8/17/2023 0 Comments Army corps lock queue reportIn many ways, the Olmsted project was remarkable arguably the civil engineering equivalent to the Manhattan project. The dam portion of the project, for example, included pre-cast concrete shells, building blocks weighing up to 5000 tons each, moved from a fabrication site, via a rail sled, to a catamaran crane barge – the largest in the world – and then moved upriver, and lined up at a 30-foot depth across the river bottom, an underwater task demanding ¼ inch tolerances. Insurance and bonding costs soared by 230 percent.įundamentally, it was the numerous struggles with in-the-wet construction that checked early project momentum. From 2002 to 2007, fabricated steel prices increased about 300 percent, cement 90 percent, and fuel about 300 percent. The 2005 hurricane season, which included Katrina and Rita, created a scarcity of barges and cranes when the contractor was trying to mobilize equipment and barge prices doubled. There were many reasons, some external to the project. In 2006 and again in 2011, new baseline estimates projected cost increases – by $81.6 million in 2006 and by a whopping $551.1 million in 2011 and increased the construction schedule by 4 to 5 years. Nevertheless, the project continued to flounder. Still another new construction estimate (8 years) was arrived at. In 2004 – sixteen years after authorization – a contract was awarded to Washington Group/Alberici (WGA) Joint Venture. In 2003, the Corps offered a cost-reimbursement contract, receiving two offers. In 2002, the Corps requested proposals for construction as a firm fixed-price, but received no offers, because according to subsequent Corps’ analysis, the construction method was innovative, the river conditions were too risky, and a potential contractor could not get bonding. It was repeatedly re-examined, even as late as 2012 – eight years after initial project funding.Ĭontracts were also a challenge. But, even the in-the-wet decision didn’t deliver much certainty. ‘In-the-wet’ was chosen in 1997, and a new construction estimate was arrived at: six years. The 1990s were given over to technical analytical work regarding a construction method – evaluating the more traditional “in-the-dry” method, using cofferdams which block the flow of water around a site, versus a newer, but less familiar “in-the-wet” method, more difficult but promising more flexibility and a lower final cost. An appropriation for construction was first made in 1990 but the Corps did not award money for a construction project until 2004 – 14 years later. Olmsted was first authorized within the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1988 at a cost of $775 million, with construction estimated to take seven years. Olmsted isn’t just about critical transportation – its operations are integral to the entire Midwest economy. The tonnage passing through this section, over 90 million tons annually, exceeds every other section of America’s inland navigation system. To say that the 2,596-foot Olmsted dam is situated on a vital section of the Nation’s inland waterways would not give full weight to the importance of this critical infrastructure. On the Ohio River at Olmsted, IL, about 10 miles north of Cairo, IL, where the mighty Ohio flows into the mighty Mississippi, this crucial piece of American infrastructure is finally almost in place. Before that happens, Olmsted’s performance will be tested and confirmed. 52 and 53, which Olmsted is replacing – will be dismantled by December 2020. The very old (1929) upstream locks and dams – Nos. After more than 30 years, the ribbon cutting to officially open the Olmsted Locks and Dam took place on August 30. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) wants Olmsted operational by October. After more than 30 years of frustratingly slow progress, cost overruns and more than a few mistakes, Olmsted is finally poised for success.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |