Value Engineering Study Report - SEH® TH 7 VE Study Report.pdf · Access. Key secondary functions include Remove Access and Stage Construction. Analysis of ... Value Engineering

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange

Value Engineering Study Report SP 2706-226

August 10-13, 2010

HDR Engineering, Inc. 1001 SW 5th Avenue

Suite 1800 Portland, OR

(503) 423-3700

Disclaimer

The information contained in this report is the professional opinions of the team members during the VE Study. These opinions were based on the information provided to the team at the time of the study. As the project continues to develop, new information will become available, and this information will need to be evaluated on how it may affect the recommendations and findings in this report. All costs displayed in the report are based on best available information at the time of the study and unless otherwise noted are in current year dollars.

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Table of Contents – TOC.1 Value Engineering Study Report Date: August 10-13, 2010

TTaabbllee ooff CCoonntteennttss

Executive Summary

Introduction

Project Overview

Project Issues

Project Analysis

VE Study Results

Implementation Strategies

Implementation of Recommendations

VE Team Members

Project Description

Proposed Project

Existing Conditions

Project Purpose and Need

Scope of the Value Engineering Study

Constraints and Controlling Decisions

Information Provided to the VE Team

Project Analysis

Project Issues

Cost Model

Functional Analysis

FAST Diagram

Performance Attributes

Performance Attribute Matrix

Value Matrix

Idea Evaluation

Introduction

Evaluation Process

Deposition of Ideas

Idea Evaluation Form

Recommendations

Introduction

Summary of VE Recommendations


VE Recommendation Approval

Design Considerations

Individual Recommendations 1a-5b

VE Validations 1-3

Appendix

Value Engineering

Pre-VE Study

Value Engineering Job Plan

Value Metrics

Reporting

Agenda

Meeting Attendees

VE Report Out

VE Recommendation Approval Form

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Table of Contents – TOC.2 Value Engineering Study Report Date: August 10-13, 2010

This page left intentionally blank

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Executive Summary – ES.1 Value Engineering Study Report Date: August 10-13, 2010

EExxeeccuuttiivvee SSuummmmaarryy

Introduction

This Value Engineering (VE) Study Executive Summary provides an overview of the project, key findings, and the recommendations developed by the VE Team. Detailed documentation and exhibits of the study’s analysis are provided in the VE Study Report.

A VE Study, sponsored by the City of Saint Louis Park, Minnesota and facilitated by HDR Engineering, Inc., was conducted for the improvements to the TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange project. The study was conducted during the planning phase, and the project has a scheduled letting of November 2011. This VE Study was conducted from August 10-13, 2010.

Project Overview

The purpose of this project is to remove the existing at-grade intersection of TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue in St. Louis Park and to replace it with a grade separated interchange. The improvements will include pedestrian and bicycle paths along with reconfiguration of local frontage roads to improve mobility to the TH 7 corridor and Louisiana Avenue. This project is essential for meeting transportation and safety needs of the region and is anticipated to reduce conflicts to the traveling public.

Louisiana Avenue serves as a vital north-south corridor through the City, carrying 10,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day at this location. TH 7 carries 35,000 to 40,000 vehicles per day through this intersection. The current configuration of the frontage roads to TH 7 and the heavy traffic generated by nearby businesses add to the congestion.

Traffic studies show that this project is necessary for future redevelopment activities including overall mixed use development and higher density housing, a future light rail transit (LRT) station, and expansion of the nearby hospital. In addition, transit riders, bicyclists and pedestrians will benefit from improved mobility to jobs, housing, and other destinations.

Project Issues

The following are some of the issues, concerns, and possible constraints associated with this project:

Avoid impacts to the Louisiana Oaks apartment complex and Sam’s Club

Pedestrian and bike traffic must be accommodated during construction

Right in – Right out east of Louisiana Ave. will be closed as part of this project

March 2012 funding obligation date – there is a potential for a 1-year extension with prior approval by Met Council

Minimize excavation (high potential of contaminated soils)

Environmental Assessment (EA) process is just starting – the draft document is scheduled to be out by October 2010

Any impacts to the flood plain will need to be mitigated – no net increase in 100-year flood elevation

Avoid impact to 4f properties.


Project Analysis

The VE Team analyzed the project using the VE Job Plan and associated tools.

Using functional analysis and Functional Analysis System Technique (FAST) diagramming, the team defined the basic function of this project as Reduce Conflict, Improve Mobility, and Create Access. Key secondary functions include Remove Access and Stage Construction. Analysis of the functions intended to be performed by the project helped the team focus on the purpose and need of the project and, consequently, how to craft recommended concepts that would provide the required functions.

Specific performance criteria were developed and agreed upon by the VE and Project Teams. These criteria were weighted using a paired comparison technique, which was then used to evaluate ideas.

VE Study Results

The VE Team generated 48 different ideas for this project. These concepts were compared against the baseline that was developed by the Project Team. The concepts that performed the best were further developed by the VE Team.

From these ideas the VE Team developed 8 recommendations resulting in a net cost savings of $3.9 million to $5.1 million and an overall performance improvement of +7 to +11%.

The individual recommendations are summarized below:

1a. Ground Improvements $2.4 M 9%

Use ground improvement technologies such as deep soil mixing, stone columns or other types instead of excavating muck from under TH 7.

1b. Lightweight Fill $2.2 M -2%

Use lightweight fill such as EPS Geofoam or shredded tires instead of excavating muck from under TH 7.

1c. Pile Supported Fill $2.5 M 6%

Use pile supported embankment instead of excavating muck from under TH 7.

2. Reinforced Slopes $1.1 M 7%

Replace cantilever walls with Reinforced Steepened Slopes (RSS) where ROW permits.

3. Single Lane Roundabouts $0.5 M 11%

Construct both roundabouts on Louisiana Avenue as single lane roundabouts. The Louisiana Avenue roadway connecting the roundabouts should be designed for a single lane in each direction with the option to expand in the future when necessary.

4. Remove Median on Louisiana Avenue $0.1 M 6%

Eliminate the raised median on Louisiana Avenue in order to give the roadway more of an “urban character” and to potentially provide some measure of traffic calming and less impervious surface.


5a. Tight Urban Diamond Interchange $1.5 M 7%

Using the same plan and profile as the baseline idea for TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue, construct a tight urban diamond interchange (TUDI).

5b. Single Point Roundabout Interchange $0.3 M 21%

Using the same plan and profile as the baseline idea, construct a Single Point Roundabout Interchange (SPRI). This would be done instead of button hook ramps to roundabouts to accommodate the ramp traffic to/from TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue. See example to the right.


Because of competing recommendations, three different implementation strategies or scenarios are available. Recommendations 1a, 1b and 1c all offer different ways to construct embankments. Recommendations 5a and 5b are both differing types of interchanges than the baseline concept.

Scenario A includes Recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 4. These 4 recommendations all improve the baseline concept. Collectively they have a net cost savings of $4.1 million and an overall performance improvement of +8%.

Scenario B recommends a Tight Urban Diamond Interchange (5a). Combined with Recommendations 1, 2 and 4 it has a net cost savings of $5.1 million and an overall performance improvement of +7%.

Scenario C recommends a Single Point Roundabout Interchange (5b). This recommendation combined with Recommendations 1, 2 and 4 has a net cost savings of $3.9 million and an overall performance improvement of +11%.


Summary of Recommendations

TH 7 at Louisiana Ave. Interchange

# Description

Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C

Cost Savings

Cost Savings

Cost Savings

1a Ground Improvements $2.4 M $2.4 M $2.4 M

1b Lightweight Fill $2.2 M $2.2 M $2.2 M

1c Pile Supported Fill $2.5 M $2.5 M $2.5 M

2 Reinforced Slopes $1.1 M $1.1 M $1.1 M

3 Single Lane Roundabouts $0.5 M

4 Remove Median on Louisiana Avenue $0.1 M $0.1 M $0.1 M

5a Tight Urban Diamond Interchange $1.5 M

5b Single Point Roundabout Interchange $0.3 M

Total $4.1 M $5.1 M $3.9 M

Implementation of Recommendations

To facilitate implementation, a Value Engineering Recommendation Approval Form is included in the Appendix of this report. If the Project Manager elects to reject or modify a recommendation, please include a brief explanation of why.

VE Team Members

Don Owings HDR Team Leader/Facilitation Blane Long HDR Co-Facilitation/Roadway Minnie Milkert Mn/DOT State Value Engineer Nick Haltvick Mn/DOT Bridge Engineer Hossana Teklyes Mn/DOT Assistant Foundation Engineer Mike Rardin City of Saint Louis Park Public Works Director Brian Kelly Mn/DOT Water Resources Jim Olson City of Saint Louis Park Project Manager Diane Colton Mn/DOT Traffic Ken Johnson Mn/DOT Traffic April Crockett Mn/DOT West Area Engineer Derrick Dasenbrock Mn/DOT Geometrics Engineer


The Project Manager for this project is Jim Olsen, City of Saint Louis Park.

The VE Team wishes to express its appreciation to the project design managers for the excellent support they provided during the study. Hopefully, the recommendations and other ideas provided will assist in the management decisions necessary to move the project forward through the project delivery process.

Don Owings, PE, CVS

VE Team Leader


This page intentionally left blank

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Description – 1.1 Value Engineering Study Report Date: August 10-13, 2010

PPrroojjeecctt DDeessccrriippttiioonn This Value Engineering (VE) Report summarizes the events of the VE Study conducted by City of Saint Louis Park, Minnesota and facilitated by HDR Engineering, Inc. The subject of the study was the TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange project. The VE Study was conducted August 10-13, 2010.

Proposed Project

The proposed project is to remove the existing at-grade signalized intersection of TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue and replace it with a grade-separated interchange. The project is located in the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, which is an urbanized first-tier suburb in the western Twin Cities metropolitan area.

The intersection of TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue has consistently ranked high on Mn/DOT's Top 200 Highest Crash-Cost Intersections on Trunk Highways. Interim improvements to signal timing in 2005 appear to have helped reduce rear end crashes moving the ranking from 23rd from the top in 2005 to 144th in 2007.

As traffic volumes increase and intersection operations become more congested, the instances of rear end crashes is expected to increase. Further, drivers who become frustrated with waiting for long periods at a traffic signal, may engage in more risky behaviors such as running yellow or red lights and speeding through the intersection.

Baseline concept for the proposed project


Existing Conditions

TH 7 is a principal arterial that connects a number of employment centers and commercial nodes to residential developments within the cities of St. Louis Park, Minnetonka, Hopkins, and Minneapolis. It serves an important role in connecting the western Twin Cities metropolitan area to jobs in downtown Minneapolis and along the corridor. In the project area, TH 7 is a four lane divided highway. Louisiana Avenue is currently a four-lane, undivided roadway that intersects TH 7. The intersection is controlled by a traffic signal system.

The project area contains a mix of land uses, including low and high density residential, commercial, corporate/office, manufacturing, and open space. Just east of the TH 7/Louisiana Avenue intersection, a new grade separated interchange is being constructed at the intersection of TH 7 and Wooddale Avenue. A future Southwest Light Rail Transit (LRT) station is planned along the east side of Louisiana Avenue, which will be located just south of the project area. St. Louis Park has several redevelopment plans along the transit corridor and surrounding the future station.

Project Purpose and Need

The purpose of the proposed TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue Interchange project is to address deteriorating safety and operational conditions. These deficient conditions are resulting in numerous crashes and causing high levels of congestion. The project is also intended to improve pedestrian and bicycle movements across TH 7 that are anticipated to increase with the construction and operation of a future LRT Station along Louisiana Avenue. Lastly, the transportation improvements will help foster economic development in the area.

The need for the project is driven by:

Improve vehicle safety

Maintain mobility/future traffic capacity

Improve pedestrian/bicycle movements

Foster economic development.


Scope of the Value Engineering Study

The mission of the VE Team was to verify or improve upon various concepts for the TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange project. The VE Team applied the principles and practices of the VE Job Plan. The primary objectives for this study include:

Conduct a thorough review and analysis of the key project issues and conceptual design using a multidiscipline, cross-functional team

The focus of the Value Engineering Study is to assist in the identification of

o Alternatives that will improve the mobility and reduce the conflicts of vehicular and non-vehicular traffic

o Alternatives that will minimize impacts to existing developments and enhance opportunities for future development/redevelopment

o An environmentally sensitive transportation system improvement that solves the identified purpose and needs

Constraints and Controlling Decisions

The VE Team identified the following constraints and controlling decisions during the Investigation Phase of the study.

Must accommodate bicycles and pedestrians during construction and in the proposed design

Avoid impacts to the Louisiana Oaks apartment complex

Avoid impacts to Sam’s Club

Avoid impacts to the railroad overcrossing over TH 7 at the east end of project

Desire to close right in-right out access to TH 7 at the east end of the project

Project letting is scheduled for November 2011 with a March 2012 funding obligation date – there is a potential for a 1-year extension with prior approval by Met Council

Minimize right-of-way impacts and acquisition

Minimize excavation (high potential of contaminated soils)

Environmental Assessment (EA) process is just starting – the draft document is scheduled to be out by October 2010

Any impacts to the flood plain will need to be mitigated – no net increase in 100-year flood elevation

Strong desire not to impact the pump station and medical offices along Lake Street

Strong desire not to impact medical offices along Walker Street

Avoid any impacts to 4f properties

Strong desire to minimize impacts in the SW quadrant of the proposed interchange.


