary, none of the officers of Kiewit Pacific Co. (Kiewit) own stock. Incorporated on May 18, 1982, we can trace our history back to 1884, when Peter and Andrew Kiewit formed Kiewit Brothers, an Omaha masonry contracting partnership. Today, we are part of one of North America's largest and most respected construction and mining organizations. We take our place in the corporate structure of our parent company, Kiewit Infrastructure Group Inc., alongside Kiewit Construction Company and Kiewit Southern Co. Our affiliates and subsidiaries, as well as those of our parent company, operate from a network of offices throughout North America. We draw upon the Kiewit Corporation’s collective experience and personnel to assemble the strongest team possible for a given project. Therefore, work experience of such affiliates and subsidiaries is relevant in demonstrating our capabilities. For the Murray Morgan Bridge, we are supplementing our local talent with extensive moveable bridge expertise from our east coast operations, Kiewit Constructors, Inc. We are also utilizing our local subsidiary, General Construction Company (General), for mechanical and electrical expertise.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimating PCB and PBDE Loadings to the Lake Washington Watershed: Final Data Report
    Estimating PCB and PBDE Loadings to the Lake Washington Watershed: Final Data Report September 2013 Alternate Formats Available 206-296-6519 TTY Relay: 711 Estimating PCB and PBDE Loading Reductions to the Lake Washington Watershed: Final Data Report Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 Submitted by: Richard Jack and Jenée Colton King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks Funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency Grant PC-J28501-1 Disclaimer: This project has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under assistance agreement PC-00J285-01 to King County. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. King County i September 2013 Estimating PCBs and PBDEs Loadings to the Lake Washington Watershed: Final Data Report Acknowledgements A fantastic group of people have made this project possible and contributed to its success. Colin Elliott of the King County Environmental Laboratory provided laboratory project management services throughout the field study. Many thanks go to Ben Budka, Marc Patten, David Robinson, Bob Kruger, Jim Devereaux, and Stephanie Hess, who led the year-long field sampling program. The knowledgeable staff at AXYS Analytical Services (AXYS) provided high quality advice and analytical services. Archie Allen and Kirk Tullar of the Washington Department of Transportation provided critical assistance during siting and sampling of the highway bridge runoff location. John Williamson of the Washington Department of Ecology graciously allowed us access and shared space at the Beacon Hill air station.
    [Show full text]
  • Coast Guard, DHS § 117.1058
    Coast Guard, DHS § 117.1058 through the Seattle Marine Operator, accumulated vehicular traffic. How- Station KOH, or through other marine ever, the draw shall open without wire or radiotelephone service. delay, when requested by vessels en- (c) The draw need not be opened from gaged in towing operations. 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Fri- (2) For any vessel or watercraft of day, except for all Federal holidays less than 1,000 gross tons, unless the other than Columbus Day. vessel has in tow a vessel of 1,000 gross tons or over, from Monday through [CGD 82–025, 49 FR 17452, Apr. 24, 1984, as amended by CGD13 84–13, 49 FR 35628, Sept. Friday, except Federal Holidays: 11, 1984; CGD13–94–039, 60 FR 54434, Oct. 24, (i) The draw need not open from 7 1995] a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. from April 30 to September 1 and § 117.1051 Lake Washington Ship from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 3:30 Canal. p.m. to 7 p.m. from September 1 to (a) When fog prevails by day or by April 30. night, the drawtender of each bridge (ii) The draw need open only on the listed in this section, after giving the hour and half hour from 12:30 p.m. to acknowledging signal to open, shall 3:30 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. toll a bell continuously during the ap- [CGD 82–025, 49 FR 17452, Apr.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Seattle 2016 Programs Historic Seattle
