A Synthesis of Highway Practice
-
Upload
lucius-weaver -
Category
Documents
-
view
21 -
download
1
description
Transcript of A Synthesis of Highway Practice
A Synthesi
s of Highway Practice
Preliminary Results Presentation
Value EngineeringApplications in Transportation
David C. Wilson, P.Eng., CVS2004 Government VM Conference Montreal, QC
This Presentation…This Presentation…
Five Aspects:
• VE in Transportation – History Lesson
• Study Objectives
• Survey Approach and Literature Review
• Key Observations • Future Directions and Needs
History LessonHistory Lesson
1940’s – VE development in manufacturing1950’s – US Government (Bureau of Ships)1960’s – Incentives in construction contracts1970’s
– 1970, Federal-aid Highway Act required VE– 1973, FHWA appointed VE Coordinator; encourages VE
– 1975, FHWA/NHI VE training program initiated
1980’s – AASHTO recognizes VE; Guidelines
History LessonHistory Lesson
1990’s– 1991, ISTEA permitted FHWA to revisit VE
requirement (encourage vs. require)– 1993, OMB Circular A-131 VE requirement– 1995, National Highway Designation Act
$25M threshold on federal-aid NHS projects
– 1997, FHWA Regulation 23 CFR Part 627 response– 1999, AASHTO Guidelines revised
2000’s– 2002, Final ruling on D/B VE requirements
History LessonHistory Lesson
NCHRP 78 (1981)– VE primarily on standards and specifications– Few DOT’s active at the time– DOT VE Pioneers
California – 1969 Idaho and Virginia – 1973 Minnesota – 1975Florida – 1976 New Mexico – 1977 Oregon and Pennsylvania - 1979
NCHRP 35-04 Study Objectives/ApproachNCHRP 35-04 Study Objectives/Approach
Summarize current practices/programsFocus
– Policies, guidelines, project selection– Education and awareness– Applications– Implementation– Monitoring– Future Needs
Approach– Extensive DOT survey– Literature Review
SurveySurvey
46 question survey developedDistribution
– NCHRP sent survey to 52 DOTs in United States– TAC sent survey to Canadian DOTs and Cities– Toll Authorities not included– Federal Lands recently received survey
Response– 37 US DOTs; 4 Canadian DOT’s– 3 Cities (New York; Ottawa; Winnipeg)
SurveySurvey
Did not respondto survey
Note: Puerto Rico did not respond (not shown)
US DOT Responses Still Required
The Top Ten – 5 Year SummaryThe Top Ten – 5 Year Summary
> 200 Studies
100 - 200 Studies
< 100 Studies
Source: FHWA
Literature ReviewLiterature Review
Scope– North America
Primary Sources– AASHTO– FHWA– Miles Foundation– Conference Proceedings– Journals– Universities
Key ObservationsKey Observations
Developing policy and guidelines– FHWA VE Regulation serves as basis in US– No common federal requirement in Canada– Selected DOTs
Developed specific guidelines Developed manuals
– Separate manuals
– Chapters within Design Manuals
Key ObservationsKey Observations
Selecting Projects– Generally US DOTs use $25M threshold– Some variation examples
Nevada - $10M (if policy enacted) Pennsylvania, Ohio - $20M New Hampshire - $50M Virginia, Alaska, Ontario - $10M
– Rarely on small projects– Build stakeholders consensus– Validate project scope or resolve issues– “Because we have to!”
