TDOT - Expedited Project Delivery by Gresham Smith

SHOWCASE7

Faster Deliver = Cost Savings

TDOT - Expedited Project Delivery GRESHA M, SMITH AND PA RTNER S

FASTER DELIVERY= COST $AVINGS TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXPEDITED PROJECT DELIVERY

As of 2012, TDOT had a backlog of more than 800 roadway projects in various phases of development, with total costs estimated at $8.5 billion. Several projects had been in the TDOT work program for many years with little to no progress, mainly due to high estimated implementation costs and lack of available funding. An identiﬁed barrier to releasing projects for completion, TDOT’s existing cost-estimation methodology produced a wide range of accuracy, with high variance directly affecting TDOT’s ability to plan and deliver much-needed projects statewide. In an effort to relieve the backlog and begin necessary projects for Tennessee taxpayers, GS&P was tasked with engaging in Expedited Project Delivery (EPD) reviews to evaluate proposed projects and

recommend either modifying the proposed scope of work, or proceeding with them as originally conceived. The goal of the EPD review process was to develop an operationally appropriate scope for each project that addressed immediate safety needs and provided recommendations for long-term improvements. “Over the past two years, our transportation engineers and planners have assisted TDOT by preparing 27 EPD reports,” explains Bill Moore, senior vice president of transportation. “We’ve identiﬁed long- and short-term improvements for state highways where funding for the original project is unavailable, and the results so far are that TDOT can now provide immediate improvements at a fraction of the originally proposed cost.”

RAMPING UP ROAD PROJECTS Working collaboratively with TDOT’s Strategic Transportation Investments Division, GS&P reviewed a range of factors that included existing and future traffic projections, crash data, safety deficiencies, previous planning documents and potential multimodal opportunities. In addition to safety improvements that can be implemented immediately—including new lane striping, curve warning signs, guardrails, raised pavement markers and more—the EPD process will result in longer-term roadway improvements, such as road widening and intersection re-alignments, based on operational analyses of future traffic demand and field review observations.

“The reviews succeeded in streamlining proposed projects,” says Mark Holloran, senior transportation engineer and principal-in-charge on the project. “A good example of this is where a two-lane roadway would handle trafﬁc loads well enough that a four-lane road wasn’t required. “In a couple of instances, it was clear that the full project was needed. But in most cases, we were able to recommend a big reduction in the scope of work, which in turn would mean a big savings.”

“... in most cases, we were able to recommend a big reduction in the scope of work, which in turn would mean a big savings.” MARK HOLLORAN, SENIOR TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER

As illustrated in the layout sheet above, the field review team identifies road safety audit improvements that can be quickly implemented and don’t require any further construction plans. Examples above include installation of new curve and intersection warning signs as well as new stop signs.

NATURE AND HISTORY IN MIND

Somerville’s initial plans called for four lanes through the downtown district. The EPD recommendation of a two-lane section struck a good balance between navigating traffic through the city center, and helping the existing downtown traffic flow.

Trenton originally proposed a bypass to reroute trucks away from the tight downtown area. The EPD recommended that signage could help trucks move through town without adding new roadways, resulting in huge savings.

Among the specific examples where EPDs have made a difference, Holloran cites three Tennessee communities: Somerville, Trenton and Nutbush—a small town northeast of Memphis, and the birthplace of music icon Tina Turner. “Somerville’s initial plans called for a four-lane bypass, with four lanes running through the heart of the downtown district,” says Holloran. “But when we looked at it, even though the bypass was going to carry a lot of traffic around the city, we found that a two-lane section would handle that traffic for 30-plus years. It shaped up as a good balance between getting traffic around the town, and also helping the downtown district’s traffic flow.” In Trenton, a proposal for a bypass became a plan to reroute and install new signage on existing roadways to direct trucks away from the tight downtown square area. “The bypass would have gone through a river area, posing environmental issues and requiring long bridges to get across the floodway,” says Holloran. “We discovered we could help trucks get through town without adding the bypass by using mostly signage on the existing roads, and that ultimately resulted in huge savings.” Finally, in Nutbush, initial plans called for a four-lane divided road. Because of the town’s narrow downtown streets, the road would have to bypass its business district and its nod to the ‘Queen of Rock ‘n’ Roll’. “The city wasn’t happy about that,” says Holloran. “Based on traffic flow, we ended up recommending an

improvement to the two-lane road that went through Nutbush, rather than adding a four-lane divided road. For the community, it was a big deal economically to still have the main road—and tourists—come right through town.” In several reviews, nature and history also played key roles. Where expanding from two lanes to four might have disturbed a Native American settlement with archaeological signiﬁcance, the EPD proposed sticking with two lanes for that section of the road and making the shoulders 2 feet instead of the standard 8 feet to protect the sites. In another locale, an EPD called for protecting a wetlands area with twolane sections versus four. “Taken together, the EPD review recommendations will likely save TDOT hundreds of millions of dollars across its entire work program,” notes Holloran. “And this will allow the department to complete more projects statewide.”