    HISTORIC SEATTLE 2016 PROGRAMS HISTORIC SEATTLE HISTORIC SEATTLE is proud to offer an outstanding 2016 educational program for lovers of buildings and heritage. 2016 Enjoy lectures and workshops, private home, local, and out-of-town tours, informal advocacy-focused, issues- PROGRAMS based events, and special opportunities that bring you closer to understanding and PAGE appreciating the rich and varied JANUARY built environment that we seek 26 (TUES) Members Meeting: German House 3 to preserve and protect with your help. FEBRUARY 6 (SAT) Workshop: Digging Deeper: Pacific Northwest Railroad Archive 7 20 (SAT) Tour: Religious Life off Campus: University District Churches 10 28 (SUN) Documentary Screening: Bungalow Heaven 4 MARCH 8 (TUES) Tour: First Hill Neighborhood 10 9 (WED) Lectures: Gardens of Eden: American Visions of Residential Communities 4 12 (SAT) Workshop: Digging Deeper: Special Collections, University of Washington 7 26 (SAT) Tour: Georgetown Steam Plant 11 APRIL 2 (SAT) Tour: Montlake 11 4 (MON) Members Meeting: Congregation Shevet Achim 3 9 (SAT) Workshop: Digging Deeper: Seattle Theatre Group Library 7 23 (SAT) Tour A: Behind the Garden Wall: Good Shepherd Center Gardens 8 30 (SAT) Tour B: Behind the Garden Wall: Good Shepherd Center Gardens 8 COVER PHOTO MAY From “Seattle: In the Charmed Land,” 7 (SAT) Workshop: Digging Deeper: Ballard Historical Society 7 Seattle Chamber of Commerce, 1932 9 (MON) Lecture: The Impact of World War I on Seattle and its Cityscape 5 Collection of Eugenia Woo 22 (SUN) Tour: Bloxom Residence,
    [Show full text]
  • DIRECTIONS from the North (Everett, Bellingham, Vancouver, BC) 1) Take South on I-5
    DIRECTIONS From the North (Everett, Bellingham, Vancouver, BC) 1) Take south on I-5. 2) Look for and get off at the exit marked N. 45th Street and N. 50th Street. 3) Turn to the left (east) onto N.E. 50th Street. (If you miss 50th, get off on 45th). 4) Go approximately 3/4 mile on N.E. 50th (or 45th), turn right (south) onto 15th Avenue N.E. 5) Go to the fourth light (one block past the pedestrian overpass) to N.E. 40th Street. 6) Get into the left-hand turn lane at N.E. 40th Street. 7) Enter the UW campus at Gate 5 (N.E. 40th and 15th Ave. N.E.). 8) Go up the hill past Gate 5 and turn right (south) onto Stevens Way at the first corner. 9) Benson Hall is the third building down the road on the left-hand side. 10) Turn into the lower driveway, just before the "Benson Hall" sign. 11) There is a 30-minute limit for parking in the Loading Zone area of Benson Hall. The "Parking Enforcement" is strictly monitored. From the Eastside (Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond) 1. Take I-520 west, across the Lake Washington floating bridge, towards Seattle. 2. On the Seattle side, take the second exit, "Montlake." 3. At the end of the exit, go right onto Montlake Avenue; you'll be heading north. Start moving over to the left lane as soon as you can. 4. Proceed across the Montlake Bridge, a small lift bridge crossing the Lake Washington Ship Canal. 5.
    [Show full text]
  • CSOV 120 Spring 2021 Languages of Our Ancestors
    University of Washington - 2021 Urban Forest Symposium CHESHIAHUD TALKS: Historical Union Bay Forests A Family Generational View on Being Connected & Responsibility Prepared By: Jeffrey Thomas (Muckleshoot Tribal Elder; UW B.S. Zoology, M.Sc. Marine Affairs) Director: Timber, Fish & Wildlife Program/Puyallup Tribe of Indians (253) 405-7478 [email protected] ** Disclaimer – All of the photographic and timeline information assembled herein was collected from currently available digital internet sources - and thus may be inaccurate - depending upon the veracity of the sources. CHIEF DESCENDANTS Pre-1850s: Treaty Maps • 1820 – Lake John Cheshiahud born on southern Union Bay village – this was a vital passage from the coast into the lakes and river system all the way up to Issaquah and beyond. ➢ Duwamish people traveling by canoe had access to waterway connections unavailable to larger Euro-American vessels. ➢ Lake John reported to have “…a cabin on Lake Union across from the University grounds…Lake John used to take pelts to the trading station at Steilacoom before Seattle was thought of.” 1850s: Union Bay Map 1856 & Chief Cheshiahud Village Site • 1851 – Denny Party arrives to begin claiming Duwamish homelands – including Lake Union. • 1853: Washington Territory established. • 1854 – Seattle’s 1st school opens as a private/tuition school (on 1st and Madison) – then moves but continues to operate until 1861…when students were sent to classes in the new building of the Territorial University. The first year of the Territorial University, there were 37 students, of which 36 were below college level. • 1854 – Washington Territorial Legislature outlaws Non- Native men marrying Native women (but legalizes it again in 1868).
