Guide to Project Management Strategies for Complex Projects (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.

136 The researchers investigated 15 projects in the United States and three international projects through in-depth case studies to identify tools that aid complex-project man- agers to deliver projects successfully. These 18 projects represent various project types, locations, project sizes, and phases of project development. The case study summaries are presented in alphabetical order by the name used for each project by the researchers. Each case study summary includes a project overview, project complexity details (including a complexity map or radar diagram), and a para- graph listing the primary methods and tools used for the project. CAPITAL BELTWAY Project Overview The Capital Beltway project is a complex project in northern Virginia consisting of 14 mi of four high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) and high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, lane connections, construction or reconstruction of 11 interchanges, and replacement or improvements of more than 50 bridges. The total awarded value of the project for construction and administration is $1.4 billion. When fi nancing and design are included, the total awarded value of the project reaches $2.2 to $2.4 billion. Project planning began in 2003. One interesting fact about this project is that it resulted from an unsolicited proposal issued in 2004 and is an owner-negotiated public–private partnership (PPP). Actual construction began in July 2008, and the project is scheduled to be completed in 2013. Tolling and revenues are expected to start on December 21, 2012. A CASE STUDY SUMMARIES

137 Appendix A: CASE STUDY SUMMARIES CASE STUDY SUMMARIES Primary Methods and Tools Primary methods and tools used for the project include assembling project team, pre- paring early cost model and finance plan, and establishing public involvement plans. Project Complexity The Capital Beltway HOV/HOT Lanes Project was delivered by PPP with the design– build (DB) method. The Virginia Department of Transportation (DOT) mega-project team had previous experience with DB, but there was still some unfamiliarity, which made the project delivery method more complex than a typical project. Developing the HOT network and switchable hardware to accommodate HOT and HOV users was a challenging task for intelligent transportation systems person- nel. There were many technical factors to consider, such as pass type (electronic pass, no pass, or both), how to recognize the number of people in the vehicles, how to distinguish animals or “dummy” passengers from human passengers, and many other technical issues. In addition to the technical matters, laws needed to be considered to ensure the developed system was not illegal. For example, the legal issues involving use of photos for toll enforcement needed investigation before application. Different sources of funding and atypical financing processes related to the PPP were challenging. The complexity diagram in Figure A.1 shows the dimensional com- plexity scores that interviewees provided. Figure A.1. Capital Beltway complexity diagram. Figure A.1. Capital Beltway complexity diagram. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Technical Cost FinancingContext Schedule

138 GUIDE TO PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR COMPLEX PROJECTS DETROIT RIVER INTERNATIONAL CROSSING Project Overview The purpose of the project is to provide a new Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC) connecting Detroit, Michigan, with Windsor, Ontario, Canada. This bridge would complement an existing, privately owned, 81-year-old toll bridge ( Ambassador Bridge) and an existing 80-year-old tunnel (the Detroit–Windsor Tunnel) that has usage limitations for commercial vehicles. The project will also provide a freeway-to- freeway connection between I-75 in Detroit and Highway 401 in Windsor. The overall project has 10 primary components and various funding sources asso- ciated with each component. The project is needed to provide redundancy for mobil- ity and trade between the two countries, support economies by connecting the major freeways, and support civil, national defense, and homeland security emergency needs. Project Complexity Multiple agencies are involved in the project (the Michigan DOT and the Federal Highway Administration in the United States and the Ontario Ministry of Transpor- tation and Transport Canada in Canada), and separate documents are required for each country. Multiple stakeholders showed interests and involvement in each country. Project funding is from multiple sources, including tolling. Political issues also made this project complex, as shown in Figure A.2. Those issues included a need for legislation authorizing PPP for the project, pressure related to the competing interests associated with the privately owned Ambassador Bridge, and national attention to the project to support streamlining of the delivery. Projected financial cost for the project is more than $1.8 billion. Figure A.2. Detroit River International Crossing complexity diagram. Figure A.2. Detroit River International Crossing complexity diagram. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Technical Cost FinancingContext Schedule

