AASHTO VE Awards Showcase

AASHTO VE AWARD CONSTRUCTION

National Value Engineering Honorable Mention

During Construction

Most Value Added

Proposal

Presented by the AASHTO Value Engineering Technical Committee August 4, 2015

MoDOT & Pace Construction

US 65 North Bound Farmer Creek Bridge Replacement

For Demonstrating Outstanding Value Engineering Achievements in Teamwork, Cost Savings, Enhanced Performance, or Expedited Project Delivery

that Resulted in an Overall Improved Business Practice

National Value Engineering Award

During Construction

Most Value Added

Proposal

Presented by the AASHTO Value Engineering Technical Committee August 4, 2015

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Joseph B. Fay Company

US 219 Somerset to Meyersdale

For Demonstrating Outstanding Value Engineering Achievements in Teamwork, Cost Savings, Enhanced Performance, or Expedited Project Delivery

that Resulted in an Overall Improved Business Practice

US 219 Corridor – South of Somerset • 1970’s: Portion of the ROW purchased • Early 1990’s: Studies from I-68 (MD) to Turnpike • Late 1990’s: Meyersdale Bypass Constructed • Early 2000’s” Start of Preliminary Engineering for

Section 020 (and Section 019)

Section 020 Meyersdale to Somerset • 2004: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)

(4 Alternatives) • 2005: Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) • 2006: Record of Decision (FHWA) • 2012: Right-of-Way Clearance • 2012: MAP-21 (100% Federal Funding) • 2013: Permits Issued & Project Advertised • 2013: Start Construction of Section 20A & 20B • 2014: Start Construction of Section 20C

Local U.S. 6219 History

US 219 New Highway Construction

11 miles of 4-lane (limited access) highway • Mass Excavation = 12 million CY • Drainage Pipe / Inlets = 17.5 miles • Water Retention Basins = 30 ea • Box Culvert Bridges = 4 ea • Dual Span Bridges = 2 ea

Proposed Alignment Shift

• Constructability improvement & project time savings • Large reduction in excavation

Comparison of Design to VE

• Old design required mass toe bench excavation & fill materials; new design builds road on top of slope.

• Eliminated a tensor wall which could introduce settlement. • Reduction in future maintenance costs.

Value Engineering Concept

Savings: $9,072,118 (8.2% of entire project)

Original Plan: Reinforced Soil Slope

Change: Roadway alignment shift, eliminating need for slope

South End of VE – Looking North

North End of VE – Looking South

Other Benefits • 650 lf less streams impacted • 0.08 less acres of wetlands impacted • 6.2 less acres of impervious area due to decreased

rock slope area. • 6.2 acres remains forested for wildlife habitat. • Total – 4.6 less acres of disturbance

Challenges 1) Buy In – Expediting a preliminary design concept to

obtain approval from affiliated Agencies.

Key Agencies included: • USEPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency • USACE – United States Army Corps of Engineers • USF&WS – United States Fish & Wildlife Service • PADEP – Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection • PF&BC – Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission • PGC – Pennsylvania Game Commission • DCNR – PA Dept. of Conservation & Natural Resources • SCCD – Somerset County Conservation District • PHMC - PA Historic & Museum Commission Cultural Clearance • Penelec, Somerset Rural Electric & Wilson Creek Wind, LLC

Challenges

2) Time - Coordination of the engineering design with the NPDES Permit submittal, review and approval process. • NPDES review and approval process took nearly 4 months of

suspense prior to reaching approval.

3) Expedited Engineering - Getting the engineering to a point of completion in order to make necessary property acquisitions. • All efforts were seamlessly orchestrated not to impede with the

overall construction completion date goals.

Challenges 4) Engineering Ownership – With many Engineers and

Surveyors involved with the process, it was a challenge to determine who was responsible for final engineering seals on final drawings for construction. • District 9 and Contractor Executives provided necessary support to

achieve determining factors that established boundaries that were acceptable to all parties.

5) Property Acquisition – Pennsylvania Department of Transportation attained 2.85 acres of property that made the VECP reality and allowed the process to move forward.

Key to Overcome Challenges

Partnering Amongst all Parties!

Tools used to Achieve Complete Success:

1. Accountability Schedule: CPM Format

2. Weekly Partnering & Accountability Reviews: Partnering meetings were mandatory and held on a weekly basis to assure Team effort.

