FINAL REPORT VALUE ANALYSIS STUDY PIMA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS RTA Valencia … · 2011-12-13 · FINAL REPORT . VALUE ANALYSIS STUDY . PIMA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS . RTA Valencia

FINAL REPORT VALUE ANALYSIS STUDY

PIMA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS RTA Valencia Road West Value Analysis Project

December 2011

For PAG/RTA

BY SOLUTIONS ENGINEERING & FACILITATING, INC.

PAG/RTA Value Analysis Study Valencia Road West Value Analysis Project December 2011

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 - SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 1

SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 CAVEATS: ............................................................................................................................................. 1-1 VE PROPOSAL SUMMARY TABLE ................................................................................................... 1-2

SECTION 2 - INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 2-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 2-1 VA STUDY TEAM ................................................................................................................................ 2-3 THE REVIEW BOARD ........................................................................................................................ 2-3 METHOD OF THE VA STUDY ............................................................................................................ 2-5

SECTION 3 – VA PROPOSALS ................................................................................................................ 3-1 SECTION 4 - SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 4-1 SECTION 5 – IDEAS ANALYZED BUT NOT PROPOSED ...................................................................... 5-1 SECTION 6 - FUNCTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM TECHNIQUE (F.A.S.T.) DIAGRAM .............................. 6-1 SECTION 7 – BRAINSTORMING IDEAS ................................................................................................. 7-1 SECTION 8 - REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS ........................................................................................... 8-1

SECTION 1 – SUMMARY


Solutions Engineering & Facilitating, Inc.

Final Report 1-1

This report contains the results of the Value Analysis Study of the Pima Association of Governments (PAG) RTA Valencia Road West (Mark Rd. to Mountain Eagle Rd.) Value Analysis Project. The report is organized in a drill down format, that is, all items are presented first in summary format with increasing levels of detail as one delves (drills down) further into the report. This will allow the reader to easily obtain only the information he or she desires. The first section of the report contains an executive summary of all the value analysis proposals, their estimated savings, and their ultimate disposition. To obtain the backup information about the VE Proposal or the Review Board Decision reasoning regarding the VE Proposal, use the hyperlinks shown in the summary table. The second section of the report contains a brief project background, the VA Study Team Members, a listing of the Review Board Members, and a brief description of the methodology used. The third section of the report contains detailed information about each VA Proposal. These individual proposal analyses are also organized in a drill down manner. Section Four of the report contains supplemental recommendations, i.e., ideas that the Team thought would add value to the project but do not necessarily reduce life-cycle costs. Section Five of the report contains ideas analyzed by the Team but either failed because they were thought to not be technically viable and/or did not save life-cycle costs. Section Six of the report contains functions analyzed by the VA Team. Section Seven of the report contains all of the ideas ideated by the Team both prior to and during the workshop. Section Eight of the report documents the ultimate disposition of the Team’s Proposals and Supplemental Recommendations as made by the decision making board.

SUMMARY This Value Analysis (VA) Study generated twenty-six proposals (26) and ten (10) supplemental recommendations.

Caveats: • The cost savings shown for each proposal are measured against the raw cost estimates from the

consulting firms at the current stage of design which varies from nearly 100% complete to a conceptual estimate. Therefore for consistency’s sake the VA Team did not add the normal multipliers such as contingency (which varies per design stage), escalation (which varies per bid date), services during construction and overhead and profit for the contractor.

• All savings have been rounded to reflect the level of accuracy of the VA Proposals. • Cost estimates made by the VA Team are intended to reflect relative values between alternatives.

The estimated savings identified within each proposal are based upon comparison of the proposal to the preliminary design basis. Therefore, as is true with all cost estimates, the savings indicated are only an opinion of probable construction cost.

• Only potential savings are shown. As the proposals are implemented, additional costs or savings

may result from redesign or modification. • Some VA Proposals are mutually exclusive; a few are synergistic and could result in greater cost

savings if implemented together. Therefore, the potential savings are not the simple sum of all the VA Proposals presented.



Final Report 1-2

VA PROPOSAL SUMMARY TABLE

Note: To obtain the backup information about the VA Proposal, use the hyperlinks shown in the summary table.

PROPOSAL

NO. VA PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS PAGE NO.

Drainage P01-015 Optimize the roadway profile to match

the 100-year water surface elevation (no freeboard). Initial Est. Savings: $390,000 Future Est. Savings: $0,000 Total Est. Savings: $390,000

Accept With Modifications. 3-1

P01-026 Perform hydrologic modeling with FLO-2D model instead of HEC-1. Initial Est. Savings: $340,000 Future Est. Savings: $0,000 Total Est. Savings: $340,000

Decline. 3-5

P01-003 Lower the culvert design standard: (1) Pass Q50 under roadway, and (2) Q100 overtops roadway at less than 1.0-foot depth. Initial Est. Savings: $540,000 Future Est. Savings: $0,000 Total Est. Savings: $540,000

Decline. 3-9

P01-051 Construct floodwall on Bureau of Reclamation property to prevent overflow of roadway onto the Casino Property. Initial Est. Savings: $10,000 Future Est. Savings: $0,000 Total Est. Savings: $10,000

Decline. 3-14

P01-008 Use smooth-lined metal pipe culverts rather than reinforced concrete pipe culverts. Initial Est. Savings: $90,000 Future Est. Savings: $0,000 Total Est. Savings: $90,000


P01-024 Change culvert drop-inlet structures from a 4:1 slope to a 2:1 slope. Initial Est. Savings: $94,000 Future Est. Savings: $0,000 Total Est. Savings: $94,000


P01-050 Shorten culverts so that inlets and outlets will terminate at the shoulder rather than at the end of the clear zone. Initial Est. Savings: $80,000 Future Est. Savings: $0,000 Total Est. Savings: $80,000

Decline. 3-22



Final Report 1-3

PROPOSAL NO. VA PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS PAGE

NO. P01-004 Eliminate rip rap scour protection at

culvert outlets. Initial Est. Savings: $50,000 Future Est. Savings: $0,000 Total Est. Savings: $50,000

Decline. 3-24

P01-001 Provide an 8-foot wide multi-purpose path instead of concrete sidewalk. Initial Est. Savings: $480,000 Future Est. Savings: ($34,000) Total Est. Savings: $446,000


P01-046 Maintain the horizontal and vertical alignment of the 5-lane section along the Casino frontage. Initial Est. Savings: $350,000 Future Est. Savings: $0,000 Total Est. Savings: $350,000


P01-016 Eliminate the median curbs and raised median throughout the corridor. Initial Est. Savings: $420,000 Future Est. Savings: $0,000 Total Est. Savings: $420,000

Decline. 3-33

P01-037 Reduce the width of the median for the entire length of the project from 20 feet to 0 feet. Initial Est. Savings: $145,000 Future Est. Savings: $0,000 Total Est. Savings: $145,000

Decline. 3-35

P01-011 Reduce bike lane width from 6 feet to 5 feet. Initial Est. Savings: $140,000 Future Est. Savings: $0,000 Total Est. Savings: $140,000

Decline. 3-37

P01-036 Reduce the shoulder width on Vahalla Road. Initial Est. Savings: $17,000 Future Est. Savings: $0,000 Total Est. Savings: $17,000

Accept. 3-39

Geotechnical P03-003 Use alternative materials instead of

concrete for constructing sidewalk. Initial Est. Savings: $302,000 Future Est. Savings: ($22,000) Total Est. Savings: $280,000


P01-005 Use a regular asphalt concrete wearing surface instead of rubberized asphalt concrete through the length of the project. Initial Est. Savings: $100,000 Future Est. Savings: $0,000 Total Est. Savings: $100,000

Decline. 3-45



Final Report 1-4


NO. P01-040 Use terminal blend asphalt instead of

crumb rubber in the Asphalt Rubber Asphalt Concrete (ARAC) mix. Initial Est. Savings: $42,000 Future Est. Savings: $0,000 Total Est. Savings: $42,000


P06-003 Pulverize in-place asphalt pavement materials and blend with new aggregate base. Initial Est. Savings: $27,000 Future Est. Savings: $0,000 Total Est. Savings: $27,000

Accept. 3-50

Policy P01-020 Reduce the amount of landscaping

and irrigation. Initial Est. Savings: $1,000,000 to $1,200,0000 Future Est. Savings: $0,000 Total Est. Savings: $1,000,000 to $1,200,000


P01-012 Combine Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects. Initial Est. Savings: $900,000 Future Est. Savings: $0,000 Total Est. Savings: $900,000

Decline. 3-55

P01-043 Waive the Environmentally Sensitive Roadway (ESR) Ordinance and Riparian Habitat requirements. Initial Est. Savings: $250,000 Future Est. Savings: $0,000 Total Est. Savings: $250,000

Already in Plan. 3-58

P01-017 Eliminate all public art on both phases of the project. Initial Est. Savings: $230,000 Future Est. Savings: $0,000 Total Est. Savings: $230,000

Decline. 3-60

P01-013 Combine this project with construction of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe's detention basin to reduce embankment costs and provide a local borrow source. Initial Est. Savings: $200,000 Future Est. Savings: $0,000 Total Est. Savings: $200,000

Decline. 3-62

P01-042 Seek RTA Board Approval of Administrative Code revisions to clarify the intent of the project scope and enable value proposals. Initial Est. Savings: Not Quantified Future Est. Savings: Not Quantified Total Est. Savings: Not Quantified

Accept. 3-64



Final Report 1-5


NO. Optional Elements

P01-041 Eliminate the fiber optic conduit (ITS) unless a user is identified and commits to providing the necessary funding. Initial Est. Savings: $280,000 Future Est. Savings: $0,000 Total Est. Savings: $280,000

Accept. 3-67

P01-009 Eliminate the rumble strips on the shoulder of the road. Initial Est. Savings: $11,000 Future Est. Savings: $0,000 Total Est. Savings: $11,000

Decline. 3-69

The estimated construction cost in raw dollars (no markups, no escalation, etc.) at the time of the VA Study was $32,670,000 for the PAG RTA Valencia Road Mark Road to Ajo Rd. (RTA No. 21) Value Analysis Project. Note, the VA Team did not analyze the Phase 3 (Ajo Rd. to Mountain Eagle Rd.) portion of the project. The Review Board’s estimate of savings from the Accepted VA Proposals is $324,000 Accepted with Modifications VA Proposals is $2,892,000 (with some overlapping savings).



Final Report 1-6

Total Construction Cost (TCC) from plan estimate: $32,670,000Mark - Wade (30% Plans) $9,208,000Wade - Mtn Eagle (15% plans) $13,962,000Mtn. Eagle - Ajo (no plans; @$5m /mile) $9,500,000

Original 2005 Estimated Construction Cost (ECC) $31,231,000

Construction Survey Included in Construction

Mobilization Included in Construction

Erosion / Dust Control Included in Construction

Traffic Control Included in Construction

ContingencyIncluded in Construction

@ 30%

CA/QC 13% of ECC $4,060,030

Planning/Design 18% of ECC $5,621,580

Current Comprehensive Cost Estimate $42,351,610

Committed Funding: $38,157,000RTA $15,057,000Jurisdictional Commitments per ballot $23,100,000

Funding Shortfall/Desirable Savings $4,194,610

Valencia Road (Ajo - Mark) Consolidated Budget and Funding Gap Review

SECTION 2 – INTRODUCTION



Final Report 2-1

INTRODUCTION Value Analysis (VA) analysis identifies the high cost areas of a project during the early design stages. The VA Study then determines less expensive alternative designs that can still be incorporated into the final design drawings and specifications without incurring large costs for redesign or major project delay. These VA proposals are substantiated with technical and economic analyses. This Final Report will includes:

• A list of the Review Board members. • A summary of cost savings as a result of the study. • A summary of accepted proposals. • The documentation of the Review Board’s reasoning. • A summary of the rejected proposals will also be included in the Final Report and will include the

reason(s) for their rejection. The reasons may include cost-effectiveness, reliability concerns, unusual operation and maintenance problems, or project delays.

• The contents of the Preliminary Report dated 9 November, 2011.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT: VALENCIA ROAD WEST (Mark Road to Mountain Eagle Road) PROJECT1

Executive Summary This project involves the reconstruction of Valencia Road from Wade Road to Mark Road from a two-lane roadway into a four-lane arterial street. The entire project is located in unincorporated Pima County in Sections 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of Township 15 South, Range 12 East. On May 16, 2006, the citizens of Pima County approved a $2.1 billion transportation plan to be funded by a one-half cent increase in the sales tax. This transportation plan is overseen by the Regional Transportation authority (RTA). Current project funding includes $14,562,000 from this RTA sales tax revenue. Other funding includes $6,026,000 in Surface Transportation Program (STP) revenue and $709,000 in Pima County Impact Fees for total funding of $21.297 million. It is estimated that this project will be advertised for bids in the spring of 2013. Construction is anticipated to be complete in late 2014. This section of Valencia Road is slated to be a parkway in the Pima Association of Governments (PAG) 2040 Regional Transportation Plan. PAG defines parkways as “roads that are connected to arterials and have divided medians. There may be a few grade separated intersections at major routes to help ease congestion. Access points are kept to a minimum for higher travel speeds. The normal posted speed limit is 45-55 mph.” The widening is needed to accommodate the heavy volumes of traffic projected in the year 2030. This section of Valencia Road is also impassable due to flooding several times a year. Constructing this new arterial roadway to current standards will increase traffic capacity and user safety in all weather conditions. Other needs identified in the Traffic Engineering Study include providing a continuous paved sidewalk on one side of Valencia Road, adding turn lanes at Wade Road, Camino Verde, and Ignacio Baumea; and providing a new traffic signal at Wade Road. The design speed for this project is 50 mph. It will be posted at 45 mph. The existing right-of-way width of 150-200 feet will be sufficient for the four-lane roadway. Landscaping will be provided in the median and in the area between the roadway and right-of-way line. Artwork will also be included with this project. 1Taken from project FTP site: ftp://data.rtamobility.com



Final Report 2-2

Drainage improvements will include a new ten-barrel box culvert conveying the Black Wash, and eight other box and pipe culverts capable of conveying a 100-year storm. Only minimal channel work is anticipated. Driveways will be provided to every property that currently has access to Valencia Road. Median openings will be provided at all side streets. Recommendations for the final design of this project include:

• Provide two travel lanes in each direction on Valencia Road. • Align the new centerline of Valencia Road along the section line. • Provide a paved shoulder in each direction to accommodate bicyclists and other multi-uses. • Raise the vertical profile of the roadway two to five feet to accommodate the cross drainage

improvements. • A new sidewalk shall be located at the top of the foreslope on one side of Valencia Road. • Provide additional turn lanes at the major intersections as shown in Figure 6. • No noise walls are warranted in accordance with the requirements of the Pima County Traffic

Noise Analysis and Mitigation Guidance Policy. Rubberized asphaltic concrete shall be used as the top lift of the new pavement to help reduce noise levels.

• Existing native vegetation that must be removed shall be replaced with the same plant species or one that is commonly found in the project environment in accordance with the updated Appendix 4D of the Environmentally Sensitive Roadway Design Guidelines.

• ITS conduit shall be installed along one side of Valencia Road. • A new traffic signal is warranted at Wade Road. The existing traffic signal at Camino Verde shall

be upgraded as necessary to accommodate the proposed roadway improvements. Focus Areas

1. Pavement Design 2. Geotechnical Issues (fill/import) 3. Drainage Design

a. Use of metal pipe vs. RCP b. Alternatives to Concrete Box Culverts c. Retention/Detention basins for flood control and borrow material d. Collector channels

4. Roadway Geometrics/ Intersection design 5. Growth Assumptions/Traffic 6. Pedestrian and bike facilities 7. Utility issues

Unchangeable Items

1. Scope of Work must comply with RTA Ballot description 2. Local Funding issues are off the table 3. Phase issues

a. Mark to Wade reach at 30% plan development. b. Wade to Mtn. Eagle at 15% plan development.

Objectives

• To evaluate all design components of the project and determine if alternatives which add value or reduce cost are available to improve the overall project.