    [Show full text]
  • Seattle Design Commission #2 Brief
    SR 520 Montlake to Lake Washington I/C and Bridge Replacement Project SEATTLE DESIGN COMMISSION #2 BRIEF SR 520 Project Background The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is redeveloping the Seattle segment of the State Route (SR) 520 corridor between I-5 and Lake Washington, known as the “Rest of the West”. The redevelopment will include new bridges that meet current seismic standards, updated roadways with HOV capacity and new pedestrian and bicycle facilities. In addition, the project will include a lid between Montlake Blvd E. and 24th Ave E, as well as a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over SR 520 to the east of the Montlake lid. The Montlake lid will include improved transit connections, open spaces, and enhanced non-motorized connections. Although the entire project is fully funded, funding for design and construction is allocated over several biennia. Construction is occurring in phases: • Phase 1- West Approach Bridge North • Phase 2- West Approach Bridge South and the mainline corridor spanning from Lake Washington to Montlake Blvd. This phase will include the design and construction of the Montlake lid, the Pedestrian Land Bridge, Lake Washington Boulevard and restoration of Foster Island. • Phase 3 - I-5 Express lane connection • Phase 4 - Includes replacement of the Portage Bay Bridge, a new Roanoke lid • Phase 5 – Includes a second bascule bridge over the Montlake Cut. In 2016, The Seattle Design Commission (SDC) provided recommendations to WSDOT on final design concepts related to Phase 2 of the corridor, which will be designed and constructed by a design-build contract. These SDC recommendations along with detailed input from city departments and the public assisted WSDOT in developing the 2018 Request for Proposals (RFP) for construction of Phase 2.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX G Parks and Recreation Facilities in the Plan Area
    APPENDIX G Parks and Recreation Facilities in the Plan Area June 2014 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement This appendix lists and illustrates the parks and recreation facilities in the Plan area based on available geographic information systems (GIS) data. GIS data sources were as follows: • Snohomish County • King County • Pierce County • City of Everett • City of Mountlake Terrace • City of Lake Forest Park This information was not verified in the field and parks and recreation facility representatives were not contacted to determine ownership or the recreational uses associated with these resources. Over 1,300 parks and recreation facilities were listed in the available GIS database including a wide variety of open space areas, sports fields, trails, and water- oriented facilities. The park or recreation facility ID numbers in Table G-1 correspond to those ID numbers in Figure G-1 and Figure G-2. Table G-1. Parks and recreation facilities in the Plan area, by county Facility ID Facility ID number Facility name number Facility name Snohomish County 104 Unnamed park or recreation facility 3 Unnamed park or recreation facility 105 Unnamed park or recreation facility 5 Unnamed park or recreation facility 106 Unnamed park or recreation facility 6 Unnamed park or recreation facility 107 Unnamed park or recreation facility 7 Unnamed park or recreation facility 108 Unnamed park or recreation facility 9 Unnamed park or recreation facility 109 Unnamed park or recreation facility 19 Unnamed park or recreation facility 110 Unnamed
    [Show full text]
  • Superintendent's Report
    Department of Parks and Recreation Seattle Board of Park Commissioners Meeting Minutes January 22, 2009 Meeting Held at 100 Dexter Avenue North Web site: http://www.seattle.gov/parks/parkboard/ (Includes agendas and minutes from 2001-present Also, view Seattle Channel tapes of meetings, June 12, 2008-most current, at http://www.seattlechannel.org/videos/watchVideos.asp?program=Parks Board of Park Commissioners: Present: Neal Adams, Vice-chair John Barber Terry Holme Donna Kostka Jackie Ramels, Chair Seattle Parks and Recreation Staff: Tim Gallagher, Superintendent Christopher Williams, Deputy Superintendent Susan Golub, Strategic Advisor Commissioner Ramels called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and reviewed the meeting agenda. A motion was made and seconded to approve the agenda and the record of correspondence. The vote was taken and the motion carried. The January 8 meeting minutes will be approved at the February 12 meeting. Superintendent‘s Report Superintendent Gallagher reported on several park items. Seacrest Water Taxi: A good meeting regarding proposed improvements to the Seacrest Dock related to the Seacrest Water Taxi was held at the Alki Community Center, with approximately 100 people attending. King County and the Ferry District, operators of the water taxi, ran the meeting. The proposed improvements were well-received. California Place Park: Meetings regarding the proposed improvements at the park (a Neighborhood Matching Fund project) have been rescheduled in order to find a venue closer to the site. Seward Park Encroachments: We have had success working with property owners adjacent to Seward Park who have private encroachments into the parkland. Eleven owners agreed to remove encroachments.
