Techniques for Effective Highway Construction Projects in Congested Urban Areas (2011)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

5Congestion is not a new phenomenon and is not strictly reserved for urban areas. In some form it has been present since the first automobiles traveled the rutted roads of the early 1900s. Over the years it has been defined or measured as level of service, speed, travel time, and delays (1). The amount of congestion and its documented increase is closely related to similar trends in population growth. The U.S. population more than tripled, from 76 million to 281 million, for the period from 1900 to 2000, with a projection of a 10% increase to 310 million over the next 10 years. A Texas Transportation Institute study showed that overcrowding of transportation corridors during peak travel times doubled in 75 metropolitan areas, from 33% in 1982 to 66% in 2000. Total congested time also increased from a daily average of 4.5 h in 1982 to approximately 7 h in 2000. However, con- gestion is not simply driven by population growth. Nationwide, significant delays are attributed to work zones on highways, traffic signals not synced, and weather (2). Metropolitan areas continue to show greater growth when compared with their rural counterparts—80% of the nation’s population is estimated to reside in large metropolitan areas (3). The high growth rate in metropolitan areas brings attendant impacts to housing, schools, retail, government services, and transportation. The Texas Transportation Institute studied 85 urban areas and reported 3.7 billion hours of delay resulting from congestion, equating to an average of 43 h of delay per person annually, costing more than $63 billion—$384 per person—in wasted time and fuel (4). Although population areas of all sizes face congestion problems and smaller regions are witnessing an ongoing rise in delays, congestion in metropolitan areas is growing at a much faster rate, as shown in Figure 1 (1). Highway construction struggles to produce capacity suf- ficient to address the demands of growth, with a scarcity of funding viewed as the primary reason for this failure. Two key factors exist that relate to available funding. First, much of the current highway infrastructure was built during the 1950s and 1960s and is in desperate need of replacement and/or repair. Second, and more importantly, road capacity has changed little over time compared with the rate of demand (5). This increased use results in growing congestion, which in turn fuels public discontent. Often, congestion is not just construction related. In Figure 2, the FHWA shows that work zones represent only 10% of congestion problems, whereas other causes such as bottlenecks and incidents contribute significantly to the problem. Although bad weather merits its own notation, adding it to any of the other problems creates even greater traffic nightmares. Without a doubt, population growth and roadway con- gestion are here to stay. Addressing these issues in a cost- effective and efficient manner, while gaining stakeholder buy-in, challenges all agencies. However, the concerns raised by users of our nation’s transportation system go way beyond the simple numbers reflected in any discussion on congestion. More than “severity, magnitude or quantity of congestion,” motorists look for “reliability of the highway system” and increasingly are unable to find it (5). If the goal is to address the issue of increasing congestion on our nation’s roads and highways then planning is critical to meeting this objective. Project costs and user demand are the two components of planning most often faced when advancing a major capacity initiative (6). An expert panel–focus group at the Midwest Transportation Consortium at Iowa State University concluded that the primary intent of the planning stage of a project should be to identify potential roadblocks to meeting project objectives, no matter what the scope of the work itself may be (7). Gransberg and Molenaar in their 2004 article “Life-Cycle Cost Award Algorithms for Design/Build Highway Pavement Projects” believed that the outdated nature of today’s highways was based on the low-bid-always-wins philosophy. With the new idea of design-build delivery, consideration is given to the whole of the project rather than just procurement. The authors believe and provide “best-value award algorithms” that support the concept that low bid is not always ideal in providing optimal solutions to transportation needs (8). Three points help define the difficulty of perfectly timing congestion relief projects: First, stakeholder support of a project is not always measurable owing to the current eco- nomic conditions, more popular or newer projects being con- sidered, and changes in technology. Second, once investment in a project has begun, there is no turning back; should a project be ill-planned or conceived, the investment cannot be recovered. This is especially painful in high dollar projects. CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