139 Appendix A: CASE STUDY SUMMARIES Primary Methods and Tools Primary methods and tools used for the project include selecting project arrangements on the basis of project outcomes and establishing public involvement plans. DOYLE DRIVE Project Overview The Doyle Drive project is a unique project that forms one gateway to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, California. The 1.5-mi Doyle Drive corridor, also known as Presidio Parkway, was built in 1936 to usher traffic through the Presidio military base to connect San Francisco and the Golden Gate Bridge. Doyle Drive is located in a high–seismic hazard zone, and the original structure was not built to withstand projected earthquakes. A seismic retrofit intended to last 10 years was completed in 1995. The current project has eight contracts that will result in a new roadway, new structures including bridges and tunnels, and a depressed roadway section. Project Complexity The number of different financing sources being used for this project contributes to its complexity, as shown in Figure A.3. In addition, one of the contracts still in the plan- ning phase is expected to be PPP. Figure A.3. Doyle Drive complexity diagram. Figure A.3. Doyle Drive complexity diagram. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Technical Cost FinancingContext Schedule

140 GUIDE TO PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR COMPLEX PROJECTS Primary Methods and Tools Primary methods and tools used for the project include selecting project arrangements, which included multiple contracts; different project delivery methods; incentives to accelerate project delivery; value engineering; contractor-initiated changes and sugges- tions; and extensive, thorough monthly progress reports. GREEN STREET Project Overview The Green Street project for the City of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, consisted of recycling of asphalt and portland cement concrete rubble into high-value-added mate rials. The project focused on the development of high-value substructure aggre- gates that are structurally superior to conventional aggregates. The scope also included mechanistic-based structural asset management and design protocols. The project executed several field test sections to provide field vali- dation of the structural designs. Project Complexity Use of recycled rubble as structural material is unproven and does not fit conventional road building practice. Therefore, the project used design–supply–build principles that incorporated mechanistic design and field validation of the system developed. Figure A.4 illustrates the complexity of this project. Figure A.4. Green Street complexity diagram. Figure A.4. Green Street complexity diagram. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Technical Cost FinancingContext Schedule Primary Methods and Tools Primary methods and tools used for the project include establishment of flexible design criteria and selection of project arrangements on the basis of project outcomes.

141 Appendix A: CASE STUDY SUMMARIES HEATHROW INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT TERMINAL 5 Project Overview The Heathrow International Airport Terminal 5 (T5) project in London includes con- structing a new terminal building, a new air traffic control tower, ground traffic infra- structures (e.g., rail, underground, road, and guideways), and other auxiliary facilities (e.g., water tunnels). The planning phase of the project dates back to 1986, and the first phase of the project was completed in 2008. A second satellite building was still under construction and expected to be delivered by 2011. Project Complexity This project is one of the largest projects in Britain’s engineering history and is the big- gest construction site in Europe. Since project proposal approval in 1986, the planning and design phases of the T5 project have experienced turbulent changes (e.g., changes in technology, economic conditions, ownership, user requirements), creating signifi- cant management challenges for a project of this scale. Furthermore, the total cost of the project is £4.3 billion ($6.7 billion), and numer- ous contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, subsuppliers, regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders are involved. The project is financed from a variety of revenue sources, with huge uncertainties. Figure A.5 depicts the complexity of this project. Figure A.5. Heathrow T5 complexity diagram. Figure A.5. Heathrow T5 complexity diagram. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Technical Cost FinancingContext Schedule Primary Methods and Tools Primary methods and tools used for the project include performing comprehensive risk analysis, assembling project team, and defining project success by each dimension as required.