Information Provided to the VE Team

The following project documents were provided to the VE Team for their use during the study:

Reports/Drawings/Maps Date

LWD cost estimate July 2010

Various aerial photos

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment August 2009

Preliminary Drainage Report July 2010

Purpose and Need Statement – Draft August 2010

Profiles and typical sections

Technical Memorandum - Alternatives Screening April 2009

Technical Memorandum - Draft TH 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange - Option 4 Review

June 2009

Options 1-10 preliminary design

Soil boring index map

Hydric soils map February 2009

Soils map February 2009

Other soil maps of specific areas 1985-2007

Utility maps

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Analysis – 2.1 Value Engineering Study Report Date: August 10-13, 2010

PPrroojjeecctt AAnnaallyyssiiss Project Issues

The first day of the study included a project presentation (overview) by the design team and a site visit. The following summarizes key project issues, site visit observations, and project drivers identified during these sessions.

The proposed profile on TH 7 west of Louisiana Avenue will create a roller coaster effect

Several utilities at the intersection

Existing field conditions (roadway locations) differ from those shown on geotechnical data from initial construction (30 years ago) – additional investigation will be needed

Very tight conditions for staging construction and traffic

Louisiana Avenue traffic (ADT) can be handled by a single lane in the proposed design

Bus route along Walker Street, et al

The current signal cycle length is too long.

Cost Model

The VE Team Leader prepared a cost model from the cost estimate of the baseline, which was provided by the Project Team. The models are organized to identify major construction elements or trade categories, the designer's estimated costs, and the percent of total project cost for significant cost items. The cost models clearly showed the cost drivers for the project and were used to guide the VE Team during the study. The following conclusions were noted by the VE Team regarding the project costs:

Roadway Items including bituminous account for 33% of this project

Contaminated soil and muck removal on TH 7 is 23% of the estimate

A new bridge over Louisiana Avenue is 13% of the estimate.

No cost estimate for right of way acquisition.

It was not clear what was included with the items Contaminated Soil Removal & Backfill or Muck Excavation & Backfill. The team felt a large amount of sheet piling would be needed during these operations but did not know if the cost was in the estimate.

It also was unknown where the Contaminated Soil would need to be disposed at. This could be a very large dollar item.


Cost Model – Baseline Concept

Items $$$ % of Total Cumulative %

Roadway $6,526,500 33% 33%

Engineering Total 20% of Construction $3,314,202 17% 49%

Contaminated Soil Removal & Backfill $3,083,548 16% 65%

Bridge $2,577,135 13% 78%

Retaining Wall $2,455,613 12% 90%

Muck Excavation & Backfill $1,398,917 7% 97%

Median Barrier $331,300 2% 99%

Dewatering $198,000 1% 100%

Total $19,885,215 100%


Functional Analysis

Functional analysis results in a unique view of the study project. It transforms project elements into functions, which moves the VE Team mentally away from the original design and takes it toward a functional concept of the project. Functions are defined in verb-noun statements to reduce the needs of the project to their most elemental level. Identifying the functions of the major design elements of the project allows a broader consideration of alternative ways to accomplish the functions.

Items Verb Noun

Bridge Span Roadway

HMA & Surfacing Support

Add Widen

Load Lanes

Roadway

Earthwork Move Earth

Retaining Walls Retain Earth

Roundabout Maintain Control

Access Traffic

Curb & Sidewalk Create Pedestrian Path

Traffic Control Protect Convey Maintain

User/Worker Information

Traffic

Temporary Signal Systems Control Traffic


FAST Diagram

The FAST diagram arranges the functions in logical order so that when read from left to right; the functions answer the question “How?” If the diagram is read from right to left, the functions answer the question “Why?” Functions connected with a vertical line are those that happen at the same time as, or are caused by, the function at the top of the column.

The FAST Diagram for this project shows Reduce Conflicts, Improve Mobility, and Create Access as the basic functions of this project. Key secondary functions include Construct Interchange and Stage Construction. This provided the VE Team with an understanding of the project design rationale and which functions offer the best opportunity for cost or performance improvement.




Performance measures are an integral part of the VE Process. Project performance must be properly defined and agreed upon by the Project Team, VE Team and stakeholders at the beginning of the VE Study. The performance attributes and requirements developed are then used throughout the study to identify, evaluate, and document alternatives.

The VE Team, along with the Project Team, identified and defined the performance attributes for this project and then defined the baseline concept against these attributes. Performance attributes represent those aspects of a project’s scope and schedule that may possess a range of potential values.

Baseline Concept

The baseline concept provides access to Highway 7 via button hook ramps located in the northeast and southwest quadrants. All entering and exiting traffic is directed through roundabouts at intersections with local streets that then connect to Louisiana Avenue. In this concept, TH 7 goes over Louisiana Avenue.


The following are the key project performance attributes and their definition that were used in this VE Study.

Evaluation of Baseline Project

Standard Performance

Attribute Description of Attribute Baseline Design Rating Rational Rating

Mainline Operations

An assessment of traffic operations and safety on TH 7. Operational considerations include level of service relative to the 20-year traffic projections as well as geometric considerations such as design speed, sight distance, lane widths and shoulder widths.

50 mph design speed

2 - 12' lanes in each direction

4' inside & 10' outside shoulders

Walls limit future expansion

Acceleration lanes create 3rd lane on structure

right-in, right out closed to Lake and south service road

5

Local Operations

An assessment of traffic operations and safety on the local roadway infrastructure. Operational considerations include level of service relative to the 20-year traffic projections; geometric considerations such as design speed, sight distance, lane widths; bicycle and pedestrian operations and access.

Louisiana Avenue

12' lanes, 2' shoulder and 2' curb and gutter, 6' median

6' boulevard between curb and path

6' sidewalk eastside, 10' shared use path on west

Lake - 10' sidewalk on south

Walker - 6' sidewalk on north

4 Roundabouts o TH 7 eastbound on and off

ramps to Lake o Lake and Louisiana o Walker and Louisiana o TH 7 westbound on and off

ramps to Walker

Connection from Walker to Republic is closed

5

Maintainability

An assessment of the long-term maintainability of the transportation facility(s). Maintenance considerations include the overall durability, longevity, and maintainability of pavements, structures and systems; ease of maintenance; accessibility and safety considerations for maintenance personnel.

Bituminous pavement over crushed surfacing

Concrete pre-stressed girder bridge

Some cast-in-place retaining walls

Open stormwater ponds

5


Evaluation of Baseline Project

Standard Performance

Attribute Description of Attribute Baseline Design Rating Rational Rating

Construction Impacts

An assessment of the temporary impacts to the public during construction related to traffic disruptions, detours and delays; impacts to businesses and residents relative to access, visual, noise, vibration, dust and construction traffic; and environmental impacts.

Access will need to be maintained to local businesses

Louisiana Avenue and TH 7 will need one-lane each direction at all times

Noise ordinance 7 am to 10 pm on weekdays and 9 am to 7 pm on weekends

Pedestrian access will be maintained through Louisiana Avenue

Dewatering is possible

The Reilly Super Fund site is adjacent to project – hazardous material relocation may be required with excavated material

Large quantity of embankment is necessary for the raising of TH 7

5

Environmental Impacts

An assessment of the permanent impacts to the environment including ecological (i.e., flora, fauna, air quality, water quality, visual, noise); socioeconomic impacts (i.e., environmental justice, business, residents); impacts to cultural, recreational and historic resources.

Environmental Assessment is in the early phases of development

Noise walls anticipated but not defined in the NW and SW quadrants

Flood plain impacts

Water quality impacts

Right-of-way will be needed

5

Project Schedule

An assessment of the total project delivery from the time as measured from the time of the VE Study to completion of construction.

November 2011 Letting (dependent on funding)

2 season construction schedule is anticipated

5

Risks

An assessment of the identified risks of the project.

Reilly Super Fund Site adjacent to project

Utility relocations

NPDES permitting if project letting slides

Subsurface materials

Loss of federal funds if project is not authorized by March 2012

All funds are not currently available

5


Performance Attribute Matrix

The performance attribute matrix was used to determine the relative importance of the performance attributes for the project. The project owner, design team, and stakeholders evaluated the relative importance of the performance attributes that would be used to evaluate the creative ideas.

These attributes were compared in pairs, asking the question: “Which one is more important to the project?” The letter code (e.g., “A”) was entered into the matrix for each pair. After all pairs were discussed, they were tallied (after normalizing the scores by adding a point to each attribute), and the percentages calculated. The Performance Attribute Matrix is shown below.

Value Matrix

As the VE Team develops alternatives, the performance of each is rated against the original design concept. Changes in performance are always based upon the overall impact to the total project. Once performance and cost data have been developed by the VE Team, the net change in value of the VE alternatives can be compared to the original design concept. The resulting “Value Matrix” provides a summary of these changes and allows a way for the Project Team to assess the potential impact of the VE recommendations on total project value.

While the ratings for the individual VE recommendations are included with the documentation of each recommendation, this section of the report includes the documentation of the performance ratings for the concepts that were developed during the VE Study.

In order to compare and contrast the potential for value improvement, individual recommendations are compared to the baseline project for the all attributes. For this exercise the baseline is given a score of 5.

A A/B A A A/E F A 5.0 18%

B B B B/E F B 5.0 18%

C C C/E F C 3.5 13%

D E F G 1.0 4%

E F E 4.5 16%

F F 7.0 25%

G 2.0 7%

28.0 100%

Risks

Mainline Operations

Local Operations

Maintainability



Project Schedule

Which attribute is more important to the project? TOTAL %


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Baseline 5 89

1a 5 89

1b 5 89

1c 5 89

2 5 89

3 5 89

4 5 89

5a 7 125

5b 7 125

Baseline 5 89

1a 5 89

1b 5 89

1c 5 89

2 5 89

3 8 143

4 6 107

5a 4 71

5b 7 125

Baseline 5 63

1a 5 63

1b 5 63

1c 5 63

2 5 63

3 5 63

4 6 75

5a 5 63

5b 5 63

Baseline 5 18

1a 7 25

1b 6 21

1c 7 25

2 6 21

3 5 18

4 5 18

5a 6 21

5b 6 21

Baseline 5 80

1a 6 96

1b 5 80

1c 5 80

2 7 113

3 5 80

4 5 80

5a 6 96

5b 7 113

Mainline Operations 17.9

Local Operations 17.9

Maintainablity 12.5

VALUE MATRIX

Attribute ConceptPerformance Rating Total

PerformanceAttributeWeight

TH 7 at Louisiana Ave Interchange

Construction Impacts 3.6

Environmental Impacts 16.1


The matrix is essential for understanding the relationship of cost, performance, and value of the project baseline and VE proposals. Comparing the performance and cost suggests which recommendations are potentially as good as or better than, the project baseline concept in terms of overall value. Comparison at the value index level suggests which recommendations have the best functionality per unit cost, or provides the project with the “best value.”

Baseline 5 125

1a 5 125

1b 5 125

1c 5 125

2 5 125

3 5 125

4 5 125

5a 5 125

5b 5 125

Baseline 5 36

1a 8 57

1b 3 21

1c 8 57

2 5 36

3 5 36

4 5 36

5a 5 36

5b 5 36

Risks 7.1

Project Schedule 25.0

1a 27%

1b 13%

1c 25%

2 15%

3 14%

4 7%

5a 18%

5b 24%

Scenario 1 44%

Scenario 2 55%

Scenario 3 45%24% 44.01

9% 35.83

2% 37.48

25%

31%

43.63

47.11

Tight Urban Diamond Interchange 7%

Single Point Roundabout Interchange 607

11% $12.6554

541

#1a, #2, #4, #5b

#1a, #2, #3, #4

#1a, #2, #4, #5a

$12.4

$11.4

$15.0

$16.2

% Value Improvement

Value Index (P/C)

30.30

38.63

% Change CostOVERALL PERFORMANCE

% ChangePerformance

Performance (P)

500

545

Baseline

Ground Improvements

34.22$14.3

15%

13%

$14.0

-2%

6%

Cost (C)

9%

$16.5

$14.1

7% 34.79

1%

529

554

536

37.76

6% $16.4

$16.0 3%

7%

34.6011%

15%

32.34

$15.4

489

Reinforced Slopes

Single Lane Roundabouts

No Median on Louisiana 530

538

21%

537

8%

7%

Lightweight Fill

Pile Supported Embankment


This page is left intentionally blank

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Idea Evaluation – 3.1 Value Engineering Study Report Date: August 10-13, 2010

IIddeeaa EEvvaalluuaattiioonn Introduction

The ideas generated by the VE Team are carefully evaluated, and project-specific attributes are applied to each idea to assure an objective evaluation.

Evaluation Process

The VE Team, as a group, generated and evaluated ideas on how to perform the various functions. The idea list was grouped by function or major project element. These ideas were discussed fully and the advantages and disadvantages of each were listed.

The evaluation process considered seven attributes that considered key aspects of project performance:

Mainline operations (MO) Local operations (LO) Maintainability (M) Construction impacts (C) Environmental impacts (E) Project schedule (S) Risk (R)

The VE Team compared each of the ideas with the baseline concept for each of the performance attributes to determine whether it was better than (), equal to (), or worse than () the original concept.