Congrats to our VECP Team! 2015 Award of Excellence

AASHTO VE AWARD IMPROVED PROCESS

National Value Engineering Honorable Mention

Improved Process

Most Value Added

Proposal

Presented by the AASHTO Value Engineering Technical Committee August 4, 2015

Florida Department of Transportation District Four

Project Development and Environment Process Improvement

For Demonstrating Outstanding Value Engineering Achievements in Teamwork, Cost Savings, Enhanced Performance, or Expedited Project Delivery

that Resulted in an Overall Improved Business Practice

National Value Engineering Honorable Mention

Improved Process

Most Value Added

Proposal

Presented by the AASHTO Value Engineering Technical Committee August 4, 2015

California Department of Transportation

Unbalanced Bid Analysis

For Demonstrating Outstanding Value Engineering Achievements in Teamwork, Cost Savings, Enhanced Performance, or Expedited Project Delivery

that Resulted in an Overall Improved Business Practice

National Value Engineering Award

Improved Process

Most Value Added

Proposal

Presented by the AASHTO Value Engineering Technical Committee August 4, 2015

Ontario Ministry of Transportation Snow Removal Equipment Visibility

For Demonstrating Outstanding Value Engineering Achievements in Teamwork, Cost Savings, Enhanced Performance, or Expedited Project Delivery

that Resulted in an Overall Improved Business Practice

October 29, 2003 Provincial Highways Management Division 22

Ministry of Transportation Ministry of Transportation

Winter Equipment Visibility – the issue • Snow removal equipment often operates under the most adverse

conditions when conspicuity is most important

October 29, 2003 Provincial Highways Management Division 23

Ministry of Transportation Ministry of Transportation

Different Contractors have different markings.

October 29, 2003 Provincial Highways Management Division 24

Ministry of Transportation

New Technology – Tow Plows & LED lights

October 29, 2003 Provincial Highways Management Division 25

Ministry of Transportation

VE Recommendations

• Yellow-green on black checkerboard

October 29, 2003 Provincial Highways Management Division 26

Ministry of Transportation

Airfoils to Keep Snow off Back/Lights

October 29, 2003 Provincial Highways Management Division 27

Ministry of Transportation

Lighting on End of Tow Plow and Wing

October 29, 2003 Provincial Highways Management Division 28

Ministry of Transportation

Field Trials - Rear Panel Colours & Light Patterns

• Initial Test – Rear Panel Colours (9 variations)

• 2nd Test – Lighting Configurations • Closed road – 12 test subjects

October 29, 2003 Provincial Highways Management Division 29

Ministry of Transportation

. 3rd Test - On-Road Testing • Compared existing to new lighting

• Daytime and nighttime (February) • Winter conditions (Huntsville) • 6 test subjects

October 29, 2003 Provincial Highways Management Division 30

Ministry of Transportation

New Equipment Standards Issued in 2014

October 29, 2003 Provincial Highways Management Division 31

Ministry of Transportation

VE Study Process • Learn how we got contractors, technical

specialists, manufacturers and others to help us develop new standards in record breaking time.

• Education Track • Wednesday 3:30-4:30 p.m. • VE product Improvements

AASHTO VE AWARD IMPROVED PERFORMANCE

National Value Engineering Honorable Mention

Improved Performance

Most Value Added

Proposal

Presented by the AASHTO Value Engineering Technical Committee August 4, 2015

Minnesota Department of Transportation I-90 Pavement Rehab

For Demonstrating Outstanding Value Engineering Achievements in Teamwork, Cost Savings, Enhanced Performance, or Expedited Project Delivery

that Resulted in an Overall Improved Business Practice

National Value Engineering Award

Improved Performance

Most Value Added

Proposal

Presented by the AASHTO Value Engineering Technical Committee August 4, 2015

Montana Department of Transportation

North of Kiowa-North and Kiowa Jct. North & South

For Demonstrating Outstanding Value Engineering Achievements in Teamwork, Cost Savings, Enhanced Performance, or Expedited Project Delivery

that Resulted in an Overall Improved Business Practice

NORTH OF KIOWA – NORTH KIOWA JCT NORTH & SOUTH

2015 AASHTO VE CONFERENCE PRESENTATION

IMPROVED PERFORMANCE

OVERVIEW • LOCATION:

– US 89: Browning to Hudson Bay Divide corridor – Located on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation – Connected to the majestic Glacier National Park

• PURPOSE AND NEED: – “Build a roadway that is a pleasure to drive and give it a

“look and feel” – a theme – that provides a strong identity for the Blackfeet Nation and complements Glacier National Park. Give people a reason to stop, to enjoy the area, and to want to come back.” (Quote from the Final Environmental Impact Statement)

• PROPOSED SCOPE: – 10.3 MILE – RECONSTRUCT

• REALIGNMENT • 2 STRUCTURES

– ORIGINAL PROJECT COST - $31.46 Million

OVERVIEW - continued • CONSTRAINTS:

– Environmental • Wetlands • Historic Blackfeet Trail • Cultural Sites and Tribal Cloth Offering Sites • Threatened and Endangered Species (Grizzly Bear, Canada

Lynx, etc.) • Bridge locations

– Timing restrictions • Short construction season due to extreme weather • Wildlife range activities (Grizzly Bear, Canada Lynx, etc.)

