1. CEM-512 Value Engineering Highway Project: South Interchange

2. CEM-512 Value Engineering Presentation Outline I.Introduction II.VE Job Plan III.Critique

3. CEM-512 Value Engineering  Connect Two Major Interstate Routes:  Northbound  Westbound  Construct and tunnel Northbound Interstate under the Main Railroad Tracks and East-West Interstate  Estimated Cost $ 1 Billion Project Summary Part I: Introduction

4. CEM-512 Value Engineering VE Study Objectives  Optimization of Cost Impact of Design Methods Decisions  Simplification of Highway System  Achievement of Grade Raise for Northbound Interstate Deep-tunnel Section

5. CEM-512 Value Engineering VE Team Chart

6. CEM-512 Value Engineering VE Team Achievements  Conducted 40-hour Task Team Study  Developed Cost/Worth Model  Generated 30 Creative Ideas, from which 10 Proposals and 5 Design Comments selected Proposals and 5 Design Comments selected For Further Evaluation & Development For Further Evaluation & Development

7. CEM-512 Value Engineering Principle Proposals  Elimination of Ramps A & B, Portion of Main Street, and Modification of Ramp C  Raising Profile of Major Northbound Interstate  Elimination of Ramp D  Review of Design of Local Channel Crossing and Elevating East-West Interstate over Channel

8. CEM-512 Value Engineering Principle Proposals (Cont ….)  Changing Structural Design Criteria for Elevated Structures.  Using Steel Sheet Piling in lieu of Slurry Walls  Using Strength & Load Factor Design Methods in lieu of Working Strength

9. CEM-512 Value Engineering VE Study Results  Initial Cost Savings $ 200 Millions  Follow-on Savings Estimates $ 3 Millions to $5 Millions each year, depending on alternative chosen for final design

10. CEM-512 Value Engineering Part II: VE Job Plan Information Speculation Evaluation Development Implementation

11. CEM-512 Value Engineering Cost/Worth Model Information Phase

12. CEM-512 Value Engineering Summary of Cost/Worth Model Poor Value Item Cost ($ MM) Worth ($ MM) Main Lines N-S326.63163.56 Main Lines E-W520.08397.95 Ramp A64.730 Ramp B5.350 Ramp C31.1820 Ramp E46.530 Ramp F138.6495

13. CEM-512 Value Engineering No. Proposal Description Initial Cost Saving ($M) Annual O&M Cost Saving ($M) Total PW Cost Saving ($M) C-1 Eliminate Ramp A 64,730064,730 C-2 Eliminate Ramp D 11,100011,100 C-3 Eliminate Main St. Over- crossing 9,13009,130 C-6 Raise Profile of N-S Interstate 69,4001,00079,400 Summary Potential Cost Savings

14. CEM-512 Value Engineering No.Description Initial Cost Saving ($M) Annual O&M Cost Saving ($M) Total PW Cost Saving ($M) C-10 Combine Ramps E & C 26,000026,000 C-11 Eliminate Ramp B 4,35004,350 C-12 Delete Main St. Connector 8000800 C-19 Elevate East-West Interstate over Channel & Railroad Yard 145,4002,000165,400 Summary Potential Cost Savings (Cont … )

15. CEM-512 Value Engineering No.Description Initial Cost Saving ($M) Annual O&M Cost Saving ($M) Total PW Cost Saving ($M) S-1 Review Channel Crossing Design Comment S-2 Change Structural Design Criteria for Elevated Structure Design Comment S-3 Use of Steel Sheet Piling in lieu of Slurry Wall 29,400N/A29,400 S-4 Use of Strength & Load Factor Design Methods in lieu of Working Strength 45,600N/A45,600 Summary Potential Cost Savings (Cont … )

16. CEM-512 Value Engineering

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

18. CEM-512 Value Engineering C-1 Eliminate Ramp A First Function Connect Westbound Interstate to Northbound Interstate  Original Part Scope Construct Ramp A under Local Road and Construct Ramp A under Local Road and Main Railroad Tracks and tunneling under railroad (undesirable and costly)  Alternative Eliminate Ramp A and Make Traffic using Local Avenue to Northbound Interstate Eliminate Ramp A and Make Traffic using Local Avenue to Northbound Interstate

19. CEM-512 Value Engineering Part II: VE Job Plan (Cont … ) Information Speculation Evaluation Development Implementation

20. CEM-512 Value Engineering No. Idea Description AdvantagesDisadvantages 1 Eliminate Ramp A, Use alternate Route Reduces Cost. Simplifies Left Exit. Avoids Long Tunnel under Railroad. Avoids Tunnel behind Sea wall Eliminates Free- Flow Ramp. Eliminates alternate Route if local avenue is congested Alternative Eliminate Ramp A and Make Traffic using Local Avenue to Northbound Interstate C-1 Eliminate Ramp A

21. CEM-512 Value Engineering Part II: VE Job Plan (Cont … ) Information Speculation Evaluation Development Implementation

