The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 62-77

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 62... ... 60 APPENDIX A Department of Transportation Survey and Results NCHRP 47-02 Synthesis Alternate Design/Alternate Bid (ADAB) Process for Pavement-Type Selection Survey Questions Please enter the date (MM/DD/YYYY) Read the entire page →
From page 63... ... 61 7) Please upload any documents or guidelines explaining your ADAB process: 8) Read the entire page →
From page 64... ... 62 ADAB introduces alternatives that contribute to the overall performance of the pavement. ADAB results in accelerated project completion. Read the entire page →
From page 65... ... 63 23) How are user costs accounted for in the ADAB process? Read the entire page →
From page 66... ... 64 36) What is the most current discount rate (%) Read the entire page →
From page 67... ... 65 TABLE A2 LEADING ADAB BENEFITS, AND REASONS GIVEN THE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF ADAB PRACTICES Factors for ADAB Success Leading ADAB Benefits State Agency Support and Leadership State Award Legislation Industry Support State Resources Provided for Implementation ADAB Increases Competition in Project Bids ADAB Provides Flexibility in Design, Construction, and Bidding ADAB Provides Cost Savings to the Agency ADAB Introduces Alternatives That Contribute to the Overall Performance of the Pavement ADAB Results in Accelerated Project Completion ADAB Projects Provide Comparable Pavement Design Alternatives for the Contractor Alabama Y -- Y -- Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree Arkansas Y -- Y -- Agree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree Agree Colorado Y -- Y Y Agree Agree Neutral Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Florida -- -- -- -- Neutral Agree Agree Agree Neutral Agree Idaho -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Kentucky Y -- -- -- Agree Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Maryland Y -- -- -- Agree Agree Unsure Neutral Unsure Agree Michigan Y -- -- -- Neutral Neutral Disagree Neutral Disagree Agree Minnesota Y -- -- -- Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Agree Missouri Y -- Y -- Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Neutral Strongly Agree Nevada -- -- -- Neutral Neutral Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree New Mexico Y -- Y -- Agree Agree Unsure Unsure Unsure Agree North Carolina Y -- Y -- Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Ohio Y -- Y -- Agree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Virginia Y -- Y -- Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Agree West Virginia Y -- -- -- Agree Disagree Agree Neutral Neutral Strongly Agree Read the entire page →
From page 68... ... 66 TABLE A3 CRITICAL FACTORS FOR ADAB USE State Projects with High Levels of Traffic Projects with Higher Percentage of Truck Traffic Issues with Vertical Geometry or Clearance Issues with the Continuity of Adjacent Pavement/ Lanes Issues With Availability of Local Materials and Expertise Issues with Unstable Subsoils Work Zone Issues, Including Traffic Control and Safety Concerns Low Tolerance for Pavement Noise Lack of Competition of PavementType Contractors: Too Much Single Bid Alabama No influence Suitable No influence Not suitable Not suitable Not suitable Suitable No influence -- Arkansas Suitable Suitable No influence Not suitable No influence Not suitable Suitable No influence -- Colorado Suitable Suitable No influence No influence No influence No influence Not suitable No influence -- Florida -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Idaho -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Kentucky No influence Suitable No influence No influence No influence No influence Not suitable Not suitable -- Maryland No influence No influence No influence Not suitable No influence No influence Not suitable No influence -- Michigan No influence No influence Not suitable Not suitable Not suitable Not suitable No influence No influence -- Minnesota Suitable Suitable Not suitable Not suitable Not suitable Not suitable No influence No influence -- Missouri Suitable Suitable No influence No influence No influence No influence No influence No influence -- Nevada Suitable Suitable No influence Suitable No influence No influence No influence No influence -- New Mexico Suitable Suitable No influence Not suitable Not suitable Not suitable Suitable Suitable -- North Carolina Suitable Suitable No influence Not suitable Not suitable No influence No influence No influence -- Ohio Suitable Suitable Suitable Not suitable No influence Not suitable No influence No influence -- Virginia Suitable Suitable No influence Not suitable Suitable Not suitable No influence No influence -- West Virginia Suitable Suitable No influence Not suitable Not suitable Not suitable -- Not suitable Suitable Read the entire page →
