Highway Project:

1. Highway Project: South Interchange

2. Presentation Outline Introduction VE Job Plan Critique

3. Part I:Introduction Project Summary • Connect Two Major Interstate Routes: • Northbound • Westbound • Construct and tunnel Northbound Interstate under the Main Railroad Tracks and East-West Interstate • Estimated Cost $ 1 Billion

4. VE Study Objectives • Optimization of Cost Impact of Design Methods Decisions • Simplification of Highway System • Achievement of Grade Raise for Northbound Interstate Deep-tunnel Section

5. VE Team Chart

6. VE Team Achievements • Conducted 40-hour Task Team Study • Developed Cost/Worth Model • Generated 30 Creative Ideas, from which 10 Proposals and 5 Design Comments selected For Further Evaluation & Development

7. Principle Proposals • Elimination of Ramps A & B, Portion of Main Street , and Modification of Ramp C • Raising Profile of Major Northbound Interstate • Elimination of Ramp D • Review of Design of Local Channel Crossing and Elevating East-West Interstate over Channel

8. Principle Proposals (Cont….) • Changing Structural Design Criteria for Elevated Structures. • Using Steel Sheet Piling in lieu of Slurry Walls • Using Strength & Load Factor Design Methods in lieu of Working Strength

9. VE Study Results • Initial Cost Savings $ 200 Millions • Follow-on Savings Estimates $ 3 Millions to $5 Millions each year, depending on alternative chosen for final design

10. Part II:VE Job Plan Implementation Development Evaluation Speculation Information

11. Information Phase Cost/Worth Model

12. Summary of Cost/Worth Model

13. Summary Potential Cost Savings

14. Summary Potential Cost Savings (Cont…)

15. Summary Potential Cost Savings (Cont…)

16. C-1 Eliminate Ramp A

17. Part II:VE Job Plan (Cont…) Implementation Development Evaluation Speculation Information

18. C-1 Eliminate Ramp A First Function Connect Westbound Interstate to Northbound Interstate • Original Part Scope Construct Ramp A under Local Road and Main Railroad Tracks and tunneling under railroad (undesirable and costly) • Alternative Eliminate Ramp A and Make Traffic using Local Avenue to Northbound Interstate

19. Part II:VE Job Plan (Cont…) Implementation Development Evaluation Speculation Information

20. AlternativeEliminate Ramp A and Make Traffic using Local Avenue to Northbound Interstate C-1 Eliminate Ramp A

21. Part II:VE Job Plan (Cont…) Implementation Development Evaluation Speculation Information

22. C-1 Eliminate Ramp A VE Cost Comparison ($MM): Life Cycle Cost: LCC Savings will be achieved through elimination of tunnel ventilation, lighting and maintenance costs for 2,000 foot long tunnel and the total potential saving is estimated at $ 64.7 Million or 6.5 % of Total Project

23. Part II:VE Job Plan (Cont…) Implementation Development Evaluation Speculation Information

24. C-1 Eliminate Ramp A • Department of Public Works feels that successful highway design must include movement from the west on E-W Interstate to the north on N-S Interstate in order to facilitate commercial activity • Because of implementation of another proposal that recommends raising N-S Interstate Profile, more direct and less expensive connection was made

25. C-6 Raise Profile of Northbound Interstate

26. Part II:VE Job Plan (Cont…) Implementation Development Evaluation Speculation Information

27. C-6 Raise Profile of Northbound Interstate Second Function Carry Northbound Interstate • Original Part Scope Construct Northbound Interstate under Main Railroad Tracks • Alternatives • Raise Profile of Northbound Interstate over Railroad and East-West Interstate • Reroute Ramp C, combining with Ramp E

28. Part II:VE Job Plan (Cont…) Implementation Development Evaluation Speculation Information

29. C-6 Raise Profile of Northbound Interstate Alternative 1: Raise Profile of Northbound Interstate over Railroad and East-West Interstate

30. C-6 Raise Profile of Northbound Interstate Alternative 2: Reroute Ramp C, combining with Ramp E

31. Part II:VE Job Plan (Cont…) Implementation Development Evaluation Speculation Information

32. C-6 Raise Profile of Northbound Interstate VE Cost Comparison ($MM): Life Cycle Cost: LCC Savings will be achieved through elimination of adjacent streets Northbound, main street, and Ramp B, and combination of Ramps C & E. Total potential saving is estimated at $ 69.4 Million or 6.9 % of Total Project

33. Part II:VE Job Plan (Cont…) Implementation Development Evaluation Speculation Information

34. C-6 Raise Profile of Northbound Interstate • Department of Public Works concurs with this recommendation • Although Main Street connection between Frontage Road & Albany Street is desirable and Main Street connection to Frontage Road would enhance design potential, savings realized is significant enough to warrant its approval

35. S-4 Use Of Strength & Load Factor Design Method

36. Part II:VE Job Plan (Cont…) Implementation Development Evaluation Speculation Information

37. S-4 Use Of Strength & Load Factor Design Methods • USE OF LOAD FACTOR DESIGN METHOD FOR SIZING CONCRETE STRUCTURE Savings = $ 16.8 Million • USE OF STRENGTH DESIGN METHOD FOR SIZING REINFORCEMENT Savings = $ 24.2 Million • USE OF LOAD FACTOR DESIGN METHOD FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL Savings = $ 4.6 Million • Total Savings = $ 45.6 Millions

38. Part II:VE Job Plan (Cont…) Implementation Development Evaluation Speculation Information

39. S-4 Use Of Strength & Load Factor Design Methods • Department of Public Works concurs with this requirement for all Bridge Structures whether steel or concrete • Use of Load Factor vs. Working Strength for Tunnel is currently under Review, although all indications suggest that Working Stress Design is favored • Department of Public Works has established that Working Stress Design will be used for Buildings

40. Part III:Case Study Critique • Lack Of Project Information Such As Size, Location, Purpose….Etc • Inadequacy In Drawings And Specifications • Lack Of Explanation Of Why Certain Proposals Were Undertaken • Incomplete Picture Of The Remaining Accepted Proposals

41. THANK YOU