TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
SP 2706-226
August 10-13, 2010
HDR Engineering, Inc.
1001 SW 5th Avenue
Suite 1800
Portland, OR
(503) 423-3700
Disclaimer
The information contained in this report is the professional opinions of the team members during
the VE Study. These opinions were based on the information provided to the team at the time
of the study. As the project continues to develop, new information will become available, and
this information will need to be evaluated on how it may affect the recommendations and
findings in this report. All costs displayed in the report are based on best available information
at the time of the study and unless otherwise noted are in current year dollars.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
 Introduction
 Project Overview
 Project Issues
 Project Analysis
 VE Study Results
 Implementation Strategies
 Implementation of Recommendations
 VE Team Members
Project Description
 Proposed Project
 Existing Conditions
 Project Purpose and Need
 Scope of the Value Engineering Study
 Constraints and Controlling Decisions
 Information Provided to the VE Team
Project Analysis
 Project Issues
 Cost Model
 Functional Analysis
 FAST Diagram
 Performance Attributes
 Performance Attribute Matrix
 Value Matrix
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Idea Evaluation
 Introduction
 Evaluation Process
 Deposition of Ideas
 Idea Evaluation Form
Recommendations
 Introduction
 Summary of VE Recommendations
 Implementation Strategies
 VE Recommendation Approval
 Design Considerations
 Individual Recommendations 1a-5b
 VE Validations 1-3
Appendix
 Value Engineering
 Pre-VE Study
 Value Engineering Job Plan
 Value Metrics
 Reporting
 Agenda
 Meeting Attendees
 VE Report Out
 VE Recommendation Approval Form
Table of Contents – TOC.1
Date: August 10-13, 2010
This page left intentionally blank
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Table of Contents – TOC.2
Date: August 10-13, 2010
Executive Summary
Introduction
This Value Engineering (VE) Study Executive Summary provides an overview of the project, key
findings, and the recommendations developed by the VE Team. Detailed documentation and
exhibits of the study’s analysis are provided in the VE Study Report.
A VE Study, sponsored by the City of Saint Louis Park, Minnesota and facilitated by HDR
Engineering, Inc., was conducted for the improvements to the TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue
Interchange project. The study was conducted during the planning phase, and the project has a
scheduled letting of November 2011. This VE Study was conducted from August 10-13, 2010.
Project Overview
The purpose of this project is to remove the existing at-grade intersection of TH 7 and Louisiana
Avenue in St. Louis Park and to replace it with a grade separated interchange. The
improvements will include pedestrian and bicycle paths along with reconfiguration of local
frontage roads to improve mobility to the TH 7 corridor and Louisiana Avenue. This project is
essential for meeting transportation and safety needs of the region and is anticipated to reduce
conflicts to the traveling public.
Louisiana Avenue serves as a vital north-south corridor through the City, carrying 10,000 to
15,000 vehicles per day at this location. TH 7 carries 35,000 to 40,000 vehicles per day through
this intersection. The current configuration of the frontage roads to TH 7 and the heavy traffic
generated by nearby businesses add to the congestion.
Traffic studies show that this project is necessary for future redevelopment activities including
overall mixed use development and higher density housing, a future light rail transit (LRT)
station, and expansion of the nearby hospital. In addition, transit riders, bicyclists and
pedestrians will benefit from improved mobility to jobs, housing, and other destinations.
Project Issues
The following are some of the issues, concerns, and possible constraints associated with this
project:








Avoid impacts to the Louisiana Oaks apartment complex and Sam’s Club
Pedestrian and bike traffic must be accommodated during construction
Right in – Right out east of Louisiana Ave. will be closed as part of this project
March 2012 funding obligation date – there is a potential for a 1-year extension with prior
approval by Met Council
Minimize excavation (high potential of contaminated soils)
Environmental Assessment (EA) process is just starting – the draft document is scheduled
to be out by October 2010
Any impacts to the flood plain will need to be mitigated – no net increase in 100-year flood
elevation
Avoid impact to 4f properties.
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Executive Summary – ES.1
Date: August 10-13, 2010
Project Analysis
The VE Team analyzed the project using the VE Job Plan and associated tools.
Using functional analysis and Functional Analysis System Technique (FAST) diagramming, the
team defined the basic function of this project as Reduce Conflict, Improve Mobility, and Create
Access. Key secondary functions include Remove Access and Stage Construction. Analysis of
the functions intended to be performed by the project helped the team focus on the purpose and
need of the project and, consequently, how to craft recommended concepts that would provide
the required functions.
Specific performance criteria were developed and agreed upon by the VE and Project Teams.
These criteria were weighted using a paired comparison technique, which was then used to
evaluate ideas.
VE Study Results
The VE Team generated 48 different ideas for this project. These concepts were compared
against the baseline that was developed by the Project Team. The concepts that performed the
best were further developed by the VE Team.
From these ideas the VE Team developed 8 recommendations resulting in a net cost savings of
$3.9 million to $5.1 million and an overall performance improvement of +7 to +11%.
The individual recommendations are summarized below:
1a. Ground Improvements
$2.4 M
9%
Use ground improvement technologies such as deep soil mixing, stone columns or other
types instead of excavating muck from under TH 7.
1b. Lightweight Fill
$2.2 M
-2%
Use lightweight fill such as EPS Geofoam or shredded tires instead of excavating muck from
under TH 7.
1c. Pile Supported Fill
$2.5 M
Use pile supported embankment instead of excavating muck from under TH 7.
6%
2. Reinforced Slopes
$1.1 M
7%
Replace cantilever walls with Reinforced Steepened Slopes (RSS) where ROW permits.
3. Single Lane Roundabouts
$0.5 M
11%
Construct both roundabouts on Louisiana Avenue as single lane roundabouts. The
Louisiana Avenue roadway connecting the roundabouts should be designed for a single
lane in each direction with the option to expand in the future when necessary.
4. Remove Median on Louisiana Avenue
$0.1 M
6%
Eliminate the raised median on Louisiana Avenue in order to give the roadway more of an
“urban character” and to potentially provide some measure of traffic calming and less
impervious surface.
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Executive Summary – ES.2
Date: August 10-13, 2010
5a. Tight Urban Diamond Interchange
$1.5 M
7%
Using the same plan and profile as the baseline idea for TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue,
construct a tight urban diamond interchange (TUDI).
5b. Single Point Roundabout Interchange
$0.3 M
21%
Using the same plan and profile as the baseline
idea, construct a Single Point Roundabout
Interchange (SPRI). This would be done instead of
button hook ramps to roundabouts to accommodate
the ramp traffic to/from TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue.
See example to the right.
Implementation Strategies
Because of competing recommendations, three different implementation strategies or scenarios
are available. Recommendations 1a, 1b and 1c all offer different ways to construct
embankments. Recommendations 5a and 5b are both differing types of interchanges than the
baseline concept.

Scenario A includes Recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 4. These 4 recommendations all
improve the baseline concept. Collectively they have a net cost savings of $4.1 million and
an overall performance improvement of +8%.

Scenario B recommends a Tight Urban Diamond Interchange (5a). Combined with
Recommendations 1, 2 and 4 it has a net cost savings of $5.1 million and an overall
performance improvement of +7%.

