Practical Highway Design Solutions (2013)

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.

13 This chapter provides a description and discussion of each of the six (Missouri, Idaho, Kentucky, Kansas, Oregon, and Utah) state’s Practical Design policy and procedures. Included within the discussion are the responses to the ques- tions posed during a phone interview with a representative of the state DOT. The following information is provided for each state profile: • Background information on how the program developed. • Overview of the Practical Design process and guidelines. • Other considerations with respect to information that other state DOTs were seeking. • Examples of projects where Practical Design was fol- lowed, if they were provided by the state. The states are profiled in chronological order as to when they adopted their policy and are based on statements made by the state DOT representative interviewed and the docu- ments that the states have prepared. Missouri DepartMent of transportation Background MoDOT is recognized as the first state to implement a formal Practical Design policy. It started in 2005, when senior man- agement realized that Missouri citizens would resist any new taxes to fund the many needs of the highway program and, therefore, the department would have to stretch its available dollars to deliver a highway system that met the needs of the taxpayers. The concept of Practical Design evolved out of this financial realization with the mantra, “building good projects everywhere—rather than perfect projects somewhere—will yield a great transportation system in the end” (19). MoDOT believed that perfect projects resulted when the design achieved the maximum level standards contained in MoDOT’s Project Development Manual, which has since been replaced by their Engineering Policy Guide (20). In some cases, MoDOT man- agement believed that using these standards resulted in a proj- ect that was overdesigned when evaluated against its purpose and need. Design exceptions were pursued only if the standard design was fiscally not feasible or had environmental or cul- tural constraints. MoDOT senior management believed that good projects could be achieved through common sense engineering that focused on achieving the project purpose and need while considering its context. This Practical Design philosophy resulted in projects with design elements that addressed iden- tified deficiencies, fulfilling only the purpose and need of the corridor, no more and no less. This approach resulted in cost savings that could be used for additional projects, keeping within its 5-year program budgets. After proposing the Practical Design idea to the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission, senior manage- ment met with personnel at each of the 10 MoDOT districts to explain this new program. The districts were challenged to deliver their entire 5-year program for 10% less money than budgeted at the time. The savings would be turned back to each district for additional projects. The challenge had three ground rules: (1) each project must be safer than its in situ condition; (2) better communication was necessary between the central and district offices as well as stakeholders, includ- ing FHWA, the state legislature, and the public; and (3) qual- ity would be maintained, meaning that the solution had to function properly and not leave a legacy of maintenance problems. These three rules have become the core philoso- phy underlying MoDOT’s use of Practical Design. Initially, the concern about liability exposure was voiced because designers would not be following the traditional design values cited in their road design manual. This issue was addressed during meetings with the guidance that engi- neers would be following common sense engineering judg- ment and that design exception documentation would be part of the program as it has been in the past. The design exceptions are based on the standard 13 controlling criteria developed by FHWA. One change made was that design exceptions could be approved at the district level rather than at the central office. MoDOT’s legal department embraced the Practical Design approach because it was easier to defend engineering judgment than the unquestioned application of values in a table from the design manual. MoDOT applies Practical Design principles to all types of roads and projects, but acknowledges that there is less opportunity for higher order facilities because of the higher design speeds. Practical Design applies to all projects irre- spective of federal funding. Practical Design can be applied at all phases of project development; however, MoDOT officials believe it is most effective at the scoping level, where major decisions are made as to what design elements are followed. chapter four profiles of states with practical Design policies

14 practical Design process and guidelines MoDOT’s Practical Design process was first documented in Practical Design Implementation (21). It was developed during the early implementation of Practical Design as a temporary design guideline to provide designers with some published guidelines. This document is now integrated into its Engineering Policy Guide (see http://epg.modot.org/index. php?title=Category:143_Practical_Design). During the early development of Practical Design, from the many comments received from district personnel, 75 design policy areas were identified. Subsequently reduced to 25, these design areas were considered “cost drivers” because they accounted for 80% of the project costs. These areas are discussed in the above-mentioned Practical Design Implementation (21). The following is a list of those ele- ments and they comprise the table of contents of the Imple- mentation document. For each of the 25 areas, primary guidance is provided, followed by a discussion elaborating on that guidance. Figure 2 is an example of one the areas. Appendix C provides the primary guidance for each of the 25 areas. As seen from that document, MoDOT is the only FIGURE 2 Example of MoDOT design guidance for shoulder width. Source: Practical Design Implementation (21).

15 state that provides specific design guidance under its Practi- cal Design policy. 1. Type of Facility 1) Facility Selection 2) At-Grade Intersections 3) Interchanges 2. Typical Section Elements 4) Lane Width 5) Shoulder Width 6) Median Width 7) Inslope Grade 8) Roadside Ditches 3. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment 9) Horizontal Alignment 10) Vertical Alignment 4. Pavements 11) Paved Shoulders 12) Bridge Approach Slabs 13) Pavement 5. Structures/Hydraulics 14) Bridge Width 15) Bridge and Culvert Hydraulic Design 16) Seismic Design 6. Roadside Safety 17) Rumble Strips 18) Guardrail 7. Incidental/Miscellaneous 19) Disposition of Routes 20) Bicycle Facilities 21) Pedestrian Facilities 22) Embankment Protection 23) Borrow and Excess Earthwork 24) Minimum Right of Way Width 25) Design Exception 8. Type of Facility 26) Facility 27) At-Grade Intersections 28) Interchanges 9. Typical Section Elements 29) Lane Width 30) Shoulder Width 31) Median Width 32) Inslope Grade 33) Roadside Ditches 10. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment 34) Horizontal Alignment 35) Vertical Alignment 11. Pavements 36) Paved Shoulders 37) Bridge Approach Slabs 38) Pavement 12. Structures/Hydraulics 39) Bridge Width 40) Bridge and Culvert Hydraulic Design 41) Seismic Design 13. Roadside Safety 42) Rumble Strips 43) Guardrail 14. Incidental/Miscellaneous 44) Disposition of Routes 45) Bicycle Facilities 46) Pedestrian Facilities 47) Embankment Protection 48) Borrow and Excess Earthwork 49) Minimum Right of Way Width 50) Design Exception other considerations Relation to Context Sensitive Solutions and Value Engineering MoDOT believes that Practical Design has similarities to CSS because, as stated in their Engineering Policy Guide, “. . . the selection of the design elements [is] made in context of the surroundings; the solution is to fit into the road con- text.” The example of a bridge improvement is cited—it is not necessary to design a bridge that is being rehabilitated to full standards; that is, 12 ft lanes, 8 ft shoulders, if the adjoin- ing road will not be upgraded to meet the same standards in the foreseeable future. MoDOT believes that Practical Design could be consid- ered as VE applied continuously from scoping through final design, although formal VE studies are still conducted. In the past some VE recommendations were rejected because they challenged standards. That barrier has since been removed at MoDOT, making VE a beneficial management tool to accomplish Practical Design. MoDOT is conducting more concept stage VE studies, developing many alternatives to identify the best solution. Application of Practical Design for 3R Projects 3R project standards remain and are followed by MoDOT. 1R and 2R projects are considered preventive maintenance, wherein only severe safety deficiencies are addressed with appropriate countermeasures. A 3R project (where rehabili- tation occurs) is more like a regular project where Practical Design would apply. Evaluation of the Potential Safety Impacts MoDOT is implementing the procedures of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) (22). The applicable procedures within the HSM are to be followed in every design excep- tion analysis. Crash modification factors (CMFs) are applied where available. An example is how the HSM, and specifi- cally the application of CMFs, was offered for an Interstate project where there was a rock cut within the design clear