Deposition of Ideas

The VE Team reached a consensus on the overall rating of the idea (1 through 5). High-ranked ideas (those ranked three or higher) were developed further; low-ranked ones (those less than three) were dropped from further consideration. The ranking values are shown below:

5 = Significant Value Improvement 4 = Good Value Improvement 3 = Equivalent to the Baseline 2 = Minor Value Degradation 1 = Significant Value Degradation 0 = Fatal Flaw

Idea Evaluation Form

All of the ideas that were generated during the creative phase using brainstorming techniques were recorded on the Idea Evaluation Form on the following pages.

Based on the available information along with the constraints and controlling decisions that were given to the VE Team at the time of the study, many ideas were not advanced to recommendations or design considerations. These ideas were either fatally flawed or the baseline concept or other ideas proved to be a higher value improvement after discussion and the initial evaluation was made. Please refer to the Idea Evaluation Forms for additional information on those ideas.



Rating Scale: 5 = Significant Value Improvement 2 = Minor Value Degradation 4 = Good Value Improvement 1 = Significant Value Degradation or Doesn’t Meet Project Purpose & Need 3 = Equivalent to Baseline 0 = Fatal Flaw

Performance Attributes: Significant Improvement Significant Degradation


IDEA EVALUATION

# Ideas Performance Attributes

Advantages Disadvantages Rating MO LO M C E S R

Function: Move Earth

1

Use ground improvement technologies (TH 7) rather than excavating muck Deep soil mixing in lieu of

excavation Stone columns Vibro-compaction Densification

Reduces disposal of contaminated soils

May have preservation effect (containing contamination movement)

Potential to reduce construction schedule

Reduces borrow (no backfill of muck excavation) – reduced truck traffic in corridor

Potential to eliminate surcharge period

Potential reduction in noise levels – bridge foundations on spread footing w/ ground improvements in lieu of piles

Eliminate or significantly reduce settlement

May be higher cost than baseline

May require specialty contractor

Performance specifications

Risk of soil wave – outside embankment area

4

Comments: Material on east side of Louisiana Avenue is not anticipated to settle, and excavation of muck is not expected.




IDEA EVALUATION



2 Land bridge – where applicable to avoid muck/peat (potential contaminated material) excavation

Bridges potential settlement area

Reduced excavation – resulting in reduced truck traffic

Potential for reducing retaining walls (cost)

Eliminates borrow in areas Eliminates risk of

contaminated material disposal

May increase length of noise impacts – pile supported columns

Potential increase in cost Additional structure to

maintain Potential increase in

construction time Potential increase in

design effort/time

2

Comments: Land bridge is a beam supported structure 1 to 2 feet off of the ground surface. Pile supported columns with bent caps. May not be beneficial.

3 Lightweight fill – Geofoam blocks over concrete slab

Reduced settlement Reduced truck traffic –

reduces excavation of muck May reduce schedule Reduces borrow material –

reduced construction traffic Easy to construct

Increased cost? Staging could be difficult

– interlocking blocks & ½ time construction

May complicate design Potential risk associated

with foam/petroleum mix (contaminated soils)

Would preclude utilities from entering fill area

4

Comments:




IDEA EVALUATION



4 Viaduct – use instead of embankment/walls on west side

Potentially eliminates excavation and fill on west side of Louisiana

Reduces retaining walls Less risk with bridge

construction vs. excavation (overruns ground water, etc.)

Increased cost over embankment

Increased maintenance Potentially increase

construction schedule Traffic staging More noise impacts Adds to complexity of

construction with ramps tying into bridge

2

Comments: Assumes baseline will design to minimize future settlement not eliminate all together.

5 Use deep soil mixing in lieu of excavation

Comments: Included in Idea #1.

6 MSE Walls – base assumed to be cast-in-place

Potentially cheaper than CIP wall

Can easily accommodate settlement

Smaller footing required (leveling pad)

Potentially easier to construct

Potential reduced cost

Relatively small area – may not get economy of scale

Mn/DOT does not build a lot of these wall types – potential design and construction issues

3




IDEA EVALUATION



Comments: Move to design consideration.

7 Pile supported embankment

Eliminate excavation – reduced construction traffic

Reduces long term maintenance – no long term settlement

Temporary sheeting not needed

Less risk with bridge construction vs. excavation (overruns ground water, etc.)

Potential increased cost - need to evaluate

Increased noise – pile driving – may be offset by sheeting elimination

5

Comments:

8 Raise TH 7 higher and eliminate excavation/lowering of Louisiana

Reduces staging complexity – lower of Louisiana (6 to 7 feet) and raising of TH 7 (partial) will be very complicated

Reduces excavation Less risk vs. excavation

(overruns ground water, contaminated soils, etc.)

May reduce construction schedule

Increased embankment May require lengthening

of vertical curve – tie-ins to existing TH 7

Will increase grade on loop ramps (on ramps)

Increases fill height in front of apartment complex – negative impact

4




IDEA EVALUATION



Comments:

9 Reinforced slopes

Can accommodate settlement – without needing adjustments

Reduced cost May increase footprint some

(70 degree max slope) May improve aesthetics –

grass covered slope Reduced construction time

May have difficulty with slope cover growing (grass)

Increase maintenance – landscape maintenance 4

Comments: Will need to investigate the right of way needs.

10 Balance earthwork – lower Louisiana Avenue (assumes that excavation can be used as fill)

Alignment along TH 7 may be lower

Significant increase in excavation required

Will impact access to businesses

Increases staging complexity

Lengthen project limits along Louisiana

Stock pile site required Project area would need

to significantly increase to obtain enough material

0




IDEA EVALUATION



Comments: Fatally flawed – see disadvantages.

11 Lower hill between Texas and Louisiana to acquire material for embankment

Improved vertical alignment along TH 7

Improves sight distance over existing along TH 7 approaching Texas from the east

Provides potential borrow

May need to construct cut retaining walls

Potential increase in design effort/time

Increase in construction impacts to TH 7 outside of the project limits

3

Comments: Moved to design consideration.

Span Roadway – Baseline Prestressed concrete girder, vertical abutments - TH 7 over Louisiana

12 Steel Girder Bridge Similar construction to concrete

Maintainability 3





IDEA EVALUATION



13 Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) (components)

Potential construction schedule savings

May be an avenue to additional funding

Requires a lay down area for the pre-cast components

Relatively new technology in the area

Currently a lot of cracking is occurring on the few attempts in this area with bridge decks

4

Comments: After evaluation this idea was moved to a design consideration.

14 Twin bridges in lieu of single bridge May simplify staging Added light under bridge Eliminates closure pour

Bridge barrier is added last

Increased footprint 3


15 Slab span bridge

Depth of deck is reduced Reduces borrow/retaining

wall height Aesthetically nicer looking

bridge

Center pier needed to span over Louisiana

More intricate falsework 2

Comments: Need for impact attenuators or other protection scores this low.




IDEA EVALUATION



16 Have Louisiana Avenue span TH 7 Steeper profile on Louisiana

0

Comments: Fatally flaw based on grades needed for approaches to bridge.

17 Use three-span structure – no vertical abutments

Less embankment Increases light under bridge More comfortable for

pedestrians Easier to widen in the future

than vertical abutment Reduces muck excavation

Increases cost Increased construction

schedule 2 more bridge foundations

to construct 4

Comments: After evaluation this idea validated the baseline.

18 Tied Arch Bridge 1

Comments: Beyond the funding of the project.

19 Signature Structure – welcome to Saint Louis Park (form vs. function)

3





IDEA EVALUATION



20 Lengthen Bridge – additional spans Reduced excavation of muck

Comments: Added to Ideas #4 & #17.

Construct Ramps

21

Evaluate Tight Urban Diamond Interchange – use the same horizontal and vertical alignments as baseline

Smaller footprint Driver expectation is better

than with slip ramps to roundabouts

Bike and ped friendly Less impacts to current

access to business to the north

Ramp design is better

Possible impacts to pump station and medical building in SE quadrant

Increased conflicts over roundabouts

Business impacts to Sam’s club (truck access)

Bikes and peds may have more conflicts

Reduces the size of the city land

Increased bridge May be opposed by

apartments – proximity

4

Comments:




IDEA EVALUATION



22

Single point diamond interchange with one roundabout – use the same horizontal and vertical alignments as baseline

Reduce overall project footprint (no need for two extra roundabouts)

Increase driver expectation Less impacts to current

access to business to the north

Ramp design is better

Requires a larger structure because of increase need sight distance

Possible impacts to pump station and medical office in SE quadrant

Reduces the size of the city land

4

Comments: Single lane roundabout will work but requires shift to the south for TH 7.

23 Cul-de-sac the frontage road in the SW quadrant

Removes one access point to roundabout which improves the operation

Improved angle at which ramps approach

Neighbors may not approve

4

Comments:

24 Diverging Diamond Interchange 0

Comments: Fatally Flawed because it has no advantages over the typical diamond which was rejected in the evaluation matrix (little known).

25 Super tight diamond with shift TH 7 to the south – space from apartment




IDEA EVALUATION



Comments: Added to Idea #21

26 Offset single point (TH 36/Rice Street)

Impacts to pump station, medical office, and parking lot

Access from lake street to Louisiana Avenue is gone

1

Comments: Will work geometrically if combined with viaduct idea. Scored low because of no advantages over base.

27

Construct roundabouts first – shift TH 7 to roundabouts – provide slip ramps in SE and NW quads for TH 7 traffic – use ABC

Comments: Combined with Idea #45.

28 Construct TH 7 from the air by suspending TH 7 from balloons

1

Comments: Unproven technology

29 Lengthen RR bridge to accommodate ramps Working with railroad

1

Comments: Not enough time to work with railroad to design new bridge.




IDEA EVALUATION



30

Eliminate all left turns by creating a single large traffic circle - TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue would be removed in the middle

All at-grade construction Eliminates muck excavation Reduces cost

Buy-in by apartment complex

Driver expectancy Design speed on TH 7

would be reduced Risk of Mn/DOT approval

1

Comments: Mn/DOT approval.

31 Use ovalabouts in NW and SE quads instead of 2 roundabouts

1

Comments: operational doesn’t work.

32 Use right in – right out at W. Lake Street and Louisiana Avenue Truck access to Sam’s

Club 1

Comments: Operationally doesn’t work.

Reconstruct City Streets

33 Accommodate transit 3

Comments: Include with design considerations.




IDEA EVALUATION



34 Grade separate – eliminate access at Louisiana

1

Comments: Doesn’t meet the purpose and need of the project.

35 Rain gardens in center of roundabouts

Comments: Include as a design consideration.

36 Single lane roundabouts with one lane between them

Reduces conflicts Smaller footprint Easier to navigate from the

drivers perspective Ability to expand in future

when necessary Reduces impervious surface

4

Comments: Construct to full size but use as a single lane until traffic warrants.

37 Narrow Louisiana – use three lane section with two way left turn lane (TWLTL)

Reduces ability to expand

in the future 1

Comments: No need for a TWLTL on Louisiana Ave (only two access and they are right in-right out.




IDEA EVALUATION



38 Narrow Louisiana – remove raised median and replace with double yellow stripe

Reduces impervious surface Improve snow removal Reduces bridge length

Public perception 4

Comments:

39 Louisiana – parking on outside in each direction (one lane each direction)

1

Comments: No need for parking in this stretch of Louisiana Avenue.

40 Louisiana – wider boulevard section with rain gardens Aesthetics Maintenance

3


41 Remove boulevard (strip between curb and sidewalk)

Reduces footprint Loss of area for snow removal

Moves pedestrians closer to traffic

2

Comments:

42 Use pervious pavement Infiltration is good Reduction in stormwater

system

More costly Maintenance Breaks down quicker

2




IDEA EVALUATION



Comments: Unknown if we would get any credit for this type of pavement – possibility to use on trails if not roadway.

43 Use concrete on roundabouts Higher life cycle Less maintenance

Pavement markings are more difficult to see

Staging becomes more problematic

3


44 Concrete roundabouts – use pigmented concrete i.e., black

Ability to see pavement markings

Risk of coloration differences within roundabouts

3

Comments: Move to design considerations.




IDEA EVALUATION



Stage Construction

S1

1. Build roundabouts first w/temporary slip ramps in SE & NW quads

2. Build ½ TH 7 at a time 3. Build twin (or half) structures to

facilitate staging 4. Move the Louisiana Avenue

intersection with TH 7 to Lake Street (east) (current right in-right out location) during construction

Comments:

S2 Shift TH 7 traffic south (temporary road) and construct TH 7 all at once

Reduces staging complexity Can build as a single

structure Potential reduction in cost Reduced construction

schedule

Reduced spacing between signal Louisiana and Lake

Comments:




IDEA EVALUATION



S3 Shift TH 7 south using Lake Street for and TH 7 all at once

Reduces staging complexity Can build as a single

structure Potential reduction in cost Reduced construction

schedule

Lake may not be able to handle the added traffic

May introduce additional conflicts – thru traffic on frontage road

Utilizes existing infrastructure

Comments:

S4 Shift Louisiana Avenue to the east during the lowering of the profile

Comments:



TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Recommendations – 4.1 Value Engineering Study Report Date: August 10-13, 2010

RReeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnss

Introduction

The results of this study are presented as individual recommendations to the original concept. The VE recommendation documents in this section are presented as written by the team during the VE Study. While they have been edited from the draft VE Report to correct errors or better clarify the recommendation, they represent the VE Team’s findings during the study.