From page 69... ... 67 TABLE A4 FREQUENCY OF CRITICAL FACTORS FOR ADAB USE State Suitability for Functional Class Traffic Level and Composition Complexity of Highway Geometry or Clearance Issues with the Continuity of Adjacent Pavement/ Lanes Issues with Availability of Local Materials and Expertise Complexity Due to Unstable Soils Work Zone Issues, Including Traffic Control and Safety Concerns Low Tolerance for Pavement Noise Proximity to Areas with High Percentage of Heavy Trucks Alabama Frequently Frequently Occasionally Frequently Occasionally Occasionally Frequently Rarely Frequently Arkansas Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Frequently Rarely Occasionally Frequently Rarely Occasionally Colorado Rarely Occasionally Rarely Rarely Rarely Rarely Frequently Rarely Occasionally Florida -- -- Occasionally -- Rarely -- Occasionally -- -- Idaho -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Kentucky Not a factor Not a factor Rarely Rarely Occasionally Not a factor Frequently Not a factor Not a factor Maryland Not a factor Not a factor Not a factor Not a factor Not a factor Not a factor Frequently Not a factor Michigan Not a factor Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Rarely Minnesota Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Frequently Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Not a factor -- Missouri Not a factor Not a factor Not a factor Not a factor Occasionally Rarely Rarely Not a factor -- Nevada Frequently Frequently Not a factor Frequently Not a factor Not a factor Not a factor Not a factor Not a factor New Mexico Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally North Carolina Frequently Frequently Frequently Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Frequently Occasionally Not a factor Ohio Not a factor Occasionally Frequently Frequently Rarely Occasionally Rarely Rarely -- Virginia Occasionally Frequently Occasionally Frequently Rarely Occasionally Not a factor Rarely -- West Virginia Occasionally Occasionally Not a factor Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Not a factor Rarely Read the entire page →
From page 70... ... 68 TABLE A5 USE OF LCCA-BASED THRESHOLDS AND BID ADJUSTMENT FACTORS State Deterministic LCCA-Based Threshold for ADAB Probabilistic/ Stochastic LCCABased Threshold Non-LCCA-Based Selection Criteria for ADAB Use Bid Adjustment Factor Inclusion of User Costs in the Bid Adjustment Factor Alabama -- Y None -- Arkansas -- -- -- None -- Colorado -- 10% -- LCCA-based Y Florida -- -- -- None -- Idaho -- -- -- -- -- Kentucky 20% -- -- LCCA-based Y Maryland -- 20% -- LCCA-based N Michigan 10% -- -- LCCA-based Y Minnesota 10% -- -- LCCA-based N Missouri -- -- Y LCCA-based N Nevada -- -- Y LCCA-based Y New Mexico -- -- Y LCCA-based N North Carolina 10% -- -- None -- Ohio 10% -- -- None -- Virginia -- 15% -- LCCA-based Y West Virginia 20% -- -- LCCA-based Y TABLE A6 LCCA AND PAVEMENT-TYPE SELECTION (PTS) PRACTICES State Documented LCCA or PTS Process LCCA-Based Methodology for PTS Type of LCCA Methodology User Costs Considered in LCCA LCCA Economic Analysis Method LCCA Analysis Period Includes a Major Rehabilitation The Most Current Discount Rate (%) Read the entire page →
From page 71... ... 69 TABLE A7 TYPICAL PAVEMENT DESIGN METHODOLOGIES State Flexible Pavement Design Methodology Rigid Pavement Design Methodology Pavement Design Methodology Changed for Equivalent Design LCCA Analysis Packages or Programs Alabama AASHTO 1993 modified AASHTO MEPDG uncalibrated Y -- Arkansas AASHTO 1993 AASHTO 1993 Y -- Colorado AASHTO MEPDG AASHTO MEPDG N RealCost Florida AASHTO 1993 AASHTO MEPDG Y State-developed Idaho -- -- -- -- Kentucky State-developed State-developed Y State-developed Maryland AASHTO 1993 AASHTO 1993 Y Realcost (customized) Michigan AASHTO 1993 and ME Both AASHTO 1993 and ME Y State-developed Minnesota State-developed State-developed NA State-developed Missouri MEPDG MEPDG N State-developed Nevada AASHTO MEPDG AASHTO MEPDG Y Realcost New Mexico AASHTO 1993 AASHTO 1993 Y -- North Carolina AASHTO MEPDG AASHTO MEPDG N State-developed Ohio AASHTO 1993 AASHTO 1993 N State-developed Virginia AASHTO 1993 AASHTO 1993 Y RealCost West Virginia AASHTO 1993 Other N Realcost (customized) Read the entire page →
