Illinois Association of Highway Engineers The 83rd IAHE ...€¦ · from the “Gold Mine” of...

Post on 24-Aug-2020

0 views 0 download

Transcript of Illinois Association of Highway Engineers The 83rd IAHE ...€¦ · from the “Gold Mine” of...

from the “Gold Mine” of Smaller Transportation Projects

Illinois Association of Highway Engineers The 83rd IAHE Statewide Annual Conference

Rock Island, Illinois

Technical Session PresentationBy Warren Knoles, PE, CVS

September 13, 2019

Mining “VE Gold”…

The Process

• Workshop Constraints:

o Interchange location: existing signalized intersection

o Interchange type: open to alternative concepts

oProvide full interchange (“look & feel like an interchange”)

oMaintain access to Route W intersection during construction

oMaintain access to existing businesses during construction

oMaintain four lanes of traffic on US 54

The Process

• Workshop Team:o 8 MoDOT engineers (traffic, geometrics, structures, maintenance, utilities, costs)

o 1 MoDOT geologist (geotechnical)

o 1 FHWA engineer (highway & bridge design, FHWA policies)

o VE facilitator (SAVE-certified)

o Two engineers from another MoDOT district – observers on 2nd day

o TOTAL: 10 + facilitator

The Process

• Performance Criteria Wt. (%)oMainline/ramp operations (LOS) 19o Local traffic operations (LOS) 14oHighway user safety 26o Traffic operations during construction 10o Long-term performance/maintainability 14oGeotechnical stability 5oAccess during construction 12

TOTAL 100

• Paired-pair comparison methodology used for weighting criteria

The Process

• Information Phase

oAnswer:

“To provide an EB, first-stage bridge deck wide enough to accommodate 2 lanes in head-to-head operation during construction of the new WB lane and bridge.”

This answer will later lead to a significant value improvement.

Workshop project presentation

The Process

• Evaluation Phaseo Team classified ideas using 9-cell matrix

oPotential VE opportunities:• 4 rating = same functionality; decreased cost• 4 rating = increased functionality; same cost• 5 rating = increased functionality; decreased cost

oPotential “practical design” alternatives:• 2- rating = decreased functionality; decreased cost

oPotential internally funded performance increase

• 2+ rating = increased performance; increased cost

9-Cell Matrix Methodology6

The Process

• Development Phase

oDetermined the value index for each VE proposal write-up as follows:

• Value Index = Performance = Perf. Rating Cost Revised Cost

• Baseline value index = 500/$12.152M = 41.1 (Perf. Pts./$Million)

• Improve value: increase numerator, decrease denominator, or both

Results

• Preferred VE Design Concept Summary of VE design concept Ramp 1 - diamond configuration [VE] Ramp 2 - slip ramp [BL] Ramp 3 - compressed diamond/C&G on left

shoulder [VE] Ramp 4 - diamond configuration [BL] Roundabout at R1, R3, Osage Hills Road (OHR) [VE]

R1

R4R2

R3

OHR

CR

Increase Throughput

Manage Traffic

Alternate Movements

Stop Traffic

Accomm. Free-flow

Slow Traffic

MergeMovements

Functions addressed: BL

VE

How?Why?

Display Directive

Increase Curvature

Results

• Preferred VE Design Concept Summary of VE design concept

Ramp 1 - diamond configuration [VE] Ramp 2 - slip ramp [BL] Ramp 3 - compressed diamond/C&G on left

shoulder [VE] Ramp 4 - diamond configuration [BL] Roundabout at R1, R3, Osage Hills Road (OHR) [VE] No TWLTL on Connector Road (CR) [VE]

R1

R4R2

R3

OHR

CR

AccommodateSpeed-change

Separate Traffic

Channelize Traffic

Slow Traffic

IncreaseCurvature

Functions addressed: BL

VE

How? Why?

Results

• Preferred VE Design Concept Summary of VE design concept

Ramp 1 - diamond configuration [VE] Ramp 2 - slip ramp [BL] Ramp 3 - compressed diamond/C&G on left

shoulder [VE] Ramp 4 - diamond configuration [BL] Roundabout at R1, R3, Osage Hills Road (OHR) [VE] No TWLTL on Connector Road (CR) [VE] Retain 60’ median/separate EB & WB bridges [VE]

R1

R4R2

R3

OHR

CR

Functions addressed: BLMaintain

TrafficIncrease

[Bridge] WidthCompress Median

BypassBridge

Re-route TrafficVE

Why?How?