Summary of VE Recommendations

Each recommendation consists of a summary of the original concept, a description of the suggested change, a listing of its advantages and disadvantages, a cost comparison, change in performance*, and a brief narrative comparing the original design with the recommendation. Sketches, calculations, and performance measure ratings are also presented. The cost comparisons reflect a comparable level of detail as in the original estimate.

* Please refer to the Project Analysis section of this report for an explanation of how the performance measures are calculated.

The VE Team generated 44 different ideas for this project. These concepts were compared against the baseline that was developed by the project team. The concepts that performed the best were further developed by the VE Team.

From these ideas the VE Team developed 8 recommendations resulting in a net cost savings of $ 3.9 M to $5.1 M and an overall performance improvement of +7 to +11%.



# Description Cost

Savings Performance Improvement

1a Ground Improvements $2.4 M 9%

1b Lightweight Fill $2.2 M -2%

1c Pile Supported Fill $2.5 M 6%

2 Reinforced Slopes $1.1 M 7%

3 Single Lane Roundabouts $0.5 M 11%

4 Remove Median on Louisiana Avenue $0.1 M 6%

5a Tight Urban Diamond Interchange $1.5 M 7%

5b Single Point Roundabout Interchange $0.3 M 21%

Total $3.9 M to $5.1M +7% to +11%



Because of competing recommendations, three different implementation strategies or scenarios are available. Recommendations 1a, 1b and 1c all offer different ways to construct embankments. Recommendations 5a and 5b are both differing types of interchanges than the baseline concept.

Scenario A includes Recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 4. These 4 recommendations all improve the baseline concept. Collectively they have a net cost savings of $4.1 million and an overall performance improvement of +8%.

Scenario B recommends a Tight Urban Diamond Interchange (5a). Combined with Recommendations 1, 2 and 4 it has a net cost savings of $5.1 million and an overall performance improvement of +7%.

Scenario C recommends a Single Point Roundabout Interchange (5b). This recommendation combined with Recommendations 1, 2 and 4 has a net cost savings of $3.9 million and an overall performance improvement of +11%.



# Description


Cost Savings

Cost Savings

Cost Savings






4 Remove Median on Louisiana Avenue $0.1 M $0.1 M $0.1 M


5b Single Point Roundabout Interchange $0.3 M

Total $4.1 M $5.1 M $3.9 M


VE Recommendation Approval

The Project Manager shall review and evaluate the VE Team’s recommendation(s) that are included in the Final Report. The Project Manager shall complete the VE Recommendation Approval form that is included in this report.

For each recommendation that is not approved or is modified by the Project Manager, justification needs to be provided. This justification shall include a summary statement containing the Project Manager’s decision not to use the recommendation in the project.

The completed VE Recommendation Approval form including justification for any recommendations not approved or modified shall be sent to the State Value Engineer by October 1 of each year so the results can be included in the annual Value Engineering Report to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).


The VE Team generated several ideas for consideration by the Project Team. These items represent ideas that are relatively general in nature, and are listed below. Please refer to the Idea Evaluation Forms for more detail.

Use MSE Walls

Lower the hill (profile) on TH 7 between Texas Avenue and Louisiana Avenue to acquire material for embankment

With the current low prices for steel, consider a steel girder bridge

Use two bridges instead of one

Create a signature bridge

Include transit in final design

Consider the use of rain gardens in the roundabouts and boulevards

Use concrete instead of bituminous for the driving surface of the roundabouts

Use Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC), see write up on following pages.

Construction Staging

The VE Team also looked at how this project might be staged during construction. The team felt it would be challenging to keep one lane of traffic open both directions on TH 7 at all times because of the major excavation needed for muck removal.

Louisiana Avenue also needs to be maintained with one lane open at all times too. But the profile of Louisiana is being lowered 6-7 feet again making traffic management during construction a challenge.


During the study the team came up with a few suggestions to how traffic might be staged during the construction of the baseline concept as offered to the VE Team:

Idea #S1

1. Construct roundabouts first w/temporary slip ramps in SE & NW quads

2. Move intersection of Louisiana Ave and TH 7 to the intersection of Lake St. and TH 7

3. Construct TH 7 one half at a time (Construct a twin (or half) structure to facilitate staging)

Idea #S2 - Shift TH 7 traffic to the south (temporary road) and construct TH 7 all at once

Idea #S3 - Shift TH 7 south using Lake Street and construct TH 7 all at once

Idea #S4 – Shift Louisiana Avenue to the east during the lowering of the profile

Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Recommendations – 4.5 Value Engineering Study Report Date: August 10-13, 2010

VE DESIGN CONSIDERATION Accelerated Bridge Construction

Function: Span Roadway IDEA NO(s).

13

Original Concept:

The baseline concept (button hook ramps with roundabouts) calls for a single-span bridge with precast concrete girders supporting a cast-in-place deck. The structure will bear on cast-in-place vertical abutments, which will be supported by driven H-piles.

Design Consideration:

This design consideration is to provide a design (contractor flexibility) that will accommodate ABC technology. In essence provide design details that will give contractors the option to use precast substructure (pile caps, bent caps, etc.), superstructure components (i.e., partial depth structural precast concrete panels), and retaining walls (MSE wall with precast panels) in the construction of the bridges for the project. Coordination of these elements in conjunction with each other could result in construction time savings.

Advantages: Disadvantages

Potential construction schedule savings o Superstructure could occur simultaneously with

embankment fill Maybe an avenue to additional funding from FHWA

for using accelerated bridge concepts For this project, there appears to sufficient area for

lay down areas to construct precast components on-site

Relatively new technology in the area Some bridge decks are experiencing premature

deck cracking when using precast components If the road project is staged, two separate bridges

would most likely would be required due to lack of a cold-joint



Discussion/Justification:

It is important to minimize traffic disruption during the construction. There are several businesses and a hospital to the south of TH 7 which use this intersection as a primary access point. The VE Team has considered Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) to help achieve minimal impacts to the traveling public as well minimize the impacts to local businesses.

Using prefabricated (precast) concrete elements as listed below will reduce the field forming and curing time required. Because prefabrication of these elements could be accomplished in a controlled, offsite environment without jobsite limitations; constructability will be improved, quality increased, costs lowered and the schedule shortened. Construction schedule may be affected by this method. Cost differentials are not presented because schedule costs cannot be quantified with available data.

Some of the bridge components to be considered as a part of this recommendation include the following:

Footings: Precast footings could be placed immediately following either pile driving or ground improvements.

Vertical walls abutments: Precast walls could be placed directly on footings. Specialty Girders: Inverted T or full-depth deck beams could be used to eliminate temporary

falsework required for casting of the deck. Deck: Prestressed deck panels could be placed on top of in-place girders. This eliminates

the need to remove falsework after the deck has been casted. Full Superstructure: The entire superstructure could be constructed in the existing parking lot

in the southwest quadrant of the intersection. Upon completion of the substructure components, the entire superstructure could be moved into place and set up the substructure. This allows for the construction of the substructure and superstructure to occur simultaneously.

Connections between CIP and precast components would be done placing concrete in/through small pockets cast into the precast elements. On-site forming, rebar installation, concrete placement and curing, and form removal are eliminated from the critical construction path

In order to enhance the benefits of ABC, other portions of the project should also be accelerated. In the baseline concept, the retaining walls are assumed to be cast-in-place walls. The recommended concept would need to include a plan which accelerates the construction of the retaining wall and embankment fill to ensure that the walls are ready at the same time as necessary bridge components.

Assumptions:

A major assumption for the project is that TH 7 traffic will remain within the current7 right-of-way corridor during the construction. Due to this, the bridge could be constructed in stages. Half of the bridge could be constructed first to maintain traffic within the existing right of way. Once this half is constructed, TH 7 traffic could be moved to this new portion while the second half of the bridge is being constructed. As a result of building the bridge in two stages, a cold-joint would most likely occur in both the substructure and superstructure components.

It is assumed that there will be no traffic on Louisiana Avenue at the bridge. The intersection of TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue will be temporarily relocated.



Sketches/Photos:

Precast components used for abutment construction.

Precast deck component used as falsework.

Moving entire superstructure into place.




VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 1a Ground Improvements

Function: Move Earth IDEA NO(s).

1

Original Concept:

Remove contaminated soil and muck and replace with borrow. It is assumed to require temporary sheeting and shoring to maintain a stable excavation; depths are expected to be up to 35 feet for removal in west bridge area. Another assumption is that the mineral soils and organic materials that are encountered will be contaminated with coal tar, or other creosote-type products and by-products.

Recommended Concept:

Use ground improvement technologies rather than excavating muck.

Deep soil mixing in lieu of excavation Stone columns Vibro-compaction Densification


Reduces disposal of contaminated soils May have preservation effect (containing

contamination movement) Potential to reduce construction schedule Reduces borrow (no backfill of muck excavation) –

reduced truck traffic in corridor Potential to eliminate surcharge period Potential reduction in noise levels – bridge

foundations on spread footing w/ground improvements in lieu of piles

Eliminate or significantly reduce settlement

May require specialty contractor Performance specifications Risk of soil wave – outside embankment area

COST SUMMARY ESTIMATE

Original Concept $4.4 M

Recommended Concept $2.0 M for deep soil mixing

Estimated Savings $2.4 M

FHWA Functional Benefit

Safety Operations Environment Construction Other




Baseline Design

All assumptions, including the base design, will require additional subsurface investigation to determine the appropriate soil remedial mythology that should be used on this project. Listed below are some alternatives that could be considered.

The base design raises TH 7 over Louisiana Ave. The current plan is to build up very large embankments on the east and west to support approaches to bridge overpass.

There is a superfund site adjacent to the project limits on the North side. It is known that some of the contaminated materials have migrated south into the project limits and are therefore under the existing TH 7 and Louisiana Ave. roadways. There is a desire to limit removal quantities and anticipated large hazmat waste costs.

Risk factors – with unknown soils, settlement and slope stability is unpredictable. The best option to minimize settlement is also the most comprehensive option: an expensive muck removal and replacement with borrow. However, this option is not necessarily the preferred option due to some constraints:

Sheet pile construction will probably be needed and slope stability might be an issue due to tight ROW

Too many unknowns – extent of muck removal – extent of contamination soils and disposal – muck removal would require extensive borrow

lots of trucks moving in and out of the project site Where would the borrow come from?

All ground improvement methods will be employed to control settlement/improve strength for the construction of the west bridge approach embankment.

Methods of Ground Improvements

Deep soil mixing Deep soil mixing has potential performance risks in peat soils,

particularly if pH is low. Deep soil mixing may be able to bind up contaminants in place

(+), but tooling and drill slurry may require specialty decontamination and disposal depending on actual environmental contaminants.

(wet) Deep soil mixing requires specialty rig, specialty contractors, and large mobilization charges; probably impractical for a small job of this size. (Dry) soil mixing may be appropriate (lime injection/stabilization), but QA is more difficult and results are generally more variable.

Probably less noisy and vibratory than pile driving; may be more desirable than pile supported embankment option.

If remediation is also used under bridge footings, shallow foundations may be used, eliminating the need for piling on the project.



Stone columns Local contractors may be only able to install to

depths of 35 feet. Settlements are likely to be reduced to levels

tolerable for roadways and minor structures; may be more than desired for bridge footings, depending on technique. (Rammed aggregate piers may have deflections suitable for bridge footings on spread footings).

Vibro-compaction Could be used in sandy areas to densify granular materials; not

appropriate for peat areas; probably not appropriate as a solution for ground improvements at the entire site. Possibly useful on the east side if bridge footings to be shallow foundations.

Blast Densification Usually used to improve density in loose sands and decrease liquefaction potential in seismic

zones. Probably not appropriate here due to proximity of business and residences. Would not address principal problem of western peat soils.

Very unlikely to be used on this project. Rarely used in urban areas at Mn/DOT due to potential damage to adjacent structures.

Dynamic [Deep] Compaction Usually used in loose or low density mineral soils. Probably not

appropriate in organic soils and peats. May have limited applicability to improve density in east and west

areas. Uses a large drop weight. Depending on soils, the stress wave

created by the drop may disturb surrounding infrastructure (utilities) in the immediate area (or create that perception) - precondition surveys of nearby structures or residences are probably necessary to protect against claims.

Design Assumptions:

Borings and mechanical cone soundings from 1975/1980 used for preliminary assessment. Designs assumes that:

Soils may be contaminated



Embankments will be constructed, raising the grade, and requiring settlement mitigation

Rock is at a depth of 65 feet or greater

Peat/organic soils are present

ROW is a constraint, limiting viability of “remove and replace” options without sheeting.

Ground improvement is only needed west of Louisiana Ave. on TH 7 and ramps

Calculations:

Deep Soil Mixing $120/CY installed Use 3’ diameter soil mixing 65’ deep

7.07 SF x 65’ = 459 CF / 27 = 17 CY per boring

110’ (width of roadway) x 880’ (length) =88,000 SF / 100 SF = 880 borings

880 x 17 = 14,960 CY x $120/CY = $1.795 M

Because the true extent of the muck is currently unknown, use a cost of approximately $2.0 M



PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Criteria and Rating Rationale for Recommendation Performance Original Alternative

Mainline Operations

No change from baseline

Rating 5 5

Weight 17.9

Contribution 89 89

Local Operations


Rating 5 5

Weight 17.9

Contribution 89 89

Maintainability

Anticipated settlement will be less

Rating 5 5

Weight 12.5

Contribution 63 63


Reduced excavation and construction traffic Eliminates the need for sheet pile walls

Rating 5 7

Weight 3.6

Contribution 18 25


Deep Soil mixing may encapsulate contaminated material that is present

Rating 5 6

Weight 16.1

Contribution 80 97

Project Schedule


Rating 5 5

Weight 25.0

Contribution 125 125

Risk

Eliminates risk of contaminated material & muck disposal

Rating 5 8

Weight 7.1

Contribution 36 57

Total Performance: 500 545

Net Change in Performance: 9%




VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 1b Lightweight Fill


3

Original Concept:



Lightweight Fill: EPS Geofoam or Shredded Tires

Bridge over compressible materials with a lightweight fill embankment.