From page 72... ... 70 Tables A8–B12 relate to agencies where ADAB is not used TABLE A8 FUTURE INTEREST IN ADAB FOR STATES NOT USING ALTERNATE BIDDING State Future Interest in ADAB Adoption ADAB Would Benefit Agency PTS Increased Competition Flexibility in Design, Construction, and Bidding Cost Savings Quality and Performance Improvements Accelerated Project Completion Better or Increased Use of Local Material Sources Alaska N N -- -- -- -- -- -- Arizona N U -- -- -- -- -- -- California Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Connecticut N U -- -- -- -- -- -- Delaware N -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Hawaii N U -- -- -- -- -- -- Iowa N N -- -- -- -- -- -- Kansas N U -- -- -- -- -- -- Louisiana Y Y Y -- Y -- -- -- Massachusetts N U -- -- -- -- -- -- Mississippi -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Montana Y U Y Y Y -- -- Y Nebraska N U -- -- -- -- -- -- New Hampshire N U -- -- -- -- -- -- New Jersey Y U Y -- Y Y -- -- North Dakota N U -- -- -- -- -- -- Oregon N N -- -- -- -- -- -- Rhode Island Y U -- -- Y -- Y -- South Carolina Y Y Y Y Y -- Y Y South Dakota N -- -- -- -- -- -- Texas Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Utah -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Washington Y U -- -- -- -- -- -- Wisconsin Y U Y -- -- -- -- -- Read the entire page →
From page 73... ... 71 TABLE A9 REASONS FOR NO INTEREST IN ADAB FOR STATES NOT USING ALTERNATE BIDDING State Statutory Constraints Industry Resistance Lack of Projects That Would Qualify for ADAB Lack of Resources Insufficient Experience with the Process Internal Resistance to Change Alaska -- -- -- -- -- -- Arizona -- -- -- -- Y -- California -- -- -- -- -- -- Connecticut -- -- -- -- Y Y Delaware -- -- -- -- -- -- Hawaii -- -- -- Y Y -- Iowa -- Y -- -- Y -- Kansas -- -- -- -- Y -- Louisiana -- -- -- -- -- -- Massachusetts -- -- -- -- -- -- Mississippi -- -- -- -- -- -- Montana -- -- -- -- -- -- Nebraska -- -- -- Y Y Y New Hampshire -- -- -- Y Y -- New Jersey -- -- -- -- -- -- North Dakota -- Y -- -- Y -- Oregon -- -- -- -- -- -- Rhode Island -- -- -- -- -- -- South Carolina -- -- -- -- -- -- South Dakota -- -- -- -- -- -- Texas -- -- -- -- -- -- Utah -- -- -- -- -- -- Washington -- -- -- -- -- -- Wisconsin -- -- -- -- -- -- Read the entire page →
From page 74... ... 72 TABLE A10 FREQUENCY OF CRITICAL FACTORS FOR PAVEMENT-TYPE SELECTION State Suitability for Functional Class Traffic Level and Composition Complexity of Highway Geometry or Clearance Issues with the Continuity of Adjacent Pavement/ Lanes Issues with Availability of Local Materials and Expertise Complexity Due to Unstable Soils Work Zone Issues, Including Traffic Control and Safety Concerns Low Tolerance for Pavement Noise Proximity to Areas with High Percentage of Heavy Trucks Alaska Rarely Rarely Rarely Rarely Frequently Rarely Not a factor Not a factor Occasionally Arizona Frequently Occasionally Occasionally Frequently Frequently Occasionally Occasionally Frequently Occasionally California Frequently Frequently Occasionally Frequently Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Frequently Connecticut Frequently Frequently Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Rarely Occasionally Rarely Frequently Delaware -- Hawaii Frequently Frequently Occasionally Frequently Frequently Frequently Frequently Frequently Frequently Iowa Occasionally Frequently Rarely Rarely Rarely Occasionally Rarely Rarely Occasionally Kansas -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Louisiana Occasionally Frequently Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Rarely Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Massachusetts Frequently Frequently Frequently Frequently Not a factor Frequently Frequently Frequently Frequently Mississippi -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Montana Occasionally Frequently Rarely Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Rarely Occasionally Nebraska Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Rarely Rarely Occasionally Rarely Occasionally New Hampshire Not a factor Not a factor Not a factor Not a factor