16 zone. Rather than create a wider clear zone at high cost, it was determined that the application of edge rumble strips would be a more cost-effective alternative based on its crash reduction potential. Measuring Success of the Program The overall goal for Practical Design relates back to why it was implemented—delivering good projects to meet a specific location’s needs while saving funds that can be applied to other projects, thereby improving the entire system. It is also stated in MoDOT’s Guide that the Practical Design method will allow MoDOT to deliver safer roadways, of great value, in a faster manner. With regard to this safety goal, although the safety record of individual projects is not explicitly monitored and evaluated, MoDOT tracks its statewide safety performance. As reported by Jones (19), since the inception of Practical Design in 2005, Missouri experienced a downward trend in fatalities over the next three years. Table 1 provides data from NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System for the years 2005 through 2011, showing that Missouri, as with the nation at large, expe- rienced a steady decrease in fatalities in those years. Missouri’s average decrease over that time was higher than the national average. Although these data alone do not prove that the appli- cation of Practical Design in Missouri has made its roads safer than the nation, it does indicate that it has not resulted in less safe roads, with respect to the occurrence of fatalities. MoDOT officials also note that the Practical Design pro- gram focuses on the system-wide application of safety devices, citing the use of cable barrier for medians that has been shown to reduce fatalities in the state. This is a cultural shift from MoDOT’s earlier practice of focusing safety improvements in high-accident locations. case example A Practical Design case example provided by MoDOT is shown in Appendix D. The project involved a four lane expan- sion of an 11 mile section of State Route 50. Some of the design measures adopted under Practical Design included: • Pavement slab narrowed from 28 ft to 26 ft. • Mainline pavement thickness reduced from 13 in. of asphalt or 10 in. of concrete to 8 in. of asphalt or 8 in. of concrete. • Narrowed ditches, which reduced excavation cost. • Narrower outside shoulders. • Thinner shoulder pavements. • Alternate bids for pavement type. • Rolling grades to match surrounding terrain. • Minimization of expensive excavation in rock. • Acceptance of alternative drainage pipes. • Increased efficiency of culverts. For this project, MoDOT cites a savings of $5.4 million under the original construction budget of $35.3 million. iDaho transportation DepartMent Background The ITD adopted a Practical Design policy based on the favorable reports of MoDOT. It was issued with a memo- randum from its director, on January 1, 2007, and updated on February 20, 2009. On January 1, 2011, it was updated yet again and re-labeled as Practical Solutions. This latest memorandum is provided in Appendix E. The two initial paragraphs of the memorandum are: Practical Solutions is intended to challenge traditional standards and to develop safe and efficient solutions to solve today’s proj- ect needs. ITD’s philosophy is to build cost-effective projects to achieve a good, safe, efficient transportation system. Innovation, creativity, and flexibility are necessary for us to accomplish our growing transportation challenges. To accomplish Practical Solutions, we must properly define the project scope by focusing on achieving the project purpose and need, while considering the surroundings of each project. We must be sensitive to where the project is located, and implement Year Number of Fatalities Percent Change in Fatalities from Prior Year All states Missouri All states Missouri 2005 43,510 1,257 NA NA 2006 42,708 1,096 –1.84 –12.81 2007 41,259 992 –3.30 –9.49 2008 37,243 960 –9.30 –3.23 2009 33,808 878 –9.66 –8.54 2010 32,885 819 –2.73 –6.72 2011 32,310 785 –1.75 –4.15 Average Annual Change, 2005 through 2011 –4.78 –7.49 NA = not available. TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF FATALITIES FOR ALL STATES COMPARED WITH MISSOURI, 2005 TO 2010

17 standards that are appropriate to the context of the surroundings. Our goal is to get the best value for the least cost. Life cycle cost must be considered. It is not our goal to shift burdens to maintenance. ITD changed the label to Practical Solutions when guide- lines were formalized. Because ITD is implementing “prac- tical” approaches into construction and other areas, they believed it would be more inclusive to remove the “Design” moniker to improve acceptance by others. At ITD, all design is done at the district level; hence, it was necessary to include the districts to get the Practical Design policy accepted. Because Idaho is a mountainous state ITD noted that “it is difficult to build to AASHTO design standards, thereby requiring frequent preparation of design exceptions,” a situation that made Practical Solutions more acceptable to the district staff. Although the policy was new, it was considered by staff as simply an extension of long-standing standard practice. Consultants became aware of the program through regular communication channels. The local FHWA office was a part- ner in the process and is receptive to the use of design excep- tion reports when necessary. There was no public involvement for vetting the policy. practical Design process and guidelines The guidelines for the application of Practical Design in Idaho are presented in Practical Solutions for Highway Design (23) (see http://itd.idaho.gov/manuals/Online_ Manuals/Current_Manuals/PSHD/PSHD.pdf), a 17-page document that discusses the design criteria to be used at the transportation planning level and guidelines for several roadway design elements. Its Introduction presents some primary general guidance: • The type of facility chosen must fulfill the purpose and need of the corridor and involves more than traffic volume alone. • The design speed will be the posted speed or as appropriate for the context and intent of the project. • Some congestion is not bad. It is adequate for all routes in rural locations to accommodate the 20-year peak hour traffic at a Level of Service of D and off-peak traffic at a Level of Service of C. For urban and suburban roads, these levels can be E and D, respectively. • When the desired level of service requires a four-lane facil- ity, it will be designed as an expressway unless a freeway is mandated. Under Transportation Planning, guidelines are presented for the following four design criteria: 1. Design speed—to be the posted speed for existing facil- ities, or as appropriate for the context and intent of the project. 2. Interchanges/at-grade intersections—as a result of high cost, use only when warranted and consider round- abouts as an alternative to signalization. 3. Two-way left-turn lanes—only to be considered in places where commercial driveways make up a sub- stantial portion of total driveways, overall driveway density is managed, and where the percentage of vehi- cles turning left at peak hours is at least 20%. 4. Passing lanes—consider as an interim solution to add- ing additional lanes. Under Roadway Design Elements, “primary guidance” is offered for the following design elements: 1. Lane width; 2. Shoulder width; 3. Horizontal and vertical alignment; 4. Roadside design elements to include rumble strips and guardrail; 5. Pavement structure—paved shoulders and pavement; 6. Structures, with respect to bridge width; 7. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities; 8. Property (right-of-way); 9. Processed materials to include aggregate, asphalt, and cement; 10. Traffic control during construction; and 11. VE. A brief summary-level discussion is provided in the docu- ment for each of these elements. The process for the implementation of Practical Design in Idaho is to consider the guidelines outlined previously in the planning and design of projects. The Introduction states that “. . . this guide does not supersede nor replace ITD’s Design Manual, section manuals, or administrative policy or change the need for documentation of design criteria or properly documented design exceptions. It is to be used as a compan- ion document during the planning and design process” (23). other considerations Relation to Context Sensitive Solutions and Value Engineering Idaho adopted the CSS approach in 2005 and has a well- documented guide for its application to the development of its projects. The CSS policy pre-dates its Practical Solutions policy; therefore, there is no mention of Practical Solutions in that Guide. Likewise, there is no mention of CSS in the ITD’s Practical Solutions guide. Nonetheless, the ITD indi- vidual interviewed for this project described their Practi- cal Solutions approach as a combination of CSS and VE. The process and procedures followed to achieve a CSS are similar to those applied for Practical Design—the common goal is to correctly define the project purpose and need and develop the project accordingly. As noted in ITD’s Practical Solutions guide, Practical Solutions is not intended to be used in place of VE. Although