Reduced settlement Reduced borrow/fill truck traffic during construction Reduces excavation of muck May reduce construction schedule Easy to construct

May complicate design of other items (need for drainage details, guardrail/moment slab.

Potential risk associated with foam/petroleum mix (contaminated soils). Robust cover requirements will be necessary.

Would preclude utilities from entering fill area.


Original Concept S4.4 M

Recommended Concept $2.2 M for EPS blocks







Additional soils borings will be necessary to determine the proper remedial methodologies to use on this project.

Organic decay may result in long term settlement that is not adequately mitigated with lightweight fill options. These options may/should be combined with soil surcharge (pre-load) for improved performance over organic deposits that are not removed.

Some excavation will be required to provide ‘earth pressure balance’ which will provide the greatest reduction in future settlement potential.

This solution needs only to be applied in areas with increased fill (assumed on the west side approach embankment).

High water table will require that weight of soil cover is adequate to compensate for buoyant forces if EPS Geofoam is installed below 100 yr flood elevation. Three borings from 1985 show that water is approximately 2 feet below existing ground.

May wish to combine this option with cellular concrete below the water table to provide a more “inert” inclusion where there is increased risk of damage to EPS geofoam. May also be used with shredded tires.

Petroleum contamination may be a drawback to this design {EPS}, or require a more robust geomembrane liner for protection with more intense inspection at plastic joint welds.

Mn/DOT practice has been to only use shredded tires above the water table, so this option is not considered for use at this location. Another system would need to be used below water table- or risk continued deformation due to organics.

Design Assumptions:







Ground improvement is only needed on the west side of Louisiana Ave.



Sketches/Photos:

EPS Geofoam blocks being assembled

Styrofoam blocks being assembled behind retaining walls for a bridge embankment



Because of the possibility of contamination of the Styrofoam blocks from petroleum within the ground a concrete slab or other barrier should be placed between the blocks and the natural ground.

Calculations:

EPS Geofoam $60/CY installed

(880’ x 110’ x 10’ average height) / 27 = 35,852 CY

35,852 CY x $60/CY = $2.15 M

Use $2.2 M





Mainline Operations


Rating 5 5

Weight 17.9

Contribution 89 89

Local Operations


Rating 5 5

Weight 17.9

Contribution 89 89

Maintainability


Rating 5 5

Weight 12.5

Contribution 63 63


Less/lighter truck traffic

Rating 5 6

Weight 3.6

Contribution 18 22



Rating 5 5

Weight 16.1

Contribution 80 80

Project Schedule


Rating 5 5

Weight 25.0


Risk

Risk of petro chemical contamination

Rating 5 3

Weight 7.1

Contribution 36 21


Net Change in Performance: -2%




VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 1c Pile Supported Fill


7

Original Concept:



Pile Supported Fill - Drive or install (concrete or steel) piling or could use auger cast piles, or stone columns as well - in the area where compressible soils are present to span over the problem materials. Construct a reinforced soil mat above the piles to support the roadway or bridge approach embankment.


Eliminate excavation – reduced construction truck traffic for hauling earth away and borrow to the site

Reduces long term maintenance, by eliminating long term settlement

Temporary sheeting not needed for muck excavation Less risk with bridge construction vs. excavation

(cost overruns, ground water, etc.) Lower cost over base Much more predictable over the base – do not know

extent of contamination and muck removal

Noise? Pile driving vs. sheet pile driving May need to be coordinated with the sheet piling

that will be needed for bridge construction



Recommended Concept $1.9 M







Additional soils borings will be necessary to determine the proper remedial methodologies to use on this project.

Pile supported embankment can be installed without traffic moving significantly out of the way.

Embankment will require a “forest” of piling, and pile driving noise may have perceived negative noise impacts on residences depending on the size of the footprint. Noise and vibration caused by pile driving may be mitigated by using auger cast piles or stone columns, although auger-cast pile/rammed aggregate/stone column rigs may have contamination/cleaning issues as the auger/installer extends down into the ground.

Piles are expected to extend to rock at 65 feet; this is a reasonable pile length (<100).

Probably the least risk and largest benefit (in terms of settlement control in organic soils areas) while not completely excavating the organic soils. Mn/DOT has built this type of embankment before.

Expected to be more certain a solution than lightweight fill alternatives. No problems with groundwater anticipated. Problems with contamination are expected to be reduced as compared to other alternatives.

Specialty design for load transfer platform is required, but construction is relatively easy with standard materials.

In order to achieve the benefits from this system; other elements of the project, such as retaining walls, will need to complement one another.

Column supported embankment with a geosynthetic reinforced load transfer platform



SP 8612-11 column supported embankment (with piles installed and cut off during construction)

Embankment and roadway over the same pile supported embankment 1 year later



Design Assumptions:







Ground improvement is only needed on the west side of Louisiana Ave.

Calculations:

Piles $30/ft installed. Load Transfer Platform/Mat is similar to embankment construction cost + geogrid reinforcement.

10’ center to center grid for pile installation

880 piles that are 65’ to bedrock at $30 per foot

800 LF x 110’ wide = 88,000 SF

88,000 SF/100 = 880 piles x 65 x $30/LF = $1.72 M

Load transfer platform is approximately $140 K

Use $1.9 Million





Mainline Operations


Rating 5 5

Weight 17.9

Contribution 89 89

Local Operations


Rating 5 5

Weight 17.9

Contribution 89 89

Maintainability

Slight reduction in settlement possible

Rating 5 5

Weight 12.5

Contribution 63 63


Noise increase from pile driving No excavation of muck and contaminated material Less truck traffic

Rating 5 7

Weight 3.6

Contribution 18 25



Rating 5 5

Weight 16.1

Contribution 80 80

Project Schedule


Rating 5 5

Weight 25.0


Risk

Eliminates risk of contaminated material & muck disposal

Rating 5 8

Weight 7.1

Contribution 36 57






VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 Reinforced Slopes


9

Original Concept:

Cast-in-Place (CIP) Concrete Cantilever Walls where needed.


Replace CIP walls with reinforced steepened slopes (RSS) where right of way (ROW) permits. Footprint will be wider if either 70 degree or 45 degree slopes are used.


Can accommodate settlement – without needing adjustments

Reduced cost May increase footprint a little (70 degree max slope) May improve aesthetics – grass covered slope Reduced construction time Eliminates the needed for a structural foundation

Increase maintenance – landscape maintenance










Reinforced steepened slopes (RSS) can accommodate settlement so if minimal settlements are anticipated these slopes can be installed and allowed to remain in place during any initial settlements (e.g. surcharge fills can be constructed permanently- perhaps applicable on the east side).

RSS are “green” and only need seeding/watering, but no “retaining wall” type of maintenance. Generally, aesthetically pleasing. May be a good alternative for facing businesses and residences. May be beneficial in gore areas or areas where geometry is tight and walls may be difficult to maintain.

Requires reinforcement elements into backfill, but easy to install in fill sections. Desirable in locations where aesthetics may rule-out MSE panel walls.

Drainage can be installed normally. Usually moment-slabs are used for traffic barriers on the top of the wall similar to MSE wall designs.

Guardrail or concrete barrier will be required, as slopes are steep and not recoverable. Inspection during guardrail installation is important so as not to hurt the fabric.

Calculations:

Anticipated costs are less than wall costs due to elimination of fascia elements, could be about 50% savings (+/-) 10%, over cantilever costs. Will use 50% for this estimate.

Base cost from LWD was $2.2 M, therefore cost of RSS (and savings) is $1.1 M.

Reinforced Slope during construction



RSS at Bailey Road in SE corner, shortly after construction and turf establishment



Sketches/Photos:





Mainline Operations


Rating 5 5

Weight 17.9

Contribution 89 89

Local Operations


Rating 5 5

Weight 17.9

Contribution 89 89

Maintainability

Slopes are naturally vegetated

Rating 5 5

Weight 12.5

Contribution 63 63


Minimal improvements

Rating 5 6

Weight 3.6

Contribution 18 21


Slopes are naturally vegetated

Rating 5 7

Weight 16.1

Contribution 80 113

Project Schedule


Rating 5 5

Weight 25.0


Risk


Rating 5 5

Weight 7.1

Contribution 36 36






VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 3 Single Lane Roundabout

Function: Reconstruct City Streets IDEA NO(s).

36

Original Concept:

The base plan currently has 2 lanes in each direction on Louisiana Avenue under the TH 7 bridge connecting the north roundabout (Walker Street) to the south roundabout (W. Lake St.). Both roundabouts are 2 lanes.


Louisiana Avenue and the roundabouts be constructed with just one lane each direction. They can be expanded in the future when level of service drops.


Reduces conflicts Smaller footprint Easier to navigate from the drivers perspective Ability to expand in future when necessary Reduces impervious surface Single lane roundabouts are easier to navigate and

have fewer conflicts

Single lane roundabouts will not handle 2031 projected volumes

Stormwater will need to be moved in the future


Original Concept N/A

Recommended Concept N/A




Original Concept



Discussion/Justification: Existing and projected volumes were run through the Excel Visual Basic Program, “Conversion of Turning Movements into Roundabout Volumes”, (Ken Johnson, Mn/DOT). In this method, the entry capacity of each leg is dependent on the circulatory volume just prior to that leg entrance. The results of the program provide analysis on whether to consider a single lane vs. a double lane roundabout. Generally, if the v/c ratio for each individual leg is below 85% a single lane roundabout can work. If the v/c ratio is above 85% a double lane roundabout should be considered.

Louisiana Ave & Walker Street Existing PM Volumes A single lane roundabout works well using 2010 PM volume numbers. All legs fall below the v/c ratio of 85%.

Louisiana Ave & Walker Street 2031 Volumes – Single Lane Roundabout Results of the model using 2031 PM volumes show that three legs of the roundabout are over the v/c ratio of 85%. This indicates that a double lane roundabout is necessary to handle 2031 projected volumes.

Louisiana Ave & Walker Street 2031 Volumes – Double Lane Roundabout A double lane roundabout works well using 2031 PM volume numbers. All legs fall below the v/c ratio of 85%.

.



Discussion/Justification, continued:

Louisiana Ave & W. Lake Street Existing PM Volumes

A single lane roundabout works well using 2010 PM volume numbers. All legs fall below the v/c ratio of 85%.

Louisiana Ave & W. Lake Street 2031 Volumes – Single Lane Roundabout Results of the model using 2031 PM volumes show that three legs of the roundabout are over the v/c ratio of 85%. This indicates that a double lane roundabout is necessary to handle 2031 projected volumes.

Louisiana Ave & W. Lake Street 2031 Volumes – Double Lane Roundabout A double lane roundabout works well using 2031 PM volume numbers. All legs fall below the v/c ratio of 85%.



Because the roundabouts are the intersections where you will have delay, and the roundabouts can handle the initial volumes, you can assume that the roadway between them can handle the initial volumes as well.

To be easily expandable in the future care should be taken to design the stormwater system so the catch basins and pipes are in the final location.

Calculations:

2000 LF of lane removed

$1,360,000/LF of lane per the LWD Estimate

2000/5280 x $1.36 M = $0.5 M





Mainline Operations

No change to baseline

Rating 5 5

Weight 17.9

Contribution 89 89

Local Operations

Slightly better because the single lane roundabouts are more easily understood by the traveling public and have a lower overall crash rate

Rating 5 8

Weight 17.9

Contribution 89 143

Maintainability

Less pavement markings on a single lane roundabout

Rating 5 5

Weight 12.5

Contribution 63 63


Slightly worse because multi-lane roundabouts are more easily staged for 2-way traffic when not constructed under detour

Rating 5 5

Weight 3.6

Contribution 18 18


Reduced impermeable surface

Rating 5 5

Weight 16.1

Contribution 80 80

Project Schedule


Rating 5 5

Weight 25.0


Risk

Slightly greater risk because increases in traffic might occur sooner than expected

Rating 5 5

Weight 7.1

Contribution 36 36






VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 4 Remove Median on Louisiana Avenue

Function: Reconstruct City Streets IDEA NO(s).

38

Original Concept:

The baseline option shows raised median on Louisiana Avenue. Currently there is raised median throughout the project area.


It is recommended that the raised median be eliminated from the design in order to give the roadway more of a “neighborhood feel” and to potentially provide some measure of traffic calming and less impervious surface.


Reduces impervious surface Improve snow removal Reduces bridge length Traffic calming Urban character

Public perception










Eliminating the raised median will provide for a more urban feel to the roadway. Raised median provides some measure of safety on a 4-lane roadway with turn lanes. The stretch of roadway between the north roundabout at Louisiana Ave and Walker Street and the south roundabout at Louisiana Ave and W. Lake Street has no access points and no turn lanes thus reducing the benefit.

Eliminating the raised median may provide for traffic calming and slower speeds leading up to the roundabout areas. Splitter islands should still be used at the roundabouts to channel traffic.