• To identify in excess of $4,500,000 in potential savings • Additional technical information can be found via the FTP site listed in Appendix C



Final Report 2-3

ORGANIZATION VA STUDY TEAM The following individuals were members of the VA Team:

TEAM MEMBER FIRM TELEPHONE/E-MAIL

Stuart Adams, PE Roadway/Drainage

Horrocks Engineers 2162 Grove Parkway, Suite 400 Pleasant Grove, UT 84062

(t) 801-763-5246 (c) 801-822-9388 (e) [email protected]

Pete Andersen Traffic/Roadway

Pima County Department of Transportation Design Engineering 201 N. Stone, 4th Floor Tucson, AZ 85701

(t) 520-740-6410 (c) (e) [email protected]

Paul Bennett, P.E. Pima County Representative

Pima County Department of Transportation Design Engineering 201 N. Stone, 4th Floor Tucson, AZ 85701


Robert D. Brittain, P.E., R.L.S. HDR Engineering 5210 E. Williams Place, Suite 530 Tucson, AZ 85711

(t) 520-584-3671 (f) (e) [email protected]

James DeGrood, P.E. Director, Transportation Services

Pima Association of Governments 177 N. Church Ave., Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701


Jon Fuller, P.E. Drainage/Flood Control Design

J.E. Fuller Hydrology & Geohydrology 8400 South Kyrene Road, Ste. 201 Tempe, AZ 85284


Mike Pegnam Geotechnical/Pavement Design/Materials

Golder Associates 4730 N. Oracle, Ste 210 Tucson, AZ 85705


Riley Rasmussen Pima Association of Governments 177 N. Church Ave., Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701


Robert Smolinsky, P.E. Drainage/Flood Control Design

Arroyo Engineering 5675 N Oracle Rd., Ste. 3203 Tucson, AZ 85704


Joe Vaskovic, P.E. Traffic/Roadway

Parsons Brinkerhoff 177 N. Church Avenue, Ste. 500 Tucson, AZ 85701


FACILITATOR FIRM TELEPHONE/E-MAIL

C. Bernerd (Bernie) Dull Facilitator

Solutions Engineering & Facilitating, Inc. 9032 Gray Fox Drive Evergreen, CO 80439

(t) 303-670-5620 (f) 303-670-0183 (e) [email protected]



Final Report 2-4

THE REVIEW BOARD The Review Board is comprised of the following representatives. A. REVIEW BOARD

REVIEW BOARD MEMBER FIRM TELEPHONE/E-MAIL Keith Brann, P.E. Town Engineer

Town of Marana 11555 W. Civic Center Drive Bldg A2 Marana, AZ 85653


Bill Carroll, PE EEC Consulting Engineers 4625 E. Fort Lowell Road Tucson, AZ 85712


Craig Civalier, PE Town Engineer

Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737


Priscilla Cornelio, PE Director

Pima County Department of Transportation 33 N. Stone Avenue, 4th Floor Tucson, AZ 85701


James DeGrood, P.E. Director, Transportation Services

Pima Association of Governments 177 N. Church Ave., Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701


James Glock, PE Director

Tucson Department of Transportation P.O. Box 267210 Tucson, AZ 85726-7210


Bob Iannarino Psomas (t) (c) 520-603-5288 (e) [email protected]

Farhad Moghimi, PE Director

Sahuarita Public Works Department 375 W. Sahuarita Center Way Sahuarita, AZ 85629

(t) (c) 520-425-6800 (e) [email protected]

The reviewers decided upon the status of the VA proposals in one of four ways: 1. Accept the proposed alternative as it stands. This will require the design team to implement the

proposed alternative. 2. Accept the proposed alternative with modifications. This disposition is similar to item 1 but with some

changes imposed by the Review Board. 3. Decline the proposed alternative altogether. This disposition is obvious, but proper reasoning must

be given. 4. Table (defer) the proposed alternative for further study or information gathering. If a proposed

alternative is tabled, it is wise to assign responsibilities to resolve the issue(s), assign a schedule for resolution, and design a decision tree.



Final Report 2-5

METHOD OF THE VA STUDY

ANALYTICAL PROCESS 1. Information Phase Each VA Team Member was given the plans, specifications, and cost estimate information for the project prior to the workshop. They were given instructions to familiarize themselves with the project prior to an oral briefing to be given by the owner and the designer. The facilitator asked that the design team start with a very broad overview of the project (the exact phrase used was “satellite view”) of the project with concentration on purpose and need for the project. The facilitator then asked the design team to start to gradually cover the project in increasing detail (the phrase used was “airplane view” down to “feet on the ground” view). Emphasis was made as to how the project fit into the scheme of things and especially the interface points at the project ends. The facilitator encouraged the other VA Team members to ask very open ended questions. 2. Function Analysis Phase This tool forces an analytical team to look at a project with a fresh outlook. For example, if a technical group was given the assignment to improve a heating/ventilating/air conditioning system (HVAC) system for an office building they could ideate the numerous common systems, e.g., dual duct, variable air volume, multi-zone, etc. However, the phraseology of the problem has already limited the group’s thinking to a mechanical system. By using function analysis to analyze the HVAC system the VA Team would brainstorm the function “control temperature”. This forces the team to broaden the number of possible solutions thus increasing the odds of achieving an improved solution. For example, by brainstorming the function “control temperature” the study team can look at insulation levels, fenestration schemes, thermal storage, reflective roofing, building axis orientation, landscaping, etc. By using the FAST Diagram the VE Team has been forced to abandon the paradigm of solely using a mechanical system to control temperature. This VA Team then selected six functions that it felt covered 80% of the project cost. These functions are listed in Sections 6 & 7 of this report. 3. Creative Phase The VA Team selected the functions for brainstorming per Pareto’s Law, i.e., the 20% of the functions that drive 80% of the project. The formal brainstorming session generated as many alternative methods as possible for achieving the selected functions. These were then segregated by three categories, Constructability Review Comments (default case), Value Analysis Proposals (ideas that have the potential to save life-cycle costs), and Supplemental Recommendations (ideas that would improve the project, but don’t easily fit into the previous category). 4. Analysis Phase A rough analysis was performed by first passing or failing the brainstormed ideas, then combining or grouping similar ideas. The VA Team as a whole then discussed and recorded the relative advantages of the original concept versus the advantages of the alternative plus the risks of implementing the alternative concept. The ideas surviving these discussions were selected as candidates for further development by individual team members.



Final Report 2-6

5. Development Phase A cursory technical examination followed the analysis phase. The purpose of this examination was to see ift the alternative was indeed technically viable and to better explain the alternative to the design team. An order of magnitude economic analysis of technically feasible alternatives was also made. The economic analysis was done on a life-cycle basis where appropriate. The VA Team tried to use the same base cost data as that used by the design team so that proper comparison could be made with the original concepts(s). Ideas that passed these technical and economical analyses and, in the opinion of the VA Team should be incorporated into the design, were prepared as formal proposals. The VA Team also prepared Supplemental Recommendations. These recommendations are ideas that the VA Team thought would add worth to the project but would not necessarily save capital or future costs. The Supplemental Recommendations were not necessarily priced. 6. Presentation & Implementation Phases All proposals, supplemental recommendations, and ideas analyzed but not proposed were recorded during the VA Study and were compiled to in a Preliminary Report to be presented to the Review Board for their consideration. The Review Board made its decisions on the Proposals and Supplemental Recommendations dispositions subsequent to the VE Team’s presentation. The Final Report was prepared after the Review Board’s decisions were transmitted to the facilitator.

SECTION 3 – PROPOSALS


Solutions Engineering & Facilitating, Inc. Final Report 3-1

VALUE ANALYSIS PROPOSAL NO. 01-015

SUMMARY PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION:

Optimize the roadway profile to match the 100-year water surface elevation (no freeboard). Estimated potential savings:

Initial: $ 390,000 Future: $ 0,000 Total: $ 390,000

Additional Description:

Related Value Analysis Proposals and/or Supplemental Recommendations: P01-003 - Lower the culvert design standard: (1) Pass Q50 under roadway, and

(2) Q100 overtops roadway at less than 1.0-foot depth.



EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-015 Idea Description: Optimize the roadway profile to match the 100-year water surface elevation (no freeboard). Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Reduces the volume of borrow required. 2. Reduces the project cost. Advantages of original concept: 1. Provides some freeboard to overtopping by 100-year event. Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Uncertainty in 100-year water surface profile may lead to isolated overtopping

during 100-year flood. 2. Traffic impacts to roadway vertical profile were not assessed.

Calculations and/or Discussion: The proposed profile of Valencia Road is elevated above the 100-year water surface elevation in several locations, although for most of its length, the current design has no freeboard between the 100-year water surface and the edge of pavement. (Note that there is some freeboard between the water surface and the top of the roadway cross section.) This proposal lowers the road profile to match the estimated 100-year water surface elevation at the edge of pavement for the entire project length. Cost savings from this proposal are derived primarily from the reduction in required borrow material. The profile of Valencia Road and the estimated 100-year water surface elevations are shown in Figure 1. The following three areas where the road profile has freeboard were identified:

1. Station 238+00 to 258+00 2. Station 300+00 to 330+00 3. Station 350+00 to 366+00

To estimate the potential reduction in required borrow volume, the profile elevation was lowered to match the controlling (upstream) water surface elevation and the prism of borrow was estimated using the default roadway embankment cross section. Where the water surface profile was irregular, an assumed smoother road profile was used. If this proposal is advanced for implementation by the design team, further analysis of impacts on sight distance and other profile issues should be addressed at that time. Lowering the road profile results in approximately 49,000 cubic yards of reduced borrow material for an estimated savings of $390,000 (@ $8/yd3).



Figure 1. Profile showing roadway centerline (green), edge of upstream pavement (purple), south side Q100 elevation (orange), and north side Q100 elevation (darker orange).



Station Elev Chng Unit Area Vol (yd3) Segment

23800 0 0 Volume24200 1 114 84424600 1 114 168925000 1 114 168925400 1 114 168925800 0 0 844 6756

29800 0 030200 1 114 84430600 1 114 168931000 2 236 434131400 1 114 434131800 1 114 168932200 1 114 168932600 1 114 168933000 0 0 844 17126

35000 0 035400 1 114 84435800 3 366 897836200 2 236 1163036600 0 0 3496 24948 48830





Perform hydrologic modeling with FLO-2D model instead of HEC-1. Estimated potential savings:



Related Value Analysis Proposals and/or Supplemental Recommendations:



EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-026 Idea Description: Perform hydrologic modeling with FLO-2D model instead of HEC-1. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. The FLO-2D model more accurately accounts for storage and attenuation in sheet

flooding areas than the HEC-1 model, resulting in better and usually lower estimates of design discharges.

2. Use of FLO-2D over HEC-1 is an emerging technology, and was specified for use for the recent PCRFCD Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study.

3. Lower discharges translate to lower water surface elevations, smaller culverts, and less borrow material, which will lower the project cost.

Advantages of original concept: 1. Uses traditional methodology for hydrologic modeling. 2. HEC-1 methodology usually results in conservative estimates of design discharge. Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. None noted.

Calculations and/or Discussion: FLO-2D is a volume accounting hydrologic and hydraulic modeling tool. The hydraulic routing capabilities of the FLO-2D were already applied in the Valencia Road design study to route HEC-1 hydrographs and estimate the distribution of flow reaching the upstream side of Valencia Road in the vicinity of Black Wash. The hydrologic modeling capabilities (hydrograph generation) of FLO-2D were recently used by the PCRFCD for the Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study because of the distributary and sheet flooding nature of the Lee Moore Wash drainage area. The Black Wash watershed, which is tributary to Valencia Road, is very similar in character to the Lee Moore Wash watershed, suggesting that application of FLO-2D to this study area is justified. FLO-2D more accurately accounts for storage and transmission losses that significantly attenuate peak discharges in sheet flooding and distributary flow areas. Because of the improved simulation of attenuation, FLO-2D peak discharges tend to be somewhat lower than HEC-1 discharges when similar rainfall and loss parameters are used. Experience on calibration/verification studies performed in conjunction with the Lee Moore Wash study indicate that FLO-2D predicted 100-year peaks that were about 15% less than HEC-1 peak discharges. Note that no new topographic mapping would be required for the hydrologic modeling element for the Valencia Road watersheds. This proposal evaluates the cost savings achieved from reducing culvert sizes due to lower design discharges. The following procedure was used:

1. Use the Q100 discharges from the Drainage Design Reports. 2. Adjust the original Q100 estimates downward by 15% (0.85 factor) 3. Resize the culverts based using a ratio of the adjusted to original Q100 times the

original culvert area opening. In general, downsizing was accomplished by reducing the original culvert rise (height) and maintaining the same culvert span



and number of cells. It is possible that additional cost savings could be achieved by further optimizing culvert sizes.

4. Single cell pipe culverts were not downsized. 5. No adjustment in the road elevations and consequent borrow volumes were

made. 6. No adjustments in cost relative to inlets, headwalls, downstream easements, or

other factors were made, although it is likely that some cost savings would be achieved from a detailed analysis of these items.

Culvert Stn #/Size Length Q100 FLO2D Q100

Culvert Area

FLO2D Area Area

New Culvert

Unit Cost Cost

237+10 2-10x5 116 600 510 100 85 2-10x4 1,000 116,000 241+82 1-36" 136 70 59.5 7 6 n.c. 90 12,240 253+66 4-10x5 144 500 425 200 170 4-10x4 1,800 259,200 258+20 1-36" 260 70 59.5 7 6 n.c. 90 23,400 278+40 2-8x4 136 260 221 64 54 n.c. 740 100,640 281+80 3-10x4 134 550 467.5 120 102 n.c. 1,420 190,280 289+70 2-8x4 136 300 255 64 54 n.c. 740 100,640 296+70 9-10x5 164 2,300 1,955 450 383 9-10x4 3,900 639,600 310+50 9-10x5 136 1,700 1,445 450 383 9-10x4 3,900 530,400 155+37 2-48" 276 164 139.4 25 21 n.c. 120 33,120 158+98 1-36" 126 53 45.05 7 6 n.c. 90 11,340

161+40 3-48" 348 255 216.75 38 32 n.c. 120 41,760 171+85 3-10x4 201 750 637.5 120 102 2-10x5 980 196,980 173+49 2-10x4 234 400 340 80 68 2-8x4 740 173,160 179+85 1-10x4 116 200 170 40 34 n.c. 560 64,960 187+90 3-8x4 116 755 641.75 96 82 n.c. 1,120 129,920 198+45 1-36" 122 52 44.2 7 6 n.c. 90 10,980 200+55 3-36" 348 96 81.6 21 18 n.c. 90 31,320 208+80 4-10x5 116 1,500 1275 200 170 4-10x4 1,800 208,800 222+30 1-36" 128 31 26.35 7 6 n.c. 90 11,520 228+75 3-36" 348 125 106.25 21 18 n.c. 90 31,320 232+80 2-36" 232 129 109.65 14 12 n.c. 90 20,880

$3,275,640

$2,938,460 The estimated savings from this proposal is $337,180. Advantages of FLO2D over HEC1



FLO-2D offers a number of advantages over HEC-1 for hydrologic modeling of sheet flooding and distributary flow areas. First, there is no need to delineate sub-watershed boundaries in poorly-defined distributary and sheet flooding areas. Runoff is accumulated based on site topography and flow hydraulics without regard for pre-conceived basin divides. Furthermore, runoff can flow in different directions at different flow rates and depths, depending on specific site conditions. Second, runoff can leave the model space anywhere along the modeling domain boundary, not just at specific concentration points. Third, the model can generate peak discharges and hydrographs anywhere within the model domain, rather than just at specific concentration points. Fourth, flow does not have to collect at concentration points in FLO-2D but can exit as unconfined sheet flooding, distributary flow along multiple channels or be stored at intermediate ponding areas. Fifth, intermingling of flow along undefined boundaries between coalescing alluvial fans is easily modeled and addressed. Sixth, the flow hydrology and hydraulics are computed concurrently, avoiding any disconnect (and additional labor) between single-focus models. Seventh, routing of a flow hydrograph is inherent in the model code, eliminating the need for estimated hydrologic routing parameters or averaged hydraulic routing cross sections. Eighth, watershed parameters can be entered as distributed characteristics over a relatively small grid size, rather than lumped and averaged over large sub-basins, allowing much finer resolution of input data. Ninth, modeling elements can be entered anywhere within the modeling domain, rather than just at pre-determined concentration points and computational nodes. Most importantly, FLO-2D results fit the anecdotal and behavioral expectations of the engineering and geosciences communities better than the HEC-1 results. Therefore, it is the conclusion of this analysis that FLO-2D is far superior to HEC-1 for modeling piedmont drainage systems.





Lower the culvert design standard: (1) Pass Q50 under roadway, and (2) Q100 overtops roadway at less than 1.0-foot depth. Estimated potential savings:



Related Value Analysis Proposals and/or Supplemental Recommendations: P01-015 - Optimize the roadway profile to match the 100-year water surface

elevation (no freeboard).



EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-003 Idea Description: Lower the culvert design standard: (1) Pass Q50 under roadway, and (2) Q100 overtops roadway at less than 1.0-foot depth. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Meets current Pima County all-weather access standards. 2. Lowers road profile, requiring less borrow material. 3. Requires smaller culverts. 4. Reduces project costs. Advantages of original concept: 1. Provides higher level of all-weather access. Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Potential risk to motorists during floods greater than 50-year flood. 2. Potential damage to road surface during floods greater than 50-year flood. 3. Frequent depressions in road profile may require adjustments to assure

smoothness. Calculations and/or Discussion: The current Pima County Roadway Design Manual defines all-weather access criteria for cross drainage as follows: (1) Q50 under the roadway, (2) Q100 over roadway at a depth of less than 1.0 foot. The Manual further notes that lesser standards may be acceptable in special circumstances. The current Valencia Road design shows the entire Q100 being passed under the road without overtopping. This VE proposal includes the following elements:

1. Lowering the road surface in the vicinity of the culverts to create a contained overtopping section and to limit the distance of overtopped pavement.