18 VE is normally reserved for larger-scale projects with a high potential for savings, its underlying principle of identifying less expensive, but acceptable, design elements is applicable to Practical Solutions, which also has the objective of satisfy- ing the project purpose and need cost-effectively. Consideration of Safety Impacts A stated goal of ITD’s Practical Solutions policy is that “. . . safety will not be compromised and every project will make the facility safer after its completion” (23). Presumably that goal is accomplished through the improvements that are made for any given project. During project development, crash records are reviewed and safety audits performed. There is no specific safety analysis, such as that defined by the HSM (22), followed to assess the safety impacts of alter- native designs. Benefits Derived from Practical Design IDT has a commitment to efficiency in delivering its trans- portation program. Periodically it reports on how well it is achieving this overarching goal. In its most recent Efficiency Report for the period 2004 to 2012 (see http://itd.idaho.gov/ info/efficiencyreport/Efficiency_Report.pdf) information is provided on cost savings attained through several Practical Design projects. Table 2, adopted from that report, shows the savings reported by one of its six districts. ITD reported a savings of $50,814,500 for the fiscal years 2004 to 2012 for all six districts combined. As stated in this report, these savings are used for additional projects. KentucKy transportation cabinet background KYTC embarked on its version of Practical Design in 2008 with the issuance of State Highway Engineer Policy memoran- dum #2008-07, which provides guidance for the use of Practi- cal Solutions to project delivery (see Appendix F). Drawing on the Missouri Practical Design approach, KYTC chose the “solutions” term because it wanted to emphasize that the pro- gram was to encompass the entire project development pro- cess, from planning through operations and maintenance. In Kentucky, the basic concept of Practical Solutions is the need to consider and examine a range of approaches and determine which solution meets the purpose and need with the least cost. The adoption of this project development policy emerged from a situation in which Kentucky’s program had more projects than the state had funding to deliver. No longer having a fiscally constrained program made it difficult to move projects forward because someone in authority had to make a determination on which projects could proceed and which projects had to wait. To implement more projects and improve Kentucky’s infrastructure, the agency realized that TAblE 2 REPoRT oF SAVINgS USINg PRACTICAl SolUTIoNS bY oNE DISTRICT IN IDAHo

19 it had to use available funds more efficiently; hence, Practi- cal Solutions emerged as the means to achieve that goal. The development of Practical Solutions was a top down process, starting with the KYTC highway engineer, who with other staff examined Missouri’s program. There was no formal public involvement process leading to its adoption. Meetings were held with district personnel to help shape the program. The program was embraced by the governor and its adoption was announced at a press conference. It was included in the Road Plan submitted to the state legislature, where opposition was initially voiced by some members who “did not want cheap projects;” however, it was eventually adopted. The program was implemented from the central office down to the districts through several meetings with key staff, where it was discussed how projects were over- designed with unneeded elements. Outside consultants were brought up to date on KYTC’s policy through the Partnering Conference, an annual event that is attended by KYTC staff and consultants. practical solutions process and guidelines A description of KYTC’s program is best reported in Prac- tical Solution Concepts for Planning and Designing Road- ways in Kentucky (24). The authors stated that the basic notion of Practical Solutions, as practiced in Kentucky, is the need to consider and examine a range of approaches and determine which solution meets the project needs with the least cost. To arrive at a cost-effective solution it is essential to have a balance among operational efficiency, safety, proj- ect constraints, and costs. In this paper, the following five principles are emphasized for the implementation of practi- cal solutions: 1. Target the goals/objectives of the purpose and need statement. Every project is guided by a purpose and need statement that substantiates the transportation need in specific terms and establishes the purpose of the project. This statement must serve as the foundation of the project against which all improvements and solutions will be evaluated. In order to deliver a truly ‘practical’ design, the purpose and need state- ment should serve as the target, not the lowest threshold of acceptance performance. An example is offered: The purpose and need statement will often state that the purpose of the proj- ect is to “improve mobility” owing to a need brought about by “failing operations at the intersection.” This need should be further refined to determine a more precise purpose, such as improve intersection delay to less than 50 seconds per vehicle during the typical peak hour. “Providing a more precise pur- pose and need will lead to developing a solution that addresses the specific problem, not one that enlarges the project.” 2. Meet anticipated capacity needs. The concept of Level of Service measures roadway user acceptance of roadway performance on a grade scale of A to F and is often used to compare alternatives. However, it is not sufficient by itself to compare projects that have designs where capacity is determined differently. A case in point is the comparison of widening a road to four lanes vis-à-vis providing passing lanes on a two-lane road. The capacity of the former alternative is based on vehicle density, while the latter alternative is measured on percent time spent follow- ing another vehicle. Since their capacities are measured dif- ferently this should be considered in weighing alternatives and ultimately achieving a cost-effective solution. 3. Evaluate safety compared with existing conditions. It is apparent that safety in any proposed solution should be evaluated to determine the impact of the design on the safety levels. However, an issue that is often overlooked is that safety evaluations are comparing alternatives among each other and not as incremental gains from the existing conditions. Therefore, designs are often selected because the solution is safer than any of the other alternatives. This could easily lead to over-designed and over-built projects simply because of the erroneous assumption that safety improves incrementally with each design regardless of costs. This approach fails to consider that each alternative is an improvement over the existing conditions and thus misses the opportunity to evaluate the safety gains based on the rate of return approach. Considering such incremental safety gains allows for creating savings on a project by increasing safety over the existing conditions (but not totally) and thus using the additional funds for other projects that may need to be improved. 4. Develop and evaluate design options and alternatives. In order to tailor a design to the project constraints, all design options and alternatives should be available to the designer. Having a full range of options and alternatives will allow the design team to determine which yields the best value of the project. 5. Maximize design to the point of diminishing return. Projects are financial investments that accrue a variety of benefits. However, there is always a point where the return remains virtually unchanged with increasing investment— the point of diminishing returns. Selecting a design based on far out traffic forecasts (e.g., 20 years) may result in a overdesign that may not yield the benefits if the forecasts are not realized. Therefore, the design life may need to be revisited in order to provide the most practical solution (24). The most critical component of Practical Solutions in plan- ning and design is the definition and clarification of the initial project purpose and need. Focusing on what is to be built to meet the need allows for greater savings than a design focused on how the project is to be built. At KYTC the emphasis is building “right-sized” projects. This requires that the project objective for safety or capacity be the target and the design element value be chosen to achieve the stated objective. Although KYTC has not prepared a document that pro- vides specific guidance on how to implement Practical Solutions, the policy memorandum does include values for