    [Show full text]
  • SR 520, I-5 to Medina
    Chapter 6: Effects during Construction of the Project Chapter 6: Effects during Construction of the Project This chapter discusses how construction of the 6-Lane Alternative would affect the natural and built environment in the project area. The No Build Alternative is not discussed in this chapter because it would not involve any construction and would not have construction effects. The 6-Lane Alternative options are compared to the extent that their construction methods, timing, and/or effects differ from one another. Specific construction activities would affect portions of the SR 520 project area for varying amounts of time. All of the construction effects would be temporary, although some would last for several years. Areas outside the SR 520 right-of- way would be restored to their original condition as soon as possible after construction. 6.1 Transportation KEY POINT Construction effects on transportation near I-5, the Delmar lid, and the Transportation SR 520/Montlake interchange would be similar for all the design options. All options would have similar construction effects on transportation through most of However, reconstruction of the NE Montlake Boulevard/NE Pacific Street the project area, with differences in the intersection in Options K and L would have much greater adverse effects vicinity of the Montlake Boulevard on traffic operations and transit facilities, particularly near the Montlake interchange. Options K and L would result Triangle. The effects would result from the road closure and traffic shifts in more effects than Option A because of the amount of truck traffic required for that would be required to modify the Montlake Boulevard and NE Pacific construction of the new SPUI and the traffic Street intersection, as well as the amount of truck traffic required for effects during the closure of NE Pacific construction of the new interchange.
    [Show full text]
  • Uwpd Pre-Design Progress Presentation December 2011
    UWPD PRE-DESIGN PROGRESS PRESENTATION DECEMBER 2011 THE MILLER HULL PARTNERSHIP, ARCHITECT MCCLAREN, WILSON & LAWRIE, POLICE FACILITY CONSULTANT UW POLICE DEPARTMENT UW POLICE DEPARTMENT FACILITY PROJECT UNIVERSITY DISTRICT UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON CAMPUS EXISTING UW POLICE DEPARTMENT THE MILLER HULL PARTNERSHIP, ARCHITECT MCCLAREN, WILSON & LAWRIE, POLICE FACILITY CONSULTANT UW POLICE DEPARTMENT SR-520 INTERCHANGE PROJECT 500’ THE MILLER HULL PARTNERSHIP, ARCHITECT MCCLAREN, WILSON & LAWRIE, POLICE FACILITY CONSULTANT UW POLICE DEPARTMENT UWPD BUILDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE UWPD Building Design and Construction Schedule December 2011 February 2012 December 2014 DECEMBER 2015 Pre-Design UWPD UWPD Park Construction Finalized Design Begins New Facility Complete Complete J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D INFORMATION J F M A M J J A S O N D 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 PHASES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 ACTION J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D DECEMBER 2012 July 2013 December 2014 Approved agreement Commence UWPD site Commence Bryants site expected by National work & building Work & reconstruction Park Service (NPS) construction of park THE MILLER HULL PARTNERSHIP, ARCHITECT MCCLAREN, WILSON & LAWRIE, POLICE FACILITY CONSULTANT UW POLICE DEPARTMENT UWPD PRE-DESIGN ADVISORY GROUP Jim Angelosante Director for Finance and Building Services, Facilities Services Rebecca Barnes University Architect,
    [Show full text]