Proposed Typical Section - Louisiana Avenue

With the median removed the inside lanes would be sloped to the outside removing the need for catch basins in the middle of the roadway.

Calculations:

1000 LF of median removed

2000 LF of median stormwater removed

Use $0.1 M as cost savings





Mainline Operations


Rating 5 5

Weight 17.9

Contribution 89 89

Local Operations

Removal of median may serve as a traffic calming device More urban feel

Rating 5 6

Weight 17.9

Contribution 89 107

Maintainability

No curb to deal with during snow removal

Rating 5 6

Weight 12.5

Contribution 63 75



Rating 5 5

Weight 3.6

Contribution 18 18



Rating 5 5

Weight 16.1

Contribution 80 80

Project Schedule


Rating 5 5

Weight 25.0


Risk


Rating 5 5

Weight 7.1

Contribution 36 36






VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 5a Tight Urban Diamond Interchange

Function: Construct Ramps IDEA NO(s).

22

Original Concept:

The baseline idea provides access to TH 7 via button hook ramps located in the northeast and southwest quadrants. All entering and exiting traffic is directed through intersections with local streets (Lake Street & Walker Street) that then connect to Louisiana Avenue via roundabouts.


Using the same plan and profile as the baseline idea for TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue construct a tight urban diamond interchange (TUDI).


Smaller overall project footprint Less impacts to current access to business to the

north Ramp design is improved Traffic operations should be improved The driver expectancy is improved Would fit within the existing TH 7 right-of-way

Increased conflicts over roundabouts May be opposed by apartments




Estimated Savings $1.5 M construction – right of way savings are substantial but not quantifiable at this time






Tight urban diamond interchanges (TUDI) are found in most large cities in the United States. Ramp spacing of a TUDI usually range from 250’ to 350’ but they can work with as little as 125’ of spacing depending on the turning movements needed at the intersections. A TUDI desirably has one continuous left-turn lane per direction on the cross street between the signals.

Tight urban diamonds can operate better than normal diamond interchanges. To achieve this, the spacing between ramp intersections must be kept to below 350’ and a single traffic-actuated signal controller should be used and it must be designed and timed properly to best satisfy the traffic conditions. Special signal phasing allows queuing of vehicles outside the ramp intersections and minimizes queuing of vehicles between the ramp intersections.

For this project the spacing between the ramp termini would be 150’.

Typical Section of TH 7 and the ramps at the ramp terminus with Louisiana Ave.

Louisiana Avenue would consist of:

Outside lanes 14’

Inside lanes 12’

Left turn lanes 14’

Median 6’

West side of roadway is a 6’ sidewalk with a 6’ boulevard

East side of roadway is a 10’ path with a 6’ boulevard

Total width = 114’

The baseline estimate and plan view has a 150’ long bridge which would be more than adequate for this roadway section. The typical section for Louisiana Ave. shows a 120’ long span, this too would work.

100’ 100’

5’ 5’

19’ 19’40’ 40’

36’36’ TH – 780’ total roadway width including walls4 – 12’ lanes2 ‐ 4’ inside shoulders2 ‐ 10’ outside shoulders2’ median barrier1’ for each retaining wall

Ramps55’ of total ramp width

2 – 12’ lanes1 ‐ 4’ inside shoulders1 ‐ 8’ outside shoulders19’ of slope (near intersection)

C/L

ROW

ROW



Stage Construction

1. Move TH 7 traffic to the north half of the existing intersection and reduce down to one lane each direction

2. Construct the south half of TH 7 including the new ramps 3. Move intersection of TH 7 & Louisiana east to current right-in/right-out location 4. Move TH 7 to new south half of alignment 5. Lower Louisiana Ave. 6. Move TH 7 to new south ramp once Louisiana is ready and remove temp intersection to east 7. Construct north half of TH 7 including new ramps

While the highway is much larger than TH 7 the example TUDI above does show the ramps “hugging” the retaining walls of the highway.



Sketches/Photos:

Sketch of a tight urban diamond interchange at the TH 7 & Louisiana Ave. intersection



Design & Estimate Assumptions:

The baseline profile of TH 7 and Louisiana Ave. would be used. (no change in cost)

The baseline bridge length of 150’ can be used. (no change in cost)

Length ramps and tapers is similar (no change in cost)

Retaining walls square footage is less - Base = 30,000 SF #6a = 25000 SF (savings of $0.38 M)

No work needs to be done to Walker or Lake streets (savings of $1.1 M)

Right of way cost savings are anticipated to be substantial but can’t be quantified at this time.

It was initially felt that the proposed design would have greater impacts to land available for development; however, a sketch design indicates that the overall right of way impacts are significantly less. In the northeast quadrant, the proposed design reduces right of way impacts significantly – as the buttonhook connection to Walker would no longer be necessary, private parcels would not need to be acquired. In the southwest quadrant, the right of way impacts are reduced to a lesser degree – the buttonhook requires a total take versus a more limited taking with the proposed design. Local business acceptance is anticipated to be greater due to having fewer impacts to access on the local road system.





Mainline Operations

The access to/from TH 7 is more familiar to drivers

Rating 5 7

Weight 17.9

Contribution 89 125

Local Operations

The existing local roads system is maintained No impacts to businesses/resident access Roundabouts have less conflicts Added pedestrian conflict point

Rating 5 4

Weight 17.9

Contribution 89 72

Maintainability

3 signals vs. 4 roundabouts Less illumination

Rating 5 5

Weight 12.5

Contribution 63 63


Less disruption to Lake Street and Walker Street

Rating 5 6

Weight 3.6

Contribution 18 21


Right of way cost savings are anticipated to be substantial but can’t be quantified at this time. Roundabouts have a more neighborly feel than signals

Rating 5 6

Weight 16.1

Contribution 80 97

Project Schedule


Rating 5 5

Weight 25.0


Risk

Ramp in NW quadrant is within right of way but apartment owners may object

Rating 5 5

Weight 7.1

Contribution 36 36




VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 5b Single Point Roundabout Interchange


22

Original Concept:

Four roundabouts constructed to get TH 7 traffic to/from Louisiana Avenue using a buttonhook interchange. Two roundabouts are the buttonhook intersections accepting the ramp traffic to/from TH 7 with frontage roads (Lake Street and Walker Street). Two roundabouts constructed on Louisiana with said frontage roads.


Construct a single point roundabout interchange with a convertible single-lane roundabout accommodating the ramp traffic to/from TH 7. The single point roundabout will be on Louisiana and will be spanned by TH 7. Convertible single-lane roundabouts will still be constructed at the intersections of Louisiana/Lake and Louisiana/Walker.


Increase driver familiarity Reduced right of way impacts Ramp design is improved Smaller overall project footprint Less impacts to current access to business to the

north Traffic operations should be improved The driver expectancy is improved

Requires a longer bridge structure to fit over the roundabout




Estimated Savings $0.30 M construction – right of way savings is substantial






The recommendation of a Single Point Roundabout Interchange (SPRI) will be more in line with driver expectation as the exits/entrances to TH 7 connect directly to Louisiana Ave. The current design requires drivers to navigate an additional intersection before getting to/from the minor arterial of Louisiana. In addition, the ramps will allow a longer distance to reduce speed prior to the roundabout intersection. The baseline design has, in comparison, tighter radii for drivers to navigate prior to reaching the buttonhook intersections.

The proposed design will also eliminate access changes to the businesses in the northeast quadrant of the interchange. These businesses currently have access to Walker Street via Republic Avenue and the baseline design cuts off the connection of Republic to Walker. The proposed design will require no changes to the intersection of Walker and Republic.

While the proposed design will require the TH 7 bridge span over Louisiana to be lengthened by about 80’ (from 150’ to about 230’), it will reduce the width of the bridge by 24’ (from 104’ to about 80’) as the acceleration lanes of the baseline design are not needed. Thus the bridge will be 4 lanes wide vs. 6. The net increase in bridge square footage is estimated to be 2,800. The estimated cost per square foot used in the original estimate is $150. The estimated additional cost for the extended bridge is $420,000.

It was initially felt that the proposed design would have greater impacts to land available for development; however, a sketch design indicates that the overall right of way impacts are significantly less. In the northeast quadrant, the proposed design reduces right of way impacts significantly – as the buttonhook connection to Walker would no longer be necessary, private parcels would not need to be acquired. In the southwest quadrant, the right of way impacts are reduced to a lesser degree – the buttonhook requires a total take versus a more limited taking with the proposed design. Local business acceptance is anticipated to be greater due to having fewer impacts to access on the local road system.

An additional recommendation is to initially construct single-lane roundabouts that are convertible to multi-lane roundabouts at all three locations. Planning level analysis indicates that the current volumes could be accommodated by single-lane roundabouts (with the possibility of necessary right-turn bypass lanes); however, the forecast volumes would need multi-lane roundabouts. This would allow the drivers to get used to navigating roundabouts in general and would increase safety – while multi-lane roundabouts typically have similar overall crash rates to that of a signal and 75% less injury crashes, single lane roundabouts would be anticipated to have 40% less overall crashes

As mentioned previously, the buttonhook roundabout intersections would no longer be necessary, thus the number of roundabouts to be constructed would be reduced by one, resulting in an estimated cost reduction of approximately $750,000.

Construction cost savings is anticipated to be just over $300,000 compared to the baseline concept. Right of way cost savings are anticipated to be substantial but can’t be quantified at this time.



Sketches/Photos:

I-135 in Newton, Kansas – similar design to proposed

This interchange is bigger than what would be necessary at TH 7 and Louisiana – there is a larger distance between the bridges on the Interstate.

Below is a sketch drawing of the 200’ diameter of the proposed footprint:



Design Assumptions:

The roundabout intersection is estimated to have a footprint diameter of 200 feet. This footprint includes a multi-lane roundabout with shared use paths outside the circulatory roadway. It is assumed that the trail location will be set outside the ultimate multi-lane design needed for the forecast traffic; however, it is anticipated that the current volumes can be accommodated with single-lane roundabouts.

The cross-section of TH 7 through the bridge area is very similar to that shown in VE Recommendation No. 5a Tight Urban Diamond Interchange.





Mainline Operations

Slightly better:

The ramps don’t have a tight radius to navigate The access to/from TH 7 is more familiar to drivers

Rating 5 7

Weight 17.9

Contribution 89 125

Local Operations

Slightly better:

Less changes for the local drivers. Added roundabout to Louisiana Ave. No access changes for businesses in the NE quadrant.

Rating 5 7

Weight 17.9

Contribution 89 125

Maintainability

Slightly better:

1 less roundabout intersection to maintain. Increased bridge length

Rating 5 5

Weight 12.5

Contribution 63 63


Slightly better:

Less disruption to Lake Street and Walker Street

Rating 5 6

Weight 3.6

Contribution 18 21


Slightly better:

Right of way acquisition will be substantially reduced

Rating 5 7

Weight 16.1

Contribution 80 113

Project Schedule


Rating 5 5

Weight 25.0


Risk


Rating 5 5

Weight 7.1

Contribution 36 36






VE VALIDATION NO. 1 3-Span Structure

Function: Span Roadway IDEA NO(s).

17, 20

Original Concept:

The baseline concept (button hook ramps with roundabouts) calls for a single-span with precast concrete girder supporting a cast-in-place deck. The structure will bear on cast-in-place vertical abutments and supported by driven H-piles.


Replace the vertical walls and a single span bridge with concrete slope paving and the three-span bridge.

After evaluation and discussion the baseline concept of a single span bridge over Louisiana Ave. was validated.


Less embankment Increases light under bridge More comfortable for pedestrians Easier to widen in the future than vertical abutment Reduces muck excavation Potential to decrease span length and depth of

structure

Possibly increases cost Increased construction schedule 2 additional bridge foundations to construct




Estimated Savings N/A


VE VALIDATION NO. 1 3-Span Structure

Discussion/Justification: The idea of increasing the number of spans was developed from the thought that this would be a visual enhancement to the area. The existing intersection serves as an important north-south connect for the city. Some of the potential advantages that were anticipated from a three-span bridge, including increased light beneath the bridge and more comfort for pedestrians, can still be achieved by the one-span bridge from the baseline concept. Other advantages listed have been speculated, which could impact the effectiveness of adding additional spans.

Given the baseline concept (as shown below) already has many of the anticipated advantages, there appears to be no need to increase the number of spans. It should be noted however that the typical section shows approximately a 120 foot span where the plan view shows approximately a 150 foot span. These details need to be evaluated for future design considerations.

Sketches/Photos:

Typical baseline concept section.


VE VALIDATION NO. 2 Cul-de-sac SW Frontage Road


23

Original Concept:

The original concept is a roundabout in the southwest quadrant of the project area. The roundabout includes:

1. TH 7 eastbound button hook exit ramp 2. Kilmer Lane (frontage road just south of TH 7) 3. W. Lake Street 4. Louisiana Avenue


The recommended concept is to close Kilmer Lane (frontage road) by creating a cul-de-sac.

After evaluation and discussion there was no need to cul-de-sac the frontage road. The baseline concept was validated.


