ABC POLICY DEVELOPMENT IOWA DOT Norman McDonald, PE Iowa Department of Transportation Office of Bridges and Structures MID-CONTINENT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
County of Fairfax, Virginia Department of Transportation Review and Discussion of Draft Scope of Work for Study of Issues Associated with Increasing Transportation.
Advertisements

CM/CG Contracting Tom Ravn, Mn/DOT Director, Office of Construction and Innovative Contracting.
Structural Design Program Review Massachusetts Department of Transportation September 20-23, 2011.
CMGC Contracting at UDOT Program, Projects & Lessons Learned
Tracy Lovell, PE A FOCUSED APPROACH TO SAFETY. Provide a Transportation System  Safe  Efficient  Environmentally Sound  Fiscally Responsible.
 Sandra Q. Larson, Iowa Department of Transportation.
Wisconsin Transportation Finance and Policy Commission Freight Rail Day 2012 October 26, 2012.
1 This document and its contents are the property of The University of Iowa’s Public Policy Center National Evaluation of a Mileage- Based Road User Charge.
December 10, 2014 Highway Maintenance and Preservation Needs WSDOT Can Provide Reliable Long-Term Pavement Estimates, but Accuracy of Bridge Estimates.
Utah’s Use of CMGC & Project Delivery
Environmental Assessment Public Meeting
Title Subtitle Meeting Date Office of Transportation Performance Management MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century Performance Management.
Airport Planning. errata Traditional forecasting techniques are still in play, but are considered archaic. US airlines are focused on international travel.
3/10/2010 March 2010 ABC Pooled Fund Study TAC Teleconference 1.
MULTI-STATE ABC DECISION TOOL AND ECONOMIC MODELING Toni Doolen, PhD August 2011 School of Mechanical, Industrial, and Manufacturing Engineering Oregon.
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Interstate 81 Bridges over Route 80 Design-Build Project (PIN , D900023) Town of Tully, Onondaga County.
Spring 2008, King Saud University Engineering Administration Dr. Khalid Al-Gahtani 1 What is a Project? “A Project is a one-shot, time-limited, goal- directed,
Colorado: Planning and Environmental Linkages Integrated Planning Work Group Peer Exchange Washington, DC – January 27, 2009.
Determining Innovative Contracting Methods to Reduce User Costs Stuart Thompson Utah Technology Transfer Center.
Getting More Value from All Highway Data FHWA’s Current Initiatives and Future Plans Presented at Data System Requirements and Gaps to Support Restructuring.
THEN and NOW Lessons Learned with Process Change and Management Evaluation in the State of Pennsylvania August 2014.
Safety Project Request received by TDOT Safety Project Request sent to RSAR Coordinator Safety Planning Office completes Letter of Findings for internal.
Driving Indiana’s Economic Growth. Management and Preservation of Indiana's Historic Bridges: A Programmatic Approach Thanks to Mead & Hunt & FHWA-IN.
Presented to: Presented by: Transportation leadership you can trust. FTC Expressway Authority Cost Savings Study Florida Transportation Commission Expressway.
Old Policy – which no one ever seem to have heard of.
U.S Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration MAP-21 Moving Ahead with Progress in the 21 st Century Linking.
Enosburg BRO 1448(40) Bridge 48 on TH 2 Over the Tyler Branch Alternatives Presentation.
Economic Analysis: Applications to Work Zones March 25, 2004.
© 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved. COUNCIL BLUFFS INTERSTATE SYSTEM MODEL Jon Markt Source: FHWA.
MnDOT-ACEC Annual Conference March 5,  Capital planning and programming at MnDOT  Major considerations  A more transparent and collaborative.
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 26 Schedule.
Technical Manager; Bechtel Oil, Gas & Chemicals.
SHRP 2 - FIRST DEMO PROJECT KEG CREEK, IOWA R04 – “BRIDGE DESIGNS FOR RAPID RENEWAL” Sandra Larson, P.E. Iowa Department of Transportation Research and.
VIRGINIA’S IMPLEMENTATION of the FINAL RULE on WORK ZONE SAFETY and MOBILITY Virginia Department of Transportation’s Instructional and Informational Memorandum-LD-241.