“... will likely save TDOT hundreds of millions of dollars ...” MARK HOLLORAN, SENIOR TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER

The EPD recommended an improvement to the two-lane road that went through Nutbush, rather than adding a four-lane divided road. It was important for the community to be able to have tourists come right through town.

2013 Conceptual Planning Cost Estimation Tool Reset Form...

Project Location Route

SR 123

L.M. Beginning

1.10

L.M. Ending

3.52

County

Davidson

TDOT Region

Existing Roadway Information Right of Way Width

Var. Width

ft. # Segments

Segment 1:

Beg. LM 1.1

End LM 2.25

ROW 60

Segment 2:

2.25

3.12

Segment 3:

3.12

3.52

Land Value Determination Method Predominant Adjacent Land Use

Var. Land Use

# Segments

End LM

Beg. LM

Adjacent Land Use

Segment 1:

1.1

2.25

Residential & Agricultural Tracts (>5 acres)

Segment 2:

2.25

3.52

Residential Subdivision Lots

Terrain

A ficticious example of the EPD tool in action. Project characteristics can be segmented as needed.

Var. Terrain

# Segments

Box

Concrete Girder Segment 2:

Box

Steel

Beg. LM 1.1

Number

Segment 1:

End LM

Length 2.25 (ft)

Existing Pavement Width

3.52

24 ft.

Concrete Girder

Flat

Var. Width

Proposed Project Information

Width (ft)

Rolling

2.25

150

28 15% Contingency Applied

Non-Complex Project Complexity The EPD provides planning-level cost Bridge Widenings Box Concrete Girder Steel estimates as well as a preliminary New Typical Section NumberArterial/Divided Length (ft) cost estimate by item.Concrete Girder 4 150

Total Proposed Lanes

48 Roadway Width (ft) 4 Inside Shoulder (ft)

130

Var. Lanes

(incl. existing if widening project)

Project Type

New Bridges

Preliminary Estimated Roadway Estimate Table 1st Row

Box

SR 123 Davidson 2.42 Arterial/Divided

7 Table Last Row 355

Concrete Girder

Project Length

Steel

2.42 miles

Vertical/Horizontal Improvements of total project length) 25% (percent Par-Clo Diamond Cloverleaf Number of New Interchanges Box Concrete Girder Steel

Section Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided

ITEM #

DESCRIPTION

UNIT

QUANTITY

105-01 203-01 203-03 303-01 307-02.01 307-02.02 307-02.03

LS C.Y. C.Y. TON TON TON TON

1 208736 20874 109739 8572 187 5563

UNIT PRICE $37,027.70 $3.75 $2.97 $15.82 $60.63 $259.51 $52.36

Arterial/Divided

307-02.08

TON

4813

$63.81

Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided Arterial/Divided

402-01 402-02 403-01 411-01.07 411-02.10 415-01.02 604-07.01 607-05.02 611-07.01 611-07.02 611-12.02 611-14.02 611-42.02 701-01.01 702-01 702-03 705-02.02 705-04.07 710-04 712-01 712-02.02 713-16.20 716-13.06 801-01 801-01.07 801-02 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

CONSTRUCTION STAKES, LINES AND GRADES ROAD & DRAINAGE EXCAVATION (UNCLASSIFIED) BORROW EXCAVATION (UNCLASSIFIED) MINERAL AGGREGATE, TYPE A BASE, GRADING D ASPHALT CONCRETE MIX (PG70-22) (BPMB-HM) GRADING A ASPHALT CEMENT (PG70-22)(BPMB-HM) GRADING A-S AGGREGATE (BPMB-HM) GRADING A-S MIX ASPHALT CONCRETE MIX (PG70-22) (BPMB-HM) GRADING BM2 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR PRIME COAT (PC) AGGREGATE FOR COVER MATERIAL (PC) BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT (TC) ACS (PG64-22) GR "E" ACS MIX(PG70-22) GRADING D COLD PLANING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT RETAINING WALL 24" CONCRETE PIPE CULVERT (CLASS III) CLASS A CONCRETE (PIPE ENDWALLS) STEEL BAR REINFORCEMENT (PIPE ENDWALLS) CATCH BASINS, TYPE 12, > 4' - 8' DEPTH CATCH BASINS, TYPE 14, > 4' - 8' DEPTH CATCH BASINS, TYPE 42, > 4' - 8' DEPTH CONCRETE SIDEWALK (4 ") CONCRETE CURB CONCRETE COMBINED CURB & GUTTER SINGLE GUARDRAIL (TYPE 2) TAN ENERGY ABSG TERM (NCHRP 350,TL3) FILTER CLOTH UNDERDRAIN (WITH PIPE) TRAFFIC CONTROL INTERCONNECTED PORTABLE BARRIER RAIL SIGNS SPRAY THERMO PVMT MRKNG (40 mil) (4IN LINE) SEEDING (WITH MULCH) TEMPORARY SEEDING (WITH MULCH) SEEDING (WITHOUT MULCH) TRAFFIC SIGNAL ITS SHARED-USE PATH ROUNDABOUT BRIDGE REMOVAL WIDEN EXISTING BRIDGE (BOX) WIDEN EXISTING BRIDGE (CONCRETE GIRDER) WIDEN EXISTING BRIDGE (STEEL) NEW BRIDGE (BOX) NEW BRIDGE (CONCRETE GIRDER) NEW BRIDGE (STEEL) Urban - Standard Diamond Urban - Tight Diamond Urban - Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) Rural - Diamond Rural - Partial Cloverleaf Rural - Full Cloverleaf