20 several design elements—pavement and shoulder widths, curve radius, pavement and shoulder cross slopes, grade, stopping sight distance, and passing sight distance—for three classes of roads: two-lane arterials, rural collectors, and rural local roads. These tables are found in Appendix F. Table 3 compares the design values for one class of road, rural collector, from its standard Highway Design Manual and its Practical Solutions guidelines. For the condition selected; that is, 400–1,500 average daily traffic and level terrain, the differences between the two design guidelines are in the selection of design speed, pavement width, and graded shoulder width, where lower values are acceptable under Practical Solutions. other considerations Relation to Context Sensitive Solutions and Value Engineering KYTC views Practical Solutions as compatible with CSS and it could be considered a subset of CSS. This topic is the focus of the paper by Stamatiadis and Hartman, “Con- text Sensitive Solutions vs. Practical Solutions: What Are the Differences?” (25). In their paper, which specially addresses KYTC’s Practical Solutions program, the authors note that Practical Solutions provides two improved CSS principles—relating to the project purpose and need and using agency resources effectively—and one new principle— relating to the system-wide context—to the extensive CSS attribute list. The authors further state that “if the Practical Solutions methodology is used completely in lieu of CSS, it would provide an excuse to ignore several very important (and beneficial) CSS principles for project development and delivery.” In recognition of this point, KYTC employs a CSS process with a Practical Solutions mindset on all of its projects, thus combining the best attributes of both processes. VE is applied by KYTC and there are similarities with the Practical Solutions process. In VE the project design is evaluated by a separate group that looks for alternatives that would provide equivalent value. In Practical Solutions, “value” is considered in deciding on a specific design fea- ture. A classic example would be deciding on the value of a four-lane road vis-à-vis the existing two-lane road with pass- ing lanes provided. Design Element Design Value Per Highway Design Manual1 Practical Solutions2 Design Speed (mph) 50 22 See note3 Pavement Width (ft) 18–20 Graded Shoulder Width (ft) 5 3–5 Minimum Clear Roadway Width of New and Reconstructed Bridge (ft) Approach roadway width Approach roadway width Minimum Radius (ft): @emax 4% 930 930 @emax 8% 760 760 Normal Pavement Cross Slope (%) 2 2 Normal Shoulder Cross Slope (%): Earth 8 to 10 Paved 4 to 6 8 to 10 4 to 6 Maximum Grade (%) 6 6 Minimum Stopping Sight Distance (ft) 425 425 Minimum Passing Sight Distance (ft) 1,835 1,835 1KYTC Highway Design Manual, HD-701, Geometric Design Guidelines, Exhibit 700-02. 2Table “Practical Solutions Geometric: Rural Collectors” in Appendix F. 3Justification for the design speed shall be based upon comprehensive analysis of existing roadway geometrics, adjacent roadway features, and purpose and need for project. Documentation shall be included in the design executive summary. ADT = average daily traffic. TABLE 3 COMPARISON OF DESIGN VALUES FOR RURAL COLLECTORS WITH 400–1,500 ADT AND LEVEL TERRAIN