6Small - Less than 500,000 Medium - 500,000 to 1 Mill Population Area Size Large - 1 Mill to 3 Mill Very Large - More than 3 Mill 1982 70 60 50 40 H ou rs o f D el ay pe r T ra ve le r 30 20 10 0 1992 2002 FIGURE 1 Hours of traveler delay by area population—Year-to-year comparison. FIGURE 2 Sources of traffic congestion. Third, delay in project completion results in a high level of public dissatisfaction (6). The Oregon Department of Transportation (DOT) devel- oped a policy and standard for work zone mobility. The stan- dard requires an analysis before every project involving traffic flow concerns. Analysis is completed during the planning stage and adjusted through the design phase. The DOT then tracks and monitors construction results, creating a history for future project planning (9). Stakeholder support is important in the planning stage of a transportation project. The need for faster, less disruptive treatment of out-dated highways prompted the California DOT (Caltrans) to conduct research in the form of their Long-Life Pavement Rehabilitation Strategies. On the three projects in this study, traffic data supported the importance of planning public communication campaigns. The study reported that advertising alternate routes or modes to motorists significantly lowered traffic demand in the work zone (10). In Arizona, the Pima Association of Governments is creating a standard of transportation safety for the Tucson metropolitan area. Through this plan, the Association has identified four techniques agencies use for work zone incidents: • “Communication—not only among agencies (jurisdic- tional law enforcement and fire departments both public and private), but also with the public (through television/ radio announcements and variable sign boards). • Cooperation and coordination—move beyond commu- nication to establishment of protocols on how to work together to manage the situation, protect the public, and address transportation mobility issues. • Training—to ensure that public safety officers and other stakeholders have the understanding, knowledge, and training needed to handle emergency situations as they arise, • Resources—response resources are commonly exchanged in disasters through mutual aid agreements and are an inte- gral part of incident and emergency management” (11). The Wisconsin DOT Facilities Development Manual lists a “Public Awareness Campaign” as the number one strategy when serious congestion is anticipated. Other strategies include advertising alternative routes, changeable message signs, radio, temporary pullouts, and incident planning with other state agencies (12). In the end, decisions made for any high-traffic work zone must consider development, environment, and stakeholder concerns (10). When mitigating congestion, attention to ROWs and util- ities is second only to planning in the overall effort. A survey conducted by NCHRP in 2000 found 11 states that listed state, local, or federal requirements as major roadblocks to

7timely completion of ROW clearance. Gaining stakeholder trust during the ROW phase is a must, as transportation agen- cies must contend with human emotions and complicated legal requirements that could hinder the process and delay a project (13). In a survey conducted for NCHRP Synthesis 405: Utility Location and Highway Design, only 20% of the states reported involving utility personnel in the planning stage of a project. As for collecting utility information, 10% reported gathering information in the topographic survey phase, 52%, during the early design phase, and the final 18% later in design or occasionally just before construction (14). Utility conflicts occur at a high rate on most projects (15). In 2001, a similar survey to that of NCHRP Synthesis 405 identified utility issues as the number one cause of construction delays (16). Transportation agencies, utility owners, and the public will always have conflicts that must be addressed. Although these conflicts are generally resolved before con- struction the financial impact on public agencies is significant. In another NCHRP study effort, it was determined that in the United States up to $120 million per year in contractor claims result from utility issues (17). One suggested resolution to this loss of construction dollars is inviting utilities to planning even pre-bid meetings to increase the understanding of the scope of the project and agency expectations. Ultimately, communication between all agencies and companies results in a higher success rate (17). At the FHWA Making Work Zones Work Better workshop, authors Belobraydich, Mudd, and Griffin proposed a Utility Model Program, with the assumption that grouping common tasks creates a uniform and efficient program. The first element is training, including education with specific curriculum geared to the appropriate level of responsibility. Second, standards with clear objectives must be established with procedures, policies, updatable program features, and a focus on adherence to Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards. Finally, defining responsibilities, including audits, enforcement, monitoring, established performance criteria, and employee commitment is essential (18). Assuming the contractor is qualified and the utility is willing, the contractor can often do the actual utility relocation or adjustment work. This may resolve many scheduling and coordination issues between the utility and the agency, allow- ing the contractor to be more efficient. As mentioned previ- ously, solid communication strategies, early planning, and close coordination are key to ensuring success (16). Using established and proven tools is critical in overcoming construction issues in all project phases. The FHWA maintains a website with an interactive map linked to every state’s current congestion mitigation activities (19). The FHWA also pub- lishes an online “toolbox” with tutorials including Traffic Incident Management, Arterial Management, Pricing, Adding FIGURE 3 FHWA logo for the 511 traffic information