Results

• Preferred VE Design Concept Summary of VE design concept

Ramp 1 - diamond configuration [VE] Ramp 2 - slip ramp [BL] Ramp 3 - compressed diamond/C&G on left

shoulder [VE] Ramp 4 - diamond configuration [BL] Roundabout at R1, R3, Osage Hills Road (OHR) [VE] No TWLTL on Connector Road (CR) [VE] Retain 60’ median/separate EB & WB bridges [VE] Maintain 2 lanes EB via temp. bypass ramp [VE-M]

R1

R4R2

R3

OHR

CR

2-lane Bypass RampFunctions addressed: maintain traffic/bypass bridge

Results

• Preferred VE Design Concept Summary of VE design concept

Ramp 1 - diamond configuration [VE] Ramp 2 - slip ramp [BL] Ramp 3 - compressed diamond/C&G on left

shoulder [VE] Ramp 4 - diamond configuration [BL] Roundabout at R1, R3, Osage Hills Road (OHR) [VE] No TWLTL on Connector Road (CR) [VE] Retain 60’ median/separate EB & WB bridges [VE] Maintain 2 lanes EB via temp. bypass ramp [VE-M] Single-span 100’-long bridges with MSE walls [VE]

R1

R4R2

R3

OHR

CR

Functions addressed: ▪ BL – Span Embankment▪ VE – Retain Embankment

Results

• Preferred VE Design Concept Summary of VE design concept

Ramp 1 - diamond configuration [VE] Ramp 2 - slip ramp [BL] Ramp 3 - compressed diamond/C&G on left

shoulder [VE] Ramp 4 - diamond configuration [BL] Roundabout at R1, R3, Osage Hills Road (OHR) [VE] No TWLTL on Connector Road (CR) [VE] Retain 60’ median/separate EB & WB bridges [VE] Maintain 2 lanes EB via temp. bypass ramp [VE-M] Single-span 100’-long bridges with MSE walls [VE] No US 54 super adjustment to 70 mph [VE]

R1

R4R2

R3

OHR

CR

Functions addressed: ▪ BL – Increase Speed/Increase Super ▪ VE – Functions not in purpose & need

Results

• Preferred VE Design Concept Summary of VE design concept

Ramp 1 - diamond configuration [VE] Ramp 2 - slip ramp [BL] Ramp 3 - compressed diamond/C&G on left

shoulder [VE] Ramp 4 - diamond configuration [BL] Roundabout at R1, R3, Osage Hills Road (OHR) [VE] No TWLTL on Connector Road (CR) [VE] Retain 60’ median/separate EB & WB bridges [VE] Maintain 2 lanes EB via temp. bypass ramp [VE-M] Single-span 100’-long bridges with MSE walls [VE] No US 54 super adjustment to 70 mph [VE]

R1

R4R2

R3

OHR

CR

2-lane Bypass Ramp

Conclusions

• This size VE-study yield is not unique.

• Three other CMT VE studies of similar size with similar savings:

Project Description Agency Proj. Cost VE Savings PercentRte. 210 Widening MoDOT $11 million $1.4 million 12.7%I-435/Rte. 210 Interchange MoDOT $12 million $2.3 million 19.1%US 421 Reconstruction INDOT $11 million $4.9 million 46.2%

1. “Value Engineering Final Rule,” 2019, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ve/vefaq.cfm.

2. Johnston, Julie, “Federal-aid Value Engineering Summary Reports,”2018, FHWA, https://fhwa.dot.gov/ve/vereport.cfm.

3. O’Shea, Johnny, 2019, BBC News Online, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-englenc-cornwall-47041314, “Welcome Stranger: World’s Largest Gold Nugget Remembered,”2.

4. Knoles, Warren, 2018, Value Engineering Study Report – US 54 & BU/Route W Interchange, 10.

5. USDOT/FHWA, 1988, NHI Course No. 13405, Value Engineering for Highways, A-10.

6. Adams, Ginger, 2008, Module I Basic Certification Training Workshop Workbook, 125.

References