2. Decreasing culvert size to convey only the Q50 under the roadway. 3. Removing median curbs and vegetation in the vicinity of the overflow section to

provide a relatively clear overflow path. Note that there is always an overtopping flood, regardless of the design standard. For the current design, it is the 101-year or greater flood. For the proposed design, it is the 51-year or greater flood. Selection of a design standard is essentially a risk analysis based decision. That is, does the higher standard provide sufficient value to justify its cost? Also, it will be necessary to evaluate and address possible sight distance issues if the roadway profile is altered by lowering the pavement elevation to allow Q100 overtopping. For this proposal, it was assumed that sight distance and profile issues could be adequately resolved. Finally, it was assumed that cabling, signage or some other method of access control would be provided to prevent turning through the non-curbed overflow portions of the median. Cost savings for using a lower overtopping design discharge would be derived from use of smaller and/or fewer culverts and less borrow material. Additional ancillary savings



could be achieved from modifications to the inlets, and potential lowering of the overall road profile, but these potential savings were not quantified. Offsets to the estimated savings would come from the need to place rip rap or other slope protection on the downstream face of the road embankment to prevent erosion during an overtopping event. The cost of the addition erosion protection was assumed to be equivalent to the cost of the median curbing and vegetation removed from the overtopping length, as well as the un-quantified ancillary savings. Since the proposal meets current County standards for overtopping there is no increase in liability by using a Q50 design, and hence no increased liability cost. Since the differential in frequency of overtopping (Q50 vs. Q100) is relatively small (~24% over a 50 year design life), there is no need to quantify the relatively minor costs associated with short-term disruption of traffic or need for post-event maintenance. Summary of Analysis Procedure:

1. Use Q100 discharge from Drainage Reports 2. Estimate Q50 and Q25 using 0.7 and 0.5 adjustment factor applied to the Q100

estimate.. 3. Estimate new culvert sizes using the ratio of Q50/Q100 times the current culvert

area. 4. Determine length of overtopping weir by:

a. Overtopping Q = Q100-Q50 b. Weir equation Q=CLH1.5, where

i. H=1 ft (maximum overtopping depth) ii. C=2.6 (broad crested weir) iii. Solve for L (ft).

5. Lower road profile for length of L, and compute reduction in required borrow volume.

The results of the analysis are shown in Table 1. In general, use of the Q50 design standard allows use of culverts with a one foot lesser rise, e.g., 10’x4’ replaces 10’x5’ RCBC. Using the unit costs in the DCR, the changes in culvert size alone translates to a cost savings of $495,000. Potential savings in reduced borrow requirements adds $40,841 of savings, for a total of approximately $536,000.



Figure 1. Sketch of typical arid region hydrograph showing short flow duration over 50-year peak

Use of a Q25 design standard would result in a similar (additional) cost differential due to further decreased culvert sizes and lower required borrow volumes. However, use of the Q25 design standard would require a design exception from the County, would result in more frequent roadway overtopping and maintenance, and more frequent (but still relatively rare) traffic delays. Use of the Q25 standard is not recommended without further, more detailed study evaluating the potential cost savings and risks of lowering the culvert capacity. Note that the Q100 1-foot depth criterion would still be required.



Table 1: Culverts

Culvert Stn #/ Size Length Q100 Q50 New

Culvert Cost

237+10 2-10x5 116 600 420 2-10x4 $116,000 241+82 1-36" 136 70 49 n.c. 12,240 253+66 4-10x5 144 500 350 4-10x4 259,200 258+20 1-36" 260 70 49 n.c. 23,400 278+40 2-8x4 136 260 182 n.c. 100,640 281+80 3-10x4 134 550 385 2-10x4 134,000 289+70 2-8x4 136 300 210 n.c. 100,640 296+70 9-10x5 164 2300 1610 9-10x4 639,600 310+50 9-10x5 136 1700 1190 9-10x4 530,400 155+37 2-48" 276 164 114.8 n.c. 33,120 158+98 1-36" 126 53 37.1 n.c. 11,340 161+40 3-48" 348 255 178.5 3-36" 31,320 171+85 3-10x4 201 750 525 2-10x4 201,000 173+49 2-10x4 234 400 280 2-8x4 173,160 179+85 1-10x4 116 200 140 2-48" 13,920 187+90 3-8x4 116 755 528.5 2-8x4 85,840 198+45 1-36" 122 52 36.4 n.c. 10,980 200+55 3-36" 348 96 67.2 n.c. 31,320 208+80 4-10x5 116 1500 1050 4-10x4 208,800 222+30 1-36" 128 31 21.7 n.c. 11,520 228+75 3-36" 348 125 87.5 n.c. 31,320 232+80 2-36" 232 129 90.3 n.c. 20,880

Total Cost $2,780,640 Existing Culvert Costs. These costs include the cost of boxes and pipes only, and exclude headwalls, inlets, outlet protection, etc. (Obtained from Design Concept Reports.)

Box culverts: $3,029,980 Pipe culverts: $245,660 Total: $3,275,640





Construct floodwall on Bureau of Reclamation property to prevent overflow of roadway onto the Casino Property. Estimated potential savings:



Related Value Analysis Proposals and/or Supplemental Recommendations: P01-046 - Maintain the horizontal and vertical alignment of the 5-lane section

along the Casino frontage.



EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-051 Idea Description: Construct floodwall on Bureau of Reclamation property to prevent overflow of roadway onto the Casino Property. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Eliminates need to elevate roadway an an additional two (2) feet. Advantages of original concept: 1. Does not include inspection and maintence of a floodwall Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Vandalism and graffiti of floodwall

Calculations and/or Discussion: This alternative proposes construction of a floodwall rather than elevating the roadway approximately 2 additional feet along a 720-foot segment in front of the Casino property. The floodwall was assumed to be a concrete structure with a 3-foot toedown and a height of 2 feet above ground. A narrow earth embankment was considered, but eliminated from further consideration because of potential erosion of the embankment. It should be noted that neither the floodwall nor the roadway embankment will satisfy FEMA's requirements for a levee to remove this area from the 100-year floodplain as shown on the effective Flood Insurance Floodwall Assumptions:

1. 2’ height above ground 2. 3’ toedown (including footer) 3. Wall thickness 8” 4. 1’ x 3’ footer 5. Unit cost for reinforced concrete: $150/sy 6. Length of floodwall = 720’ 7. Floodwall constructed of reinforced concrete. Wall 0.33 cy per lf Cost = 0.33 x $150 x 720 = $36,000



Elevate Roadway Assumptions:

1. Elevate 720 feet of roadway by 2 feet 2. Roadway fill = 8 cy per ft. (50’ width w/4:slopes) 3. Cost of borrow = $8/cy

Cost = 8 x $8 x 720 = $46,000





Use smooth-lined metal pipe culverts rather than reinforced concrete pipe culverts. Estimated potential savings:



Alternative A - Use smooth-lined pipe culverts rather than reinforced concrete pipe culverts. Alternative B - Use alumimum box culverts rather than reinforced box culverts

Related Value Analysis Proposals and/or Supplemental Recommendations: P01-024 - Change culvert drop-inlet structures from a 4:1 slope to a 2:1 slope.



EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-008 Idea Description: Use smooth-lined metal pipe culverts rather than reinforced concrete pipe culverts. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Saves initial cost Advantages of original concept: 1. Lasts longer 2. Is a more standard design for Pima County Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. May have to change Pima County design standards

Calculations and/or Discussion: Alternative A

Reinforced Concrete PipeD Unit Cost Length Total Cost

(inches) (feet)24 50$ 371 18,550$ 36 100$ 1699 169,900$ 48 120$ 740 88,800$

Total Cost 277,250.00$

Smooth-Lined Metal Pipe (Ultra Flo or equiv.)D Unit Cost Length Total Cost

(inches) (feet)24 50$ 371 18,550$ 36 60$ 1699 101,940$ 48 90$ 740 66,600$

Total Cost 187,090.00$

Cost Savings 90,160$



Alternative B Aluminum box culverts cannot be directly compared to reinforced concrete box culverts since the variation in n-value is so great. The n-value represents the resistance to flow associated with the inner surface of the culvert. The aluminum box culvert alternative would require a revised hydraulic analysis to determine the number and sizes of culverts required. Additionally, the initial cost associated with aluminum box culvert will likely not be significantly different than the cast-in-place culvert design that will be bid as an option for this project. Therefore it is recommended that this alternative be failed.





Change culvert drop-inlet structures from a 4:1 slope to a 2:1 slope. Estimated potential savings:



Related Value Analysis Proposals and/or Supplemental Recommendations: P01-008 - Use smooth-lined metal pipe culverts rather than reinforced concrete

pipe culverts.



EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-024 Idea Description: Change culvert drop-inlet structures from a 4:1 slope to a 2:1 slope. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Reduction in initial cost Advantages of original concept: 1. No significant advantage Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. No significant risks

Calculations and/or Discussion: A preliminary analysis of the inlet structures indicates that changing the inlet slope from 4:1 to 2:1 will result in a savings of approximately 14% of the required concrete channel lining. Cost of as-designed concrete channel lining: $462,594 + $201,600 = $664,194 Cost of as-proposed concrete channel lining: 0.86 x $664,194 = $570,000 Initial cost savings: $94,000





Shorten culverts so that inlets and outlets will terminate at the shoulder rather than at the end of the clear zone. Estimated potential savings:






EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-050 Idea Description: Shorten culverts so that inlets and outlets will terminate at the shoulder rather than at the end of the clear zone. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Reduces initial construction cost Advantages of original concept: 1. Eliminates the need for numerous guardrails throughout the project. Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Higher risk of accident due to guardrail

Calculations and/or Discussion: This alternative cannot be implemented where there are conflicts with the sidewalk or bicycle paths. Therefore, at most locations, culverts could only be shortened on one side of the roadway. This results in approximately a 10% reduction in the length of the culverts. The assumption was made that this would result in an approximate 8% reduction in the construction cost of the culverts. The design cost estimate for culverts is approximately $2,000,000. This alternative would result in an initial cost savings of approximately $160,000 (i.e. 8% of $2,000,000). This would be partially offset by the cost of required guardrails, approximately $80,000. This value is based on the assumption that half of the culverts (11) would require guardrail and that the guardrail would extend 200 feet on the approach side of the culvert. This results in the need for approximately 3,000 feet of guardrail. A unit cost of $25/lf was assumed for the guardrail. This results in a net initial cost savings of approximately $80,000.





Eliminate rip rap scour protection at culvert outlets. Estimated potential savings:



Related Value Analysis Proposals and/or Supplemental Recommendations: P01-008 - Use smooth-lined metal pipe culverts rather than reinforced concrete

pipe culverts. P01-024 - Change culvert drop-inlet structures from a 4:1 slope to a 2:1 slope.



EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-004 Idea Description: Eliminate rip rap scour protection at culvert outlets. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Reduces costs. 2. Adheres to FHWA guidelines for scour protection. Advantages of original concept: 1. Prevents formation of a scour hole at the culvert outlet. Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Deviates from local practices used for most culvert designs.

Calculations and/or Discussion: Scour protection is commonly installed at culvert outlets to prevent formation of a scour hole. Outlet protection is especially important where long-term scour is expected to impact the culvert outlet or where culvert velocities are excessive. A scour hole occurs at culvert outlets because flood water in the culvert is usually more concentrated and has higher flow velocities than the pre-construction condition. The Federal Highways Administration Hydrologic Engineering Circular 18 (FHWA HEC-18) recommends that the size of the outlet scour hole be computed and evaluated to determine if that level of scour is unacceptable. In some cases, the outlet scour hole is large enough to extend outside the right-of-way or is deep enough to undermine the stability of the culvert or roadway embankment. The scour hole can also become a source of ponded storm water, which may have implications for vector control. Given the flat slope of most of the cross drainages, the large widths of many of the culvert crossings, and the rapidly expanding flow in the tail water areas downstream of the culverts, formation of scour holes may not be so problematic as to warrant placement of scour protection. Cost Savings Analysis The costs for rip rap erosion protection listed in the Draft-Final Design Concept Reports are $35,550 and $73,650 for Mountain Eagle to Wade and Wade to Mark, respectively. Therefore, the maximum savings for this proposal is $109,200. This does not include the estimated $87,000 for gabions at the Station 296+70 culvert outlets on Black Wash. For this proposal it was assumed that the projected scour hole dimensions would be acceptable for at least half of the culvert locations. Therefore, the estimated minimum savings of this proposal is approximately $54,000.



Recommended Analysis for Further Study

1. Compute scour hole geometry for biggest discharge or largest total culvert width 2. Compute scour hole geometry for single cell RCP 3. Compare scour hole geometry to ROW limits, embankment stability, and clear

zone requirements. 4. Sediment continuity modeling for flows passing road alignment.

Factors Not Evaluated

1. Backwater conditions at the culvert inlet may induce sediment deposition, creating the potential for slightly increased scour at the culvert outlet.

2. Traffic safety – issues associated with clear zone setbacks were not assessed.





Provide an 8-foot wide multi-purpose path instead of concrete sidewalk. Estimated potential savings:

Initial: $ 480,000 Future: $ (34,000) Total: $ 446,000


Related Value Analysis Proposals and/or Supplemental Recommendations: P03-003 - Use alternative materials instead of concrete for constructing sidewalk. P01-011 - Reduce bike lane width from 6 feet to 5 feet.



EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-001 Idea Description: Provide an 8-foot wide multi-purpose path instead of concrete sidewalk. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Consolidates pedestrian and bike modes into a single location 2. Allows for reduction in shoulder width Advantages of original concept: 1. Provides typical bike lane in standard location 2. Provide a sidewalk that separates bike and pedestrian traffic Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Since this is the minimum width for low-use path, it could become congested as

use increases 2. Increased maintanence cost associated with asphaltic concrete surface used to

construct the path Calculations and/or Discussion: Assuming an 8-foot wide asphaltic concrete path that is 3 inches thick would replace the 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk, initial savings are shown below:

Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost CostConcrete - 5' wide - Wade to Mark SF 58,850 3.00$ 176,550$ Concrete - 5' wide - Mtn Eagle to Wade SF 51,470 4.00$ 205,880$

382,430$

AC Pavement - 8' wide - 3" thick Tons 3,200 60.00$ 192,000$

190,430$

Base Cost:

Initial Savings: Additional savings would be realized if the shoulder could be reduced to 4 feet throughout the project instead of 6 feet since the bike lane is removed from the cross section. The average cost of the pavement structural sections for both projects is about $29/sy. The combined project length is 4.26 miles, so reduced pavement area is 4.26 x 5,280 x 4 (2 feet from both sides) = 89,971 sf = 9,997 sy. Say 10,000 sy. Additional savings are: $29/sy x 10,000 sy = $290,000 Combined initial savings = $480,430



LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

PROJECT LIFE (IN YEARS): 20 INTEREST: 6.00%

ORIGINAL COST S ALT ERNAT IVE

"A" COST SALT ERNAT IVE

"B" COST SALT ERNAT IVE

"C" COST SINIT IAL COST S:BASE COST: $382,430.00 $192,000.00OTHER INITIAL COSTS:

SUBTOTAL INITIAL COSTS: $382,430.00 $192,000.00 SINGLE EVENT FUT URE COST SYEAR (from base year): 7COST: $30,000.00YEAR: 14COST: $30,000.00YEAR:COST:YEAR:COST:SALVAGE VALUE:PRESENT WORTH OF REPLACEMENT COSTS: $33,220.74 ANNUAL COST SMAINTENANCE COSTS:OPERATIONS COSTS:ENERGY COSTS:OTHER ANNUAL COSTS:

SUBTOTAL ANNUAL COSTS: PRESENT WORTH OF ANNUAL COSTS: NET PRESENT VALUE $382,430 $225,221

CAPIT AL SAVINGS $190,430FUT URE SAVINGS ($33,221)

T OT AL SAVINGS (o rig ina l - a lte rna tive ) $157,209NOTE: Items in italics are calculated





Maintain the horizontal and vertical alignment of the 5-lane section along the Casino frontage. Estimated potential savings:



Related Value Analysis Proposals and/or Supplemental Recommendations: P01-003 - Lower the culvert design standard: (1) Pass Q50 under roadway, and

(2) Q100 overtops roadway at less than 1.0-foot depth. P01-051 - Construct floodwall on Bureau of Reclamation property to prevent

overflow of roadway onto the Casino Property.



EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-046 Idea Description: Maintain the horizontal and vertical alignment of the 5-lane section along the Casino frontage. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Would reduce embankment and new pavement cost. Advantages of original concept: 1. Alignment eliminates jog and overtopping of roadway in 100-year storm. Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Roadway could be closed or travel could be impeded during a 100-year storm.

Calculations and/or Discussion: Other than the eastern 630 feet, the existing pavement was determined to be worn out and would be uneconomical to overlay or otherwise rehabilitate. Therefore, it can be assumed that there will not be a savings in the construction cost of the pavement. There would be a reduced cost for the embankment. The length of the existing 5-lane section that is proposed to be rebuilt is from Station 336+80 to 368+80. The profile is being raised an average of 2 feet along that section. Using the average width of 110 feet, the savings in embankment would be:

Length(ft) Width(ft) Height(ft) Volume(CY) Cost3200 110 2 26,074 $208,593

Using a unit price of $8/cy of borrow, the savings would be $208,600. By keeping the profile lowered, the connection to Ignacio Baumea would be reduced by about 40 feet. This results in a pavement reduction of 200 sy ($20/sy) and sidewalk decrease of 500 sf ($3/sf) resulting in a cost savings of $5,500. Additional savings would result from not rebuilding the road from Station 362+50 to Station 368+80, because it was recently constructed and its pavement is in excellent condition. As shown on the next page, these savings would be:



Pavement

Length(ft) Width(ft) Area(ft) Thickness(in) Volume(cf) Density(pcf) Weight (tons)ARAC 630 68 42,840 2 7,140 138 493

AC 630 68 42,840 3 10,710 142 760AB 630 68 42,840 14 49,980

Asphalt Rubber is 8.5% of ARAC

Item Qty Unit Unit Price CostARAC 493 Tons $35 $17,255

AR 42 Tons $600 $25,200AC 760 Tons $58 $44,080AB 1,851 CY $25 $46,275

Total $132,810

Sidewalk Length(ft) Width(ft) Area(ft) Unit Price Total Cost630 5 3,150 $3 $9,450

Sidewalk & Pavement Savings $142,260 The total savings would be approximately $350,000. This alternative can only be implemented if Proposal 01-003 is also implemented allowing the 100-year storm to cross over Valencia Road. Would also need to verify that whichever design storm (25-year or 50-year) is selected to pass under the road does not overtop Valencia currently.





Eliminate the median curbs and raised median throughout the corridor. Estimated potential savings:



Related Value Analysis Proposals and/or Supplemental Recommendations: P01-037 - Reduce the width of the median for the entire length of the project from

20 feet to 0 feet.



EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-016 Idea Description: Eliminate the median curbs and raised median throughout the corridor. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Reduces cost 2. Depressed median captures rainfall Advantages of original concept: 1. Curbed medians provide enhanced vehicle control 2. Reduce the likelihood of vehicles crossing the median into oncoming traffic 3. Discourages unauthorized left turns across the median 4. Protects median landscaping from errant and unauthorized vehicles Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Potential traffic safety impacts 2. Potential landscape damage from unauthorized turns 3. A raised median is required by the Administrative Code

Calculations and/or Discussion: This proposal consists of eliminating the median curb and raised landscape median throughout the length of the project. The cost of the median curb is shown below.

Location Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost

Stage 1 (Mountain Eagle Dr. to Wade Rd.) Curb 16,620 LF $10.00 $166,200

Stage 2 (Wade Rd. to Mark Rd.) Curb 20,579 LF $10.00 $205,790

Total $371,990 The cost of the additional borrow material to construct a median is estimated below.

Location Item Quantity Unit Unit Price CostStage 1 (Mountain Eagle Dr. to Wade Rd.) Median 3,077 CY $8.00 $24,616Stage 2 (Wade Rd. to Mark Rd.) Median 3,810 CY $8.00 $30,480

Total $55,096 $371,990 + $55,096 = $427,086





Reduce the width of the median for the entire length of the project from 20 feet to 0 feet. Estimated potential savings:



Related Value Analysis Proposals and/or Supplemental Recommendations: P01-016 - Eliminate the median curbs and raised median throughout the corridor.



EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-037 Idea Description: Reduce the width of the median for the entire length of the project from 20 feet to 0 feet. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Reduces overall width of the project cross section 2. Reduces cost of median landscaping 3. Reduces length (and cost) of drainage crossings Advantages of original concept: 1. Separation of opposing traffic Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Potential traffic delays

Calculations and/or Discussion: The median as currently designed is 20 feet wide. This width could be reduced by any increment between 20 feet and 0 feet. If the entire median was eliminated, the following savings in landscape planting and irrigation could be anticipated:

Location Item Quantity Unit Unit Price CostStage 1 (Mountain Eagle Dr. to Wade Rd.) Median 13,560 SY $6.00 $81,360Stage 2 (Wade Rd. to Mark Rd.) Median 13,100 SY $6.00 $78,600

Total $159,960 If the landscape median was eliminated, double centerline striping (4 stripes) would be required to control traffic. This additional striping cost is estimated as follows:

Item Quantity Unit Unit Price CostPainted Median Striping 37,200 LF $0.40 $14,880

Net Savings:

$159,960 - $14,880 = $145,080





Reduce bike lane width from 6 feet to 5 feet. Estimated potential savings:



Related Value Analysis Proposals and/or Supplemental Recommendations: P01-001 - Provide an 8-foot wide multi-purpose path instead of concrete sidewalk.



EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-011 Idea Description: Reduce bike lane width from 6 feet to 5 feet. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Reduction in width of cross section for overall roadway Advantages of original concept: 1. Meets current design standards Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Concerns from Bicycle Community

Calculations and/or Discussion: Reduction of 1’ of pavement from bike lane on each side of the roadway. Roadway profile remains same. PHASE 1

Length Width Material Depth Amount Unit Cost/Unit

13,480 ft 2 ft Aggregate 14" 1,165 CY 26 $30,288 AC 3" 479 Ton 58 $27,764 AC - Rubber 2" 308 Ton 35 $10,772 Rubber 26 Ton 600 $15,696 Mineral Add 3 Ton 100 $280 Tac Coat 1 Ton 800 $800 $85,600

PHASE 2

Length Width Material Depth Amount Unit Cost/Unit

9,300 ft 2 ft Aggregate 7" 402 CY 25 $10,046 AC 5" 550 Ton 60 $33,026 AC - Rubber 2" 212 Ton 30 $6,370 Rubber 18 Ton 500 $9,024 $58,466

Total $144,066





Reduce the shoulder width on Vahalla Road. Estimated potential savings:






EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-036 Idea Description: Reduce the shoulder width on Vahalla Road. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Reduces cost Advantages of original concept: 1. Vahalla Road would be constructed to its ultimate width 2. More room for two-way traffic Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Additional pavement will need to be added in the future

Calculations and/or Discussion: This proposal consists of reducing the pavement area of Vahalla Road by:

1. Reducing the shoulder width from 10 feet to 2 feet north of Valencia Road 2. Reducing the shoulder width from 4 feet to 2 feet south of Valencia Road 3. Reducing the width of the turn lane from 14 feet to 12 feet the entire length of the

Valhalla Road improvements Assumptions:

• Asphalt layers are 2.5 inches (0.21-ft) thick (total of 2 layers) • Unit weight of asphalt = 145pcf • Weight of each asphalt layer per square foot: 0.21cf x 145pcf = 30.5 lbs = 0.02

ton • Aggregate base layer is 8 inches thick • Aggregate base per square foot 0.67ft x 1sf = 0.67cf = 0.02cy • Asphalt rubber: 8.5% of the surface layer of asphalt (AC1) • Asphalt rubber per square foot: 0.02 ton x 0.085 = 0.0017 ton

Cost of asphalt concrete pavement section per square foot:

Description Quantity Unit Unit Price CostAsphalt Concrete No. 1 0.0160 Ton $58.00 $0.93Asphalt Concrete No. 2 0.0160 Ton $65.00 $1.04Asphalt Rubber 0.0017 Ton $600.00 $1.02Aggregate Base 0.025 CY $26.00 $0.65

Total $3.64 Total shoulder reduction: 4,896 sf Total savings: 4,896 sf x $3.60/sf = $17,625







Use alternative materials instead of concrete for constructing sidewalk. Estimated potential savings:

Initial: $ 302,000 Future: $ (22,000) Total: $ 280,000


Related Value Analysis Proposals and/or Supplemental Recommendations: P01-001 - Provide an 8-foot wide multi-purpose path instead of concrete

sidewalk.



EVALUATION Idea Number: 03-003 Idea Description: Use alternative materials instead of concrete for constructing sidewalk. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Reduced initial construction cost Advantages of original concept: 1. Reduced maintenance costs 2. Standard practice Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Increased maintenance requirements since material will be less durable 2. Material selected must still meet ADA compliance

Calculations and/or Discussion: A typical alternative material that may be considered in lieu of concrete is a 2-inch thick asphaltic concrete pavement.

Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost CostConcrete - 5' wide - Wade to Mark SF 58,850 3.00$ 176,550$ Concrete - 5' wide - Mtn Eagle to Wade SF 51,470 4.00$ 205,880$

382,430$

AC Pavement - 5' wide Tons 1,333 60.00$ 79,980$

302,450$

Base Cost:

Initial Savings:



LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

PROJECT LIFE (IN YEARS): 20 INTEREST: 6.00%

ORIGINAL COST S ALT ERNAT IVE

"A" COST SALT ERNAT IVE

"B" COST SALT ERNAT IVE

"C" COST SINIT IAL COST S:BASE COST: $382,430.00 $79,980.00OTHER INITIAL COSTS:

SUBTOTAL INITIAL COSTS: $382,430.00 $79,980.00 SINGLE EVENT FUT URE COST SYEAR (from base year): 7COST: $20,000.00YEAR: 14COST: $20,000.00YEAR:COST:YEAR:COST:SALVAGE VALUE:PRESENT WORTH OF REPLACEMENT COSTS: $22,147.16 ANNUAL COST SMAINTENANCE COSTS:OPERATIONS COSTS:ENERGY COSTS:OTHER ANNUAL COSTS:

SUBTOTAL ANNUAL COSTS: PRESENT WORTH OF ANNUAL COSTS: NET PRESENT VALUE $382,430 $102,127

CAPIT AL SAVINGS $302,450FUT URE SAVINGS ($22,147)

T OT AL SAVINGS (o rig ina l - a lte rna tive ) $280,303NOTE: Items in italics are calculated





Use a regular asphalt concrete wearing surface instead of rubberized asphalt concrete through the length of the project. Estimated potential savings:






EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-005 Idea Description: Use a regular asphalt concrete wearing surface instead of rubberized asphalt concrete through the length of the project. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Greater durability of the regular asphalt concrete wearing surface in areas of

turning vehicles such as at intersections and median openings. 2. Reduced costs of regular asphalt concrete wearing surface over the costs of

rubberized asphalt. Advantages of original concept: 1. Rubberized asphalt is considered a "quieter" pavement than regular asphalt

concrete. Its use can be considered as a noise mitigation technique. 2. Rubberized asphalt has been considered to reduce long term maintenance costs. Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Increased roadway noise as traffic increases as opposed to an initial drop in noise

from the roadway when constructed. 2. Potential for public comments for not installing rubberized asphalt to reduce the

noise that is already out there. 3. Potential for higher long term maintenance costs. 4. Consideration must be given to the structural strength of regular asphalt versus

rubberized asphalt in the pavement design. Pavement thickness will be greater for regular asphalt concrete.

Calculations and/or Discussion: Cost savings of using asphalt concrete over rubberized asphalt is estimated at $120,000 for Valencia Wade to Mark and from Mt. Eagle to Wade even though the thickness of the wearing surface is anticipated to increase from 2” to 2.5”. A noise study was conducted for the project and no noise mitigation warrants were met.



Phase I - Wade to Mark

4060001 18,583 TON Asphaltic Concrete (No. 1) $58.00 $1,077,8314060002 2,201 TON Asphaltic Concrete (No. 2) $65.00 $143,0714130040 11,169 TON Asphaltic Concrete (Asphalt-Rubber) $35.00 $390,9204130042 949 TON Asphalt Rubber Material (For AR-AC) $600.00 $569,6264130044 102 TON Mineral Admixture (For AR-AC) $100.00 $10,220

For the Rubberized Asphalt: 11169 Ton $390,920949 Ton $569,626102 Ton $10,220

12220 Ton $970,766 AR AC_FC Costs$86.92 Avg /Ton

PCDOT Minimum Arterial PCDOT Minimum ArterialPavement Section: Standard Pavement Section AR AC-FC Pavement Section

2" AR AC-FC 2.5 Top Lift AC 2 Top Lift AC3" AC Mix #1 2.5 Bottom Lift AC 2.5 Bottom Lift AC14" ABC 4 AB 4 AB

AR-AC reduces a standard section from 5" to 4.5"Going to regular AC, the pavement section needs to be increased to 2.5"

2" to 2.5" 1.25 increaseAssume the same weight of rubberized asphalt as regular asphalt so the increasein pavement amount is proportional

11169 Ton x 1.25 = 13961.25 Ton

Assume cost of Regular Asphalt = AC Mix No. 2 $65 Ton$907,481 Regular AC Costs

$63,285 Cost Savings Phase IPhase I 2.61 milesPhase II 1.65 miles

Proportion Savings in Phase II plans

1.65 $63,285 $41,000 Cost Savings Phase II2.61

$104,285 Total Project Cost Savings$100,000 Rounded





Use terminal blend asphalt instead of crumb rubber in the Asphalt Rubber Asphalt Concrete (ARAC) mix. Estimated potential savings:



Related Value Analysis Proposals and/or Supplemental Recommendations: P01-005 - Use a regular asphalt concrete wearing surface instead of rubberized

asphalt concrete through the length of the project.



EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-040 Idea Description: Use terminal blend asphalt instead of crumb rubber in the Asphalt Rubber Asphalt Concrete (ARAC) mix. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Terminal blend is easier for contractors to obtain 2. No crumb rubber plant required 3. Production not dependant on rubber plant schedule 4. Potentially smoother looking pavement Advantages of original concept: 1. May use less crumb rubber than terminal blend Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. ARAC may not be needed on project and greater cost savings could be realized by

deleting it. Calculations and/or Discussion: Terminal blend asphalt is becoming more recognized as an alternative product that eliminates the need for a crumb rubber plant where ARAC is being constructed. Both the Arizona Department of Transportation Central Materials Laboratory and the Pima County Materials Laboratory have reported no quality or other problems where terminal blend has been used. The savings with terminal blend are obtained through optimization of the paving schedule because the paving does not have to coincide with the mobilization and production schedule of a rubber plant. In addition, the production time is faster because of the reduced delays that are typical of crumb rubber products, where the product often fails to break down into a homogeneous liquid form during blending with resulting quality issues that require plant down time to resolve. Previous estimates of the cost savings developed through discussions with local paving contractors is that up to 3% of the total laydown cost. This would be $29,000 for the Wade Rd. to Mark Rd. section and $13,000 for the Mtn. Eagle Rd to Wade Rd. section. Combined savings is $42,000. Pima County Department of Transportation will apply a noise reduction of 3 dBA where rubberized asphalt products are used. However, since FHWA does not consider rubberized asphalt as a noise mitigation measure, the project noise report notes that this reduction was not applied to the project.





Pulverize in-place asphalt pavement materials and blend with new aggregate base. Estimated potential savings:






EVALUATION Idea Number: 06-003 Idea Description: Pulverize in-place asphalt pavement materials and blend with new aggregate base. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Reduces aggregate base quantity 2. Quicker construction time Advantages of original concept: 1. Portion of milled asphaltic concrete can be recycled Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. May be difficult to phase with other construction since it can only be performed

where new pavement is near existing grade so that new AB can be blended with pulverized material.

Calculations and/or Discussion: This approach would be applicable to the segment between Mtn. Eagle Rd. and Wade Rd. where the new roadway will be near existing grade over approximately 2,300 feet of alignment based on inspection of cross sections. In this section, a CAT RM 500 can pulverize 7-inch thick asphalt concrete at a rate of 25 feet per minute for an 8-foot width. Production is approximately 50 minutes per hour. Assuming both 12-foot lanes would be pulverized, the machine would require 3 passes. At 2,300 feet, each pass would take 2,300/25 = 92 minutes x (60 minutes/50 minutes) = 110 minutes. Total time = 3 x 110 = 330 minutes = 5.5 hours. Say 6 hours. Cost per hour = $450; so 5.5 x 450 = $2,475 Total cost = $2,475 Savings in AB = 2,300 x 24 x (7/12) = 32,200 cf of AB = 1,193 cy x $25/cy = $29,814 Net savings is $29,814 - $2,475 = $27,339 The revised City of Tucson/Pima County specifications allow for the introduction of up to 15 percent reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP). This allowance is included in the production cost of asphalt concrete that is presently contained in the project cost estimate. Use of this approach assumes that this portion of roadway would not be otherwise used as a portion of this RAP allowance. The design consultant will quantify existing pavement quantities in the earthwork table for the contractors information.