Smart Growth Implementation Assistance Montgomery County, MD Fact Sheet More about Smart Growth at Preliminary Project.
Beyond the Crossroads National Conference on Transportation Infrastructure and Regulatory Policy May 27, Denver, CO Future Infrastructure Needs,
Project Scoping Fundamentals Alan Lively Project Delivery Specialist Local Government Section April 6, 2010.
1 Approaches for Integrating Systems Engineering into Your Agency’s Business Practices Presented by: Amy Tang McElwain August 2, 2007 Talking Technology.
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Superstructure and Bridge Replacements in Regions 2 & 9 Design-Build Project (PIN , D900022) Herkimer,
Virginia Department of Education May 8, English Language Proficiency Targets: Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) 2.
RESTRUCTURING PROPOSAL
Transportation Planning Process Freight Transportation Planning Workshop July 11, 2001.
NC State University Center for Urban Affairs and Community Services.
Webinar Texas Department of Transportation : Costs Associated with Conversion of Surfaced to Un-Surfaced Roads August 30, 2012.
Managing a Research Program from Various Funding Sources Sandra Larson, P.E. Research and Technology (R & T) Bureau Director Iowa Department of Transportation.
House Concurrent Resolution 171 (2010) Levee District Oversight Planning Study Report to the Senate and House Committees on Transportation, Highways, and.
Forecasting and Evaluating Network Growth David Levinson Norah Montes de Oca Feng Xie.
Enosburg BRO 1448(40) Bridge 48 on TH 2 Over the Tyler Branch Public Information Meeting.
MnDOT Flash Flood Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessment Pilot Project January 2015.
RATE OF DETERIORATION OF BRIDGESAND PAVEMENTS AS AFFECTED BYTRUCKS RATE OF DETERIORATION OF BRIDGES AND PAVEMENTS AS AFFECTED BY TRUCKS Terry Swygert South.
Presented By: Jeffrey T. Folden, P.E. Assistant Chief, Innovative Contracting Division.
1 Bridge Inspection Program Department of Transportation Legislative Audit Bureau September 2007.
D.d. delivers district department of transportation d.d. delivers FAISAL HAMEED RONALDO T. NICHOLSON. P.E. Innovative Project Delivery Processes Innovative.
Utah Research Benefits Value of Research Taskforce July 29, 2015 Cameron Kergaye Utah Department of Transportation.
Abstract Background Methodology Methods While the project is in the data-collection and background research phase, there are several studies that utilize.
Justin Hardee, P.E. Lee County Engineer.  ALDOT Policy  Construction Process  Status  Lee County’s Bridge Inventory  2010 Bond Issuance for Bridges.
INCORPORATING INCOME INTO TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING Brent Spence Bridge Case Study October 13, 2015.
Lead Agency Viability Assessment Consistent with OPPAGA Report 04-65, DCF contracted with FMHI to assist in the design and implementation of a centralized.
Project Cost Estimating Improvement Actions, Results and Trends CTC Briefing March 16, 2006.
Seminar on the Evolution of National Statistical Systems Panel Discussion: Prospects and Risks for the Future: How to Manage Uncertainties? Eduardo Pereira.
1 Perspectives on Collaboration Presentation to Travel Demand Modelling in the GTHA Organizational Structure and Regional Collaboration Systems Analysis.
Creating Dynamic Value: Program Marketing and Two-Tiered Solicitation and Selection TRB Representatives / Annual RAC Meeting July 22-26, 2012.
Safety Data Initiatives in Reauthorization – What Can We Expect? Kathy Krause, FHWA Office of Safety 30 th Annual International Traffic Records Forum July.
Office of Major Project Development (OMPD) Overview November 2015.
Border Master Plan Laredo, Texas July 28, 2010  Laredo District  Coahuila  Nuevo León  Tamaulipas.
AASHTO CV/AV RESEARCH NCHRP (98) NCHRP
Addressing Freight in the Planning and Programming Process presented by Jim Brogan Cambridge Systematics, Inc. July 11, 2001 FHWA Freight Planning Workshop.
Transportation Revenue Sources Presentation to the Discovery Institute October 6, 2004 Amy Arnis Deputy Director Strategic Planning and Programming Washington.
Road Investment Decision Framework
Overcoming Barriers to Implement Research Projects
Presentation transcript:

ABC POLICY DEVELOPMENT IOWA DOT Norman McDonald, PE Iowa Department of Transportation Office of Bridges and Structures MID-CONTINENT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM STRUCTURES/CONSTRUCTION SESSION 2D AUGUST 15, 2013

Iowa’s ABC Experience Develop skills and design details through demonstration projects Invest in research with laboratory and field testing to confirm constructability and performance. Participate in national pooled fund studies Involve local construction industry and hold ABC workshops.

ABC Policy Development Goal is to create a statewide policy to determine when ABC should be used. Assembled a team of engineers from Project Delivery Bureau, Districts, Research, and FHWA along with representatives from Highway Division Management Team (HDMT). Also included industry representatives. Goal was to have a draft by July 2012

ABC Policy Development Conducted a survey of State DOTs Collected and reviewed all available policies Discussed the development of the policy with other states, FHWA staff, and national experts at various conferences and workshops Collaborated with neighboring states and hosted a regional policy forum Visited a State DOT with established experience in ABC

ABC Policy The Iowa ABC policy utilizes two decision making tools : –ABC Rating Score & Flow Chart similar to Utah as a first level filter –AHP Decision Making Tool as a second level confirmation and further evaluation of alternatives.

Calculate ABC Rating Score First-Stage Filter: Use First-Stage Decision Making Flowchart Second-Stage Decision Making: Use the ABC AHP Tool Project Delivery Concurrence Develop ABC Concept Alternative(s) and Estimate Costs Develop Traditional Alternatives and Costs Concept Team Recommended Alternatives Concept Selection and Statewide Prioritization Yes No  Determine Tier of Acceleration  OBS recommends ABC options based on Tier of Acceleration  MDT reviews OBS recommendations Yes No ABC Decision Process Flowchart

ABC Rating Score Concept Measures Measures are limited to data that are readily available in NBI database and can be programmed to calculate a Rating Score: Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) Out-of-Distance Travel (miles) Daily Road User Costs Economy of Scale (total number of spans)

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) Use a value equal to the total number of vehicles on the bridge plus 25% of the AADT for any roadways under the bridge. 0No traffic impacts 1Less than to less than 10, ,000 to less than 15, ,000 to less than 20, ,000 or more

Out-of Distance Travel (miles) This is a measure of the impact that a project has on vehicles when the construction site is closed to traffic. 0No detour 1Less than 5 25 to less than to less than to less than or more

Daily Road User Costs Is the measure of daily financial impact of a construction project on the traveling public. Major contributing factors are out of distance travel (OOD) and AADT on the bridge. The standard method used for calculating user costs is the formula: DRUC=(AADT+2xADTT)xOODxMileage Rate The mileage rate is currently set at 37.5 cents per mile. Truck traffic (ADTT) is counted at three times the amount of other traffic.

Daily Road User Costs 0No user costs 1Less than $10,000 2$10,000 to less than $50,000 3$50,000 to less than $75,000 4$75,000 to less than $100,000 5$100,000 or more

Economy of Scale (number of spans) Accounts for the repetition of elements and processes, and how they relate to cost, as well as possible savings to future projects. Number of spans is used to account for repetition of substructure elements and superstructure elements. 01 span 12 or 3 spans 24 or 5 spans 36 spans or more

MeasuresScoreWeight Factor Weighted Score Maximum Score Weighted Maximum Score Average Annual Daily Traffic Out of Distance Travel Daily Road User Costs Economy of Scale Total Score120Max Score165 ABC Rating Score(Total Score/Max Score)x100= 73 ABC RATING SCORE FACTORS AND WEIGHTS

Calculate ABC Rating Score First-Stage Filter: Use First-Stage Decision Making Flowchart Second-Stage Decision Making: Use the ABC AHP Tool Project Delivery Concurrence Develop ABC Concept Alternative(s) and Estimate Costs Develop Traditional Alternatives and Costs Concept Team Recommended Alternatives Concept Selection and Statewide Prioritization Yes No  Determine Tier of Acceleration  OBS recommends ABC options based on Tier of Acceleration  MDT reviews OBS recommendations Yes No ABC Decision Process Flowchart

ABC Rating Score Less than 50 Perform ABC AHP Analysis for Second-Stage Decision Making Use Traditional Construction ABC Rating Score 50 to 100 Does the Project Concept Team want the project to undergo further ABC evaluation? No Yes Does the project support an ABC approach based on OBS, District, and possibly others’ evaluation? No Yes District requests further review for ABC? No Yes No First-Stage Decision Making Flowchart

Calculate ABC Rating Score First-Stage Filter: Use First-Stage Decision Making Flowchart Second-Stage Decision Making: Use the ABC AHP Tool Project Delivery Concurrence Develop ABC Concept Alternative(s) and Estimate Costs Develop Traditional Alternatives and Costs Concept Team Recommended Alternatives Concept Selection and Statewide Prioritization Yes No  Determine Tier of Acceleration  OBS recommends ABC options based on Tier of Acceleration  MDT reviews OBS recommendations Yes No ABC Decision Process Flowchart

AHP Criteria Organization 19

Criteria  A decision maker can insert or eliminate levels and elements as necessary to sharpen the focus on one or more parts of the analysis. Less important criteria and sub-criteria can be dropped from further consideration. New Sub-Criteria