Frequently Occasionally Not a factor Occasionally Occasionally New Jersey Not a factor Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Rarely Rarely Frequently Frequently Occasionally North Dakota -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Oregon Rarely Frequently Frequently Occasionally Rarely Rarely Frequently Not a factor Occasionally Rhode Island Not a factor Not a factor Not a factor Not a factor Frequently Not a factor Frequently Not a factor Not a factor South Carolina Not a factor Frequently Occasionally Frequently Rarely Rarely Frequently Rarely Occasionally South Dakota -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Texas Frequently Frequently Frequently Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Frequently Utah -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Washington Not a factor Occasionally Rarely Rarely Not a factor Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Not a factor Wisconsin Not a factor Not a factor Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Not a factor Rarely Rarely Occasionally Read the entire page →
From page 75... ... 73 TABLE A11 LCCA AND PAVEMENT-TYPE SELECTION IN STATES NOT USING ADAB State Percent Concrete Lane Miles Percent Asphalt Lane Miles LCCAbased Methodology for PTS Document-ed LCCA or PTS Process Type of LCCA Methodology User Costs Considered in LCCA LCCA Economic Analysis Method LCCA Includes a Major Rehabilitation User Costs Considered in LCCA The Most Current Discount Rate (%) Used in LCCA Alaska 0% 100% Y Y Deterministic Y NPV Y Y 4.00 Arizona 10% 90% N N -- -- -- -- -- -- California 20% 80% Y Y Unsure U -- -- -- -- Connecticut 1% 99% Y N Probabilistic Y NPV and EUAC N Y 2.20 Delaware 6% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Hawaii 10% 90% U N Unsure -- -- -- -- -- Iowa 2% 98% Y Y Deterministic N NPV N N 3.00 Kansas -- -- U -- -- -- -- -- -- Louisiana 35% 65% N Y -- -- -- -- -- -- Massachusetts 0% 100% N N -- -- -- -- -- -- Mississippi -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Montana 20% 80% N N -- -- -- -- -- -- Nebraska 15% 85% Y N Unsure N NPV Y N 3.00 New Hampshire 0% 100% N N -- -- -- -- -- -- New Jersey 1% 99% Y U Deterministic Y NPV Y Y 3.00 North Dakota 10% 90% N N -- -- -- -- -- -- Oregon 0% 100% Y Y Deterministic N NPV Y N 1.50 Rhode Island 0% 100% N N -- -- -- -- -- -- South Carolina 5% 95% Y Y Probabilistic Y NPV Y Y 1.50 South Dakota -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Texas 10% 90% U N Unsure -- -- -- -- -- Utah -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Washington 5% 95% Y Y Deterministic Y NPV N Y 4.00 Wisconsin 20% 80% Y Y Deterministic N NPV Y N 5.00 Read the entire page →
From page 76... ... 74 TABLE A12 PAVEMENT DESIGN METHODOLOGY IN STATES NOT USING ADAB State Flexible Pavement Design Methodology Rigid Pavement Design Methodology Pavement Design Methodology Changed for Equivalent Design LCCA Analysis Packages or Programs Alaska State-developed FAARFIELD for aviation N State-developed Arizona AASHTO 1993, MEPDG and SODA AASHTO 1993 and MEPDG N -- California AASHTO MEPDG AASHTO MEPDG N RealCost Connecticut AASHTO 1993 AASHTO 1993 NA RealCost Delaware -- -- -- -- Hawaii State-developed State-developed NA -- Iowa AASHTO 1993 PCA method Y State-developed Kansas -- Louisiana AASHTO 1993 AASHTO 1993 Y -- Massachusetts AASHTO 1993 with HMA specifications NA NA -- Mississippi -- -- -- -- Montana AASHTO 1993 AASHTO 1993 N -- Nebraska AASHTO 1993 AASHTO 1993 NA State-developed New Hampshire AASHTO 1972 NA NA -- New Jersey AASHTO MEPDG AASHTO MEPDG NA State-developed North Dakota -- -- -- -- Oregon AASHTO MEPDG and AASHTO 1993 AASHTO MEPDG Y State-developed Rhode Island State-developed -- Y -- South Carolina State-developed State-developed Y State-developed South Dakota -- -- -- -- Texas State-developed AASHTO 1993 NA -- Utah -- -- -- -- Washington AASHTO 1993 and MEPDG State-developed NA RealCost Wisconsin AASHTO 1972 or ME design AASHTO 1972 or ME design NA State-developed Read the entire page →
From page 77... ... 75 TABLE A13 COMPARISON OF NCHRP REPORT 703 AND NCHRP 47-20 SURVEY RESULTS State NCHRP Report 703 Survey (2011) NCHRP 47-02 Synthesis Survey (2016) Read the entire page →

From page 62...

... 60 APPENDIX A Department of Transportation Survey and Results NCHRP 47-02 Synthesis Alternate Design/Alternate Bid (ADAB) Process for Pavement-Type Selection Survey Questions Please enter the date (MM/DD/YYYY)