21 Practical Solutions and 3R Improvements KYTC has guidelines for 3R projects. It believes that in a way they have been applying Practical Solution principles to 3R projects for many years. With some 3R projects they have been updating their guardrails; in doing so, they developed a less expensive guardrail end treatment that was equally effective and were able to apply the savings to complete more resurfacing projects statewide—a practical solution. Practical Solution and Safety Assessments Safety assessments are made of alternatives as part of the Practical Solutions process. Subject matter experts from both the district and headquarters office evaluate the tradeoffs for critical design elements to determine the best value. This process includes examining crash records to determine what types of crashes occur. If a design value is selected that is less than would be required, then a design exception report to justify this decision is prepared. Also, less costly treatments that would mitigate any anticipated safety problem would be proposed. case example Appendix G provides summaries of four projects that were developed following KYTC’s Practical Solutions initiative. The four examples involved: • Reducing the original cross-section design for two bridges in close proximity by reducing the inside shoul- ders from 6 to 4 ft, the travel lanes from 12 to 11 ft, the outside shoulders from 12 ft to 4 ft, and the sidewalk and bike path from 12 ft to 8 ft, thereby realizing a sav- ings of $140 million. • Reducing the original cross-section design of an exist- ing two-lane bridge from 12 ft lanes and 8 ft shoulders to 10 ft lanes and 2 ft shoulders, which matched the approach lanes, thereby realizing a savings of $197,500. • Improving a rural section of 3.23 mile two-lane road to 11 ft lanes and 2 ft shoulders rather than a “super 2-lane” cross section with 12 ft lanes and 8 ft shoul- ders in the urban section, thereby realizing a savings of $2.1 million. • Removing large trees that were restricting the visibility of an intersection on a two-lane road at a cost of only $13,500, rather than realigning the curve, which would have cost $780,000. Kansas DepartMent of transportation Background KDOT adopted a formalized “Practical Improvements” approach to its projects in 2009. The executive staff of KDOT was influenced by the Practical Design program at MoDOT and it determined that a similar program should be instituted in Kansas. As with other states, the driving force for adopting its program was to maximize the use of available transportation funds, which were becoming limited and inadequate to meet all system needs. KDOT adopted the label Practical Improve- ments because they believed that the term Practical Design might imply that previous designs were not practical, when actually KDOT believes its staff and consultant designers have developed practical designs for its projects for many years. Rather, the Practical Improvements program allowed KDOT to formally document savings and other benefits realized by their commonsense engineering efforts. KDOT defines Practical Improvement as “the overarching philoso- phy which guides our decisions that affect project cost and scope in order to stretch our transportation improvement dol- lars further while still maintaining a safe and efficient high- way system” (26). After internal agency discussions about how it should develop this approach, KDOT issued Practical Improve- ments (26) (available at http://kart.ksdot.org), a document that provides guidance to those involved in the project devel- opment process—both KDOT staff and consultants. The first 8 pages of this 22-page document describe the Practical Improvement process and provide generalized guidance on how it is to be followed in developing a project, specifically on developing alternative scopes. Subsequent pages provide examples of how Practical Improvements concepts were applied to several projects. The development of the Practical Improvements pro- gram was primarily an internal central office KDOT activity. Numerous meetings were held during the programs develop- ment and instruction was then provided to those involved in project development. There were no formal public meetings. KDOT did not experience any obstacles in getting Practical Improvements accepted. KDOT projects are developed and designed at the central office; therefore, there were no issues raised at the district level. The Practical Improvement approach has aided KDOT in getting public acceptance of the project scope. Recogniz- ing that KDOT is limited by the designated funding for a project, the public better understands that the project scope and design elements must be matched to that funding. KDOT applies its Practical Improvements approach to all transportation projects regardless of the level of federal funding. This is because prevailing criteria are still followed and design exceptions are processed when appropriate. On large-scale projects, Practical Improvements may first focus on phasing critical portions of the project, while considering future expansion. On small-scale, lower-volume roads, Prac- tical Improvements may mean using the full range of design criteria rather than automatically selecting the highest levels of improvement.

22 practical improvement process and guidelines KDOT initially programs projects in its planning division. Projects reach the design office with a general scope and bud- get, which usually cannot be exceeded. To stay within this budget, careful scoping of the project is considered an integral part of the Practical Improvement process. Excerpts from the Practical Improvement document elaborate on this point: Applying the Practical Improvement philosophy to the initial scope includes consideration of: 1) The primary purpose of the proposed project (i.e., bridge replacement, pavement rehabilitation); 2) existing conditions and needs for modernization; 3) how the initial scope compares with existing roadway fea- tures and with anticipated enhancements to the surrounding roadways under evaluation; and 4) available funding. If there are components that the initial scope does not address or over-addresses relating to these four factors, alternate scopes may be developed (26). In the document, two examples of assessing alternate scopes are offered: • A project may have an initial scope calling for major reconstruction. However, on further evaluation of the project it may be determined that the geometrics are considered acceptable and that only the pavement needs replacement, thus changing the scope to pave- ment replacement. • A project to address a two-lane highway’s capacity and LOS deficiency might call for creating a four-lane facility. However, a Practical Improvement approach may arrive at an alternate scope; simply adding passing lanes. Both improve capacity and LOS, but to differ- ent degrees; however, the latter scope could be consid- ered more cost-effective. Consequently, if there were an anticipated project in the area to expand an adjacent road to four lanes, only the former approach would address item 3. When developing alternative scopes, KDOT specifies that current design criteria found in AASHTO’s A Policy on Geo- metric Design of Highways and Streets (4) and the Roadside Design Guide (5), its own Road Design Manual (available at http://kart.ksdot.org), and other pertinent sources of design criteria should form the basis for design. When applying the Practical Improvement approach, alternative scopes may involve selecting design criteria outside of the prevailing criteria range. An example cited in Practical Improvements concerns retaining a shoulder of a less-than-standard width over an existing bridge to avoid the major expense of struc- ture replacement. When an element is associated with one of FHWA’s 13 controlling criteria, choosing a design element value outside of the prevailing criteria will require writing a design exception. Other guidance on the application of Practical Improve- ments found in the document is limited to the following elements: • Roadway shoulders and roadside elements—when considering the clear zone width, side slope grades, and shoulder width and type, KDOT will consider relevant factors that include existing conditions, posted speed, traffic volumes, route continuity, projected traffic needs, right-of-way issues, and utility impacts. • Drainage structures—KDOT’s guidance suggests designing structures to “the highest degree of protection that is cost-effective under existing circumstances.” Applying the Practical Improvement philosophy to the design of drainage structures is to balance the impor- tance of the roadway, available finances, the possibility of road closure, and the reasonable flood year risk to adjoining property. • Facility type—the guidance provided is that when a facility type (freeway, expressway, or two-lane high- way) is investigated consideration should be given to balancing access (the spacing of interchanges or inter- sections, the choice of interchanges vs. overpasses, etc.) with the overall project cost and safety. • Traffic handling and accommodation—how traffic would be handled and accommodated during construc- tion is to be considered for each alternative scope. For example, different pavement types (asphalt versus con- crete) or actions (pavement replacement versus rehabil- itation) can affect traffic flow, which in turn will affect the amount of time and money it will take to construct the project. Hence, this factor should be considered dur- ing project scoping. • Environmental process—the time and expense in pre- paring and processing environmental documents should be considered in determining the project scope and spe- cific design decisions. In the Practical Improvements process, alternative scopes are developed and investigated as to how well each balances cost, operations, environmental concerns, stakeholder input, and safety. How well each scope takes into consideration the four factors mentioned earlier is to be compared. The result of this analysis with a recommended scope is then presented to a program review committee. other considerations Relation to Context Sensitive Solutions and Value Engineering KDOT has a policy on CSS whereby it will consider the desires of stakeholders and the users of the project road- way. CSS-type projects are typically in urbanized areas where there is a higher concentration of nonmotorized users (pedestrians, bicyclists, etc.), where right-of-way is limited,