Reduce the amount of landscaping and irrigation. Estimated potential savings:

Initial: $ 1,000,000 to 1,200,000 Future: $ 0,000 Total: $ 1,000,000 to 1,200,000


Related Value Analysis Proposals and/or Supplemental Recommendations: P01-043 - Waive the Environmentally Sensitive Roadway (ESR) Ordinance and

Riparian Habitat requirements. P01-037 - Reduce the width of the median for the entire length of the project from

20 feet to 0 feet.



EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-020 Idea Description: Reduce the amount of landscaping and irrigation. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Reduces capital costs and maintenance costs 2. Allows the roadside to revegetate naturally 3. Reduces water consumption/cost 4. Meets the RTA Board landscape percentage cap Advantages of original concept: 1. Reduces the timeline to revegetate impacted areas 2. More visually aesthetic 3. Able to plant a larger variety of plant species Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. May have to amend / waive the Environmentally Sensitive Roadway design

requirements 2. Must meet stormwater regulations 3. Community backlash for reduced mitigation on impacted areas

Calculations and/or Discussion: Currently there are 171,400 sy of proposed landscaped areas in this project and $595,000 in landscape irrigation. The RTA board has set a limit of 4% of construction cost for landscaping; this project is currently over 7%. By reducing the landscaping and irrigation, the project will fall below the RTA limit. Because of limited development along the majority of the roadway, roadside landscaping can be reduced to areas where only stabilization is required, overseeding is not used, and in areas that have stormwater regulations. Reducing the landscape to 25% of current planned levels along the roadside and 50% inside medians and eliminating all irrigation would save roughly $1.16 million; if irrigation remains only in the proposed landscaped areas, the total savings would be $976,950. The median landscaping can be reduced and indigenous low water plants can be used which would also allow the elimination/reduction of irrigation lines. In areas where succulent plants may be located, another option may be to install dri-water gel packs. This would eliminate the need for irrigation lines especially to isolated groupings in the medians while maintaining the survival rate during the establishment period; however, this was not included in the cost savings and may need to be further analyzed to determine cost savings. The proposed landscaped areas in the medians were reduced by 50% and the proposed parkway landscape was reduced to 25% of original planned square yardage and cost per square yard remained the same for the proposed alternative.



DifferenceParkway Landscape FT 13,780 FT 50 SY 76,556 SY 19,139 SY 57,417Median Landscape FT 10,150 FT 20 SY 22,556 SY 11,278 SY 11,278Landscape Cost $587,000 $180,147 $406,853Irrigation Cost $375,000 0 $375,000Total SY 99,111 $962,000 $180,147 $781,853Landscape Cost / SY $5.92 $5.92 0Irrigation Cost / SY $3.78 0 0

DifferenceParkway Landscape FT 9300 FT 50 SY 51,667 SY 12,917 SY 38,750Median Landscape FT 9300 FT 20 SY 20,667 SY 10,333 SY 10,333Landscape Cost $236,900 $76,146 $160,754Irrigation Cost $220,000 0 $220,000Total SY 72,333 $456,900 $76,146 $380,754Landscape Cost / SY $3.28 $3.28 0Irrigation Cost / SY $3.04 0 0

Grand Total $1,418,900 $256,294 $1,162,606

Original Total Proposed

Mountain Eagle to Wade

Proposed

Wade to Mark

Length WidthOriginal

Total

Length Width

Proposed Irrigation Area Cost / SY Total

Wade to Mark SY 30,417 3.78 $114,976

Mtn Eagle to Wade SY 23,250 3.04 $70,680Total $185,656

If it is determined irrigation lines must be used and using a water truck is not feasible, an additional cost of $185,656 should be deducted from the savings above providing a total savings of $976,950.





Combine Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects. Estimated potential savings:






EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-012 Idea Description: Combine Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Eliminate the need for temporary improvements (taper lanes) 2. Take advantage of lower prices due to current economic conditions 3. Public benefit by using improvements sooner 4. Reduced mobilization and estimated shorter construction duration. 5. Greater economy of scale Advantages of original concept: 1. Keeps project cash flow 2. Allows local government time for accumulation of impact fees and other local

commitments 3. Would delay Phase 1 as Phase 2 design and environmental clearances are

obtained Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Availability of local matching funds 2. Financing vs. Inflation costs could impact savings 3. Delaying Phase 1 could increase its costs due to inflation

Calculations and/or Discussion: Current estimated project construction costs for PH1 is $13,962,000 (30% design) and for PH2 is $9,208,000 (15% design). Based on a construction start for PH1 of May 2013 and a construction start of PH2 of May 2017, the timeframe for acceleration is estimated at 4 years. Project Costs Associated with Financing This proposal assumes that the rate of inflation would be an offset against the interest rate costs associated with the financing necessary to accelerate project funding. Funding Availability PCDOT, over the next few months, will be completing design/bidding several projects (La Canada South, La Cholla North, Magee 3). As each of these projects include a contingency amount associated with construction, when the projects have a firm bid, funding may become available that could be used as a portion of the local matching funds in support of advancing PH2 segment of Valencia Road.



Project Cost Savings due to Phase Consolidation Phase consolidation would include a reduction of mobilization costs, a reduction in project duration (and associated general condition and overhead costs), and an improvement in purchasing power due to a larger contract. The savings associated with the efficiencies are estimated to range from 3% to 5% of the construction cost. A combined project construction cost of $23.2M and a 4% savings for these efficiencies, results in a projected $928,000 savings. Project Cost Increases Due to Earlier Maintenance Costs for maintenance of the added phase being completed early, using a roadway maintenance figure of $2,700/lane-mile/year would be $19,000/year or $76,000. However, based on the current condition of the roadway, there will be some ongoing maintenance costs, so this figure should be reduced to offset these costs (80% of estimate) to a figure of $61,000. Reduction in Lane Taper Costs A savings of the cost for a taper that would not need to be constructed and removed – PH1, is estimated at $55,000. This is based on a 300’ length of roadway that would need to be removed and rebuilt. This cost (per sq ft) is based on calculations identified in P01-011 at $3.17/sf. Summary of Costs and Benefits

Financing $0,000 Consolidation Efficiencies $928,000 Maintenance ($61,000) Transition Savings $55,000 $922,000 Use $900,000





Waive the Environmentally Sensitive Roadway (ESR) Ordinance and Riparian Habitat requirements. Estimated potential savings:



Related Value Analysis Proposals and/or Supplemental Recommendations: SR01-010 - Waive Scenic Route requirement for the overhead utilities.



EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-043 Idea Description: Waive the Environmentally Sensitive Roadway (ESR) Ordinance and Riparian Habitat requirements. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Reduces cost of permanent landscape elements and plant replacement. Advantages of original concept: 1. Complied with requirements of environmentally sensitive roadway (ESR)

standards and riparian habitat. 2. Provided for replacement of removed or destroyed native plants in densities

matching the original densities and composition. 3. Complied with Nationwide (NW) USACOE permit environmental requirements. Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Requires waving two County ordinances (ESR and Riparian Habitat, which can

only be authorized by the Board of Supervisors 2. Could risk violating the Nationwide USACOE Permit requirements. 3. Black Wash is an Administrative Floodway regulated by the Flood Control District

and the Board of Supervisors. Calculations and/or Discussion: Cost savings would result from assuming that approximately half of the $577,000 landscape budget for Phase 1 (Wade to Mark) is due to the trees being added as a result of the ESR and Riparian Habitat requirements, Cost savings could be minimal versus the administrative risks to the Board of Supervisors, the Flood Control District, and the risk of additional USACOE permit costs. The Board of Supervisors and the Flood Control District would be asked to reverse their own policies in a public hearing. The Corps’ concern is in removing or disturbing natural vegetation without revegetation. This proposal requires deliberation at a higher level for the Department, the RTA board and the Board of Supervisors.





Eliminate all public art on both phases of the project. Estimated potential savings:






EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-017 Idea Description: Eliminate all public art on both phases of the project. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Saves capital costs 2. Eliminates the chance of the art being defaced 3. Allows the roadway to maintain its natural desert scenic route Advantages of original concept: 1. Increases roadway aesthetics 2. Perception of the new roadway by travelers will be more positive 3. Artist has already been selected Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. May upset nearby residents who want the art 2. May have to cancel an existing artist contract

Calculations and/or Discussion: Pima County has planned to expend 1% of the estimated construction cost on public art. While this amount is acceptable by County and RTA standards, given the funding shortfall for this project, roughly $230,000 that would otherwise go towards public art can be used for construction.

13,730,000 1% 137,300.009,208,000 1% 92,080.00

229,380.00Mt. Eagle to Wade const. cost estimateWade to Mark const. cost Estimate

Total Savings





Combine this project with construction of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe's detention basin to reduce embankment costs and provide a local borrow source. Estimated potential savings:



Related Value Analysis Proposals and/or Supplemental Recommendations: SR01-019 - Identify borrow sources and test the R-value to reduce the pavement

structural section thickness.



EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-013 Idea Description: Combine this project with construction of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe's detention basin to reduce embankment costs and provide a local borrow source. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Reduces the cost of borrow by providing a local borrow pit. 2. Construction of detention basins upstream of the project could provide a reduction

in peak drainage flows along Black Wash, and reduce the size of drainage structures downstream at Valencia Road.

Advantages of original concept: 1. Borrow obtained from commercial sources is under the Contractor's direct control. Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. The agencies and activities are not under our direct control. 2. The timing of environmental permits, acquisition of State Land, putting a contract

in place and providing the testing of available material may render this proposal null and void.

Calculations and/or Discussion: The original amount project borrow was estimated at 117,322 cy @ $8/cy = $938,576. The tribe’s proposed detention basin is estimated to generate approximately 40,000 to 50,000 cy of good borrow material. Given the shorter haul distance and the construction equipment utilized (haul roads within or adjacent to project ROW, use of scrappers as opposed to end-dump trucks to deliver and place material), estimate approximately $4/cy for a cost reduction of approximately $200,000. However, as noted in the Risk Analysis section above, the timing of environmental permits, the time required for acquisition of State Land, putting a contract in place, and providing the testing of available material are not under our control, and may render this proposal null and void.





Seek RTA Board Approval of Administrative Code revisions to clarify the intent of the project scope and enable value proposals. Estimated potential savings:

Initial: $ Not Quantified Future: $ Not Quantified Total: $ Not Quantified


The project scope, as currently designed, deviates from the scope identified in the RTA Administrative Code. Complying with the Administrative Code will add to the project cost, as well as incorporate elements which are undesirable in the project context.




EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-042 Idea Description: Seek RTA Board Approval of Administrative Code revisions to clarify the intent of the project scope and enable value proposals. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Enables cost saving value proposals. 2. Corrects technical description errors contained within the Administrative Code. Advantages of original concept: 1. None noted. Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Potential for complaints from supporters of elements of scope that are dropped for

project description. Calculations and/or Discussion: The RTA Plan description of the Valencia Road Ajo to Mark project (RTA #24) was very succinct: “Valencia Road, Ajo to Mark: Widen to 4-lane desert parkway, bike lanes and sidewalks”. The RTA Administrative Code, adopted following the passage of the RTA Plan at the polls, describes the project as: “Widen Valencia Road between Ajo Highway and Mark Road to a 4-lane desert parkway, with 4 travel lanes; raised, landscaped median; bike lanes in each direction; ADA-accessible sidewalks; and continuous street lighting. Additional turn lanes, signalization, and intersection improvements at Ajo Highway”. During the development of the project design, the specific needs of the project were assessed by the design team, based upon existing local conditions and preferences of the local community. These needs and preferences conflict with the more detailed scope described in the Administrative Code, necessitating either an Administrative Code amendment or plan revisions (and additional costs). Specific areas of change required by the current plan for Valencia Road include:

1. Delete reference to continuous street lighting. The closest existing street lighting lies over 3 miles from the project, and is east of Mission Road, on the other side of the Tucson Mountain range from the project reach. Safety lighting is proposed for the project, at intersections only. The installation of street lighting, if incorporated into the project would add approximately $1.8 million to the project costs.

2. Allow for the use of a continuous left turn lane. The Casino del Sol has an existing continuous left turn lane, which is important for the queuing of turns into their site during events at their amphitheater and other venues. The use of this



continuous left turn lane is proposed for the eastern 2,200 feet of the overall project reach, part of which was recently constructed as a part of a 2.5-mile reach of Valencia Road with a continuous left turn lane east of the project by Pima County.

3. The installation of a sidewalk on one side of the roadway is proposed under the current plan. The RTA ballot language identifies “sidewalks” as being required. The word “sidewalks” is plural, and may connote to some that sidewalks would be provided on both sides of the street. With substantial reaches of land frontage along the project undeveloped, the need for sidewalk along both sides of the road does not seem necessary; provision of a continuous sidewalk and connections to all sidewalks within existing developments is recommended.

Other conflicts with the Administrative Code may exist with value proposals being considered as well. To maximize flexibility and avoid conflict with existing or possible project elements, it is recognized that the Administrative Code be revised to read: Widen Valencia Road between Ajo Highway and Mark Road to a 4-lane desert parkway, with 4 travel lanes; bike lanes in each direction; a continuous ADA-accessible sidewalk, with connections to the sidewalks in all developed projects fronting the roadway; and safety lighting. Additional turn lanes, signalization and intersection improvements at Ajo Highway”.





Eliminate the fiber optic conduit (ITS) unless a user is identified and commits to providing the necessary funding. Estimated potential savings:






EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-041 Idea Description: Eliminate the fiber optic conduit (ITS) unless a user is identified and commits to providing the necessary funding. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Saves $280,000 2. Eliminates one "utility" to contend with during design and construction. Advantages of original concept: 1. Allows for PCDOT's ability to expand the ITS network 2. New and future traffic signals would be tied into the existing corridor ITS network. Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Limits PCDOT's ability to expand ITS network. 2. Traffic Signals would not be tied into the corridor ITS network using conventional

and/or existing Traffic Engineering technology. Calculations and/or Discussion: On City of Tucson projects, TDOT has been directed to absorb the cost of fiber optic conduit, pull boxes, vaults, and ultimately the fiber optics. Given that this is an RTA project, the team considered it appropriate to have the end users (PCDOT Traffic Engineering) be responsible for the added cost of all fiber optic related materials and installation.





Eliminate the rumble strips on the shoulder of the road. Estimated potential savings:






EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-009 Idea Description: Eliminate the rumble strips on the shoulder of the road. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Would reduce the construction cost. 2. Reduces conflicts with bicyclists. 3. Is more in line with ongoing urbanization of the area. Advantages of original concept: 1. Alerts inattentive drivers to running off the road. Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Could result in an increase in run off the road accidents because drivers aren't

alerted to their drifting off of the road. Calculations and/or Discussion: Based on ADOT bid tabulations for the past twelve months in the Tucson District, the cost of 8” ground-in rumble strips is $0.20 per linear foot of pavement shoulder. For the Valencia Corridor the construction cost would be:

Roadway Segment Length Cost per LF Sides Cost

SR 86 to Mountain Eagle 6,500 $0.20 2 $2,600 Mountain Eagle to Wade 8,360 $0.20 2 $3,344 Wade to Mark 13,780 $0.20 2 $5,512

Total $11,456 Use $11,000 for savings. Aside from the cost savings, deleting the rumble strips would make the facility more bike-friendly. However, the impact to bikes can be mitigated by moving the rumble strip over to the shoulder stripe, thus maximizing the width for bikes.

SECTION 4 - SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS



Final Report 4-1

The following ideas were generated by the VA Team and thought to have considerable merit. These ideas are thought to offer improvements, but either the economics were not calculable or the idea could not be developed because of insufficient information. The VA Team suggests that these recommendations be carefully reviewed and given as much thought and effort as the formal VA Proposals.

SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY TABLE

Note: To obtain the backup information about the Supplemental Recommendation use the hyperlinks shown in the summary table.

SR NO. SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATION DESCRIPTION REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS PAGE

NO. Geotechnical

SR01-049 Use this project as a test design case for the use of the Mechanistic-Empirical (ME) pavement design method.

Decline. 4-2

SR01-019 Identify borrow sources and test the R-value to reduce the pavement structural section thickness.

Decline. 4-4

SR01-039 Use alternative subgrade treatment methods.

Accept. 4-6

Enhancements SR03-001 Designate an equestrian trail or route

on the north side of Valencia Road. Accept. 4-9

SR01-047 Pursue other funding sources to help offset project costs and add enhancements to the project.

Accept. 4-11

SR01-038 Obtain FHWA grant money for pavement safety edge funding.


Traffic SR01-023 Optimize the movement of traffic

between Wade Road and Camino Verde.


SR04-005 The Access Management Plan should not restrict turn movements, but restrict future intersections instead.