Scenario C recommends a Single Point Roundabout Interchange (5b).
This
recommendation combined with Recommendations 1, 2 and 4 has a net cost savings of
$3.9 million and an overall performance improvement of +11%.
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Executive Summary – ES.3
Date: August 10-13, 2010
Summary of Recommendations
TH 7 at Louisiana Ave. Interchange
#
Description
Scenario A
Scenario B
Scenario C
Cost
Savings
Cost
Savings
Cost
Savings
1a
Ground Improvements
$2.4 M
$2.4 M
$2.4 M
1b
Lightweight Fill
$2.2 M
$2.2 M
$2.2 M
1c
Pile Supported Fill
$2.5 M
$2.5 M
$2.5 M
2
Reinforced Slopes
$1.1 M
$1.1 M
$1.1 M
3
Single Lane Roundabouts
$0.5 M
4
Remove Median on Louisiana Avenue
$0.1 M
$0.1 M
$0.1 M
5a
Tight Urban Diamond Interchange
5b
Single Point Roundabout Interchange
$1.5 M
Total
$0.3 M
$4.1 M
$5.1 M
$3.9 M
Implementation of Recommendations
To facilitate implementation, a Value Engineering Recommendation Approval Form is included
in the Appendix of this report. If the Project Manager elects to reject or modify a
recommendation, please include a brief explanation of why.
VE Team Members
Don Owings
Blane Long
Minnie Milkert
Nick Haltvick
Hossana Teklyes
Mike Rardin
Brian Kelly
Jim Olson
Diane Colton
Ken Johnson
April Crockett
Derrick Dasenbrock
HDR
HDR
Mn/DOT
Mn/DOT
Mn/DOT
City of Saint Louis Park
Mn/DOT
City of Saint Louis Park
Mn/DOT
Mn/DOT
Mn/DOT
Mn/DOT
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Team Leader/Facilitation
Co-Facilitation/Roadway
State Value Engineer
Bridge Engineer
Assistant Foundation Engineer
Public Works Director
Water Resources
Project Manager
Traffic
Traffic
West Area Engineer
Geometrics Engineer
Executive Summary – ES.4
Date: August 10-13, 2010
The Project Manager for this project is Jim Olsen, City of Saint Louis Park.
The VE Team wishes to express its appreciation to the project design managers for the
excellent support they provided during the study. Hopefully, the recommendations and other
ideas provided will assist in the management decisions necessary to move the project forward
through the project delivery process.
Don Owings, PE, CVS
VE Team Leader
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Executive Summary – ES.5
Date: August 10-13, 2010
This page intentionally left blank
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Executive Summary – ES.6
Date: August 10-13, 2010
Project Description
This Value Engineering (VE) Report summarizes the events of the VE Study conducted by City
of Saint Louis Park, Minnesota and facilitated by HDR Engineering, Inc. The subject of the
study was the TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange project. The VE Study was conducted
August 10-13, 2010.
Proposed Project
The proposed project is to remove the existing at-grade signalized intersection of TH 7 and
Louisiana Avenue and replace it with a grade-separated interchange. The project is located in
the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, which is an urbanized first-tier suburb in the western Twin
Cities metropolitan area.
The intersection of TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue has consistently ranked high on Mn/DOT's Top
200 Highest Crash-Cost Intersections on Trunk Highways. Interim improvements to signal
timing in 2005 appear to have helped reduce rear end crashes moving the ranking from 23rd
from the top in 2005 to 144th in 2007.
As traffic volumes increase and intersection operations become more congested, the instances
of rear end crashes is expected to increase. Further, drivers who become frustrated with
waiting for long periods at a traffic signal, may engage in more risky behaviors such as running
yellow or red lights and speeding through the intersection.
Baseline concept for the proposed project
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Project Description – 1.1
Date: August 10-13, 2010
Existing Conditions
TH 7 is a principal arterial that connects a number of employment centers and commercial
nodes to residential developments within the cities of St. Louis Park, Minnetonka, Hopkins, and
Minneapolis. It serves an important role in connecting the western Twin Cities metropolitan
area to jobs in downtown Minneapolis and along the corridor. In the project area, TH 7 is a four
lane divided highway. Louisiana Avenue is currently a four-lane, undivided roadway that
intersects TH 7. The intersection is controlled by a traffic signal system.
The project area contains a mix of land uses, including low and high density residential,
commercial, corporate/office, manufacturing, and open space. Just east of the TH 7/Louisiana
Avenue intersection, a new grade separated interchange is being constructed at the intersection
of TH 7 and Wooddale Avenue. A future Southwest Light Rail Transit (LRT) station is planned
along the east side of Louisiana Avenue, which will be located just south of the project area. St.
Louis Park has several redevelopment plans along the transit corridor and surrounding the
future station.
Project Purpose and Need
The purpose of the proposed TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue Interchange project is to address
deteriorating safety and operational conditions. These deficient conditions are resulting in
numerous crashes and causing high levels of congestion. The project is also intended to
improve pedestrian and bicycle movements across TH 7 that are anticipated to increase with
the construction and operation of a future LRT Station along Louisiana Avenue. Lastly, the
transportation improvements will help foster economic development in the area.
The need for the project is driven by:




Improve vehicle safety
Maintain mobility/future traffic capacity
Improve pedestrian/bicycle movements
Foster economic development.
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Project Description – 1.2
Date: August 10-13, 2010
Scope of the Value Engineering Study
The mission of the VE Team was to verify or improve upon various concepts for the TH 7 at
Louisiana Avenue Interchange project. The VE Team applied the principles and practices of the
VE Job Plan. The primary objectives for this study include:

Conduct a thorough review and analysis of the key project issues and conceptual design
using a multidiscipline, cross-functional team

The focus of the Value Engineering Study is to assist in the identification of
o
Alternatives that will improve the mobility and reduce the conflicts of vehicular and
non-vehicular traffic
o
Alternatives that will minimize impacts to existing developments and enhance
opportunities for future development/redevelopment
o
An environmentally sensitive transportation system improvement that solves the
identified purpose and needs
Constraints and Controlling Decisions
The VE Team identified the following constraints and controlling decisions during the
Investigation Phase of the study.

Must accommodate bicycles and pedestrians during construction and in the proposed
design





Avoid impacts to the Louisiana Oaks apartment complex



Minimize right-of-way impacts and acquisition

Any impacts to the flood plain will need to be mitigated – no net increase in 100-year
flood elevation