AHP Analysis Details Comparisons between criteria and between sub-criteria are performed using data from actual measurements or using a qualitative scale Direct Costs Site Constraints Indirect Costs Schedule Constraints Direct Costs

AHP Analysis Details Comparisons are also used to assess the extent to which one alternative satisfies a criteria over another alternative. Alt B Alt A Alt B Direct Costs Indirect Costs

23Results

Calculate ABC Rating Score First-Stage Filter: Use First-Stage Decision Making Flowchart Second-Stage Decision Making: Use the ABC AHP Tool Project Delivery Concurrence Develop ABC Concept Alternative(s) and Estimate Costs Develop Traditional Alternatives and Costs Concept Team Recommended Alternatives Concept Selection and Statewide Prioritization Yes No  Determine Tier of Acceleration  OBS recommends ABC options based on Tier of Acceleration  MDT reviews OBS recommendations Yes No ABC Decision Process Flowchart

Calculate ABC Rating Score First-Stage Filter: Use First-Stage Decision Making Flowchart Second-Stage Decision Making: Use the ABC AHP Tool Project Delivery Concurrence Develop ABC Concept Alternative(s) and Estimate Costs Develop Traditional Alternatives and Costs Concept Team Recommended Alternatives Concept Selection and Statewide Prioritization Yes No  Determine Tier of Acceleration  OBS recommends ABC options based on Tier of Acceleration  MDT reviews OBS recommendations Yes No ABC Decision Process Flowchart

Calculate ABC Rating Score First-Stage Filter: Use First-Stage Decision Making Flowchart Second-Stage Decision Making: Use the ABC AHP Tool Project Delivery Concurrence Develop ABC Concept Alternative(s) and Estimate Costs Develop Traditional Alternatives and Costs Concept Team Recommended Alternatives Concept Selection and Statewide Prioritization Yes No  Determine Tier of Acceleration  OBS recommends ABC options based on Tier of Acceleration  MDT reviews OBS recommendations Yes No ABC Decision Process Flowchart

Calculate ABC Rating Score First-Stage Filter: Use First-Stage Decision Making Flowchart Second-Stage Decision Making: Use the ABC AHP Tool Project Delivery Concurrence Develop ABC Concept Alternative(s) and Estimate Costs Develop Traditional Alternatives and Costs Concept Team Recommended Alternatives Concept Selection and Statewide Prioritization Yes No  Determine Tier of Acceleration  OBS recommends ABC options based on Tier of Acceleration  MDT reviews OBS recommendations Yes No ABC Decision Process Flowchart

Calculate ABC Rating Score First-Stage Filter: Use First-Stage Decision Making Flowchart Second-Stage Decision Making: Use the ABC AHP Tool Project Delivery Concurrence Develop ABC Concept Alternative(s) and Estimate Costs Develop Traditional Alternatives and Costs Concept Team Recommended Alternatives Concept Selection and Statewide Prioritization Yes No  Determine Tier of Acceleration  OBS recommends ABC options based on Tier of Acceleration  MDT reviews OBS recommendations Yes No ABC Decision Process Flowchart

Calculate ABC Rating Score First-Stage Filter: Use First-Stage Decision Making Flowchart Second-Stage Decision Making: Use the ABC AHP Tool Project Delivery Concurrence Develop ABC Concept Alternative(s) and Estimate Costs Develop Traditional Alternatives and Costs Concept Team Recommended Alternatives Concept Selection and Statewide Prioritization Yes No  Determine Tier of Acceleration  OBS recommends ABC options based on Tier of Acceleration  MDT reviews OBS recommendations Yes No ABC Decision Process Flowchart

OBS Concerns Additional duties/assignments within OBS to perform ABC evaluation (i.e. AHP analysis) Additional time required for developing ABC design concepts Need to develop ABC design standards and policies Need to develop expertise to perform in- house ABC design or support/guide consultant design

OBS Concerns Accuracy of estimating cost for new ABC concepts. Unknown long term performance of bridges constructed with ABC. Need for higher level of construction inspection.

ABC Implementation Challenges Funding to offset ABC construction cost – need to identify new revenues or alternative funding Resistance from some local contractors to ABC – working with industry to change the climate Limited contracting methods – since Design Build (DB) is not allowed in Iowa we are looking at the partial DB option

ABC Implementation Challenges Design aids – we are working on ABC design policies, specifications and standard details. Limited experience in ABC design – several ABC projects have been identified to attain experience for our engineers.

Questions? Norm McDonald Director, Office of Bridges and Structures Iowa Department of Transportation