Miscellaneous SR01-010 Waive Scenic Route requirement for

the overhead utilities. Accept With Modifications. 4-24

SR01-052 Build the culverts beginning with the inlet and outlet structures and work toward the center of the road.

Decline. 4-26



Final Report 4-2

SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATION NO. 01-049

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION DESCRIPTION:

Use this project as a test design case for the use of the Mechanistic-Empirical (ME) pavement design method.





Final Report 4-3

EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-049 Idea Description: Use this project as a test design case for the use of the Mechanistic-Empirical (ME) pavement design method. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. The AASHTO 1993 design method may over-predict pavement performance in

areas that have average temperatures that are warmer than the original AASHTO road test site

2. ME pavement design will eventually replace the AASHTO 1993 method, and a test case could help facilitate the transition

Advantages of original concept: 1. Current standard design method Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. May potentially show a thicker pavement section is required since current design

method may over-predict performance DISCUSSION AND/OR CALCULATIONS: ADOT has been involved in efforts over the past few years to prepare for implementation of the new AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG), with significant efforts focused in on-going research at ASU. The MEPDG represents a significant advance over the current 1993 AASHTO design method that is used by both ADOT and Pima County (with local modifications). The new methodolgy offers improved control of environmental factors that are presently incorporated into a single seasonal variational factor (SVF) in the current method. The design output provides better information as well, because it allows the designer to target particular performance criteria (e.g., allowable rut depth and expected percentage of alligator cracking at end of service life). Although the proposed schedule for implementation by ADOT is not known, it may be beneficial to implement this design method within a project such as this where the subgrade support and existing pavement performance is known to be poor. Researchers at ASU could be approached for assistance in implementation since they have already identified and developed 10 climatic regions for Arizona. Other researchers looking at the differences between the 1993 AASHTO method and MEPDG have noted that it appears the 1993 method overpredicts pavement performance in states such as Arizona where average temperature is greater than that of the original AASHTO Road Test site. It is not known if this effect remains due to local modifications of the method with the SVF, but it is possible better pavement performance would result from implementation of the new design method.



Final Report 4-4



Identify borrow sources and test the R-value to reduce the pavement structural section thickness.


Related Value Analysis Proposals and/or Supplemental Recommendations: P01-013 - Combine this project with construction of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe's

detention basin to reduce embankment costs and provide a local borrow source.



Final Report 4-5

EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-019 Idea Description: Identify borrow sources and test the R-value to reduce the pavement structural section thickness. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Reduces project cost if pavement structural section is tied to specific borrow

sources Advantages of original concept: 1. None noted Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Sufficient identified borrow might not be available at time of construction if it is

used for other projects that are constructed earlier DISCUSSION AND/OR CALCULATIONS: A significant portion of the project between Wade Rd. and Mark Rd. will be constructed on new embankment that is approximately 4 feet thick on average, and a significant volume of this material will be borrow. The pavement structural section might be optimized if it is directly tied to the properties of a known borrow source that is identified and tested for R-value during project design. Typically, design and construction control R-values are determined for the pavement that will be placed in cut areas on the project. A subgrade acceptance chart is used during construction in the cut areas and is based on the control R-value, which allows for some variability in the R-value. An X value is assigned for borrow to ensure that the design R-value is met. No allowance for R-value less than the design R-value is given, but in effect the borrow properties are typically tied to the subgrade properties on site. This often simplifies construction since a separate structural section is often not desired between the cut and the fill areas. However, since most of the upper 3 feet of subgrade on the Wade Rd. to Mark Rd. portion of the project will be borrow, there will be a cost advantage if the geotechnical designer identifies likely borrow sources early in the project and includes lab testing of representative samples in the geotechnical report. The lowest tested R-value could be used to develop the pavement structural section to be conservative. The R-values determined from borrow sources will likely be greater than the existing subgrade due to the presence of fine grained soil along the length of the project. Accordingly, the structural section tied to these borrow sources should be less than that developed based on the properties of existing subgrade.



Final Report 4-6



Use alternative subgrade treatment methods.

Additional Description: The geotechnical report was not yet complete at the time of the VA study so the VA team assumed the base design case to be that shown in the Design Concept Reports.




Final Report 4-7

EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-039 Idea Description: Use alternative subgrade treatment methods. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Reduced structural section cost if weak subgrade is confirmed 2. Mitigates expansive subgrade if it is encountered within the alignment Advantages of original concept: 1. None noted - geotechnical report is not available yet Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Soil sulfate content has to be carefully tested to avoid pavement damage due to

expansive reaction DISCUSSION AND/OR CALCULATIONS: The geotechnical report was not available for review during this VE study. However, based on site geology, NRCS soil data, and observed pavement conditions, it is fairly certain that poor subgrade soil is present along the proposed alignment. The segment of the project between Mtn. Eagle Road and Wade Road will be constructed near existing grade to balance cut and fill. The segment from Mark Road to Wade Road will be constructed on embankment to elevate the roadway profile and correct identified drainage issues. As a result, this proposal will apply only to the Mtn Eagle to Wade Road segment. Assuming the existing subgrade R-value will be approximately 20, the proposed structural section of 2" ARAC, 5" AC (mix 2), 7" AB will support approximately 3,500,000 18-kip equivalent single axle loads (ESALs). The cost of the structural section is approximately $30.64 per square yard based on the costs assumed in the Stage I estimate. Lime-treated subgrade costs approximately $0.65/sy-inch assuming a placement cost of $1.87 sy for 5% lime and lime supplied at $130 per ton. If a 6-inch lime stabilized subgrade is placed, the same number of ESALs can be supported by 5" AC (mix 2) and 5 inches of AB at a total structural section cost of $23.70/sy. The savings for the same performance with respect to ESALs supported would be $6.94 per square yard. The swell characteristics of the subgrade may require 12 inches of lime subgrade to be placed, in which case the savings would be reduced to $3.73 per square yard if a minimum 5" AC over 4" AB structural section is placed above it. Other commonly used subgrade treatment methods are:

1. Cement stabilization of granular subgrades 2. Cement stabilization of aggregate base 3. Geogrid placement between the subgrade and the AB. 4. Overexcavation and replacement if utilities are not affected.



Final Report 4-8

Relative costs for these other subgrade treatment methods have not been evaluated since the nature of the subgrade has not been characterized at this stage of the project. As noted above, the geotechnical report has not yet been completed for the project, so the purpose of this Supplemental Recommendation is to highlight the advantages of alternative subgrade treatment for consideration by the design team should weak or expansive subgrade be encountered during the project geotechnical investigation.



Final Report 4-9



Designate an equestrian trail or route on the north side of Valencia Road.





Final Report 4-10

EVALUATION Idea Number: 03-001 Idea Description: Designate an equestrian trail or route on the north side of Valencia Road. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Satisfy equestrian community 2. Adds an additional mode of transportation Advantages of original concept: 1. None noted Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. None noted

DISCUSSION AND/OR CALCULATIONS: This proposal would consist of identifying an alignment for an equestrian trail and the installation of identification/directional signage. If a directional/information sign is installed at each cross street and major drainage crossing, a total of 46 signs would be required.

Item Quantity Unit Unit Price CostEquestrian Signs 46 Each $250.00 $11,500



Final Report 4-11



Pursue other funding sources to help offset project costs and add enhancements to the project.


Related Value Analysis Proposals and/or Supplemental Recommendations: SR01-038 - Obtain FHWA grant money for pavement safety edge funding.



Final Report 4-12

EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-047 Idea Description: Pursue other funding sources to help offset project costs and add enhancements to the project. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Allows for enhanced benefits associated with additional project elements 2. May be available to fund components of the existing project Advantages of original concept: 1. None noted. Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Additional requirements associated with funding provider may affect the original

project. DISCUSSION AND/OR CALCULATIONS: The augmentation of the project is possible if additional funding sources are secured to provide additional elements to the project. A specific example of this is the addition of funds for mixed use paths, which are not currently in the plan but are desirable and which may be obtained from funding sources such as:

• Transportation Enhancement Funds (Federal) • Bond Funds (County) • Greenway/Pathway/Bikeway/Sidewalk Funds (RTA #41)

Other partnerships should be explored, including partnerships with Pima County Flood Control District on flood control improvements (potential source for fill, may also be able to reduce downstream culverts) and the Pascua Yaqui Tribe for detention basin and casino expansion (potential source for fill, may also be able to reduce downstream culverts). Both of these agencies have ongoing projects within the area, and it may be advantageous to coordinate the timing of projects to participate in the synergies of coordinated work.



Final Report 4-13



Obtain FHWA grant money for pavement safety edge funding.


Related Value Analysis Proposals and/or Supplemental Recommendations: SR01-047 - Pursue other funding sources to help offset project costs and add

enhancements to the project. P01-009 - Eliminate the rumble strips on the shoulder of the road.



Final Report 4-14

EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-038 Idea Description: Obtain FHWA grant money for pavement safety edge funding. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Increase safety 2. No additional costs 3. Reduces liablity 4. Has potential to reduce costs 5. Increase pavement edge durability Advantages of original concept: 1. The pavement edge may already be suitable Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. May have to reduce bike lane width

DISCUSSION AND/OR CALCULATIONS: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Arizona Division Office and the Arizona Department of Transportation Local Technical Assistance Program (ADOT-LTAP) is administering the Local Agency Safety Edge Grant Program. The grant will provide local agencies an opportunity to obtain the safety edge device which connects to pavers in less than 15 minutes and creates a soft edge rather than a drop off edge. Studies show that crashes can be reduced by 5.7%. In Iowa a case study was performed by AAA that showed as many as 18% of rural run-off-road crashes were partially caused by pavement edge. (Below is the case study). Safety edge increases safety and improves durability of the edge pavement. According to FHWA, installing the safety edge has a minimal cost difference (less than 1%). In some studies around the nation, agencies claim that less pavement is used and, therefore, a savings of roughly $15,000 per mile was found. Local agencies are encouraged to apply for the grant by Friday March 30, 2012 by 5 p.m. More information can be found here: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/technology/safetyedge/publications.cfm http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/safedge/faqs/#technical



Final Report 4-15

Case Study

Iowa Adopts Standard Policy A national study (funded by AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety and the FHWA) found that as many as 18 percent of rural run-off-road crashes in Iowa on paved roadways with unpaved shoulders may have been at least partially caused by the pavement edge. This type of crash was four times more likely to include a fatality than other crashes on similar roads. The Division Safety Engineer began to work with counties to install the Safety EdgeSM on projects with a history of roadway departure crashes. The FHWA loaned a commercially available shoe to County Engineers for use on their resurfacing projects. The Safety EdgeSM was included in the project plans or change-ordered on projects already let. During one of these projects, the contractor's Safety Officer became very enthusiastic about the result, as it reduced their liability by providing immediate elimination of the vertical drop-off. After seeing how easily even large vehicles could traverse the edge without loss of control or damaging the edge, they decided their typical practice of bringing in a gravel wedge before nightfall was not necessary when the Safety EdgeSM was present. Taken from the FHWA website: The goal of this grant program is to accelerate the use of the Safety Edge technology. Local agencies who are recipients of a grant award will become owners of the Safety Edge Shoe Device. We are encouraging all local agencies that have future paving projects scheduled to apply. Applications can be found on the ADOT-LTAP website (insert hyperlink here). The grant is limited to a total of fifteen (15) Safety Edge Devices. Those who wish to receive more information should e-mail Landon Mays (ADOT LTAP) at [email protected] or Kelly LaRosa (FHWA) at [email protected]. The grant requires the recipient to meet seven (7) requirements. A list of these requirements can be found on page 2 of the Local Agency Safety Edge Grant Program Application.



Final Report 4-16

The deadline for submitting applications for the first review will be Friday, March 30, 2012 at 5:00pm. Awards will be granted until all Safety Edge Shoe Devices are distributed or a third round of applications will be accepted for review Winter 2012/13.

What Is Safety Edge The Safety Edge is a simple but effective solution that can help save lives by allowing drivers who drift off highways to return to the road safely. Instead of a 90 degree vertical drop-off, the Safety Edge shapes the edge of the pavement to 30 degrees. Research has shown this is the optimal angle to allow drivers to re-enter the roadway safely. The asphalt Safety Edge provides a strong, durable transition for all vehicles. Even at higher speeds, vehicles can return to the paved road smoothly and easily. Not only does the Safety Edge improve road safety, it also improves durability of the pavement edge and may reduce long-term maintenance requirements.



Final Report 4-17



Optimize the movement of traffic between Wade Road and Camino Verde.

Additional Description: There are large left turn volumes from Valencia Road and large directional shifts in traffic flows between the AM and PM peak hours. Of the concepts reviewed: signal coordination, diverging diamond interchange features, and Florida T-configurations, signalized coordination is a no-cost consideration, DDI is not applicable, and a Florida T at each intersection will add over $30,000 in cost.




Final Report 4-18

EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-023 Idea Description: Optimize the movement of traffic between Wade Road and Camino Verde. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Reduce delays to vehicles traveling this route. 2. Minimize the queue of vehicles on Valencia Road. 3. Reduce the potential for rear-end crashes in the left turn queue on Valencial Road. Advantages of original concept: 1. Maintain the existing configurations that people are used to while expanding the

capacity of the roadway by adding lanes. Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Introducing a new design concept that may initally be difficult for vehicles to

navigate through. DISCUSSION AND/OR CALCULATIONS: Several alternative concepts were considered to optimize the movement of traffic between Wade Road and Camino Verde. The simplest is coordinating the traffic signals. The traffic signal timing can be coordinated so that green can be given to vehicles arriving for the left turn approaching either Wade Road or Camino Verde so that queues are minimized. One controller with a hard wire connection between the intersections can even be considered. Different timings can be assigned to different times of the day so that the changes in the directional distribution of traffic between the AM peak hours to PM peak hours are accounted for. A suggested alternative to optimize the movement of traffic between Wade Road and Camino Verde is the use of geometry similar to a Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI). A DDI shifts traffic to opposite sides of the roadway between two signals of a traffic interchange. The advantage is that the left turns can make a free movement onto the ramp without conflicting with opposing traffic.

Directional Diamond Interchange



Final Report 4-19

This design, while improving movement for left turn at a diamond interchange, does not fit the geometry of the Wade Road to Camino Verde segment of Valencia Road. Both Wade Road and Camino Verde have two-way traffic whereas their counterparts in a DDI are one-way ramps. If traffic is shifted to the opposite side of the roadway between Wade Road and Camino Verde, the left turn traffic still needs to wait for the traffic to turn onto Valencia Road. Another suggested alternative is to use a pair of “Florida T” intersection configurations, one at Wade Road and one at Camino Verde. The advantage of a Florida T is that traffic on the main roadway move unimpeded in one direction as traffic enters the roadway from the side street. Median channelization is used to separate the entering traffic from the main roadway traffic.

This configuration, placed at Wade Road and Camino Verde, will improve traffic flow on Valencia Road by having the thru traffic only stop at one of the intersections, but will not significantly reduce the delays for the left turning volumes. They will still need to wait for the side road green to end.



Final Report 4-20

Left turn volumes approaching Wade Road are over 450 vph and projected to reach over 1,300 vph during the 2030 pm peak. Volumes at 300 vph are considered the threshold for double turn lanes. Channelization will need to accommodate a dual left turn on WB Valencia Road at Wade Road, just as proposed for the Original Concept. Left turn volumes approaching Camino Verde are at 270 vph during the AM peak and projected to reach over 500 vph. Dual left turns could be considered here, too. Channelization in a Florida T limits potential extension of the side road crossing Valencia Road. The potential of this occurring should be weighed against construction of the channelization that does not accommodate through traffic from these side roads. Summarizing the options for optimizing the movement of traffic between Wade Road and Camino Verde:

1. Coordinated signal operations will minimize the operation of the two intersections within the limitations of the Original Concept geometry with the existing and projected traffic.

2. The concept of shifting traffic to the opposite side of the road, similar to a Diverging Diamond Interchange, to improve the operations of left turning vehicles between Wade Road and Camino Verde conflicts with the two-way traffic on both Wade Road and Camino Verde. Left turning traffic still needs to wait for these side roads instead of entering them unconflicted as would be the case if those side roads were one-way entrance ramps.

3. The concept of using “Florida T” channelization at both the Wade Road and Camino Verde side roads will not significantly improve the operation of the left turning vehicles from Valencia Road. Thru traffic on Valencia Road would see reduced delay since they would only encounter one traffic signal. Left turns from Valencia Road to Wade Road and to Camino Verde may need to consider dual left turn lanes. Future extensions of Wade Road and Camino Verde should be weighed against construction of the channelization that does not accommodate through traffic from these side roads.



Final Report 4-21

Costs of Coordinated Signals: $0, proposed 4” PVC for ITS currently designed. Cost of DDI Concept: $0, not recommended. Cost of Florida T: Estimate needing an additional 8’ of roadway width to accommodate a channelizing island between left turns on Valencia Road and thru traffic:

8 ft wide2 ft fill

800 ft avg length storage plus taper2 sides of the intersection

25600 cf948 cy at 8$ cy = 8,000$

+ extra curb & miscellaneous $8,000 Est.16,000$

x 2 signals 32,000$

$32,000 additional for configuration of a Florida T at both Wade Road and Camino Verde.



