Mitigating Traffic Impacts on Utah’s I-15

Mitigating Traffic Mitigating Traffic Impacts on Utah’s I-15Impacts on Utah’s I-15

Making Work Zones Work Better WorkshopMaking Work Zones Work Better Workshop

John Leonard, PE

Utah Department of Transportation

DenverDenver

DallasDallas

St.St.LouisLouis

WashingtonWashington

New YorkNew York

AtlantaAtlanta

MiamiMiami

Los AngelesLos Angeles

ChicagoChicago

SeattleSeattle

PortlandPortland

San FranciscoSan Francisco

Salt LakeCity

80808080

8080

1515

1515

8484

Utah - Crossroads of the West

10800 South

600 North

Project Limits

17 miles of Interstate Highway17 miles of Interstate HighwayUtah’s First Car Pool LanesUtah’s First Car Pool Lanes8 Major Interchanges Reconstructed8 Major Interchanges Reconstructed3 Freeway to Freeway Junctions Rebuilt3 Freeway to Freeway Junctions Rebuilt144 Bridges Replaced144 Bridges Replaced9 Million Cubic Yards of Embankment9 Million Cubic Yards of Embankment3.4 Million Square Yards of Pavement3.4 Million Square Yards of PavementProgram Cost $1.59 BillionProgram Cost $1.59 Billion

Project ScopeProject ScopeProject ScopeProject Scope

Social andTrafficTrends

Social andTrafficTrends

Utah’s Urban Population, Employment & Interstate Vehicle Miles of travel

19801980 19851985 1995199500

2525

5050

7575

100100

125125

150150

175175

200200

YearYear

Percent of GrowthPercent of Growth

Interstate VMT Interstate VMT

PopulationPopulation

EmploymentEmployment

19901990

Background

Early Public Perception Freeway is working OK—why do we need

to rebuild? No public will to endure major construction No public desire to fund major project “We will take care of it when it gets bad”

BackgroundBy 1994, public begins to believe freeway needs to be rebuilt Congestion and travel times increasing Major deterioration visible

1995, UDOT created a team to lead the Project and move it to completion Project Director Financial Manager Structures Design MOT/Operations Staff Support

Background

FEIS process Formal public meetings Open houses Community Councils Citizens groups NEPA process

Over 130 separate meetings

Conclusion of Research (1995)

Conclusion of Research (1995)

The public would prefer

a greater level of impact

in exchange for a

shorter construction duration

Research

“Get in,

Get it Done,

And Get out!!”

Background

Original concept was traditional construction Design-Bid-Build

8-10 year duration

Investigated different and innovative design and construction strategies Design/Build was chosen in January ‘96 Construct project in 4 ½ years

Maintenance of TrafficMaintenance of TrafficMaintenance of TrafficMaintenance of Traffic

Maintenance of TrafficMaintenance of Traffic

Large impact to traffic patterns

We need to take a different approach to managing traffic during construction


The UDOT I-15 Team Approach UDOT Contractor DAQ Local Communities Emergency Services Public!!!!

Team ApproachTeam Approach

Maintenance of Traffic

Transportation Demand Management

Public Information Plan


Development of impact mitigation alternatives Parallel street projects Capacity improvements on corridors

Cost Influence CurveCost Influence Curve

HighHigh

Ability to Ability to Influence Influence

CostCost

Start Complete

LowLow

HighHigh

Project Project ExpendituresExpenditures

LowLow

Time

Design

Procurement

Construction

Start-up

Conceptual Planning

DBIA

Process

Involvement process began early Met with mayors, city engineers, and public

works directors of affected jurisdictions 6 Cities, 1 County on corridor 8 Cities, 1 County off corridor

Received endorsement for D/B concept Presented preferred alternative and

potential construction schedule

Parallel Streets

Reviewed routes along the corridor Identified capacity constraints, community issues,

and possible alternate routes

Identified 21 potential projects to make improvementsUsed a macroscopic model to evaluate potential improvements9 projects recommended for construction, with a value of $50 Million

Parallel Street Projects

2 projects were ‘on the shelf’ Had completed EIS’s Widened a parallel route from 2 to 6 lanes

Remainder were ‘spot improvements’ Removed choke points Removed medians and added lanes Enhanced intersection capacity

Parallel Street Projects

All projects were to be ‘fast track’ advertised by early 1996, with required completion prior to major construction beginning in summer 1997

UDOT Region assisted both with design and project oversight

Emergency Responders

Facilitated cooperative meetings among all emergency agencies Law enforcement Fire Medical

Emergency Responders

Created command structure, and created cross jurisdictional responses Best able to respond

Utah Highway Patrol was lead law enforcement agency

Alleviated fears of increased response time

Trucking Industry

Large impacts to interstate travel Crossroads of the west

Need to coordinate with closures

Provide real time information for routing

Detours to local streets for LCV’s and Hazmat carriers

Business Community

Hosted business fairs

Encouraged flexible schedules

Car pools

Telecommuting

“how to cope’ seminars

Print ready materials



A variety of methods for reducing transportation demand on the street system. Coordination with existing Utah Transit Authority

programs: Employee-sponsored bus passes (deep discount

program) Rideshare (carpooling) - computerized rider matching

program Vanpool (UTA financed van purchase or lease)

Other trip reduction strategies Flextime Telecommuting

Public Information Plan

Public Information Plan Challenges

Public Information Plan Challenges

Creating partnerships with the media,

Communities, Businesses, and Public

Convincing a change in driver habits --

promoting the benefits

Communicating the vision

Public Information PlanPublic Information Plan

Information to the public What’s the schedule? What is open and closed? How do we cope?