142 GUIDE TO PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR COMPLEX PROJECTS HUDSON-BERGEN LIGHT RAIL MINIMUM OPERABLE SEGMENT Project Overview The Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Transit System is a 20.3-mi-long light rail project that connects the densely populated Hudson River waterfront communities in New Jersey. The project also supports significant economic development that continues to take place in the region. The transit system was built in three minimum operable segments (MOSs). MOS2, which was the subject of this case study, is a 6.1-mi-long system extending from Hoboken to the Tonnelle Avenue park-and-ride facility in North Bergen and an exten- sion between 22nd Street and 34th Street in Bayonne. MOS2 features a major tunnel (the 4,100-ft Weehawken tunnel) that includes the new Bergenline station at a depth of 160 ft from the surface. The Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Transit System started as a traditional design–bid– build project. In 1994, it was determined that by using this traditional approach, the first operating segment would not be in service until 2005 because of funding con- straints and other considerations. Because of these concerns, New Jersey Transit decided to use the design–build– operate–maintain (DBOM) approach for project delivery. With this approach, it was possible to shave more than three years from the MOS1 duration. For MOS2, New Jersey Transit decided to retain the services of the DBOM contractor of the first segment, the 21st Century Rail Corporation (a subsidiary of Washington Group International). As a result, the MOS2 DBOM contract was negoti- ated as a large change order to the MOS1 contract. Project Complexity Hudson-Bergen Light Rail is the first public transit project in the nation to use the DBOM construction methodology. To obtain the funds to make the project feasible, grant anticipation notes and several bonds were issued, given that a full funding grant agreement pays according to a multiyear schedule. In addition, the project was constructed in populated and built-up areas, an envi- ronment that was challenging. Moreover, the length of the project contributed to the complexity in that the number of municipalities the project had to go through was significant compared to projects undertaken before. Figure A.6 shows the complexity of the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail project.

143 Appendix A: CASE STUDY SUMMARIES Primary Methods and Tools Primary methods and tools used for the project include selecting project arrangements on the basis of project outcomes, developing project action plans, determining involve- ment in right-of-way (ROW) and utilities, and establishing public involvement plans. I-40 CROSSTOWN Project Overview The I-40 Crosstown project consists of the relocation of 4.5 mi of the I-40 Crosstown in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, from approximately May Avenue to the I-35 inter- change. This segment includes five major bridge structures. The project consists of 10 lanes designed to carry 173,000 vehicles per day at 70 mph. The case study project included 4.5 mi of new Interstate, ROW acquisition, agreements with the railroad, and 23 separate work packages in the construction phase. Project Complexity The I-40 Crosstown project was complex because of the challenge of matching the capabilities of the local design and construction industry to the scale of the project. In addition, the availability of funding and stakeholder impact, which included relations with the railroad and ROW issues, added to the complexity of the project, as shown in Figure A.7. Figure A.6. Hudson-Bergen Light Rail complexity diagram. Figure A.6. Hudson-Bergen Light Rail complexity diagram. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Technical Cost FinancingContext Schedule

144 GUIDE TO PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR COMPLEX PROJECTS Primary Methods and Tools Primary methods and tools used for the project include defining project success by each dimension as required, assembling project team, and establishing public involve- ment plans. I-95 NEW HAVEN HARBOR CROSSING CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT Project Overview The I-95 New Haven Harbor Crossing Corridor Improvement program, in New Haven, Connecticut, comprises seven completed and three current projects. The total program is estimated to cost $1.94 billion. This multimodal transportation improve- ment program features public transit enhancement and roadway improvements along 7.2 mi of I-95 between Exit 46 and Exit 54. The currently active projects include the following: • Replacement of the existing bridge with a new signature structure, the Pearl Har- bor Memorial Bridge ($416 million); • Main span foundations and northbound west approach ($137 million); and • Route 34 flyover ($97 million). Figure A.7. I-40 Crosstown complexity diagram. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Technical Cost FinancingContext Schedule Figure A.7. I-40 Crosstown complexity diagram.

145 Appendix A: CASE STUDY SUMMARIES Project Complexity The Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge is the first extradosed bridge in the nation, which could add to the complexity of the project from a technical point of view. The mag- nitude of the project and its first-ever use in the United States caused the first bidding process to result in no bids. Receiving no bids required the owner to replan and repackage the project at great cost and delay. Furthermore, there are multiple packages in the program consisting of transit and highway work in a densely populated area spanning several municipali- ties. The construction work is conducted while the highway remains open to traffic. Figure A.8 shows the complexity for this project. Figure A.8. I-95 New Haven Harbor Crossing Corridor complexity diagram. Primary Methods and Tools Primary methods and tools used for the project include performing comprehensive risk analysis, colocating team, and determining involvement in ROW and utilities. I-595 CORRIDOR Project Overview The I-595 Corridor Roadway Improvements Project (Florida DOT I-595 Express) consists of the reconstruction of the I-595 mainline and all associated improvements to frontage roads and ramps from I-75 or Sawgrass Expressway interchange to the I-595 and I-95 interchange, for a total project length along I-595 of approximately 10.5 mi and a design and construction cost of approximately $1.2 billion. Figure A.8. I-95 New Haven Harbor Crossing Corridor complexity diagram. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Technical Cost FinancingContext Schedule