Removes one access point to roundabout which may improve operation

May improve the angle at which the EB TH 7 exit ramp enters the roundabout (although the baseline angle slows traffic before entering the roundabout which is a plus)

Would reduce conflict points at the roundabout

Neighbors may not approve May drive truck traffic into the neighborhood Possible new angle from EB TH could introduce

higher speeds into the roundabout








In order to determine whether or not the cul-de-sac would be a worthwhile option, volume projections were run through the Excel Visual Basic Program, “Conversion of Turning Movements into Roundabout Volumes”, (Ken Johnson, Mn/DOT). In this method, the entry capacity of each leg is dependent on the circulatory volume just prior to that leg entrance. If the volume/capacity ratio for any leg is above 85% further analysis is recommended.

The results shown below (using PM projected volumes) show that all legs of the roundabout are well within the range of a single lane roundabout (less than 85%). The results also show that the projected volumes on Kilmer Lane (frontage road) are so low that it shouldn’t affect operations. Inputs to note: 97% car traffic, 3% truck with trailer traffic (percentages used were determined using Mn/DOT’s Interactive Basemap), peak hour factor of .9.



Sketches/Photos:




VE VALIDATION NO. 3 Don’t Lower Louisiana Ave.


8

Original Concept:

The original concept (base) has Louisiana being lowered by approximately 6 – 7 feet at the center of TH 7. The roundabouts at Walker and Lake Street will remain essentially at their current elevations and the grade of Louisiana Ave. will drop 0.5% as it approaches TH 7 thereby creating a low point beneath the new bridge.


Maintain existing profile of Louisiana Avenue.

After evaluation and discussion the baseline concept to lower the profile of Louisiana Avenue was validated.


Reduces staging complexity – lower of Louisiana (6 to 7 feet) and raising of TH 7 (partial) will be very complicated.

Reduces excavation Less risk vs. excavation (overruns ground water,

contaminated soils, etc.) May reduce construction schedule.

Increased embankment May require lengthening of vertical curve – tie ins

to existing TH 7. Will increase grade on loop ramps (on ramps) Increases fill height in front of apartment complex

– negative impact.








Reduces staging complexity – It was initially thought that the complexity would be reduced. A detour would reduce staging complexity in both the base and proposed option.

Reduces excavation – It is thought that the excavated material will be suitable for fill.

Less risk vs. excavation (overruns ground water, contaminated soils, etc.) – Proximity of new roadbed to ground water may require dewatering to construct lowered Louisiana which may increase risk.

It is thought that the advantages of raising Louisiana are less than expected. Staging complexities are probably better handled by removing traffic from Louisiana Ave at the bridge crossing thru use of detours and temporary bypasses.

There are no construction cost advantages to raising Louisiana Ave. Raising Louisiana creates additional costs in retaining walls and embankment material which are greater than the associated costs of lowering Louisiana.

Sketches/Photos:

Design Assumptions:

Raise retaining walls by an average of 3.5 feet and lengthen an average of 100 feet.

It is thought that the road bed material beneath Louisianan Avenue will be suitable for use as fill elsewhere on the project.



Estimate:

Item Description Unit

Original Concept Recommended Concept

Qty Unit Cost Total Qty Unit Cost Total

Retaining Walls (west) SF 940*17 $75 $1,318,350 1040*20.5 $75 $1,599,000

Retaining Walls (east) SF 885*15 $75 $1,095,188 985*18.5 $75 $1,366,687

Excav & Embank (Louisiana) CY 120*6*400 $5 $54,000 $0

Excav & Embank (TH 7 west) CY $0 700*3.5*100 $5 $45,370

Excav & Embank (TH7 east) CY $0 600*3.5*100 $5 $38,888

Temp Signal LS $100,000

Temp Bypass (connect TH 7 to Lake)

LS $150,000

Sheet Pile (During construction) ft 80*200 $9 $200,000

Total Cost OriginalConcept

$2,717,538 Recommended Concept $3,249,945

Estimated Savings -$532,407



TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Appendix – 5.1 Value Engineering Study Report Date: August 10-13, 2010

AAppppeennddiixx

Value Engineering

Value Engineering (VE) is a systematic process using a multi-disciplinary team to improve the value of a project through the analysis of its functions. The VE process incorporates, to the extent possible, the values of design; construction; maintenance; contractor; state, local and federal approval agencies; other stakeholders; and the public.

The primary objective of a Value Engineering study is value improvement. The value improvements might relate to scope definition, functional design, constructability, coordination (both internal and external), or the schedule for project development. Other possible value improvements are reduced environmental impacts, reduced public (traffic) inconvenience, or reduced project cost.

Pre-VE Study

Prior to the start of a VE Study, the Project Manager, VE Team Leader and the Statewide Value Engineer carry out the following three activities:

Initiate Study – Identify study project; define study goals; prepare VE Study Request.

Organize Study – Conduct pre-VE Study meeting; select team members.

Prepare Data – Collect and distribute data; prepare cost models.

All of the information gathered prior to the VE Study is given to the team members for their use.

Value Engineering Job Plan

The VE Team employed the six-phase VE job plan in analyzing the project. This process is recommended by SAVE International and is composed of the following phases:

Investigation/Information - The objective of this phase was to obtain a thorough understanding of the project’s design criteria and objectives by reviewing the project’s documents and drawings, cost estimates, and schedules.

Function Analysis - The purpose of this phase was to identify and define the primary and secondary functions of the project. A Functional Analysis System Technique (FAST) was used to quickly define the functions of the project.

Speculation/Creative - During this phase the team employed creative techniques such as team brainstorming to develop a number of alternative concepts that satisfy the project’s primary functions.

Evaluation - The purpose of this phase was to evaluate the alternative concepts developed by the VE Team during the brainstorming sessions. The team used a number of tools to determine the qualitative and quantitative merits of each concept.


Development - Those concepts that ranked highest in the evaluation were further developed into VE recommendations. Narratives, drawings, calculations, and cost estimates were prepared for each recommendation.

Presentation - The VE Team presented their finding in the form of a written report. In addition, an oral presentation was made to the owner and the design team to discuss the VE recommendations.

Value Metrics

The Value Metrics process is an integral part of the Value Engineering Process. This process provides the cornerstone of the VE process by providing a systematic and structured means of considering the relationship of a project’s performance and cost as they relate to value. Project performance must be properly defined and agreed upon by the stakeholders at the beginning of the VE Study. The performance attributes and requirements developed are then used throughout the study to identify, evaluate, and document alternatives.

Introduction

The methodology described herein measures project value by correlating the performance of project scope and schedule to the project costs. This process is known as Value Metrics. The objective of this methodology is to prescribe a systematic, structured approach to study and optimize a project’s scope, schedule, and cost.

Value Engineering has traditionally been perceived as an effective means for reducing project costs. This paradigm only addresses one part of the value equation, oftentimes at the expense of overlooking the role that VE can play with regard to improving project performance. Project costs are fairly easy to quantify and compare through traditional estimating techniques. Performance is not so easily quantifiable.

The VE Team Leader will lead the team and external stakeholders through the methodology, using the power of the process to distill subjective thought into an objective language that everyone can relate to and understand. The dialog that develops forms the basis for the VE Team’s understanding of the performance requirements of the project and to what degree the current design concept is meeting those requirements. From this baseline, the VE Team can focus on developing alternative concepts that will quantify both performance and cost and contribute to overall project value.

Value Metrics yields the following benefits:

Builds consensus among project stakeholders (especially those holding conflicting views)

Develops a better understanding of a project’s goals and objectives

Develops a baseline understanding of how the project is meeting performance goals and objectives

Identifies areas where project performance can be improved through the VE process

Develops a better understanding of a VE alternative’s effect on project performance


Develops an understanding of the relationship between performance and cost in determining value

Uses value as the true measurement for the basis of selecting the right project or design concept

Provides decision makers with a means of comparing costs and performance (i.e., costs vs. benefits) in a way that can assist them in making better decisions.

Methodology

The application of Value Metrics consists of the following steps:

1. Identify key project (scope and delivery) performance attributes and requirements for the project

2. Establish the hierarchy and impact of these attributes upon the project

3. Establish the baseline of the current project performance by evaluating and rating the effectiveness of the current design concepts

4. Identify the change in performance of alternative project concepts generated by the study

5. Measure the aggregate effect of alternative concepts relative to the baseline project’s performance as a measure of overall value improvement

The primary goal of Value Engineering is to improve project value. A simple way to think of value in terms of an equation is as follows:

Cost

ePerformancValue

Assumptions

Before embarking on the details of this methodology some assumptions need to be identified:

The methodology described in the following steps assumes the project functions are well established. Project functions are “the what” the project delivers to its users and stakeholders; a good reference for the project functions can be found in the environmental document’s purpose and need statement. Project functions are generally well defined prior to the start of the VE Study. In the event that project functions have been substantially modified, the methodology must begin a new from the beginning (Step 1).

Step 1 – Determine the Major Performance Attributes

Performance attributes can generally be divided between Project Scope components (Highway Operations, Environmental Impacts, and System Preservation) and Project Delivery components. It is important to make a distinction between performance attributes and performance requirements. Performance requirements are mandatory and are binary in nature. All performance requirements MUST be met by any VE alternative concept being considered.


Performance attributes possess a range of acceptable levels of performance. For example, if the project was the design and construction of a new bridge, a performance requirement might be that the bridge must meet all current seismic design criteria. In contrast, a performance attribute might be Project Schedule which means that a wide range of alternatives could be acceptable that had different durations.

The VE Team Leader will initially request that representatives from project team and external stakeholders identify performance attributes that they feel are essential to meeting the overall need and purpose of the project. Usually four to eight attributes are selected. It is important that all potential attributes be thoroughly discussed. The information that comes out of this discussion will be valuable to both the VE Team and the project owner. It is important that the attribute be discretely defined, and they must be quantifiable in some form. By quantifiable, it is meant that a useable scale must be delineated with values given on a scale of 0 to 10. A “0” indicates unacceptable performance, while a “10” indicates optimal or ideal performance. The vast majority of performance attributes that typically appear in transportation VE studies have been standardized. This standardized list can be used “as is” or adopted with minor adjustments as required. Every effort should be made to make the ratings as objective as possible.

Step 2 – Determine the Relative Importance of the Attributes

Once the group has agreed upon the project’s performance attributes, the next step is to determine their relative importance in relation to each other. This is accomplished through the use of an evaluative tool termed in this report as the “Performance Attribute Matrix.” This matrix compares the performance attributes in pairs, asking the question: “An improvement in which attribute will provide the greatest benefit to the project relative to purpose and need?” A letter code (e.g., “a”) is entered into the matrix for each pair, identifying which of the two is more important. If a pair of attributes is considered to be of essentially equal importance, both letters (e.g., “a/b”) are entered into the appropriate box. This, however, should be discouraged, as it has been found that in practice a tie usually indicates that the pairs have not been adequately discussed. When all pairs have been discussed, the number of “votes” for each is tallied and percentages (which will be used as weighted multipliers later in the process) are calculated. It is not uncommon for one attribute to not receive any “votes.” If this occurs, the attribute is given a token “vote”, as it made the list in the first place and should be given some degree of importance.

Step 3 – Establish the Performance “Baseline” for the Original Design

The next step in the process is to evaluate how well the original design is addressing the project’s performance attributes. This step establishes a “baseline” against which the VE alternative concepts can be compared. The Performance Rating Matrix is used to assist the VE Team in determining the performance ratings for the original design concept. Representatives from the design team and external stakeholders next begin assigning a 0 to 10 rating for each attribute, using the definitions and scales developed in Step 1.

Once the 0 to 10 ratings for the various attributes have been established, their total performance should be calculated by multiplying the attribute’s weight (which was developed in Step 2) by its rating. Once the total performance for each attribute has been determined, the original design’s total performance can be calculated by adding all of the scores for the attributes. The concept’s total performance will be somewhere between 0 and 1,000 points. A concept scoring 1,000


would represent a hypothetically “optimal” design concept, with all performance attributes being addressed to their theoretical maximum. This numerical expression of the original design’s performance forms the “baseline” against which all alternative concepts will be compared.

Step 4 – Evaluate the Performance of the VE Alternative Concepts

Once the performance baseline has been established for the original design concept, it can be used to help the VE Team develop performance ratings for individual VE alternative concepts as they are developed during the course of the VE Study. The Performance Measures form is used to capture this information. This form allows a side-by-side comparison of the original design and VE alternative concepts to be performed.

It is important to consider the alternative concept’s impact on the entire project, rather than on discrete components, when developing performance ratings for the alternative concept

Step 5 – Compare the Performance Ratings of Alternative Concepts to the “Baseline” Project

The last step in the process completes the Value Matrix that was initially begun to develop the performance ratings for the original design concept. The VE Team groups the VE alternatives into a strategy (or strategies) to provide the decision makers a clear picture of how the alternatives fit together into possible solutions. At least one strategy is developed to present the VE Team’s consensus of what should be implemented. Additional strategies are developed as necessary to present other combinations to the decision makers that should be considered. The strategy(s) of VE alternatives are rated and compared against the original concept. The performance ratings developed for the VE Strategies are entered into the matrix, and the summary portion of the Value Matrix is completed. The summary provides details on net changes to cost, performance, and value, using the following calculations.

% Performance Improvement = Performance VE Strategy / Total Performance Original Concept

Value Index = Total Performance / Total Cost (in Millions)

% Value Improvement = Value Index VE Strategy / Value Index Original Concept

Reporting Following the VE Study, the Team Leader assembles all study documentation into the final report.

Publish Results – Prepare a Draft and Final VE Study Report; distribute printed and electronic copies.

Close Out VE Study - Provide final deliverables to the State VE Coordinator/Manager.