– Constructability/staged construction/variable soils – Tourism – Mountainous Terrain

SHORT CONSTRUCTION SEASON

VE/VA STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

#1 – Move special borrow out of typical section #2 – Remove/reduce special borrow under surfacing section #3 – Use W740 bridge rail #4 – Optimize bridge location & length #5 – Omit plant mix and waterproof membrane on bridges #6 – Alignment adjustments: 610 to 640 and grade adjustments: 550 to 640 #7 – Typical section – reduce 10 foot 6:1 to 6 foot

Proposed Typical Section No. 1

Original Typical Section No. 1

RECOMMENDATION #1 & 2 Move Special Borrow Out of Typical Section/

Remove/Reduce Special Borrow Under Surfacing Section

Alignment adjustment station 610 to 640

RECOMMENDATION #6 Alignment Adjustments: 610 to 640 and Grade Adjustments: 550 to 640

Yellow – Existing PTW Black – Current Design Red – VA Proposal

The Study Team applied the principals and practices of the Value Engineering Job Plan which resulted in the following improved performance and cost reduction benefits:

• Enhanced Operational Performance • Reduced Environmental Impacts • Reduced Construction Impacts • Expedited Project Delivery • Improved Constructability

Total Potential Cost Savings of $7.26 million or 23.1 % of the original project cost.

IMPROVED PERFORMANCE SUMMARY VA STUDY RESULTED IN:

– More Efficient Typical Section • Reduced project costs • Reduced excavation and borrow quantities

– Smaller Footprint • Greatly reduced wetland and endangered species habitat

impacts • Improved horizontal and vertical alignments

– Finished Roadway • Safe, scenic, and educational with improved drivability • Optimized bridge locations • Sacred Cloth Offerings and other Tribal sites will not be

disturbed • 30% reduction in construction time

AASHTO VE AWARD PRE-CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING

(<$25 MILLION)

National Value Engineering Honorable Mention

Most Value Added

Proposal

Presented by the AASHTO Value Engineering Technical Committee August 4, 2015

Washington Department of Transportation

SR 124 Monument Rd/RR Xing – Construct Bridge

For Demonstrating Outstanding Value Engineering Achievements in Teamwork, Cost Savings, Enhanced Performance, or Expedited Project Delivery

that Resulted in an Overall Improved Business Practice

Pre-Construction Engineering

less than $25 million

National Value Engineering Award

Pre-Construction Engineering

less than $25 million

Most Value Added

Proposal

Presented by the AASHTO Value Engineering Technical Committee August 4, 2015

Montana Department of Transportation

Flathead River – 3 Miles North West of Big Fork

For Demonstrating Outstanding Value Engineering Achievements in Teamwork, Cost Savings, Enhanced Performance, or Expedited Project Delivery

that Resulted in an Overall Improved Business Practice

FLATHEAD RIVER BRIDGE 3 MILES NW BIGFORK

2015 AASHTO VE CONFERENCE PRESENTATION

PRE-CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (<$25M)

OVERVIEW • LOCATION:

– Northwestern Montana near the towns of Big Fork and Somers

• Located over the Flathead River • Transition between flat terrain and rolling hills

• PURPOSE AND NEED: – Improve safety and mobility by replacing the functionally

obsolete structure and the bridge approaches – The structure ranked high for seismic retrofit because of

its fracture critical two-girder system

OVERVIEW - continued

• PROPOSED SCOPE: – New alignment – Construct new 736 foot, 3 span bridge – Complex 1.4 mile reconstruction project

• ORIGINAL PROJECT COST = $24.3M

OVERVIEW - continued

• CONSTRAINTS: – 4(f) Fish Wildlife and Parks – fishing access site – Environmental issues (wetlands, bull trout, etc.) – High risk Right of Way acquisition