146 GUIDE TO PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR COMPLEX PROJECTS The project improvements will be implemented as part of a PPP with I-595 Express, LLC, a subsidiary created by ACS Infrastructure Development, being awarded the con- tract to serve as the concessionaire to use the design–build–finance–operate–maintain approach for the project for a 35-year term. This project delivery method was chosen as a result of initial findings that the project would take up to 20 years to complete if funded in the traditional way. The Florida DOT found that, if it could deliver the project using the design–build– finance–operate–maintain approach, it could reap considerable cost savings over the life of the project, as well as reach traffic capacity 15 years sooner than by using tradi- tional methods. The Florida DOT will provide management oversight of the contract; install, test, operate, and maintain all SunPass tolling equipment for the reversible express lanes; and set the toll rates and retain the toll revenue. Project Complexity The Florida DOT has been challenged to find the right level of oversight for the project. The process has been a learning experience for both the department and the conces- sionaire. It is very important to partner with local companies to learn the local culture and the processes of involved agencies on the part of the concessionaire. Figure A.9 shows the project complexity. Figure A.9. I-595 Corridor complexity diagram. Figure A.9. I-595 Corridor complexity diagram. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Technical Cost FinancingContext Schedule

147 Appendix A: CASE STUDY SUMMARIES Primary Methods and Tools Primary methods and tools used for the project include assembling project team, pre- paring early cost model and finance plan, colocating team, evaluating flexible financ- ing, and establishing public involvement plans. INTERCOUNTY CONNECTOR Project Overview The InterCounty Connector project consists of 18 mi of construction on a new align- ment and incorporates some reconstruction of interchanges and the existing corridor that intersects the new project. The purpose of the project is to provide a limited- access, multimodal facility between existing and proposed development areas in Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties in Maryland. Currently, the project is broken into five construction contracts and 47 envi- ronmental stewardship and mitigation contracts. The total anticipated cost is about $2.566 billion, with the environmental contracts accounting for $109 million. The initial environmental studies began in 2004, and the first construction seg- ment of the project started in November 2007. Only three of the five construction contracts have been fully let, all of which have used DB procurement. Each segment is scheduled to open incrementally; the currently contracted projects were expected to be finished in late 2011. The final two contracts are yet to be deter- mined for letting periods and anticipated completion. Nine interchanges, one intersection, two bridges, 4 mi of existing highway recon- struction, and 4.9 mi of resurfacing are slated to be completed during this project, along with the 18 mi of mainline construction. The project is using multiple funding sources and will be part of Maryland’s toll- ing network on completion. Grant anticipation revenue vehicle bonds, Maryland DOT pay-as-you-go program funds, special federal appropriations, Maryland Transporta- tion Authority bonds, Maryland general fund transfers, and a Transportation Infra- structure Finance and Innovation Act loan are all sources of funding for this project. Project Complexity The use of the DB method and multiple separate contracts, as well as construction through an environmentally sensitive area, made this project complex, as shown in Figure A.10.

148 GUIDE TO PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR COMPLEX PROJECTS Primary Methods and Tools Primary methods and tools used for the project include preparing early cost model and finance plan, identifying critical permit issues, and evaluating flexible financing. Figure A.10. InterCounty Connector complexity diagram. Figure A.10. InterCounty Connector complexity diagram. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Technical Cost FinancingContext Schedule TABLE A.1. INTERCOUNTY CONNECTOR COMPLEXITY RANK AND SCORE COMPARISON Dimension Rank Complexity Score Cost 1 70 Schedule 2 85 Technical 4 55 Context 3 85 Financing 5 85 An extensive financial plan is required, a d multiple funding sources are being used. Immense scope, multiple stakeholders and funding sources, and 50-year-old original project discussions are issues that the owner lists as reasons for treating it as a complex project. In this case study, there was a discrepancy between the complexity rank of each dimension and the score of the overall complexity for the dimensions, as shown in Table A.1.