program. FIGURE 4 FHWA work zone rule logo. Capacity/Easing Bottlenecks, and 511 Traveler Information Telephone Services (see Figure 3) (20). The Work Zone Safety and Mobility Rule (see Figure 4) is an example of available online help. This standard was first published in September 2004 in the Federal Register. The “Rule” addresses the most current issues dealing with work zone safety and mobility. Resources on the site include imple- mentation examples, frequently asked questions (FAQs), guides and resources to assist in implementation, links to brochures and fact sheets, and links to presentations given at various meetings and conferences. States receiving federal-aid funding must comply with provisions of this rule (8). Another tool is the Accelerated Construction Technology Transfer (ACTT), a “strategic process that uses various inno- vative techniques, strategies and technologies to minimize actual construction time, while enhancing quality and safety on today’s large, complex multiphase projects.” Recom- mendations include Design-Build (DB) contracting, advance coordination with utilities, using long-life pavements, improv- ing general materials specifications, and introducing traffic flow strategies (21). The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations is a management tool that has been developed to assist agencies perform in a “collaborative and sustained manner.” Using this blueprint, agencies can work through all contingencies that may arise during the life of a project and can reach a consensus on solutions and mitigating strategies. The Maricopa Association of Governments in Arizona was a “trailblazer,” using this tool in conjunction with the Maricopa Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Committee. Using the Regional Concept for Transportation Operations philosophy, opera- tions were coordinated between the Maricopa Association of Governments and the communities in the Phoenix metro- politan region (22).

Additional tools include the Highway Performance Monitoring System. Data within the system defines “extent, condition, performance, use and operating characteristics of the Nation’s highways.” The Highway Performance Monitor- ing System was originally developed in 1978 and is regularly updated to reflect most current systems, legislation, technology, and reporting requirements (23). Additional tools include the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)—including a specialized methodology used to collect traffic count data and capacity information (24). Included in the HCM is the Critical Lane Volume Analysis, which is a planning tool for specific inter- section analysis, and Synchro, a traffic signal optimization tool. Some of these tools were used in the replacement of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, which has a capacity of nearly 100,000 vehicles a day (25). In addition to planning and analysis tools, agencies are seeking project delivery methods that may assist them in mitigating the impacts incident to urban construction efforts. One of these is Construction Manager-at-Risk (CMR). CMR represents “an integrated team approach to planning, design, and construction, to help control schedule and budget and to help ensure quality for the project owner.” Members of the team include individuals with a vested interest in all phases of the project. The end goal of the CMR method is to “enhance constructability, manage risk and facilitate concurrent execu- tion of design and construction.” Many states have used the CMR program. The city of Phoenix has completed more than 200 CMR projects (26). Caltrans uses CA4PRS (Construction Analysis for Pave- ment Rehabilitation Strategies) in the design phase of its projects. CA4PRS was developed by the Institute of Trans- portation Studies at the University of California at Berkeley under an FHWA study. CA4PRS can be used to “identify optimal rehabilitation strategies that balance the construction schedule with inconvenience to drivers and transportation agency costs. The program considers ‘what if’ scenarios for such variables as rehabilitation options, available construction windows (i.e., nighttime, weekend, or continuous closures), number of lanes to be closed for rehabilitation, material selection, pavement base type, and the contractor’s logistics, including access to the site and production rates. The CA4PRS results can also be integrated with traffic simulation tools to estimate road-user delay costs arising from construction. The software aids in establishing schedules, developing construction staging plans, estimating cost (A) + schedule (B) contracts, and calculating incentive and disincentive specifications for contracts” (27). Another tool successfully used by Caltrans is their “VA” (Value Analysis) program. It is a system for “enhancing product value by improving the relationship of performance to cost through the study of function.” By using a function- oriented, systematic team approach, Caltrans is successful in improving the value of the product, design, system, or service. VA is also key for problem solving and cost reduction. Best 8 results of the VA program happen with early implementation (28). The VA program works under Value Engineering (VE), as described on the FHWA website. “A VE Program is com- prised of more than just the collection of studies or workshops that are completed, and the number of recommendations implemented. The program also includes well-established policies and practices that fully integrate VE into the surface transportation