The VE Study is complete when the report is issued as a record of the VE Team’s analysis and development work, as well as the project development team’s implementation dispositions for the recommendations.


This page is intentionally left blank

SP 2706-226 - TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange

Value Engineering Study Agenda

Tuesday August 10th – Friday August 13th, 2010

Municipal Service Center (MSC) 2nd floor multi-purpose room (by the lunchroom)

7305 Oxford Street St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2216

Tuesday, August 10 8:30 am Team Meet and Greet 9:00 am Project Team presentation of the project

Constraints and controlling decisions Potential Risks

10:00 am Site visit Noon Lunch 1:00 pm Continue Investigation Phase 3:00 pm Functional Analysis – Define functions

Define & weight performance attributes 4:00 pm Begin Speculation 5:00 pm Adjourn for the day Wednesday, August 11 8:00 am Continue Speculation Phase Noon Lunch 1:00 pm Evaluation Phase 5:00 pm Adjourn for the day Thursday, August 12 8:00 am Development Phase Noon Lunch 1:00 pm Complete Development Phase 5:00 pm Adjourn for the day Friday, August 13 8:00 am Review Recommendations 9:00 am Team revise and rehearse presentation 10:00 am Presentation of Findings Noon Adjourn

Value Engineering Study Phases The Value Engineering (VE) team documents the VE study as it goes through the phases described below. The team members will provide interim review of the report throughout the study and final review before the report is printed. Investigation Phase The VE team begins the study by investigating the project. Several pages are provided in the report to document what is known about the project and what documents are available upon which the team will base the development of their recommendations. Often, teams want to rush right into speculating solutions before they have taken the time to acquaint themselves with the information that is already available. The Investigation Phase pages of the report force the team to delve into the available information. The project office provides some of this information, but team members may also contact other offices and state and local agencies for additional information that will apply to the project. Good groundwork in the Investigation Phase is important to providing viable recommendations at the end of the study. The investigation process encourages team building and allows the team members get to know each other and identify areas of expertise. In addition to a project briefing by the design team and management and a field review, the VE team reviews and documents available project information. They develop lists of authorizing persons, personal contacts for the study, and available references. The team spends an adequate amount of time to acquaint themselves with all of the documents, photos, and other information provided. During this process, the team develops a list of available documents, including when they were prepared. This provides a record of the document versions the team used as the basis for the VE recommendations. Once the team is familiar with the project and the available documentation, they need to agree upon and document the objective of the study and any constraints or controlling decisions that will affect the recommendations they develop. Based on the study objective, the team will determine the primary and secondary functions of the project in verb/noun format. A functional analysis is performed, using a FAST diagram, to determine the critical path necessary to accomplish each primary function of the project. The Investigation Phase provides the VE team with a thorough understanding of the project and what the VE study is expected to accomplish.

Speculation Phase During the Speculation Phase, the VE team brainstorms ideas that satisfy the project functions. A team member can explain an idea to the rest of the team, but no evaluation is allowed at this point. Off-the-wall, out-of-the-box ideas should be encouraged, as they often lead to innovative, workable solutions. The team should list all of the brainstorm ideas, even the most improbable. Evaluation Phase The Evaluation Phase begins by going back through the ideas brainstormed during speculation to determine those that have fatal flaws. Ideas that are not viable will be dropped. The team lists the advantages and disadvantages of each idea that warrants further consideration. If the disadvantages of an idea outweigh the advantages, in number or importance, that idea should not be considered further. When all the ideas have been evaluated, the most promising may be put through an evaluation matrix. The evaluation matrix is used to determine which idea ranks highest against desired criteria. The evaluation matrix is the final step in determining which ideas will be developed into recommendations. Development Phase The team leader will assign a subgroup to develop the appropriate documentation and descriptions for each recommendation. The VE team needs to include cost estimates when developing recommendations. Although the goal of the Value Engineering is to add value, due to the nature of projects and funding we must also consider and document cost savings and cost added. Presentation Phase The team develops a presentation to be given after the final day of the study to the project team and other project stakeholders, such as Project owners and managers, and other agencies.

VE Study Attendees TH 7 at Louisiana Ave. Interchange

2010 August NAME ORGANIZATION POSITION/DISCIPLINE

TELEPHONE Office Cell

E-MAIL 10 11 12 13

Don Owings HDR Team Leader/Facilitation (503) 423-3856 (360) 601-3061

[email protected]

Blane Long HDR Co-Facilitator/Geometrics (360) 570-4411 (360) 742-7682

[email protected]

Minnie Milkert Mn/DOT State Value Engineer (651) 366-4648

[email protected]

Mark Dierling SEH Principal/Project Manager (651) 765-2953 (612) 819-1871

[email protected]

Nick Haltvick Mn/DOT Bridge Engineer (651) 366-4512

[email protected]

Hossana Teklyes Mn/DOT Assistant Foundation Engineer(651) 366-5497

[email protected]

Mike Rardin City of Saint Louis Park Public Works Director (952) 924-2551 (612) 708-7278

[email protected]

Brian Kelly Mn/DOT Water Resources (651) 234-7536

[email protected]

Jim Olson City of Saint Louis Park Project Manager (952) 924-2552 (612) 750-0404

[email protected]




E-MAIL 10 11 12 13

Bill Gregg AECOM Environmental Consulting (651) 367-2328 (952) 412-8066

[email protected]

Diane Colton Mn/DOT Traffic

[email protected]

Ken Johnson Mn/DOT Traffic (651) 234-7386

[email protected]

April Crockett Mn/DOT West Area Engineer (651) 234-7727

[email protected]

Steve Barrett Mn/DOT GV Construction Resident Engineer

(651) 234-5132

[email protected]

Derrick Dasenbrock Mn/DOT Geometrics Engineer (651) 366-5597 (651)338-6881

[email protected]

Brian Hogge FHWA Program Operations Team Leader

(651) 291-6114

[email protected]

Ryan Coddington Mn/DOT West Area Traffic Engineer (651) 234-7841

[email protected]

Scott Brunk City of St. Louis Park City Engineer (952) 924-2687

[email protected]




E-MAIL 10 11 12 13

Nancy Yoo Mn/DOT Director - Design Services Section

(851) 366-4703

[email protected]

1

Value Engineering Study

August 10th thru August 13th, 2010

TH 7Louisiana Avenue Interchange

SP 2706-226

Value Engineering Team

• Steve Barrett, Mn/DOT

• Diane Colton, Mn/DOT

• April Crockett, Mn/DOT

• Derrick Dasenbrock Mn/DOT

• Mike Rardin, City of Saint Louis Park

• Hossana Teklyes, Mn/DOT

• Derrick Dasenbrock, Mn/DOT

• Nick Haltvick, Mn/DOT

• Ken Johnson, Mn/DOT

• Brian Kelly, Mn/DOT

• Blane Long, HDR

• Minnie Milkert, Mn/DOT

• Jim Olson, City of Saint Louis , yPark

• Don Owings, HDR

2

Project DescriptionThe purpose of the proposed TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue Interchange project is to address deteriorating safety and operational conditions at the TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue intersection. The proposed project removes the existing at-grade signalized intersection and replaces it with a grade-the existing at grade signalized intersection and replaces it with a gradeseparated interchange.

Project Description

3

Team Objective

The primary objectives for this study include:

• Conduct a thorough review and analysis of the key project issues using a multidiscipline, cross-functional team

• Review and improve the proposed design by focusing on:

– Improving mobility and reducing the conflicts of vehicular and non-vehicular traffic.

– Minimizing impacts to existing developments and enhancing opportunities for future development/redevelopment.

• Apply the principles and practices of the VE Job Plan.Apply the principles and practices of the VE Job Plan.

• Must accommodate pedestrians and bike traffic – both temporary & permanent

• Avoid Louisiana Oaks apartment complex

Constraints/Controlling Decisions

Avoid Louisiana Oaks apartment complex

• Avoid Sam’s club

• Must close RIRO access at/near RR bridge upon project completion

• Mar 2012 funding obligation date.

• Nov 2011 Letting date.

• Minimize ROW impact/acquisition

• Minimize excavation (high potential of contaminated soils)

4

• Minimize excavation (high potential of contaminated soils)

• EA process just starting – draft document out by Oct 2010

Constraints/Controlling Decisions

• Must mitigate impacts to flood plain – no net increase in 100 yr flood elevation.

• Strong desire to not impact pump station and medical offices along Lake Street

• Strong desire to not impact medical offices along Walker Street

• Avoid impact to 4f.

• Desire to minimize impacts in SW quadrant of IC

Value Engineering has traditionally been perceived as an effective means for reducing project costs. This paradigm only addresses one part of the value equation, often times at the expense of overlooking h l h VE l i h d i i j


the role that VE can play with regard to improving project performance.

•Mainline Operations•Local Operations•Maintainability •Construction Impacts•Environmental Impacts•Project Schedule (VE To Letting)•Risk

5


A A/B A A A/E F A 5.0 18%Mainline Operations

PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTE MATRIXTH 7 at Louisiana Ave. Interchange

Which attribute is more important to the project? TOTAL %

B B B B/E F B 5.0 18%

C C C/E F C 3.5 13%

D E F G 1.0 4%

E F E 4.5 16%

F F 7.0 25%

Local Operations

Maintainability



Project Schedule

A More Important G 2.0 7%

A/B Equally Important 28.0 100%

Risks

j

Recommendation # 1a – Ground Improvements

6

Recommendation # 1b – Lightweight Fill

Recommendation # 1c – Pile Supported Embankment

7

Recommendation # 2 – Reinforced Slopes

Recommendation # 3– Single Lane Roundabouts

8

Recommendation # 4 – Remove Median on Louisiana Ave.

Eliminate curbed median and use stripe

Recommendation # 5a – Tight Urban Diamond I/C

9

Recommendation # 5b – Single Point Roundabout I/C

Validation # 1 – 3-Span Structure

10

Validation # 2 – Cul-de-sac Frontage Road

Validation # 3 – Raise Profile of Louisiana & TH 7

11

Other Items – Construction Staging


• Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC)

• MSE Walls

• Lower hill between Texas and Louisiana to acquire• Lower hill between Texas and Louisiana to acquire material for embankment

• Twin Bridges in lieu of single bridge

• Bridge Type

• Use concrete on roundabouts

12

Recommendation Summary



# Description Cost

Savings Performance Improvement

1a Ground Improvements $2.4 M 9%

1b Lightweight Fill $2.2 M -2%

1c Pile Supported Fill $2.5 M 6%

2 Reinforced Slopes $1.1 M 7%

3 Single Lane Roundabouts $0.5 M 11%

4 Remove median on Louisiana Ave. $0.1 M 6%

5a Tight Urban Diamond Interchange $1.5 M 7%

5b Single Point Roundabout Interchange (SPRI) $0.3 M 21%

Total $3.9 M to $5.1M +7% to +11%





# Description Cost

Savings Cost

Savings Cost

Savings






4 R di L i i A $0 1 M $0 1 M $0 1 M4 Remove median on Louisiana Ave. $0.1 M $0.1 M $0.1 M


5b Single Point Roundabout Interchange (SPRI)

$0.3 M

Total $4.1 M $5.1 M $3.9 M

13

Questions

Value Engineering Recommendation Approval Form

Project: Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange

VE Study Date: August 10-13, 2010 FHWA Functional Benefit

Recommendation Approved

Y/N S

afet

y

Ope

ratio

ns

Env

ironm

ent

Con

stru

ctio

n

Oth

er

VE Team Estimated Cost Avoidance or Cost Added

Actual Estimated Cost Avoidance or Cost Added

1a Ground Improvements $2.4 M $

1b Lightweight Fill $2.2 M $

1c Pile Supported Fill $2.5 M $

2 Reinforced Slopes $1.1 M $

3 Single Lane Roundabouts $0.5 M $

4 Remove Median on Louisiana Avenue $0.1 M $

5a Tight Urban Diamond Interchange $1.5 M $

5b Single Point Roundabout Interchange $0.3 M $

Totals $ 3.9 M to $5.1 M $ M

Please provide justification if the value engineering study recommendations are not approved or are implemented in a modified form.

Mn/DOT is required to report Value Engineering results annually to FHWA. To facilitate this reporting requirement, a Value Engineering Recommendation Approval Form is included in the Appendix of this report. If the region elects to reject or modify a recommendation, please include a brief explanation of why. Please complete the form and return it to Minnie Milkert, Mn/DOT State Value Engineer, MS 696 _____________________________________ __________________

Signature Project Manager Date _____________________________________ Name (please print) FHWA Functional Benefit Criteria Each year, State DOT’s are required to report on VE recommendations to FHWA. In addition to cost implications, FHWA requires the DOT’s to evaluate each approved recommendation in terms of the project feature or features that recommendation benefits. If a specific recommendation can be shown to provide benefit to more than one feature described below, count the recommendation in each category that is applicable Safety: Recommendations that mitigate or reduce hazards on the facility Operations: Recommendations that improve real-time service and/or local, corridor, or regional levels of service of the facility. Environment: Recommendations that successfully avoid or mitigate impacts to natural and or cultural resources. Construction: Recommendations that improve work zone conditions, or expedite the project delivery. Other: Recommendations not readily categorized by the above performance indicators.

Documents

Value Engineering Study Report - SEH® TH 7 VE Study Report.pdf · Access. Key secondary functions include Remove Access and Stage Construction. Analysis of ... Value Engineering