149 Appendix A: CASE STUDY SUMMARIES JAMES RIVER BRIDGE/I-95 RICHMOND Project Overview The project consists of the restoration of the 0.75-mi-long James River Bridge on I-95 through the central business district of Richmond, Virginia. The bridge’s six lanes were originally designed and built in 1958 to carry one-third of the 110,000 vehicles per day that it was carrying when it was rebuilt in 2002. The contractor proposed using preconstructed composite units that consisted of an 8.7-inch-thick concrete deck over steel girders fabricated in a yard off site. Crews cut the old bridge spans into segments, removed them, and prepared the resulting gaps for the new composite units. Crews finished the process by setting the new pre- constructed unit in place overnight. The case study project includes the following: • 0.75 miles of Interstate bridge restoration • Improvements on Route 1 that include widening to six lanes and signalization • High-mast lighting system • Robust public information program • Agreements with the Richmond Downtown Chamber of Commerce Project Complexity The project was regarded as complex because of construction scheduling restrictions resulting from location, volume of traffic, and potential impact on the public, as shown in Figure A.11. Project visibility was significant because of the immediate proximity to both the state legislature offices and the Virginia DOT central office. In addition, implementation of an untried construction method and an untried incentive and dis- incentive contract structure was complex. Figure A.11. James River Bridge/I-95 Richmond complexity diagram. Figure A.11. James River Bridge/I-95 Richmond complexity diagram. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Technical Cost FinancingContext Schedule

150 GUIDE TO PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR COMPLEX PROJECTS Primary Methods and Tools Primary methods and tools used for the project include defining project success by each dimension as required, selecting project arrangements on the basis of project outcomes, and establishing flexible design criteria. LEWIS AND CLARK BRIDGE Project Overview The Lewis and Clark Bridge spans the state line between Washington and Oregon pro- viding a link for motorists between the states. The cost of the deck replacement was split evenly by both states. The bridge is 5,478 ft long, with 34 spans carrying 21,000 vehicles per day. The bridge was built in 1929. At the time of construction, it was the longest and highest cantilever steel truss bridge in the United States. To extend the life of the existing bridge by 25 years, a full-depth precast deck replacement was designed and executed. The final total value of the project is about $24 million. Project Complexity The Lewis and Clark Bridge is the only link between Washington and Oregon within at least a 1-hour distance. This factor greatly increased the context dimension complexity of the project. The owner had to seek solutions to minimize traffic impact. User benefits were the major driver behind the decision to use a more-complex construction strategy (such as an incentive contract, which the owner had not used before), night and weekend full closure of the bridge, and precast deck replacement. Figure A.12 shows the project complexity. Figure A.12. Lewis and Clark Bridge complexity diagram. Figure A.12. Lewis and Clark Bridge complexity diagram. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Technical Cost FinancingContext Schedule

151 Appendix A: CASE STUDY SUMMARIES Primary Methods and Tools Primary methods and tools used for the project include defining project success by each dimension as required, selecting project arrangements on the basis of project outcomes, and establishing flexible design criteria. LOUISVILLE–SOUTHERN INDIANA OHIO RIVER BRIDGE Project Overview The Ohio River Bridges project in southern Indiana and Louisville, Kentucky, is a complex project that was entering the final stages of the design phase. The project consists of two long-span river crossings (one in downtown Louisville and one on the east side of the metro), a new downtown interchange in Louisville, a new approach, a 4.2-mi-long highway on the Indiana side, a new east-end approach on the Kentucky side (including a 2,000-ft-long tunnel), and reconfiguration of existing interchanges to improve congestion, mobility, and safety. Project Complexity The project is regarded as complex because of the very large scope of work, insufficient funds, undefined financing plans, the presence of several historic districts and neigh- borhoods, multiple jurisdictions, political and environmental issues, and requirements for ongoing public involvement. Design was virtually complete, but estimated construction costs ($4.1 billion) far exceeded available funds. Construction schedule, procurement, contracting, and so forth would depend on funding and financing plans that were under development (with recommendations due January 1, 2011). Figure A.13 shows the project complexity. Figure A.13. Louisville–Southern Indiana Ohio Bridge Crossing complexity diagram. Figure A.13. Louisville–Southern Indiana Ohio Bridge Crossing complexity diagram. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Technical Cost FinancingContext Schedule