• CONSIDERATIONS: – New offset alignment – Liquefaction may occur during a high seismic event at

the end bents – Deep Water Foundation constructability – Flathead County Master Trail Plan

VE/VA STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

• 1A - New Alignment or Existing - Evaluate Bridge Foundation Types

• 1B - New Alignment – Evaluate Ground Improvements Beneath Approach Embankments

• 2A - Existing Alignment – With Detour Bridge During Construction

• 2B - Existing Alignment – With Road Closure During Construction

• 3A - Either Alignment – Eliminate Shared Use Path • 3B - Either Alignment – Design For Future Expansion

For Shared Use Path

RECOMMENDATION #1A – New Alignment - Evaluate Bridge Foundation Types

Other Options • 3-72” Diameter Piles • 2 Rows of 5-48”

Diameter Piles for additional stiffness

• 2-96” Diameter Piles for accelerated construction

• Must meet “no rise” requirement

RIVER BOTTOM CROSS-SECTION

Recommendation #1B – New Alignment – Evaluate Ground Improvements Beneath Approach

Embankments

Improve Soil Properties Using Compaction Grouting Original Design: Stone columns used to mitigate potential for liquefaction and lateral spreading at both abutments. Proposed Change: Improve the soil properties at both abutments using compaction grouting. Justification: Compaction grouting improves soil density and increases soil strength. Anticipated reduced mobilization cost and less equipment, can limit treatment to target zone in soil profile, can stage grout pattern/ hole layout as needed. Decreased construction time. POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS = $0.7M

Recommendation #3B – Either Alignment – Design For Future Expansion For Shared Use Path

• Build bridge foundation and superstructure to accommodate future Shared Use Path

• Construct Path when trail connection is constructed

• Potential Cost Savings = $0.91 M • Current design does not include a path along the length of the

project

The Study Team applied the principals and practices of the Value Engineering Job Plan which resulted in cost reduction and performance benefits in the following areas:

• Cost & schedule savings as compared to original design • Project improvements as compared to original design • Improved constructability

Total potential cost savings of $9.73 million, a 40% reduction in the total project cost

SUMMARY • 30-35% reduction in the construction schedule is

anticipated • Innovative techniques to solving complex geotechnical

design • Maintained safety and traffic operations • Reduced Environmental, R/W and Fishing Access site

impacts • Reduced work zone impacts to users • Improved constructability of the bridge • 2 value added ideas:

– Add lighting or conduit to shared use path along the structure

– Extend the separated path along the length of the project to include the fishing access

AASHTO VE AWARD PRE-CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING

($25 MILLION TO $100 MILLION)

National Value Engineering Honorable Mention

Pre-Construction Engineering

$25 - $100 million

Most Value Added

Proposal

Presented by the AASHTO Value Engineering Technical Committee August 4, 2015

City of Oceanside

Melrose Drive Link Project

For Demonstrating Outstanding Value Engineering Achievements in Teamwork, Cost Savings, Enhanced Performance, or Expedited Project Delivery

that Resulted in an Overall Improved Business Practice

Department of Public Works

National Value Engineering Award

Pre-Construction Engineering

$25 - $100 million

Most Value Added

Proposal

Presented by the AASHTO Value Engineering Technical Committee August 4, 2015

Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority

SH 32 (East Loop) Project in Brownsville, Texas

For Demonstrating Outstanding Value Engineering Achievements in Teamwork, Cost Savings, Enhanced Performance, or Expedited Project Delivery

that Resulted in an Overall Improved Business Practice

Value Engineering Overview SH 32 (East Loop) Project

Washington, D.C. August 4, 2015

66

Proposed Project

Project Need and Purpose:

o Provide an alternate east-west major arterial to the southeast area of Brownsville

o Provide a truck overweight corridor to the Port of Brownsville

o Provide infrastructure necessary to support the growing population

67

Proposed Project

East Segment Improvements: o Interim design – 2 lane

roadway o Ultimate design – 4 lane

roadway o ROW acquisitions /

relocations – approximately 44 parcels

o ADT 5,000 (2013) 7,100 (2033)

68

Proposed Project

West Segment Improvements: o U.S. 77/83 to FM 1419 –

6 lane divided roadway o FM 1419 to FM 3068 –

4 lane divided roadway o ADT 21,800 / 8,700 (2013) 30,400 / 12,200 (2033)

o ROW acquisitions / relocations – approximately 31 parcels

69

Proposed Project

Major Items of Work per Cost Estimate: • Pavement • Grading • Subgrade • Utilities • Bridges (Ultimate)