TON TON TON TON TON S.Y. S.F. L.F. C.Y. LB. EACH EACH EACH S.F. C.Y. C.Y. L.F. EACH L.F. LS L.F. EACH L.M. UNIT UNIT UNIT EACH L.M. L.M. EACH S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. EACH EACH EACH EACH EACH EACH

65 256 24 3071 4515 25555 0 3727 78 7405 0 0 17 0 0 0 3675 21 25555 1 639 97 19 1840 1380 1380 1 0 2 0 20160 0 78000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

$365.52 $24.91 $535.08 $79.44 $87.02 $1.35 $72.18 $51.96 $679.85 $1.84 $3,862.49 $8,956.96 $5,625.55 $3.77 $298.81 $228.03 $15.78 $2,107.76 $4.58 $2,017,454 $24.64 $134.66 $1,207.04 $25.01 $17.09 $16.31 $120,000.00 $200,000.00 $285,000.00 $600,000.00 $20.00 $0.00 $48.00 $0.00 $105.00 $120.00 $150.00 ########### ########### ########### ########### ########### ###########

COST $37,028 $782,760 $61,995 $1,736,074 $519,699 $48,495 $291,281

Rural

(ft) Box Concrete 1NumberGirder Length Steel Box 2 60 TUDI Diamond

Bridge Removals

$307,111 $23,588 $6,366 $12,826 $243,951 $392,878 $34,500 $0 $193,645 $52,977 $13,626 $0 $0 $95,634 $0 $0 $0 $57,990 $43,926 $117,043 $2,017,454 $15,742 $13,035 $23,368 $46,018 $23,584 $22,507 $120,000 $0 $689,700 $0 $403,200 $0 $3,744,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000,000 $0 $0

Urban

Concrete Girder

Bridge Widenings

Box

Concrete Girder

4 2.42 miles

Box

Number of New Interchanges

Number of Traffic Signals

Rural

Length of ITS Installation

Urban

SPUI

Steel

Width (ft)

150

130

Concrete Girder

Steel

Diamond

Par-Clo

Cloverleaf

1 Diamond

TUDI

SPUI

miles

Length of Shared-Use Path

2.42 miles

Additional User Input Cost

Number of Roundabouts Number of Traffic Signals

Advanced Project Information (optional) Length of ITS Installation

miles

Additional User Input Cost Modify Pavement Thickness

Subtotal Mobilization Subtotal Other Construction Items (25%) Total

$22,191,999

$845,760 $23,037,759 $5,759,440 $28,797,198

Advanced Project Information (optional)

Retaining Walls

Modify Pavement Thickness

Average Height Retaining Walls Total Length Utility Relocation

Average Height Total Length

ft. ft.

Utility Relocation

Construction + Contingency

After all project information has been entered, the cost estimate is displayed.

Length (ft)

Concrete Girder

New Bridges Number of Roundabouts

Width (ft)

150

Number

Length of Shared-Use Path

Right-of-Way Construction + Contingency Utility Relocation

Right-of-Way

Preliminary Engineering (10%)

Utility Relocation

Construction Engineering & Inspection Total Estimated Project Cost

Required ROW Width (ft.)