152 GUIDE TO PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR COMPLEX PROJECTS Primary Methods and Tools Primary methods and tools used for the project include determining involvement in ROW and utilities, determining work packages and sequencing, and establishing pub- lic involvement plans. NEW MISSISSIPPI RIVER BRIDGE Project Overview The New Mississippi River Bridge project between St. Louis, Missouri, and East St. Louis, Illinois, is a complex project consisting of building a new, four-lane, long- span, cable-stayed bridge across the Mississippi River 1 mi north of the existing Martin Luther King Bridge. In addition, the project includes a new North I-70 interchange roadway connec- tion between the existing I-70 and the new bridge, with further connections to the local St. Louis street system at Cass Avenue. On the Illinois side, the project includes a new I-70 connection roadway between the existing I-55, I-64, and I-70 Tri-Level Interchange and the main span and signifi- cant improvements at the I-55, I-64, and I-70 Tri-Level Interchange in East St. Louis, which will connect to I-70. The 1,500-ft main span will be the second-longest cable- stayed bridge in the United States upon completion. Project Complexity From the beginning, this project had several reasons to be considered a complex project, including time and cost constraints, technical complications, large scope, rail- road and utility coordination, and special appropriation (use it or lose it) funding. Crash incidence near the existing bridge was triple the national average, and the bridge ranks among the 10 worst corridors in the country in terms of congestion. Therefore, redesign and expansion of capacity were critical. Severe traffic (capacity, safety, and mobility) conditions also made the schedule a priority. The original project plan had to be re-scoped into viable phases, given available funding, without sacrificing the overall project vision. The risk of cost and schedule overruns had to be mitigated to protect funding opportunities. Figure A.14 shows the project complexity.

153 Appendix A: CASE STUDY SUMMARIES Primary Methods and Tools Primary methods and tools used for the project include designing to budget, perform- ing comprehensive risk analysis, and colocating team. NORTH CAROLINA TOLLWAY Project Overview In 2002, the North Carolina General Assembly created the North Carolina Turnpike Authority to respond to growth and congestion concerns in North Carolina. Two of the nine authorized projects are the Triangle Parkway and the Western Wake Parkway, which compose the Triangle Expressway. These two projects combine for a total of approximately 19 mi of new roadway on one side of Raleigh, North Carolina. These projects will be North Carolina’s first experience with modern toll facilities. Both projects were advertised initially in 2007, and completion is expected in 2011. The total awarded value of the project is approximately $583 million. Project Complexity This is the first tollway in North Carolina. Schedule and financing are keys to this project. It is important to get the project open to start collecting toll revenue. Figure A.15 shows the project complexity. Figure A.14. New Mississippi River Bridge complexity diagram. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Technical Cost FinancingContext Schedule Figure A.14. New Mississippi River Bridge complexity diagram.

154 GUIDE TO PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR COMPLEX PROJECTS Primary Methods and Tools Primary methods and tools used for the project include preparing early cost model and finance plan and establishing flexible design criteria. NORTHERN GATEWAY TOLL ROAD Project Overview The Northern Gateway Toll Road was the first electronic toll road in New Zealand. This construction project was one of New Zealand’s largest, most challenging, and most complex to date. The project extends the four-lane Northern Motorway 7.5 km further north from Orewa to Puhoi through historically rich and diverse landscapes, steep topography, and local streams, and provides an alternative to the steep two-lane winding coastal route through Orewa and Waiwera. The $360 million extension of State Highway One was constructed to provide a straight and safe drive between Auckland and Northland. The project was delivered by the Northern Gateway Alliance (NGA), which comprised Transit New Zealand, Fulton Hogan, Leighton Contractors, URS New Zealand, Tonkin & Taylor, and Boffa Miskell. The road, which opened in January 2009, has become a visual showcase of environmental and engineering excellence. NGA was appointed by the New Zealand Transport Authority to deliver a major realignment and extension of the Northern Motorway approximately 30 km north of Auckland. This contract was the largest single contract to date ever awarded by the transport authority, which formed NGA in 2004 to design, manage, and construct the Figure A.15. North Carolina Tollway complexity diagram. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Technical Cost FinancingContext Schedule Figure A.15. North Carolina Tollway complexity diagram.