23 and where there may be historical, environmental, and social concerns that need to be considered. In such situations, the goal may not be to reduce the cost of the project but to address those needs cost-effectively. However, flexibility in the application of design features is common to both CSS and Practical Improvement philosophies. In Kansas, VE is usually limited to large projects that meet federally defined criteria. The purpose of VE is not simply to find ways to cut costs, but to determine if the same value can be achieved at a lower cost. VE is typically applied during preliminary design to determine if certain design components—not just geometric design—can be modified to lower the cost while still achieving the same LOS. As with CSS, the Practical Improvements approach and VE share the application of flexible design criteria. Evaluating the Safety Impact of Alternate Scopes As noted earlier, KDOT develops and evaluates alternate scopes to include specific variations for design elements for assigned projects. The potential safety impacts are consid- ered along with cost differences and other factors. In doing so, they will investigate the safety (crash) history of the existing road and conduct a field review. There is no formal process at this time; however, they have begun to use the guidance and information found in the HSM (22). KDOT also uses the Roadside Safety Analysis Program (RSAP) (27) for roadside improvements. Both analyses are used to compare dissimilar alternatives that meet prevailing criteria (i.e., not to justify using lower than accepted criteria). They will evaluate each of FHWA’s 13 critical design elements and prepare a design exception report where necessary to justify a reduction of any design criteria. Practical Improvement Program Evaluation KDOT’s goal that infuses all of its projects is to deliver a product that satisfies the project needs in a safe and effi- cient manner at the appropriate cost. This overarching goal applies to all projects regardless of whether or how Practical Improvement philosophy is followed; there is no monetary-based goal per se. Projects come from the plan- ning division with a general scope and a defined budget. The goal of the design team is to develop that project within or below that budget, while maintaining or even improving safety. KDOT maintains a log of projects, by each design squad, where the application of practical improvements is followed. Table 4 shows an excerpt of this log, listing the project with a brief description of the scope change that resulted in a cost savings. In FY 2012, KDOT projected a construction cost savings of nearly $41 million for 18 projects, ranging from as little as $4,000 to as much as $10,000,000. case examples A key component of KDOT’s Practical Improvements policy is to develop and compare alternate scopes. In their Practical Improvements document four project examples are provided and they are presented in Appendix I and sum- marized here: 1. A section of Route K-23, a low-volume two-lane high- way, had not undergone major reconstruction since its initial construction in the 1940s. The alternative scopes considered varied from reconstruction of the align- ment to meet AASHTO criteria to replacement of the pavement, which was badly deteriorated. The “pave- ment replacement scope” was chosen because it was determined that the existing geometrics and roadside slopes were favorable to remain in place and the simple action of pavement replacement along with lowering the profile would allow for a shoulder width of 2 ft where before there was little or no shoulder. Overall, the pavement replacement scope would provide addi- tional service life and a safety improvement in less time and for approximately $7 million dollars less compared with the reconstruction scope. 2. On a section of Route K-7, a high-volume road, an interchange was to replace an at-grade intersection. Issues related to its construction and resulting traf- fic management were examined when comparing three options. The most expensive option was cho- sen because of the foreseeable impact of the delay in completing the project resulting from an anticipated 11-month settlement period was considered to out- weigh the additional construction costs associated with this option. 3. The third example dealt with alternate designs of the width and type of shoulder, clear zone widths, and foreslopes for the road section of a bridge replacement. The optional sections evaluated are shown in Table 5. The least expensive option cited in this table, D, was selected because of its lower cost and that it matched into the existing roadway smoothly and stayed within the current criteria ranges. 4. In the fourth example, handling traffic during construc- tion was an important concern. The project involved a 4.5-mile section of US-36 with two lanes, 10 ft shoul- ders, and deteriorating pavement. Scopes considered were pavement replacement and pavement rehabili- tation and the selection of shoulder width and fores- lopes. The options considered are shown in Table 6. The scope selected was pavement rehabilitation utilizing a typical section with 10 ft composite shoul- ders and 6:1 foreslopes. This option saved $2,860,000 in construction costs and would allow for traffic to be carried through construction. The shoulder selection matched the existing shoulders on adjacent segments and complied with existing criteria.

24 TABLE 4 SAVINGS OF PRACTICAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IN KANSAS Option Shoulder Width Foreslope Rate Clear Zone Width, ft Construction Cost A 10 6 30’ $8,670,000 B 10 4 34’ $8,340,000 C 8 6 30’ $8,350,000 D 8 4 34’ $7,930,000 TABLE 5 KDOT’S PRACTICAL IMPROVEMENTS ALTERNATE PROJECT SCOPE—ExAMPLE 3

25 oregon DepartMent of transportation Background ODOT initiated its Practical Design policy in 2009. As in other states, it was instituted as a strategy to stretch scarce dollar resources. ODOT defines Practical Design as a strategy to deliver focused benefits for the state’s transportation sys- tem while working with the realities of a fiscally constrained funding environment. As stated in the Practical Design Guidebook (28)—ODOT’s guidance document—“. . . it [Practical Design] pulls all of the concepts and values we cur- rently apply to our work into a defined, repeatable strategy with defined feedbacks . . .” At the core of ODOT’s Practical Design strategy is the project’s purpose and need statement that is defined and agreed upon at the initial development of the project. This project purpose and need guides all proj- ect decision making moving forward and confirms that the project team has clear expectations for what the project is intended to address. ODOT has legislative support for its Practical Design pol- icy. In 2009, the Oregon State legislature passed HB 2001— the Jobs and Transportation Act, which directed the agency to implement transportation design practices that follow the concept of Practical Design. ODOT developed its Practical Design strategy with a 12-person committee. It implemented the policy through several training sessions within its five regions. Train- ing modules were developed and have been used to train ODOT staff and consultants. The training modules can be viewed at http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/CS/Training/docs/ ACECPresentations2011/R1_AndrewJohnsonGlencoe. pdf?ga=t. ODOT applies Practical Design for all roadways and project types, be it simple maintenance, preservation, or modernization, and there is no distinction if the project is federally funded. practical Design process and guidelines ODOT’s Practical Design Guidebook can be viewed at its website devoted to Practical Design at http://www.oregon. gov/ODOT/HWY/TECHSERV/practical_design.shtml. It explains the Practical Design principles thoroughly and includes the guide noted earlier. Some key points are sum- marized here. ODOT has five key design values associated with Practi- cal Design, which form the acronym SCOPE: • Safety—the goal is to make the system as safe as prac- tical with every project either making the facility safer or maintaining the safety level. • Corridor Context—design criteria are applied consis- tently throughout the corridor respecting the character of the community. • Optimize the System—an asset management approach to managing pavement, bridge, and roadway safety fea- tures allows for available funding to be allocated on a priority basis to ensure that the entire highway system is optimized for safety, mobility, and financial investment. • Public Support—opportunities are provided for the community to shape the chosen solution; an essential element is to have clarity with the public about the proj- ect purpose, need, and alignment of the proposed project with the overall state’s plan. • Efficient Cost—by restricting the scope of the project to meet the project-specific purpose and need allows for redistribution of funds where they will produce the most benefit to the system. These values shape three overarching goals that guide the application of Practical Design at ODOT: • Goal #1—Directs available dollars toward activities and projects that optimize the highway system as a whole. • Goal #2—Develops solutions to address the purpose and need identified for each project. • Goal #3—Designs projects that make the system bet- ter, addresses changing needs, and/or maintains current functionality by meeting, but not necessarily exceeding, the defined project purpose, need, and project goals. A key element in selecting projects is for decision makers to not only examine the merit of individual projects, but to consider cost-efficiency and the project’s ability to contrib- ute to what ODOT is trying to achieve for the overall system. ODOT has developed the following several questions to help stimulate discussion among project leaders, designers, and other decision makers as they integrate the ODOT mission, Practical Design values, and goals with the program/project purpose and need. Option Savings (FY 2012 dollars) Pavement Rehabilitation vs. Pavement Replacement $1,800,000 10 ft Composite Shoulder vs. 10 ft Fully Paved Shoulder $1,060,000 4:1 Foreslopes vs. 6:1 Foreslopes $234,000 TABLE 6 KDOT’S PRACTICAL IMPROVEMENTS, ALTERNATE PROJECT SCOPES—ExAMPLE 4