Status of Design Plans: 95% Schematic Environmental Assessment –submitted to TxDOT

70

Estimate and Elements

Item East West Total Concrete Pavement $ 13.92 M $ 9.80 M $ 23.72 M Grading $ 2.40 M $ 8.92 M $ 11.32 M ROW* $ 2.60 M $ 3.84 M $ 6.44 M E/C $ 2.12 M $ 4.13 M $ 6.25 M Surface HMA $ 2.34 M $ 3.00 M $ 5.34 M Utilities* $ 0 M $ 5.10 M $ 5.10 M Subgrade $ 0.75 M $ 2.75 M $ 3.50 M Mobilization $ 1.57 M $ 1.63 M $ 3.20 M Levee $ 0 M $ 3.11 M $ 3.11 M Bridges $ 2.90 M $ 0 M $ 2.90 M Small Structures $ 0.26 M $ 1.48 M $ 1.74 M Miscellaneous $ 0 M $ 0 M $ -

TOTAL $ 28.86 M $ 43.76 M $ 72.62 M

* Non-reimbursable

71

• The VE Team generated 58 Ideas; 30 Ideas were further discussed.

• The VE Team developed 10 Recommendations and 18 Design Suggestions for further review.

• Project elements analyzed: Pavement (P) Grading (G) Subgrade (SG)

Ideas and Recommendations

Bridges (B) Utilities (U) Miscellaneous (M)

72

Design Suggestions

1. Accommodate for future bus bays (P-14) 2. Minimize future pavement removal / Use salvaged road materials for

base use (P-16 / P-17) 3. Use asphalt base in lieu of PG-64-22 (P-18) 4. Reduce design speed (P-20) 5. Evaluate super-elevated section (G-2) 6. Evaluate need for future overpass at FM 3068 (G-5) 7. Install drainage crossings only as needed (extend for ultimate) (G-8) 8. Install conduit or casings for utilities for future development (G-9) 9. Evaluate proposed estimate for new pump station (U-1) 10. Consider SUE services prior to completion of environmental phase

(U-4) 11. Consider no bridges in future or final phases (B-1) 12. Reverse SH 4 and SH 32 overpass (B-9)

73

Design Suggestions

13. Coordination of all parties (government and design entities) throughout project limits (B-10 / M-1) 14. Consider immediate geotechnical effort (SG-2) 15. Re-evaluate need for detention ponds (M-2) 16. Re-evaluate ultimate design based on traffic forecast (M-4 ) 17. Re-evaluate deferring sidewalk construction (M-5) 18. Modify DHS border fence to act as noise wall (M-6)

74

Cost Adjustment Recap

Recommendation Number

Description Individual Savings

Combined Savings

P-7 No Concrete in Median $1.5 M

P-10 Reduce Outside Shoulder $1.8 M

P-12A Eliminate Proposed Raised Median $1.3 M

P-12B Reduce Proposed Raised Median $0.8 M

P-21 Reduce Number of Lanes from 4 to 2 $3.0 M

P-23 Mill Existing Roadway, Add 11” CRCP $5.0 M

P-24 Heavy-Load Pavement Design on Mainlanes Only

$0.8 M

P-25 Reduce Asphalt Bond Breaker by 1” $2.5 M

G-6 Special Intersection Design ($0.2 M)

M-3 Reduce ROW Footprint $3.5 M

TOTAL ------ $11.9 M

AASHTO VE AWARD PRE-CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING

(>$100 MILLION)

National Value Engineering Honorable Mention

Most Value Added

Proposal

Presented by the AASHTO Value Engineering Technical Committee August 4, 2015

New Jersey Department of Transportation

Route 1 & 9T / New Road

For Demonstrating Outstanding Value Engineering Achievements in Teamwork, Cost Savings, Enhanced Performance, or Expedited Project Delivery

that Resulted in an Overall Improved Business Practice

Pre-Construction Engineering

greater than $100 million

National Value Engineering Honorable Mention

Most Value Added

Proposal

Presented by the AASHTO Value Engineering Technical Committee August 4, 2015

North Carolina Department of Transportation

Rehabilitating I-85 from South of US 158 to VA State Line

For Demonstrating Outstanding Value Engineering Achievements in Teamwork, Cost Savings, Enhanced Performance, or Expedited Project Delivery