Key ObservationsKey Observations
Comparative benchmarks– 1981 (NCHRP Synthesis 78)
Primarily on standards and specifications Rarely projects
– 2004 (NCHRP Synthesis - New) Rarely standards and specifications Primarily on projects
Key ObservationsKey Observations
Team Leaders– Majority require CVS as Team Leader– AVS and VMP generally not permitted– Most require a PE as a leader
Job Plans– Generally similar to SAVE Job Plan– Variations generally expand basic steps
Caltrans has 13 step job plan
Key ObservationsKey Observations
Education and Awareness– Training
FHWA/NHI; Consultants; SAVE Conference
– 70% of DOTs do not have a formal program– 19 DOT’s with training programs in place (5-10 yrs)
California – 1,200 staff Virginia – 2,300 (1,500 still with VDOT) Washington, New Jersey, Ontario – 350 each Michigan, North Carolina, Arizona - < 20 each
– Budget constraints have impacted training
Key ObservationsKey Observations
VE Related Tools– Most Popular
Cost models FAST diagrams Evaluation matrices
– Emerging Project Performance Measures Risk registers Cause-Effect (Wishbone diagram) Choosing By Advantages (long term opportunity)
Key ObservationsKey Observations
Study Duration– Typically 3-5 days; sometimes split workshops– DOT Motivation
Staff availability VE study costs
– Pressures on VE Team Selecting ideas Evaluating ideas
– Results/quality may be affected if not enough time allocated to workshop
Key ObservationsKey Observations
Evaluating/Shortlisting Ideas - Criteria– Project cost– Constructability– Road safety– Traffic staging– Schedule impacts
Right-of-way Environmental
Key ObservationsKey Observations
Emerging Evaluation Approaches– User delay
During construction Post-construction
– Road safety Explicit consideration of crash costs Human factors reviews
Reaching consensus– 60% of DOTs use open discussions to reach
agreement
Key ObservationsKey Observations
Acceptance of VE Proposals– ± 60% of DOTs have form of implementation
strategy or meeting in place Michigan, Ontario, California have meetings
New York permits Regional Offices to decide on VE proposals
– VE Organization Reporting Relationship Primarily part of Design Branch Some report to Financial Branch
– New York City
– Virginia
Monitoring VE Performance– FHWA reporting requirements typically govern
Focused on ROI– Construction costs
– Study costs
– Savings (design or construction – VECP)
– Performance Improvement California Florida Virginia New Mexico Washington
Key ObservationsKey Observations
Key ObservationsKey Observations$8
,460
$5,2
80
$4,0
30
$2,0
60
$1,5
10
$1,3
90
$1,2
60
$1,1
100
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
CALIFORNIA FLORIDA VIRGINIA NEW YORK MICHIGAN WISCONSIN MARYLAND TEXAS NEW JERSEY COLORADO
Cos
t (Th
ousa
nd D
olla
rs)
Source: FHWA
FHWA Program ReportTop 10 States – VE Expenditures
Key ObservationsKey Observations
Value Engineering Performace Measures 2001-2003
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Rec
omm
enda
tions
Impl
emen
ted
Min
imiz
ed
R/W
and
or
Env
ironm
enta
lIm
pac
ts
Enh
ance
dO
pera
tiona
lP
erfo
rman
ce
Imp
rove
dC
onst
ruct
abi
lity
Com
pres
sed
Dev
elop
men
t or
cons
truc
tion
sche
dule
Dev
elop
edP
artn
ers
and
or
cons
ensu
sbu
ildin
g
FY 2001FY 2002FY 2003
FY 01 Net project Savings $57.2 millionFY 02 Net Project Savings $71.0 millionFY 03 Net Project Savings $41.3 million
Source: WSDOT
Threats and OpportunitiesThreats and Opportunities
Education– Refresh knowledgeable workforce
DOT staff attrition or promotion Consultant demographics
– SAVE Module I and II Training courses need to evolve Permit more diverse VE-related tools
– NHI Courses Maintain access to DOTs
Project Scope and Selection– Opportunities to expand VE
Smaller projects (lower thresholds) Non-NHS federal-aid projects (non-mandated) Standards and specifications
Measuring Performance– Consider project performance improvement
Project performance measures Tracking database (racing forms)
Threats and OpportunitiesThreats and Opportunities
Threats and OpportunitiesThreats and Opportunities
Stakeholder Involvement– Value planning– Value-based design charettes
VE Acceptance– Defining implementation process
Detailed responses Due Diligence
– Declaring a “Champion” Managing the VE proposals Managing the decision-making system
Research Needs/ChallengesResearch Needs/Challenges
Key Challenges– How can we improve the readiness of the VE
community?– How can safety, risk, user delay and other user
costs be effectively considered? – What is the most appropriate method to measure
project performance?– What role will emerging evaluation techniques
play in future decision-making?– How can links be forged with other assessment
tools?
Summary…Summary…
Five Aspects:
• VE in Transportation – History Lesson
• Study Objectives
• Survey Approach and Literature Review
• Key Observations • Future Directions and Needs
A Synthesi
s of Highway Practice
Preliminary Results Presentation
Value EngineeringApplications in Transportation
David C. Wilson, P.Eng., CVS2004 Government VM Conference Montreal, QC
ContactContact
David C. Wilson, P.Eng., CVSVice PresidentNCE Limited
2800 Fourteenth Avenue, Suite 206Markham, ON, L3R 0E4T (905) 943-4443F (905) 943-4449