26 SCOPE Integration Questions: ✓ Does this project address the purpose and need? Does it meet the project goals? ✓ Is the improvement or benefit worth the cost? Is this improvement or benefit too expensive or a throwaway? ✓ Is the solution better than current conditions? Is doing something better than doing nothing (consider the opportunity cost to the system)? ✓ What are the design priorities? ✓ Does it meet the corridor/system context? Does it meet the project context? ✓ Are we meeting the expectations of the stakeholders? ✓ Is this project consistent with ODOT mission, goals, and policies? ✓ Have we analyzed alternatives and conducted value engineering? ✓ What are the constraints—physical, fiscal, environ- mental, schedule? ✓ Is there a feedback loop for continuous improvement? ✓ What has changed from the original concept and scope? Are original assumptions still valid? ODOT has developed two tools to assist in the imple- mentation of Practical Design: the Practical Design Decision Model and the Project Charter. Figure 3 shows their Project Delivery Life-Cycle model. As stated in ODOT’s Practical Design Guidebook, The Project Charter is a written narrative agreement that spells out the charge given to the project team and the responsibilities of all involved, providing a means to clarify all aspects and nuance of direction, expectations, phi- losophies, and decision making on the project need, priori- ties, parameters, flexibilities, roles, accountability, etc. The Project Charter provides the foundation to guide the project: • Gives the green light for the project team to proceed as they see fit to get the work done. • Formally authorizes the project and defines and docu- ments the project purpose and need. • Reinforces what to do and when. • Provides focus when identifying project purpose, need, and objectives. They should be specific enough to pro- vide accountability for decisions made. • Provides minimum requirements—those critical ele- ments that are always present on a project. • Ties together project purpose and need, objectives, and overall project performance measures and/or indicators of success. Appendix J provides an example of a project charter. other considerations Relation to Context Sensitive Solutions and Value Engineering ODOT views Practical Design as a logical next step for CSS; it can be considered CSS with limited funding. Practical Design requires evaluating the project solution in the broader context of the corridor and even the state system. The ODOT Practical Design process includes public involvement and other ingredients of the CSS process. ODOT typically applies VE to larger-scale, complex proj- ects involving major structures, interchanges, and new align- ments. Although some of the same principles and goals apply to both Practical Design and VE, there is no formal relation- ship acknowledged within ODOT. Measuring the Success of Practical Design ODOT has established three indicators of success for its Practical Design policy: 1. Institutionalization of Practical Design approach, values, and goals. Success indicators include: a. Planning, project delivery, and maintenance staff trained in practical design. b. External communication and training for consul- tant and local agency partners. c. Projects have project charters. d. Projects have five new SCOPE integration and doc- umentation tasks included in milestones. e. Interactive website enables understanding and accep- tance of Practical Design and provides a platform for evolvement and continuous improvement. 2. System Optimization within available funding. The fol- lowing Key Performance Measures (KPM) are being col- lected and reported on an annual basis: • KPM #1 Traffic Fatalities Per 100 million vehicle- miles traveled • KPM # 11 Travel Delay Hours of travel delay per capita per year in urban areas • KPM #15 Pavement Condition Percent of pavement lane- miles rated “fair or better” • KPM # 16 Bridge Condition Percent of state highway bridges that are not deficient 3. Delivering the: a. Right Projects: i. Successfully addresses and documents integra- tion of SCOPE values; ii. Provides targeted system and/or corridor improve- ments; and iii. Purpose and need is clear and has stakeholder consensus and accountability. b. Right Time—has stakeholder support (including funding and a focus on timely delivery). c. Right Costs: i. Least cost solution to address specific purpose and need. ii. Incremental improvements for incremental invest- ments when warranted by system benefit.

FIGURE 3 Project delivery life-cycle model for Oregon. Source: ODOT Practical Design Guidebook (28).