program and increase the overall effectiveness of the VE methodologies.” States that are successful have implemented training programs and worked to raise awareness of VE program benefits (29). An example of how VE studies have been implemented to benefit a project includes the work done on the New Jersey Route 206 Bypass. This project covered two communities, with the first supporting the project and the second being opposed. A VE study was conducted for the citizens of both areas. Through the VE process both sides expressed their con- cerns and ultimately the New Jersey DOT reached agreement and buy-in from all involved (29). Surprisingly, little exists in the literature about how agencies make decisions regarding the pursuit of urban projects as a whole from an economic benefit standpoint. What does exist in the literature are descriptions of methodologies for selection-specific project elements such as pavement type. The Gransberg and Molenaar report, “Life-Cycle Cost Award Algorithms for Design/Build Highway Pavement Projects,” focused on using life-cycle cost analysis in the use of a best value selection process in a DB environment (8). The FHWA established a policy in response to the National Highway System Act of 1995 that requires a life-cycle cost analysis on high-cost projects. Again, the focus is on specific project elements, usually pavements, and not on the greater economic impacts of the project as a whole (30). In the end, sharing information and statistics among organizations results in optimal planning and design. This requires agency staff from all organizations to fully cooperate. In Houston, Dallas, Ft. Worth, and San Antonio, regional organizations house employees from multiple agencies in the same building, allowing for frequent interaction. Field operations can con- nect to central locations through systems such as SmartTrek in Seattle, Commuter Link in Salt Lake City, or AZTech in Phoenix (31). Transportation projects are complex at best. Congestion continues to grow in relation to increases in population. However, population growth is not the singular reason our nation’s highways are overcrowded and users experience delay; incidents, bottlenecks, and other factors all contribute. Effective planning is shown time and again as a key to not only crafting proper solutions to relieve congestion but also to implementing projects in such a way that construction efforts do not have an inordinate impact on travelers. Utilities and ROW acquisition processes effect projects negatively and cannot be ignored. Early coordination is a

9key, but many agencies are still frustrated with the financial and scheduling impacts they cause. In a recent study sponsored by NCHRP entitled “Utility Location and Highway Design,” the state of the practice is studied in depth. Actions taken by the state DOTs vary in terms of what they do and when they do it to mitigate the impacts utility conflicts have on their projects. The author found that 85% of the states do not have a specific policy governing the decision to design around or relocate a conflicting utility. Of note are the actions of three states: Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. In Georgia they developed a Utility Redline Software package that facilitates the transmittal of plans between the agency and utility owners. They have also implemented an aggressive training program for their employees to raise awareness and improve effectiveness in dealing with utility companies. The Pennsylvania DOT has a policy where a contractor can perform subsurface investigations at the agency’s expense if it suspects that the information provided in the plans is in error. This has encouraged the DOT to be more attentive to the information it provides and resulted in improved plan infor- mation. Pennsylvania also had a change to their “One-Call” statute, which requires the use of subsurface utility engineering for all projects with a value in excess of $400,000. Finally, Virginia started a program in 2000 where the agency pays the utility companies for their cost of engineering for utilities that are in conflict with their highway work. Efforts to improve the decision-making process to relocate or avoid a utility have saved up to a year in the project delivery schedule (14). A second report published as part of the Strategic Highway Research Program, “Encouraging Innovation in Locating and Characterizing Underground Utilities,” found that a low-cost, effective means for locating all underground utilities does not exist and hampers designers in their plan preparations. Some advances in technology and “tagging” of utilities offer promise, but widespread deployment is well into the future. Encouraging the use of subsurface utility engineering is seen as a strategy that can be combined with greater coordination and the use of emerging and existing technologies to avoid the impacts currently experienced with utility conflicts. A variety of tools have been developed to help agencies in the planning and execution of their construction projects. These provide assistance and appear worthy of further examination and implementation by agencies across the country. No silver bullet emerges from this review of the state of the practice in mitigating the impacts of construction in urban areas. Nevertheless, useful information is clearly available to assist agencies in these endeavors. In crowded metropolitan areas, complexities increase substantially; however, using established processes and tools enables success at any level.