Final Report 4-22



The Access Management Plan should not restrict turn movements, but restrict future intersections instead.





Final Report 4-23

EVALUATION Idea Number: 04-005 Idea Description: The Access Management Plan should not restrict turn movements, but restrict future intersections instead. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. This concept does not differ from current practice. Advantages of original concept: 1. The original access management concept follows current DOT and Development

Dept. practice. Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. None noted

DISCUSSION AND/OR CALCULATIONS: Current Development and Subdivision Standards work in conjunction with PCDOT Roadway Design standards, which restrict access to arterials and major collector roadways to one mile and half-mile intervals, with the minimum interval set at one-quarter mile. In the western Valencia segment, between Mountain Eagle Road and Wade Road, which is currently basically subdivided, the minimum access points are at half-mile spacing, and the median openings are set to correspond with this spacing. In the eastern segment of Valencia Road, between Mark Road and Wade Road, the unsubdivided properties are dispersed between platted and developed parcels, but the median openings are set at half-mile spacing to allow u-turns between intersections, with private parcel access allowed as right turn in and out only between median openings, which conforms to Development and Transportation Department standards.



Final Report 4-24



Waive Scenic Route requirement for the overhead utilities.


Related Value Analysis Proposals and/or Supplemental Recommendations: P01-043 - Waive the Environmentally Sensitive Roadway (ESR) Ordinance and

Riparian Habitat requirements.



Final Report 4-25

EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-010 Idea Description: Waive Scenic Route requirement for the overhead utilities. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Overhead utility relocations and additions would be allowed along corridor Advantages of original concept: 1. Additional overhead utility lines would not be added to the corridor Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. None noted

DISCUSSION AND/OR CALCULATIONS: TEP and TRICO currently have above-ground facilities along the corridor and Southwest Transmission has proposed facilities to be installed at a later date. There is also a Southwest Transmission substation at the SW corner of Valhalla and Valencia which feeds the TRICO system. The higher voltage lines of TEP (138KV) are located along the north side of the corridor, and would not be required to be placed underground per Sec 18.77.00 E.5.a. as they operate above the 46KV exemption level. TRICO currently has both overhead and underground facilities that are routed along the southern right-of-way of Valencia. The installation of the drainage culverts within the project will require relocation of some of these facilities. However, based on the existence of several overhead lines through the corridor which are not being relocated, the additional costs and time needed to reinstall these lines underground, along with the maintenance issues associated with underground electric facilities, a recommendation to not require underground installation is proposed. TRICO should be made aware of Sec 18.77.040 E.5.e.2 which allows the planning official to grant an exemption from the requirement to underground new overhead power “upon a finding that it would impose an unreasonable economic hardship or that the site lacks scenic quality.” Note that while this is not a direct project costs, there are additional costs associated with placing the utility underground which will be borne by TRICO ratepayers.



Final Report 4-26



Build the culverts beginning with the inlet and outlet structures and work toward the center of the road.





Final Report 4-27

EVALUATION Idea Number: 01-052 Idea Description: Build the culverts beginning with the inlet and outlet structures and work toward the center of the road. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Eliminates the need for temporary pavement to divert traffic. 2. No need to traffic control during construction. Advantages of original concept: 1. None noted. Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Significant storm runoff during construction of the inlet/outlet works would not be

able to pass under the roadway. DISCUSSION AND/OR CALCULATIONS: Constructing with culverts beginning from the ends and working toward the center of the road will allow the traffic to remain on the existing roadway uninterrupted. Once the inlet and outlet structures are complete and the barrels are installed as far as possible toward the center, the most outboard lanes can be constructed. Once traffic is diverted to the new lanes, the existing roadway can be demolished and the remaining culvert barrels installed.

SECTION 5 – IDEAS ANALYZED BUT NOT PROPOSED



EVALUATION

Idea Number: 01-002 Idea Description: Use a 5-lane roadway consisting of two through lanes plus a center two-way left turn lane throughout the corridor, similar to the section by the casino, instead of a 4-lane roadway separated by a 20-foot raised median. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Reduces the fill requirements by narrowing the roadway by 7' in changing the 20-

foot raised median to a 13-foot two way left turn lane. 2. Reduces the width of the project footprint by 7'. Advantages of original concept: 1. Provides access control along the corridor by constructing median openings for

turning vehicles at specified locations. 2. The median seperates the opposing traffic greatly reducing the likelyhood of head-

on accidents. 3. The median provides an opportunity for landscapingand is more aethetically

pleasing. Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Increased head-on crashes between vehicles using the center two-way left turn

lane. 2. Potential higher construction costs with the addition of more asphalt concrete in

the median than the graded/landscaped median. Conclusion: Do not propose this idea because the additional costs of the asphalt outweight the cost savings of the reduced borrow, culvert, and curb costs plus the consideration that a 5-lane section does not provide an opportunity to limit access along Valencia Road.

Calculations and/or Discussion:

• Mountain Eagle Drive to Wade Road, Stage I = 1.65 miles • Wade Road to Mark Road, Stage II = 2.61 miles • Proposed 5-lane section on Wade Road to Mark Road in Stage II = (336+60 to

368+80) = 3,220’



Project Distances Proposed 5-Lanes in Stage II Stage II to 5-Lanes2.61 mi 13780.8 ft, Stage II 36880 feet 13780.8 ft, Stage II1.65 mi 8712 ft, Stage I 33660 feet 3220 ft, Stage II4.26 mi 22492.8 ft 3220 feet 10560.8 ft, Stage II

0.61 milesReduced Fill:Stage I

Estimate 1' of fill, on average over length of projectAssumes 19" pavement section (2"+3"+14" from Stage II plans)

Reduced Fill Amount:1 '7 '7 sf

8712 lf60984 cf

2259 cy @ $8 cy = $19,000

Project Distances Proposed 5-Lanes in Stage II Stage II to 5-Lanes2.61 mi 13780.8 ft, Stage II 36880 feet 13780.8 ft, Stage II1.65 mi 8712 ft, Stage I 33660 feet 3220 ft, Stage II4.26 mi 22492.8 3220 feet 10560.8 ft, Stage II

0.61 milesReduced Fill:Stage II

Estimate 2' of fill, on average over length of projectAssumes 19" pavement section (2"+3"+14" from Stage II plans)

Reduced Fill Amount:2 '7 '

14 sf10561 lf

147851 cf5476 cy @ $8 cy = $44,000 Stage II

+ 19,000 Stage I$63,000 Borrow Savings



Project Distances Proposed 5-Lanes in Stage II Stage II to 5-Lanes

2.61 mi 13780.8 ft, Stage II 36880 feet 13780.8 feet1.65 mi 8712 ft, Stage I 33660 feet 3220 feet4.26 mi 22492.8 3220 feet 10560.8 ft, Stage II

0.61 miles

Additional PavementStage I

3030003 43,744 C.Y. Aggregate Base $26.00 $1,137,356 $1,137,3564040111 29 TON Tack Coat $800.00 $23,423 $23,4234060001 18,583 TON Asphaltic Concrete (No. 1) $58.00 $1,077,831 $1,077,8314060002 2,201 TON Asphaltic Concrete (No. 2) $65.00 $143,071 $143,0714060500 50,000 F.A. Bituminous Material Price Adjustment $1.00 $50,000 $50,0004130040 11,169 TON Asphaltic Concrete (Asphalt-Rubber) $35.00 $390,920 $390,9204130042 949 TON Asphalt Rubber Material (For AR-AC) $600.00 $569,626 $569,6264130044 102 TON Mineral Admixture (For AR-AC) $100.00 $10,220 $10,220

$3,402,447 Pavement48 ft Pavement Width

8712 ft, Stage IAssume pave 13' for entire project length $8 sf/Pavement

Stage 1 8712 ft, Stage I x 13 ft 113256 sf $8 = $921,496

Stage II 10560.8 ft, Stage II x 13 ft 137290.4 sf $8 = $1,117,050

$2,100,000-20% for median openings $420,000.0

$1,680,000.0 AdditionalAsphalt Costs

Reduced Culvert Costs Project Cost

Unit Costs Lengths Culvert Cos Cost/lf @ 7' reduction6010101 272 L.F. Box Culvert 1 (2-8'x4') $740.00 272 lf $201,280 $740 lf $5,1806010102 116 L.F. Box Culvert 2 (2-10'x5') $980.00 116 $113,680 $980 lf $6,8606010103 132 L.F. Box Culvert 3 (3-10'x4') $1,360.00 132 $179,520 $1,360 lf $9,5206010104 143 L.F. Box Culvert 4 (4-10'x5') $1,760.00 143 $251,680 $1,760 lf $12,3206010105 300 L.F. Box Culvert 5 (9-10'x5') $4,100.00 300 $1,230,000 $4,100 lf $28,700

963 $1,976,160 $62,580

$70,000 Reduced Culvert Costs

Reduced Concrete Curb Costs Est. $200,000Assume 80% reduction $160,000

Summary: $1,680,000.0 Additional Asphalt Costs$63,000 Borrow Savings$70,000 Reduced Culvert Costs

$160,000 Reduced Concrete Curb Costs

$1,387,000.0 Additional Asphalt Costs



EVALUATION

Idea Number: 01-022 Idea Description: Maintain existing alignment along casino frontage. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. None noted. Advantages of original concept: 1. None noted. Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. None noted. Conclusion: Do not propose this idea because it is a duplicate of Idea Number 01-046

Calculations and/or Discussion:



EVALUATION

Idea Number: 04-003 Idea Description: Eliminate all left turn movements. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Limits the delays of thru traffic waiting for the left turning ones. 2. Minimizes the conflict points on Valencia Road to right-in-right out from side roads. Advantages of original concept: 1. Provides controlled access at designated points within the accepted intervals

considered for arterial roadways. Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Requires construction of alternative routes to return to existing subdivisions along

Valencia Road. Conclusion: Do not propose this idea because of the increased construction costs, right-of-way costs, and impacts outside of the existing project limits.

Calculations and/or Discussion: The elimination of all left turns is an access control concept usually considered for highest functional classifications such as principal arterials. Valencia Road is considered to be a “parkway” which connects between arterial roadways. As such, a valid consideration is the elimination of left turns. The consequence of this is that alternative access needs to be provided to those whose access has been eliminated. The costs for developing this alternative access to those homes and subdivisions are beyond the budget limitations of the project.



EVALUATION

Idea Number: 05-001 Idea Description: Close road for culvert construction /detour with shoe-fly. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Allow for construction of entire culvert Advantages of original concept: 1. Maintain traffic access along Valencia Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Reduce access to Casino del Sol and an increased commute/travel time Conclusion: Do not propose this idea because of a reduction of accessibility to the Casino, reduction in accessibility to homes in the area, and proximity of culverts to intersections would be unacceptable

Calculations and/or Discussion: There are currently 7 concrete box structures being proposed along the segment of roadway between Mark Road and Wade Road. While this may reduce the length of time necessary for construction of some of these structures, closure of the roadway would limit the ability of traffic to move along Valencia Road, limit access routes available to individuals whom live along south Wade Road, and would create a concern for accessibility to the Casino from the west. More specifically, a review of potential detour routes that would be used should Valencia Road be closed, reflect that if the entire segment was closed, the detour route would require travel west to SR86 (Ajo Highway) and then traveling back east towards Tucson. If the segment from Camino Verde to the Casino were closed, residents would need to travel along Camino Verde to SR86, and then travel towards Tucson. Due to the additional distance and limited routes available to travel east, this option is not supported. Additionally, a review of the right-of-way and proposed drainage easements for the two large cell boxes (#6 & #7), which are located between Camino Verde and the Casino, indicates that at those two locations there appears to be sufficient space to allow for a temporary shoe-fly around the outlet side of the structure for traffic. The location of structures at other locations (Wade #2 and Camino Verde #3 & #4) will need to be constructed in segments as there is insufficient room for a shoe-fly due to the proximity of the intersections of these roads with the structures and Valencia.



EVALUATION

Idea Number: 05-002 Idea Description: Use of detours to facilitate the construction of segments of Valencia Road rather than shifting and maintaining two-way traffic through a construction zone and building Valencia Road in two phases. Advantages of alternative concept: 1. Eliminated the need for temporary paving within the construction zone. 2. Removes traffic from the vicinity of the construction zone. 3. Allows a large, uninterrupted area for the contractor to construct the roadway

improvements. 4. Eliminates issues related to access of the construction zone for the contractor. Advantages of original concept: 1. Original concept considers maintaining two-way traffic on Valencia Road during

construction through use of temporary pavement. Risks of implementing alternative concept: 1. Leaves some home owners without access during construction. Conclusion: Do not propose this idea because there are not substantial segments of Valencia Road that can be shut down to thru traffic and have detours in place to provide alternative access to homes that only have access to Valencia Road.

Calculations and/or Discussion: Several sections of Valencia Road could be considered for construction by detouring traffic around the work zone. The following areas were reviewed for the potential of use of a detour:

1. S. Mountain Eagle Dr to Vahalla Rd – Eagle Talon Pkwy is a side road to Valencia Road from the north without any alternative access.

a. Fails

2. Vahalla Rd to Wade Rd – several roadways from subdivisions south of Valencia Road access Valencia Road without any alternative access.

a. Fails

3. Wade Road to Camino Verde – This segment of Valencia Road has homes north of Valencia in an area called a “veterans” subdivision. Access to Valencia Road is from their drives and easements. Some homes only have access to Valencia Road.

a. Fails

4. Camino Verde to Camino Rancho (west of Casino del Sol and Ignacio Baumea) – Mardick Ave and Viviana Rd are side roads to the north within this segment of Valencia Road. The Black Wash drainage crossing is also within this area.



There are not any alternative access routes to homes along Mardick Ave and Viviana Rd.

a. Fails

5. Camino Rancho Rd to Mark Rd – Already a five lane section so that traffic can be shifted to one side of the roadway without the addition of temporary pavement.

a. Temporary pavement not necessary



The following ideas were dismissed during the initial idea cull. They were not analyzed to the point of listing individual advantages and disadvantages.

INITIALLY FAILED IDEAS TABLE

Idea No. Idea Description Reason for Failing Idea 01-006 Put a signal only at Wade Rd. Warrants are valid for other signal now 01-007 Use pre-cast concrete box culverts No price advantage and no need for

schedule reduction 01-014 Crushed aggregate instead of concrete

sidewalk Does not meet ballot language Does not meet ADA requirements

01-027 Eliminate the sidewalk Does not meet RTA requirements 01-028 Shorten the project length Does not meet RTA requirements 01-029 Improve last half mile (phase 3) and use

Hwy 86 as detour during construction Ajo is only one lane each direction and therefore does have the capacity to help

01-030 Have developer install/pay for right turn lane in future

There are no new right turn lanes anticipated except for intersections. The developer already pays impact fees.

01-032 Install upstream storm water detention to minimize size of box culverts

Land purchase price would exceed culvert size savings Riparian habitat would be disturbed Maintenance costs would be high

01-033 HDPE pipe instead of RCP HDPE pipe is subject to vandalism and is therefore unacceptable

01-044 Provide on a single left turn lane at Wade Road. Developer can provide second left turn in the future.

Traffic volumes are currently too high for a single left

02-001 Use detentions basins Land purchase price would exceed culvert size savings Riparian habitat would be disturbed Maintenance costs would be high

02-003 Provide alternative route for traffic There is no alternative that doesn't flood 02-005 Build a low height viaduct Cost prohibitive 02-006 Use bridges instead of box culverts Would be more expensive as shown by a

previous analysis 02-007 Channelize Black Wash Would require many regulatory approvals

thus driving up the costs 02-008 Build retention basins for storage and reuse Land purchase price would exceed culvert

size savings Riparian habitat would be disturbed Maintenance costs would be high

02-009 Build collection and distribution channels for storage and reuse

No apparent benefit for more cost Would start more regulatory compliance

02-010 Divert Black Wash to The Santa Cruz river Facetious 02-011 Provide groundwater recharge inlets Regulatory requirements would increase

greatly Maintenance costs would be high

02-012 Use a lot of dips in the road Would not meet the requirement of an all-weather road

02-013 Use a lot of smaller culverts Maintenance would be harder Would not improve the existing condition of "water everywhere"

03-004 Provide for future bus service There is nothing to provide 04-002 Frontage road along veteran's tracts No apparent benefit



Idea No. Idea Description Reason for Failing Idea 05-003 Build upstream side first This is means and methods issue for the

contractor 05-004 Use wider median and maintain exiting

pavement while constructing new improvements to the outside

Will require additional right of way for fill slopes Will push beyond the non-notification area

05-005 Use shoeflies on downstream side of the road during construction of culverts

This is means and methods issue for the contractor

SECTION 6 – FUNCTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM TECHNIQUE (F.A.S.T.) DIAGRAM



Final Report 6-1

VALENCIA WEST F.A.S.T. DIAGRAM

WHY?HOW?

