Value Engineering Study and Risk Assessment Highway 7 New - Kitchener to Guelph

Presentation Outline Project Background Value Engineering and Cost Risk Analysis Study Outcomes

Key Plan

Highway 7 – Background Highway 7 is a congested 2-lane highway (AADT 21,000 - 32,000) Planning study commenced in 1989 Individual EA submitted in 1997 EA resubmitted in 2002 Individual EA approval obtained in March 2007 for an 18 km long, 4-lane freeway, following a new alignment generally north of and parallel to existing Highway 7

Value Engineering Study Largest single VE study ever undertaken by MTO VE Team jointly lead by Marshall Macklin Monaghan (MMM Group) and iTrans Additional members from: Faithful+Gould, MACTEC, Davis-Langdon, WCS, Thurber, Human Factors North, HCi, and MTO Site visit and information meeting was held April 2007 Safety Audit of base case undertaken pre-study. Value Engineering Study completed in Kitchener April 30 to May 4, 2007. VE Team presentation to MTO Senior Management held May 15, 2007. Focused 5 days on workshop. Split pre/post activities as concerned over maximizing time for workshop.

VE Scope The EA approved alignment was assessed The Study Team generated 212 ideas (of which 56 were developed) in eight Target Areas and evaluated using seven Performance Measures

Value Target Areas Team identified 8 Target Areas Kitchener-Waterloo Freeway to Freeway Interchange Grand River Bridge and Bridge Street Regional Road 17 Interchange Regional Road 30 Interchange County Road 86 Interchange Highway 6 Interchange Sideroads Mainline

Performance Measures Team Developed 7 Performance Measures Weight Safety (collisions) 22 Human Factors (predictability, signs, geometry) 17 Traffic Operations (v/c, weaving, queuing) 19 Access (interchange access, local road across) 13 Sustainability (environmental, growth) 12 Constructability (staging complexity, resources, access) 8 Maintainability (structures, roadway cross-section) 8

VE Ideas

VE Scenarios Of the 56 ideas evaluated in detail, 29 were developed into VE alternatives. The VE Team grouped these alternatives into 5 Scenarios based on function or impact. Scenario 1 - Minimal Improvements Scenario 2 - Minimal Improvements with various interchanges deferred Scenario 3 - Moderate Improvements with Roundabouts Scenario 4 - Moderate Improvements Scenario 5 - Reduced Expenditure / Constrained Funding

VE Conclusions Scenarios 1-5 had performance benefits over the base case. 29 VE Proposals were used to develop numerous other scenarios. 30 VE Design Suggestions were generated for consideration during preliminary and detail design.

Implementation Plan VE team developed 29 individual alternatives and packaged them into an Implementation Plan to Senior Management. Implementation of some alternatives are considered a substantive change to the approved EA. It will be necessary to prepare an addendum to the TESR to document the changes and obtain environmental approval from MOE. The alternatives from the VE Study that were recommended for implementation are currently being evaluated for performance and cost benefits.

Risk Assessment “No construction project is risk free. Risk can be managed, minimized, shared, transferred, or simply accepted, but it can not be ignored.” C.R.I. Clayton, 2001. “Managing Risk”

Cost Risk Analysis Objectives: Review MTO concept base construction estimate Incorporate latest property estimate Review schedule Identify constraints to schedule Quantify risks as to likelihood of occurrence and impact in terms of $ and extended project duration Discuss possible mitigation reduce, avoid and / or transfer risks

Process Risk identification (completed concurrently with the VE Study) Pre workshop ‘Top Risk’ questionnaire issued to VE team Risk analyst compiled draft risk register Risk analyst built schedule and cost model ‘base case’ working with VE / MTO team Risk analyst identified constraints to schedule with VE team Draft risk register circulated to VE team for confirmation / comments on risks identified – risk register updated Production of risk analysis, summary and report

Cost Risk Analysis Grand River Bridge Issues Material price volatility Greatest Risks to Projects Cost and Schedule Grand River Bridge Issues Material price volatility Market forces/number of bidders Escalation Environmental Mitigation Relocation of Utilities Variability in earthwork quantities Complex KWE structures

Project Schedule Constraints Key Project Constraints identified as: In-water timing restrictions Bird nesting season – impacts tree clearance in wetlands Winter work – impacts paving and influences structure and earthworks construction Wetlands clearance – requires special protective measures and consultation River crossings – requires detailed consultation with First Nations Funding Availability – impacts phasing of project Minimizing traffic impact during construction Reducing Rail impact – CN under-bridge construction

Top Risks from Risk Register

Top Risks from Risk Register

Study Outcomes - Where are we now? Implementation Plan endorsed by MTO Sr. Mgmt. 2 engineering assignments currently underway. MMM Group developing VE recommendations within a Preliminary Design/Detail Design assignment. Thurber Engineering undertaking a Foundation and Pavement Field investigation. Property Request to be available in early 2009.

Study Benefits New perspective on study New PM had no ownership Risk analysis (cost/schedule)