that Resulted in an Overall Improved Business Practice

Pre-Construction Engineering

greater than $100 million

National Value Engineering Honorable Mention

Most Value Added

Proposal

Presented by the AASHTO Value Engineering Technical Committee August 4, 2015

Wisconsin Department of Transportation

IH 39 Stevens Point Corridor VE Study

For Demonstrating Outstanding Value Engineering Achievements in Teamwork, Cost Savings, Enhanced Performance, or Expedited Project Delivery

that Resulted in an Overall Improved Business Practice

Pre-Construction Engineering

greater than $100 million

National Value Engineering Honorable Mention

Most Value Added

Proposal

Presented by the AASHTO Value Engineering Technical Committee August 4, 2015

Sound Transit

Lynnwood Link LRT Extension Project

For Demonstrating Outstanding Value Engineering Achievements in Teamwork, Cost Savings, Enhanced Performance, or Expedited Project Delivery

that Resulted in an Overall Improved Business Practice

Pre-Construction Engineering

greater than $100 million

National Value Engineering Award

Pre-Construction Engineering

greater than $100 million

Most Value Added

Proposal

Presented by the AASHTO Value Engineering Technical Committee August 4, 2015

San Bernardino Associated Governments

I-10 Express Lane Widening

For Demonstrating Outstanding Value Engineering Achievements in Teamwork, Cost Savings, Enhanced Performance, or Expedited Project Delivery

that Resulted in an Overall Improved Business Practice

Caltrans - District 8

AASHTO VE Conference

August 2015

I-10 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT

Project Costs: $1.6 Billion Construction Duration: 5 years Beneficial Use: 2025

Project Issues

• Increased Traffic Demand • Right of Way Constraints • Limited funding

Express Lane Ingress/Egress

Managed Lanes

• Managed Lanes • HOV (carpool) Lanes

• Managed by occupancy restrictions

• Express Lanes • Managed by occupancy

restrictions and pricing

Benefits of Express Lanes

• Manages traffic demand • Promotes carpooling • Improves air quality • Generates revenue • Provides for reliable trip times • Offers synergy potential with

transit

I-10 Express Lanes Project Purpose and Need

Purpose • The purpose of the project is to facilitate the movement

of people and goods through the I-10 corridor to more optimally service future traffic demands while providing a seamless tie into the regional I-10 corridor in neighboring Riverside and Los Angeles Counties.

Need • The project is needed to reduce congestion, increase

capacity, and generate revenue to improve operations throughout the I-10 corridor with consideration of projected traffic demand and the anticipated impacts to traffic operations.

Key Functions of Project

Higher Order Functions • Improve Travel Time • Increase Throughput • Facilitate Usership • Offset Capital Costs

Basic Functions

• Reduce Congestion • Increase Capacity • Manage Operations • Generate Revenue

Value Analysis

VA Study Objectives • Identify areas for project performance

enhancements • Identify areas of potential cost savings and/or

schedule improvement • Identify solutions to potential uncertainties (risks)

or open issues • Review and validate the design concept • Develop alternative concepts that will improve

project value!

Project Performance

Performance Attributes • Mainline Operations • Environmental Impacts • Construction Impacts • Maintainability • Phaseability • Ride Quality / Driver Expectations

ACCEPTED VA ALTERNATIVES

Alt. 1.0 – Utilize Superpave in Lieu of HMA (Type C)

Alt. 2.0 – Modify Ramps at Haven to avoid ROW

Alt. 3.0 – Replace/rehab the two current outside lanes with 40 year PCC when performing widening

Alt. 5.0 - Use pre-cast/pre-stressed concrete beams for bridge replacements to reduce closures

Alt. 6.0 – Optimize landscaping through corridor

Alt. 7.1 - Construct two HOT lanes in segment 1 through the I-15/I-10 system interchange to Cherry Ave,

and then one HOT lane in segments 2-4

Single Express Lane through Cherry Ave.

Net Effect of Accepted VA Alternatives

Summary of VA Improvements • Right-sizes the facility to accommodate traffic demands

and relieve congestion to improve the movement of people and goods.

• Significant initial and lifecycle cost savings • Schedule savings of 9 months reduces construction

impacts on the travelling public

Accepted Alternatives Initial Cost

Savings LCC

Savings Change in Schedule

Performance Change

Value Change

1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.1 $158,910,000 $107,054,000 -9 months +14 % +25 %

Comparison of Value – Baseline Concept and Accepted VA Alternatives

0%

25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Baseline Accepted Alternatives

Chan

ge in

Val

ue

Rela

tive

Scor

es

Performance Cost/Time Rating Change in Value

THANK YOU!

AASHTO

VE Awards Showcase

Thanks to all applicants and winners!