10 Outside (ft) Width (ft)ShoulderAdd'l W (ft)

$33,116,780

$3,009,530 $33,116,780 $0

$3,009,530 $3,311,680 $0

$3,311,680 $42,749,670

Preliminary Engineering (10%)

$3,311,680

Construction Engineering & Inspection

$3,311,680

Total Estimated Project Cost

$42,749,670

Add'l W (ft)

192

A NEW COST-ESTIMATION TOOL During the EPD process, it became clear to the project team that TDOT’s existing tool for estimating the cost of transportation projects was due for an overhaul. “The cost-estimation tool came out of the EPD process,” says Holloran. “We were using the existing tool based on a cost-per-mile basis, and it had factors that you would apply to that depending on how complex it was, for example, rolling versus ﬂat, or urban versus rural. For being an early planning tool, it was OK. But when we got into these EPDs, we found that in getting a feel for the true costs being proposed, we were unfortunately seeing huge variances using the existing tool.” The discovery of those variances launched conversations between GS&P and TDOT, which led to GS&P being tasked with the development of an updated, more robust

cost-estimation tool that has resulted in tremendous benefits to both the state and to Tennessee taxpayers. “For all of those projects still on the books, they could go back and use the tool and come up with more reliable costs,” explains Holloran. “In most cases, looking at their program long term, you can get a much better feel for how many projects you can do because you have more confidence in the cost.” Another benefit of the revamped tool, is that it uses best practices (identified through research) to help TDOT project managers pinpoint costs for a given project. “Typically, a handful of items correspond to the majority of a roadway project’s cost,” says Holloran. “It was determined that these items should be calculated on a per-item cost basis and included in the planning-level estimate.”

The new, user-friendly tool can also calculate quantities based on typical sections from the TDOT Roadway Design Standards, and comes complete with relevant formulae, drop-down menus, checkboxes and other features that make it easy to enter as much detail as possible at the planning stage. Making the tool even more functional, default values for many parameters (which can be overridden with a keystroke) are auto-populated as the user inputs data. Parameters may vary as a project develops, so the tool allows existing right-of-way width, adjacent land use, terrain, existing traveled-way width and proposed width to be updated at any time. As a crucial component, the tool is simple to keep current because it’s set up to import average-unit bid prices that TDOT already produces each year and posts to its website.

EPD Old Estimating Process

PERCENT DISCREPANCY FROM LOW-BID CONSTRUCTION COST FOR NINE PROJECTS

200%

150%

100%

(WITHOUT UTILITIES) 16% 31%

PROJECT 7

PROJECT 8

PROJECT 9

-7%

9% 121%

PROJECT 3

43% 162%

PROJECT 2

117%

PROJECT 1

25% 100%

25% 201%

42%

-50%

-28%

18% 116%

50% 26% 181%

The graph demonstrates the improvement in cost estimation for nine sample projects. Deviation from the low-bid construction cost varied between -7% and +43% (versus previous deviations that ranged from -28% to more than 200%), achieving the goal of better accuracy.

PROJECT 4

PROJECT 5

PROJECT 6

MAKING A DIFFERENCE Ensuring the continuing positive inﬂuence of GS&P’s work, the costestimation tool is in use by TDOT staff and other consultants to develop more estimates for the department— estimates that will stretch tax dollars to deliver even more safe and efﬁcient roadways throughout Tennessee. TDOT has been extremely pleased with GS&P’s work on the EPD projects and in developing the new cost-estimation tool. The department’s initial confidence positioned GS&P as one of three oncall consultants for EPD in 2012, but it was a solid performance that kept the engagement going the following year. “In 2013, we were chosen as one of only two on-call consultants to repeat the EPD process on 14 additional projects,” says Holloran. “We’ve received a lot of positive comments from TDOT

staff on the reviews and the costestimation tool. The ﬁnal product greatly exceeded their expectations in terms of functionality and results.” While positive feedback was encouraging, Holloran stresses that it’s even more meaningful knowing that the team helped to focus limited state dollars toward much-needed projects, while at the same time modifying other proposals in ways that still greatly beneﬁted local communities. “Being part of an effort that improves the lives of people across Tennessee is an incredible privilege,” concludes Holloran. “When you can bring the cost of projects down to half or more of what was originally proposed and meet the needs for the project, TDOT can take the money saved and apply it to other projects that will improve even more lives.”▪

“Being part of an effort that improves the lives of people across Tennessee is an incredible privilege.” MARK HOLLORAN, SENIOR TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER

PROJECT DETAILS CLIENT

TEAM

Tennessee Department of Transportation - Strategic Transportation Investments Division

PIC Mark A. Holloran, P.E. PM Lori Lange, P.E. PM Dowell Hoskins Squier, P.E. PM Diane Regensburg, P.E. PP Gregory P. Wisecaver, P.E.

LOCATION

Tennessee, Statewide

PP Cody G. Crews, EI PP Patrick A. Leap, P.E., CPESC PE J. Shap Stiles, P.E.

MARKET

Transportation

PE C.J. Tong, P.E. PD William L. Moore, Jr., P.E.

Ben J. Coles, EI Thomas Grass, P.E.

SERVICES

Marissa Martin, P.E.

Transportation Engineering

Kevin Riggs, P.E.

Transportation Planning

Matthew Williams, P.E., CPESC

ARCHITECTURE

ENGINEERING

INTERIORS

PLANNING