28 d. Right Way: i. Minimizes mobility, environmental, and stake- holder impacts; ii. Minimizes rework; and iii. Risk conscious, value focused, context sensi- tive, and outcome oriented. utah DepartMent of transportation Background The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) formally adopted Practical Design on February 2, 2011, with the issu- ance of a memorandum from its Engineer of Preconstruction (see Appendix K). The policy had been about two years in the making and was initiated by senior leadership after hear- ing about Missouri’s and other states’ similar programs. The memorandum states that UDOT was implementing Practi- cal Design immediately to support “. . . UDOT’s continuing emphasis on innovation, cost savings, and providing the pub- lic with the transportation system that meets their needs. The goal of Practical Design is to only build ‘right sized’ projects that meet focused needs, which allows UDOT to spread lim- ited resources more effectively throughout the transportation system.” During the two-year buildup senior personnel from the central office met with colleagues from the regional offices to explain the Practical Design policy. (In Utah, the central office establishes programs, projects and funding levels, and provides the various resources; however, the regional offices are responsible for delivering specific projects.) Although the regional offices were consulted, the implementation of Practical Design was directed by the central office. There was initial concern with the policy from the regional offices, but they have come to embrace this project development pro- cess. Initially, local offices of FHWA were also reluctant, but have come to accept Practical Design as part of the on-going design exception practice. Consultants are used for design and have been advised of the Practical Design policy through the UDOT’s Listserves and other outlets, such as the Ameri- can Council of Engineering Companies. There was no public involvement program leading up to the implementation of the Practical Design policy. UDOT believes that Practical Design is a continuing evo- lution of its project development and design process. It has always looked for innovative solutions to address a project need—Practical Design simply formalizes the process. practical Design process and guidelines UDOT’s Practical Design program is documented in its Practical Design Guide (29). The 16-page document can be viewed at http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner. gf?n=3142031557718121. It provides guidance on how Practical Design is to be implemented; it does not replace UDOT’s Design Manual. Some key elements are summa- rized here. UDOT believes that investments in any project reach a point of diminishing returns—investing more in one spe- cific project does not necessarily result in equal returns. Any investment above the point of diminishing returns is an inef- ficient use of resources that can be applied to other projects with higher returns to the total system. UDOT has established the following three overarching goals for Practical Design: • Goal #1: Optimize the transportation system as a whole. Prior to Practical Design, projects were devel- oped and prioritized for various design periods; that is, 10, 20, and 30 years, and there was no clear understand- ing of how the improvement served the objectives of the corridor and system. Under Practical Design, proj- ect teams are given a clear understanding of how each project fits into the roadway system and corridor priori- ties as the driving force behind each project. • Goal #2: Meet the goals of the objective statement identified for each project. Prior to Practical Design, the focus was on maximizing improvements within the project limits to address needs using design exceptions and waivers only to meet the budget. With Practical Design, the focus is to meet, not exceed, the objective statement, using exceptions and waivers to sufficiently meet the project objective. • Goal #3: Design the most efficient method (cost and function) to achieve the objective statement. Prior to Practical Design, the entire budget was used to maximize improvements and VE was used to determine the most cost-effective way to achieve the proposed improve- ment. With Practical Design, the focus is on maximizing cost savings while meeting the project objective state- ment. The resultant savings can then be applied to other projects. UDOT recognizes that the most critical element in Practi- cal Design projects is the project’s objective statement. The project is to be scoped to meet the objective statement. By so doing, Practical Design eliminates “over designing.” The objective statement notes the goals of the project and not a specific solution. For example, the objective statement should not say, “The objective is to add a lane.” The Practical Design Guide (29) provides direction on how to develop the objective statement through the following five steps: 1. Identify the current conditions. 2. Determine the existing deficiencies. 3. Identify the deficiencies to be improved.

29 4. Determine the project objective 5. Clearly and specifically describe the objective state- ment of the project. The project sponsor (i.e., System Planning and Programming, Region Maintenance, Traffic, and Safety) is responsible for defining the initial objective statement, which can be updated as needed. UDOT applies Practical Design principles in all stages of project development, from initial planning to the scoping stage, design, and finally construction. At the planning stage, significant savings can be attained by evaluating major design features to determine if a less than ideal solution is warranted. For example, a project that might normally include a grade- separated interchange could be achieved through the use of new innovative intersection designs. Another example would be where the construction of passing lanes would be a Prac- tical Design solution over the construction of a four-lane divided roadway. The following, excerpted in part from UDOT’s Practical Design Guidelines, best describes how Practical Design is applied for UDOT’s projects. Practical Design requires flexibility. Design standards typically do not allow the necessary flexibility for Practical Design. Rather than focusing on meeting all minimum standards, Practical Design establishes the existing condition as a baseline and the design is evaluated as the project is improved beyond the existing conditions. A design standard may be waived when the objective statement is satisfied and all impacts from not meeting design standards are mitigated. Current Approach • Design standards dictate the desired level of improvement. • Exceptions, deviations, and waivers are used when resources do not allow for the design standard to be built. Practical Design Approach • Design standards are the “ideal” improvement. • The project objective statement clearly describes the expected outcome of the project. • Exceptions, deviations, and waivers are used when either of the following applies: The design standard exceeds the objective statement. A lower cost solution not meeting design standards is iden- tified which does not compromise safety. • The design starts with existing conditions and builds up to meet the objective statement. The design is not a stripped down version of the design standards. In applying Practical Design, UDOT pursues design excep- tions, deviations, and waivers as necessary to achieve the proj- ect objective statement. Some of the more common of these include: • Reduced shoulder paving width from full to half. • Bridge rehabilitation deemed acceptable versus bridge replacement. • Bridge deck replacement deemed acceptable versus bridge replacement. • Pavement rehabilitation deemed acceptable versus replacement. • Bridge width needs only to match existing roadway width. • Narrow lane width from 12 ft to 11 ft. • Pavement thickness reduced based on design life of 15 years as opposed to 20 years. • Appropriate design life reduced to 15 years from 30 years. • Average annual daily traffic projects for 10 years deemed sufficient. Appendix L provides an example of a completed design excep- tion for a Practical Design project. other considerations Relation to Context Sensitive Solutions and Value Engineering UDOT views Practical Design as combining CSS with VE, which means that the facility should be designed within the context of its purpose and need and its environment, in a cost- effective way. UDOT has had a policy on CSS since 2000. As stated on their website for CSS, it is a philosophy that guides UDOT wherein safe transportation solutions are planned, designed, constructed, and maintained in harmony with the community and the environment. CSS balances safety, mobil- ity, and transportation needs while preserving scenic, aesthetic, historic, cultural, environmental, and community values. UDOT recognizes the connectivity of VE to Practical Design. Indeed, VE is considered a tool for Practical Design, meaning the analysis and assessment made when applying VE to a project are similar for Practical Design. The distinction is that VE is a method to determine the most cost-effective way to achieve proposed improvements and typically focuses on maximizing project improvements. On the other hand, Practical Design is a method to determine the most cost- effective way to achieve the project objective statement and focuses on maximizing roadway system improvements and UDOT’s strategic goals. Success Indicators As stated in UDOT’s Practical Design Guideline (29), UDOT has established success indicators, which are identi- fied as Goals and Performance Measures as enumerated here: A. Institutionalized Practical Design Philosophy, Values, and Goals All parties involved in the development of transportation improvements must integrate Practical Design practices into all

30 decision making for Practical Design to be successful. The suc- cess indicators include: • All proposed projects have a clear objective statement that describes how the project will help the system meet the Final Four. • Each proposed project is clearly the best system-wide solution. • Project teams identify, monitor, and document Practical Design. • Project teams focus on improving the system as a whole, not just within their project limits. • Project teams report savings due to Practical Design. B. Performance Measures To measure the performance of Practical Design implementation, the following indicators will be measured: • Total cost savings for the overall program. • Percent savings for the overall program. • Percent savings per project. • Percent of projects using Practical Design. • Percent savings by project type (new construction, mainte- nance, etc.). • Percent savings by project size. The goals are broadly stated and have no numerical value applied to them. For example, there is no goal for how much savings are to be realized, either in absolute dollars or as a percent dollar reduction attained from the standard design. Also, there are no safety-related goals and no corresponding performance measures to determine if the Practical Design has maintained or changed, for better or worse, the safety perfor- mance as measured by the frequency and severity of crashes.