155 Appendix A: CASE STUDY SUMMARIES State Highway One Northern Motorway extension. The project is being constructed through an area of very high environmental sensitivity and complex geology and topography. Project Complexity Funding was not in place at the start of the project, and environmental requirements insisted (forced) an early start of construction. Tunneling had not been done by the agency in decades, and the geotechnical situation was largely unknown. Consent condition was dependent on schedule. Immediate proof of starting con- struction was needed. Alliancing gave the option to start construction after initial design concepts. Year-by-year extensions were given by the environmental court to proceed. Funding was partly taken away before the start of construction. A business case was made to the Treasury, and the remaining money was borrowed in exchange for tolling rights for 35 years. The risk for this income was transferred to the Treasury. The alliance partners were aware that approval of this money was pending and the risk of the project being halted was shared. Figure A.16 shows the project complexity. Figure A.16. Northern Gateway Toll Road complexity diagram. Figure A.16. Northern Gateway Toll Road complexity diagram. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Technical Cost FinancingContext Schedule Primary Methods and Tools Primary methods and tools used for the project include defining project success by each dimension as required, selecting project arrangements on the basis of project outcomes, and establishing public involvement plans.

156 GUIDE TO PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR COMPLEX PROJECTS T-REX SOUTHEAST I-25 AND I-225 Project Overview The Transportation Expansion (T-REX) project in Metro Denver, Colorado, consists of 17 mi of highway expansion and improvements to I-25 from Logan Street in Denver to Lincoln Avenue in Douglas County and to I-225 from Parker Road in Aurora to a newly configured I-25 and I-225 interchange. The project also included 19 mi of light rail developments along those routes. DB project delivery was selected because of its ability to reduce schedule and assign a single point of responsibility. The original cost for the project was $1.67 bil- lion, which included the following costs: • DB contract: $1.2 billion • Maintenance facility: $40 to $50 million • Siemens light rail vehicles: $100 million • ROW and administration: $100 million Project Complexity The project was considered complex because of the challenging work environment and the need to keep the highway open during construction, along with tracking of funding (highway versus traffic dollars) and the need to maintain bipartisan support, which created sensitive issues. Political parties did not want to lose elections because the T-REX project had failed. Figure A.17 shows the project complexity. Figure A.17. T-REX complexity diagram. Figure A.17. T-REX complexity diagram. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Technical Cost FinancingContext Schedule

157 Appendix A: CASE STUDY SUMMARIES Primary Methods and Tools Primary methods and tools used for the project include selecting project arrangements on the basis of project outcomes, assembling project team, determining involvement in ROW and utilities, and establishing public involvement plans. TEXAS STATE HIGHWAY 161 Project Overview The Texas State Highway (TX SH) 161 project consists of construction of an 11.5-mi- long north–south tollway and frontage roads midway between Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas. The project will be built in phases with an overall construction cost of approxi- mately $1 billion. The southern terminus is at I-20 and runs north, with a full direct connector inter- change with I-30, and connects to the existing TX SH 161 on the north end with an interchange at TX SH 183. The case study project includes four phases and at least six subprojects. Project Complexity This project was complex because of its magnitude, multiple sources of financing, context (political influences), accelerated scheduling requirements, environmental con- cerns, and railroad involvement, as shown in Figure A.18. Figure A.18. Texas State Highway 161 project complexity diagram. Figure A.18. Texas State Highway 161 project complexity diagram. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Technical Cost FinancingContext Schedule Primary Methods and Tools Primary methods and tools used for the project include defining project success by each dimension as required, incentivizing critical project outcomes, and establishing public involvement plans.