22. CEM-512 Value Engineering Item Idea Description BeforeAfterSavingsTradeoff C-1 Eliminate Ramp A 64.7064.7(6.5%) Eliminates emergency alternate LCC Savings will be achieved through elimination of tunnel ventilation, lighting and maintenance costs for 2,000 foot long tunnel and the total potential saving is estimated at $ 64.7 Million or 6.5 % of Total Project VE Cost Comparison ($MM): C-1 Eliminate Ramp A Life Cycle Cost:

23. CEM-512 Value Engineering Part II: VE Job Plan (Cont … ) Information Speculation Evaluation Development Implementation

24. CEM-512 Value Engineering 1)Department of Public Works feels that successful highway design must include movement from the west on E-W Interstate to the north on N-S Interstate in order to facilitate commercial activity 2)Because of implementation of another proposal that recommends raising N-S Interstate Profile, more direct and less expensive connection was made C-1 Eliminate Ramp A

25. CEM-512 Value Engineering

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

27. CEM-512 Value Engineering C-6 Raise Profile of Northbound Interstate Second Function Carry Northbound Interstate  Original Part Scope Construct Northbound Interstate under Construct Northbound Interstate under Main Railroad Tracks  Alternatives 1)Raise Profile of Northbound Interstate over Railroad and East-West Interstate 2)Reroute Ramp C, combining with Ramp E

28. CEM-512 Value Engineering Part II: VE Job Plan (Cont … ) Information Speculation Evaluation Development Implementation

29. CEM-512 Value Engineering Alternative 1: Raise Profile of Northbound Interstate over Railroad and East-West Interstate C-6 Raise Profile of Northbound Interstate No. Idea Description AdvantagesDisadvantages 1 Raise Profile to pass over Railroad and E-W Interstate Reduces Cost. Easier/Faster to Construct Reduces Vent. Req. Permits Lower Profile for adjacent Northbound Interstate Elevated Structure Eliminates Two Local Streets. Reroute Two Ramps.

30. CEM-512 Value Engineering C-6 Raise Profile of Northbound Interstate Alternative 2: Reroute Ramp C, combining with Ramp E No. Idea Description AdvantagesDisadvantages 2 Reroute Ramp C, Combining with Ramp E Maintains Access, But Longer Distance. Avoids Conflict with Northbound Interstate Longer Ramp.

31. CEM-512 Value Engineering Part II: VE Job Plan (Cont … ) Information Speculation Evaluation Development Implementation

32. CEM-512 Value Engineering C-6 Raise Profile of Northbound Interstate VE Cost Comparison ($MM): No. Idea Description BeforeAfterSavingsTradeoffs C-6 Raise Profile of Northbound Interstate $ 105 MM 36.2MM $ 69.4 MM Remove Some Ramps (B, C & E) & Main Streets Life Cycle Cost: LCC Savings will be achieved through elimination of adjacent streets Northbound, main street, and Ramp B, and combination of Ramps C & E. Total potential saving is estimated at $ 69.4 Million or 6.9 % of Total Project

33. CEM-512 Value Engineering Part II: VE Job Plan (Cont … ) Information Speculation Evaluation Development Implementation

34. CEM-512 Value Engineering 1)Department of Public Works concurs with this recommendation 2)Although Main Street connection between Frontage Road & Albany Street is desirable and Main Street connection to Frontage Road would enhance design potential, savings realized is significant enough to warrant its approval C-6 Raise Profile of Northbound Interstate

35. CEM-512 Value Engineering

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

37. CEM-512 Value Engineering S-4 Use Of Strength & Load Factor Design Methods  USE OF LOAD FACTOR DESIGN METHOD FOR SIZING CONCRETE STRUCTURE Savings = $ 16.8 Million  USE OF STRENGTH DESIGN METHOD FOR SIZING REINFORCEMENT Savings = $ 24.2 Million  USE OF LOAD FACTOR DESIGN METHOD FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL Savings = $ 4.6 Million Total Savings = $ 45.6 Millions

38. CEM-512 Value Engineering Part II: VE Job Plan (Cont … ) Information Speculation Evaluation Development Implementation

39. CEM-512 Value Engineering S-4 Use Of Strength & Load Factor Design Methods 1)Department of Public Works concurs with this requirement for all Bridge Structures whether steel or concrete 2)Use of Load Factor vs. Working Strength for Tunnel is currently under Review, although all indications suggest that Working Stress Design is favored 3)Department of Public Works has established that Working Stress Design will be used for Buildings

40. CEM-512 Value Engineering Part III: Case Study Critique 1)Lack Of Project Information Such As Size, Location, Purpose ….Etc 2)Inadequacy In Drawings And Specifications 3)Lack Of Explanation Of Why Certain Proposals Were Undertaken 4)Incomplete Picture Of The Remaining Accepted Proposals

41. CEM-512 Value Engineering THANK YOU