SATISFYSTAKEHOLDERS

1. Taxpayers2. Pascua Yaqui Tribe3. Commuters4. Utilities5. Property owners6. State Land7. Bureau of Reclamation8. Casino9. PAG / RTA10. Pima County11. ADOT12. FHWA13. Permitting agencies Corps of Engineers US Fish & Wildlife14. FEMA

NOTE:BOLDED BOXES INDICATE FUNCTIONS SELECTED FOR BRAINSTORMING BASED ON COST & POTENTIAL FOR IMPROVEMENT

HIGHEST ORDER FUNCTION

BASIC FUNCTIONS PROJECT ELEMENTS

IMPROVESAFETY

SEPARATEOPPOSING

TRAFFIC

RAISEROAD

MAINTAINALL-WEATHER

ROAD

ALLOWDRAINAGE

CROSS-FLOW

PROVIDEFILL

PROVIDECULVERTS

IMPROVEMOBILITY

IMPROVELEVEL-OF-SERVICE

ADDCAPACITY

CLEARCORRIDOR

AVOIDCONFLICTS

RELOCATEUTILITIES

ACCOM-MODATE

PEDS.

IMPROVESURFACE

SEPARATE(FROM)

TRAFFIC

ADDMODES

INCREASEDISTANCE

PROVIDESIDEWALK

ACCOM-MODATE

BICYCLES

PROVIDEBICYCLELANES

IMPROVEACCESS

AVOIDCONFLICTS

ORGANIZEACCESS

LIMIT TURNMOVEMENTS

REDUCELEFT TURNS

PROVIDEMEDIAN

ADDSIGNAL

PROTECTENVIRONMENT

MINIMIZEDISRUPTIONS

PRESERVEDRAINAGE

CONVEYANCE

MINIMIZECONSTRUCT-

IONDISRUPTIONS

PHASECONSTRUCT-

ION

MINIMIZEIMPACTS

OPTIMIZEROAD ELEV./BACKWATER/

DOWNSTREAM FLOWS

MINIMIZEWASH

DISTURBANCE

REDUCELIFE-CYCLE

COSTS

REDUCEOPERATIONS/

MTCE./REPLACE.

COSTS

ACCOM-MODATEFUTURE

EXPANSION

PROVIDEFUTURESIGNALINFRA-

STRUCTURE

STABILIZESURFACE

PAVEROAD

REDUCECAPITALCOSTS

SECTION 7 – BRAINSTORMING IDEAS



Final Report 7-1

The following table lists all of the ideas generated by the VA Team. They are arranged by the function from which they were generated. Shotgun list ideas are alternatives the VA Team members initially brought to the workshop as a result of their pre-study assignment. Each idea can be traced to its ultimate disposition by crosschecking the disposition column of this table with Sections 3, 4, and 5 of this report. Some of the ideas whose disposition is listed as “As Designed” were also assumed to be “as will be designed.” PLEASE NOTE: One of the rules for creativity exercises in a formal VA Study requires the team members to “stretch” their imaginations by generating sometimes facetious and seeming nonsensical ideas in order to ideate a possible conceptual blockbuster. These ideas, too, are recorded in this table.

Brainstorming List

Idea No. Idea Description Disposition With SHOTGUN LIST

01-001 8--ft. multi-purpose lane instead of sidewalk Pass - 01-002 Use a 5-lane section throughout the corridor Pass - 01-003 Lower the design standard to 50-year or 25-

year storm under with 100-year over at 1-ft. or less

Pass -

01-004 Eliminate scour protection at outlets Pass - 01-005 Eliminate the rubberized asphalt replace with

regular asphalt concrete Pass -

01-006 Put a signal only at Wade Rd. Fail - 01-007 Use pre-cast concrete box culverts Fail - 01-008 Use metal pipe culvert instead of RCP Pass - 01-009 Eliminate the rumble strips Pass - 01-010 Waive Scenic Route requirement for overhead

utilities Supplemental Recommendation

-

01-011 Reduce bike lane from 6-ft. to 5-ft. Pass - 01-012 Combine Phases 1 and 2 Pass - 01-013 Combine project with detention basin to reduce

embankment cost Pass -

01-014 Crushed aggregate instead of concrete sidewalk

Fail -

01-015 Lower finished grade elevations (profile) outside of culvert crossings

Pass -

01-016 Eliminate median curbs & raised medians Pass - 01-017 Eliminate all public art Pass - 01-018 Use reclaimed asphalt pavement As Designed - 01-019 Early identification of borrow source to optimize

R-value for design Supplemental Recommendation

-

01-020 Eliminate landscaping except for stabilization Pass - 01-021 Aluminum box culverts instead of concrete box Combine 01-008 01-022 Maintain existing alignment along casino

frontage Pass -

01-023 Optimize Wade to Camino Verde traffic movements (similar DDI)

Pass -

01-024 Change culvert inlets (plunge basins) from 4:1 to 2:1

Pass -

01-025 Optimize the easement purchase for increased water surface

As Designed -



Final Report 7-2

Idea No. Idea Description Disposition With 01-026 2-D model instead of Hydrologic Energy Center

(HEC) 1 Pass -

01-027 Eliminate the sidewalk Fail - 01-028 Shorten the project length Fail - 01-029 Improve last half mile (phase 3) and use Hwy

86 as detour during construction Fail -

01-030 Have developer install/pay for right turn lane in future

Fail -

01-031 Use limited irrigation for landscaping Combine 01-020 01-032 Install upstream storm water detention to

minimize size of box culverts Fail -

01-033 HDPE pipe instead of RCP Fail 01-008 01-034 Specify minimum R-value As Designed - 01-035 Combine storm drainage crossings As Designed - 01-036 Reduce the shoulder width on Valhalla Pass - 01-037 Reduce the median width Pass - 01-038 Use grant money for safety edge Pass - 01-039 Possible lime-treated subgrade Supplemental

Recommendation -

01-040 Terminal blend asphalt concrete Pass - 01-041 Remove or have others pay for ITS Pass - 01-042 Amend administrative code, e.g., sidewalks,

medians, streetlights Pass -

01-043 Waive the NPPO requirements (Native Plant Preservation Ordinance)

Pass -

01-044 Provide on a single left turn lane at Wade Road. Developer can provide second left turn in the future.

Fail -

01-045 Use the Tribe's detention basin as a borrow source

Supplemental Recommendation

-

01-046 Leave 5-lane section in front Casino in place Pass - 01-047 Explore other funding sources Supplemental

Recommendation -

01-048 Use a double cross over for left turn to Wade Road

Combine 01-023

01-049 Make the project a test case for Mechanistic Empirical pavement design

Supplemental Recommendation

-

01-050 Shorten culverts Pass 01-037 01-051 Install flood wall (berm) on Bureau of

Reclamation land to eliminate overtopping Pass -

01-052 Build culverts from outside in Supplemental Recommendation

-

MAINTAIN ALL WEATHER ACCESS 02-001 Use detentions basins Fail - 02-002 Put cross drainage in the median Combine 01-003 02-003 Provide alternative route for traffic Fail - 02-004 Build cross-drainage structures As Designed - 02-005 Build a low height viaduct Fail - 02-006 Use bridges instead of box culverts Fail - 02-007 Channelize Black Wash Fail - 02-008 Build retention basins for storage and reuse Fail - 02-009 Build collection and distribution channels for

storage and reuse Fail -



Final Report 7-3

Idea No. Idea Description Disposition With 02-010 Divert Black Wash to The Santa Cruz river Fail - 02-011 Provide groundwater recharge inlets Fail - 02-012 Use a lot of dips in the road Fail - 02-013 Use a lot of smaller culverts Fail -

ADD MODES 03-001 Designate an equestrian path on north side of

road Supplemental Recommendation

-

03-002 Combine bike path and pedestrian access Combine 01-001 03-003 Use alternative sidewalk materials Pass - 03-004 Provide for future bus service Fail - 03-005 Pass -

LIMIT TURN MOVEMENTS 04-001 Use fencing instead of median Combine 01-037 04-002 Frontage road along veteran's tracts Fail - 04-003 Eliminate all left turn movements Pass - 04-004 Use access restrictions for subdivisions As Designed - 04-005 Don't restrict turn movements, restrict future

intersections instead Supplemental Recommendation

-

04-006 Use variable median width(s) Combine 01-037 PHASE CONSTRUCTION

05-001 Shut down the road to install entire culvert and/or detour traffic with a shoefly

Pass -

05-002 Detours for segment construction of Valencia Pass - 05-003 Build upstream side first Fail - 05-004 Use wider median and maintain exiting

pavement while constructing new improvements to the outside

Fail -

05-005 Use shoeflies on downstream side of the road during construction of culverts

Fail -

STABILIZE SURFACE 06-001 Use geogrid stabilization Combine 01-039 06-002 Cement treated base Combine 01-039 06-003 Rubbelize existing road for aggregate base Pass -

SECTION 8 – REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS and COMMENTS



Final Report 8-1

PROPOSALor

SR NO.VE PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION REVIEW BOARD COMMENTS

Optimize the roadway profile to match the 100-year water surface elevation (no freeboard). Initial Est. Savings: $390,000Future Est. Savings: $0,000Total Est. Savings: $390,000Perform hydrologic modeling with FLO-2D model instead of HEC-1.Initial Est. Savings: $340,000Future Est. Savings: $0,000Total Est. Savings: $340,000Lower the culvert design standard: (1) Pass Q50 under roadway, and (2) Q100 overtops roadway at less than 1.0 foot depth.Initial Est. Savings: $540,000Future Est. Savings: $0,000Total Est. Savings: $540,000Construct floodwall on Bureau of Reclamation property to prevent overflow of roadway onto the Casino Property.Initial Est. Savings: $10,000Future Est. Savings: $0,000Total Est. Savings: $10,000Use smooth-lined pipe culverts rather than reinforced concrete pipe culverts.Initial Est. Savings: $90,000Future Est. Savings: $0,000Total Est. Savings: $90,000

Change culvert drop-inlet structures from a 4:1 slope to a 2:1 slope

Initial Est. Savings: $94,000Future Est. Savings: $0,000Total Est. Savings: $94,000Shorten culverts so that inlets and outlets will terminate at the shoulder rather than at the end of the clear zone.Initial Est. Savings: $80,000Future Est. Savings: $0,000Total Est. Savings: $80,000

DRAINAGE

P01-015

P01-003 DECLINE

VE PROPOSALS

P01-050 DECLINE

P01-051 DECLINE

P01-008ACCEPT With MODIFICATIONS: Evaluate lifecycle cost of metal

culverts.

P01-024ACCEPT With MODIFICATIONS: Consider the safety of the

entrance with respect to public (handrail, etc.)

ACCEPT With MODIFICATIONS: No Overtopping of roadway, no increase in project footprint which could cause increased

regulation, no changein local drainage basins

P01-026 DECLINE



Final Report 8-2

Eliminate rip rap scour protection at culvert outlets.Initial Est. Savings: $50,000Future Est. Savings: $0,000Total Est. Savings: $50,000

Provide an 8-foot wide multi-purpose lane instead of concrete sidewalkInitial Est. Savings: $480,000Future Est. Savings: -$34,000Total Est. Savings: $446,000Maintain the horizontal and vertical alignment of the 5-lane section along the Casino frontage.Initial Est. Savings: $350,000Future Est. Savings: $0,000Total Est. Savings: $350,000Eliminate the median curbs and raised median throughout the corridorInitial Est. Savings: $420,000Future Est. Savings: $0,000Total Est. Savings: $420,000Reduce the width of the median the entire length of the projectInitial Est. Savings: $145,000Future Est. Savings: $0,000Total Est. Savings: $145,000Reduce Bike Lane width from 6-ft to 5-ftInitial Est. Savings: $140,000Future Est. Savings: $0,000Total Est. Savings: $140,000Reduce the shoulder width on Vahalla RoadInitial Est. Savings: $17,000Future Est. Savings: $0,000Total Est. Savings: $17,000

Use alternative materials instead of concrete for constructing sidewalk

Initial Est. Savings: $302,000Future Est. Savings: -$22,000Total Est. Savings: $280,000Use a regular asphalt concrete wearing surface instead of rubberized asphalt concrete through the length of the project.Initial Est. Savings: $100,000Future Est. Savings: $0,000Total Est. Savings: $100,000

ROADWAY ELEMENTS

GEOTECHNICAL

P01-046ACCEPT With MODIFICATIONS: Vertical alignment should

prevent overtopping of the roadway along the Casino del Sol frontage.

P01-001ACCEPT With MODIFICATIONS: 8' wide multi-use path will not

justify reduction in width of the Bike Lanes

P01-016 DECLINE

P01-004 DECLINE

P01-037 DECLINE

P01-011 DECLINE

P03-003ACCEPT With MODIFICATIONS: Asphalt sidewalk would be

used adjacent to undeveloped parcels

P01-036 ACCEPT

P01-005 DECLINE



Final Report 8-3

Use terminal blend asphalt instead of crumb rubber in the Asphalt Rubber Asphalt Concrete (ARAC) mixInitial Est. Savings: $42,000Future Est. Savings: $0,000Total Est. Savings: $42,000Pulverize in-place asphalt pavement materials and blend with new aggregate baseInitial Est. Savings: $27,000Future Est. Savings: $0,000Total Est. Savings: $27,000

Reduce the amount of landscaping and irrigation Initial Est. Savings: 1,000,000 to 1,200,0000Future Est. Savings: $0,000Total Est. Savings: 1,000,000 to 1,200,000Combine Phase 1 and Phase 2 projectsInitial Est. Savings: $900,000Future Est. Savings: $0,000Total Est. Savings: $900,000Waive the NPPO (Native Plant Preservation Ordinance) and Riparian Habitat requirements.Initial Est. Savings: $250,000Future Est. Savings: $0,000Total Est. Savings: $250,000Eliminate all public art on both phases of the projectInitial Est. Savings: $230,000Future Est. Savings: $0,000Total Est. Savings: $230,000Combine this project with construction of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe's detention basin to reduce embankment costs and provide a local borrow source.Initial Est. Savings: $200,000Future Est. Savings: $0,000Total Est. Savings: $200,000Seek RTA Board Approval of Administrative Code revisions to clarify the intent of the project scope and enable value proposals. Initial Est. Savings: Not QuantifiedFuture Est. Savings: Not QuantifiedTotal Est. Savings: Not Quantified

DECLINE

P01-042 ACCEPT

P01-040 ACCEPT With MODIFICATIONS: Subject to evaluation.

P01-020ACCEPT With MODIFICATIONS: Reduce budget to comply with

RTA 4% maximum of construction cost.

P06-003 ACCEPT

P01-043

P01-017

ALREADY IN PLAN

P01-012 DECLINE

P01-013 DECLINE

POLICY

OPTIONAL ELEMENTS



Final Report 8-4

Eliminate the fiber optic conduit (ITS) unless a user is identified and commits to providing the necessary funding.Initial Est. Savings: $280,000Future Est. Savings: $0,000Total Est. Savings: $280,000Eliminate the rumble strips on the shoulder of the road.Initial Est. Savings: $11,000Future Est. Savings: $0,000Total Est. Savings: $11,000

SR01-049Use this project as a test design case for the use of the Mechanistic-Empirical pavement design method

DECLINE

SR01-019Identify borrow sources and test the R-value to reduce the pavement structural section thickness

DECLINE

SR01-039Use alternative subgrade treatment methods

ACCEPT

SR03-001Designate an equestrian path on the north side of Valencia Road

ACCEPT

SR01-047Pursue other funding sources to help offset project costs and add enhancements to the project

ACCEPT

SR01-038Obtain FHWA grant money for pavement safety edge funding

ACCEPT With MODIFICATIONS: review merits and applicaiblity

SR01-023Optimize the movement of traffic between Wade Road and Camino Verde

ALREADY IN PLAN

SR04-005

The Access Management Plan should not restrict turn movements, but restrict future intersections instead.

ALREADY IN PLAN

SR01-010Waive Scenic Route requirement for the overhead utilities

ACCEPT With MODIFICATIONS: Recommend TRICO pursue with Planning Department for relief

SR01-052Build the culverts beginning with the inlet and outlet structures and work toward the center of the road.

DECLINE

MISCELLANEOUS

OPTIONAL ELEMENTS

GEOTECHNICAL

ENHANCEMENTS

TRAFFIC

VE SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS

P01-009 DECLINE

P01-041 ACCEPT

FINAL REPORT VALUE ANALYSIS STUDY PIMA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS RTA Valencia … · 2011-12-13 · FINAL REPORT . VALUE ANALYSIS STUDY . PIMA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS . RTA Valencia

Documents