Information from the public

Design/BuildDesign/Build

Request for Proposals

Set the framework for the contractLaid down the ground rulesProvided contractor with flexibility, but with constraintsAssigned risk to those who could best handle itIssued October, 1996Best and Final Offer in February, 1997

Request for Proposals

Maintenance of Traffic Specification Responded to community concerns Provided maximum flexibility Allowed for innovation

Maintenance of TrafficPerformance Specification

Maintenance of TrafficPerformance SpecificationI-15 Mainline 2 lanes open each direction during peak hours

Peak Hours 6 AM to 10 PM weekdays 8 AM to 7 PM weekends

Junctions maintain freeway to freeway movements through

existing ramps or freeway detours

Downtown 2 accesses open at all times



Interchanges cross streets at interchanges may be

closed for a maximum of 6 months This may occur IF one is south of the I-15/I-215

Junction, and one is north of it. complete remaining construction in

following 6 months close movement if it is available at

adjacent interchange



Other Coordination with ATMS system Provide off-duty uniformed officer and car

on the corridor Provide motorist guidance Aid in emergency response Provide a courtesy patrol Provide emergency pullouts every km

The Selection Process

PriceTechnicalProposal

Proposal Evaluation

Price and technical proposals had equal weight

Maintenance of traffic was 1 of 6 technical areas

Proposals were evaluated for ‘Best Value’

EVALUATION FACTORSEVALUATION FACTORSTechnical Solutions Maintenance of Traffic Geotechnical Structures Pavement Maintainability Aesthetics, Drainage, Roadway Geometry, Lighting, Traffic

Signals, Signing, Water Quality, Harmful/Hazardous Materials Remediation, Concrete Barriers, and ATMS

Work Plan/Schedule

Management

Organizational Qualifications

Price

Proposals

Enhancements by successful proposer Maintain 3 lanes on southern end of project

through junction with I-215 Restripe west side of I-215 belt route to 4 lanes

each direction Required modification and enhancements

Reduce interchange cross street closure to 4 months

Expanded use of night operations Freeway closures in the off-peak hours

Proposals

Enhancements by successful proposer Added courtesy patrol to west side belt

route Expanded use of off-duty law enforcement Much simpler construction phasing

Better driver expectancy Opened south end of project 1 year early

Proposals

Enhancements by successful proposer Provided glare screen entire length of

corridor to reduce construction ‘gawking’ and improving capacity

Use of ITS elements as they became available

Dedicated staff for both design and implementation of MOT

Coordination

Weekly meetings with UDOT, the contractor, design, UHP, all Segments, public information, and local jurisdications Coordinated proposed work schedule for

following week corridor wide No conflicts or overlaps Conformance with contract

CoordinationWeb site and phone tree up to dateConstant interaction with local entitiesPersonal visits to affected neighborhoodsPersonal visits to affected businesses Photo-ready maps and materials

Respond to individual requestsDedicated contractor staff to work out any issues Hot line

Interactive Could leave message or talk to ‘real’ person

How the Public is Informed

60 % of Drivers get information from the Media15 % from the Internet9 % from UDOT3 % from I-15 Hotline (1-888-INFO-I15)Only 7% don’t know where to get information this number continues to decline

Deseret News/Dan Jones Poll

July 28, 1997

Deseret News/Dan Jones Poll

July 28, 1997

82% inconvenienced

86% are well informed

70% still agree with design/build decision

Traffic ConditionsTraffic ConditionsTraffic ConditionsTraffic Conditions

Corridor Traffic Conditions

209,000 vehicles per weekday on I-15 in June, 1996 Lane use of 17,400 vplpd in 12 lanes 24 hour per day use 12’ lanes, full shoulders

93,500 vehicles per weekday on I-15 in June, 1999 Lane use of 23,400 vplpd in four lanes 16 hour per day use (closed 10 pm to 6 am) 11’ lanes, 2’ shoulders

115,500 vpwd displaced

Results

This indicated traffic was not entering local neighborhoods, as originally feared by residents

Parallel street projects provided route continuity and capacity

Public education informed motorists which routes were available

Summary

The decision to fast track the project was driven by the public, not the Department

The public was a partner in the development of the MOT specification, through many outreach meetings and focus groups

Summary

Local governments were a partner in the process, including the determination of early action item improvements to surface streets

Emergency responders were partners in the determination of restrictions on adjacent movements, and were involved intimately throughout the Project

Summary

Other transportation industry stakeholders were partners, including the trucking industry, the recreation industry, bus transit, light rail, and the cab/private hire industry

The business community were partners in changing work and delivery schedules

Summary

The media was a partner in providing up to date and accurate information to the public Traffic reporters were ‘in the loop’ on what

was going to happen

The approval rating of UDOT was higher than it had ever been Seen as responsive to the public needs

Summary

Communication is the key If you aren’t sick of communicating, you

are not communicating enough

Work with all stakeholders, find common ground, and keep all commitmentsBe proactive when possibleBe reactive when necessary

Summary

Maintain flexibility

Allow innovation

Think “outside the box”

Project mitigation begins long before the first barrel hits the pavement

Questions?Questions?

John Leonard, PEJohn Leonard, PE Operations EngineerOperations Engineer

Division of Traffic and SafetyDivision of Traffic and Safety

Utah Department of Utah Department of TransportationTransportation

801-965-4045801-965-4045

[email protected]@[email protected]@utah.gov

Mitigating Traffic Impacts on Utah’s I-15

Documents

Transcript of Mitigating Traffic Impacts on Utah’s I-15