Strong desire not to impact the pump station and medical offices along Lake Street
Avoid impacts to Sam’s Club
Avoid impacts to the railroad overcrossing over TH 7 at the east end of project
Desire to close right in-right out access to TH 7 at the east end of the project
Project letting is scheduled for November 2011 with a March 2012 funding obligation
date – there is a potential for a 1-year extension with prior approval by Met Council
Minimize excavation (high potential of contaminated soils)
Environmental Assessment (EA) process is just starting – the draft document is
scheduled to be out by October 2010
Strong desire not to impact medical offices along Walker Street
Avoid any impacts to 4f properties
Strong desire to minimize impacts in the SW quadrant of the proposed interchange.
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Project Description – 1.3
Date: August 10-13, 2010
Information Provided to the VE Team
The following project documents were provided to the VE Team for their use during the study:
Reports/Drawings/Maps
LWD cost estimate
Date
July 2010
Various aerial photos
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
August 2009
Preliminary Drainage Report
July 2010
Purpose and Need Statement – Draft
August 2010
Profiles and typical sections
Technical Memorandum - Alternatives Screening
April 2009
Technical Memorandum - Draft TH 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Option 4 Review
June 2009
Options 1-10 preliminary design
Soil boring index map
Hydric soils map
February 2009
Soils map
February 2009
Other soil maps of specific areas
1985-2007
Utility maps
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Project Description – 1.4
Date: August 10-13, 2010
Project Analysis
Project Issues
The first day of the study included a project presentation (overview) by the design team and a
site visit. The following summarizes key project issues, site visit observations, and project
drivers identified during these sessions.



The proposed profile on TH 7 west of Louisiana Avenue will create a roller coaster effect




Very tight conditions for staging construction and traffic
Several utilities at the intersection
Existing field conditions (roadway locations) differ from those shown on geotechnical data
from initial construction (30 years ago) – additional investigation will be needed
Louisiana Avenue traffic (ADT) can be handled by a single lane in the proposed design
Bus route along Walker Street, et al
The current signal cycle length is too long.
Cost Model
The VE Team Leader prepared a cost model from the cost estimate of the baseline, which was
provided by the Project Team. The models are organized to identify major construction
elements or trade categories, the designer's estimated costs, and the percent of total project
cost for significant cost items. The cost models clearly showed the cost drivers for the project
and were used to guide the VE Team during the study. The following conclusions were noted
by the VE Team regarding the project costs:





Roadway Items including bituminous account for 33% of this project

It also was unknown where the Contaminated Soil would need to be disposed at. This could
be a very large dollar item.
Contaminated soil and muck removal on TH 7 is 23% of the estimate
A new bridge over Louisiana Avenue is 13% of the estimate.
No cost estimate for right of way acquisition.
It was not clear what was included with the items Contaminated Soil Removal & Backfill or
Muck Excavation & Backfill. The team felt a large amount of sheet piling would be needed
during these operations but did not know if the cost was in the estimate.
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Project Analysis – 2.1
Date: August 10-13, 2010
Cost Model – Baseline Concept
Items
$$$
% of Total
Cumulative %
Roadway
$6,526,500
33%
33%
Engineering Total 20% of Construction
$3,314,202
17%
49%
Contaminated Soil Removal & Backfill
$3,083,548
16%
65%
Bridge
$2,577,135
13%
78%
Retaining Wall
$2,455,613
12%
90%
Muck Excavation & Backfill
$1,398,917
7%
97%
Median Barrier
$331,300
2%
99%
Dewatering
$198,000
1%
100%
Total
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
$19,885,215
100%
Project Analysis – 2.2
Date: August 10-13, 2010
Functional Analysis
Functional analysis results in a unique view of the study project. It transforms project elements
into functions, which moves the VE Team mentally away from the original design and takes it
toward a functional concept of the project. Functions are defined in verb-noun statements to
reduce the needs of the project to their most elemental level. Identifying the functions of the
major design elements of the project allows a broader consideration of alternative ways to
accomplish the functions.
Items
Verb
Noun
Span
Roadway
Support
Add
Widen
Load
Lanes
Roadway
Earthwork
Move
Earth
Retaining Walls
Retain
Earth
Maintain
Control
Access
Traffic
Create
Pedestrian Path
Traffic Control
Protect
Convey
Maintain
User/Worker
Information
Traffic
Temporary Signal Systems
Control
Traffic
Bridge
HMA & Surfacing
Roundabout
Curb & Sidewalk
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Project Analysis – 2.3
Date: August 10-13, 2010
FAST Diagram
The FAST diagram arranges the functions in logical order so that when read from left to right; the functions answer the question “How?” If the
diagram is read from right to left, the functions answer the question “Why?” Functions connected with a vertical line are those that happen at the
same time as, or are caused by, the function at the top of the column.
The FAST Diagram for this project shows Reduce Conflicts, Improve Mobility, and Create Access as the basic functions of this project. Key
secondary functions include Construct Interchange and Stage Construction. This provided the VE Team with an understanding of the project
design rationale and which functions offer the best opportunity for cost or performance improvement.
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Project Analysis – 2.4
Date: August 10-13, 2010
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Project Analysis – 2.5
Date: August 10-13, 2010
Performance Attributes
Performance measures are an integral part of the VE Process. Project performance must be
properly defined and agreed upon by the Project Team, VE Team and stakeholders at the
beginning of the VE Study. The performance attributes and requirements developed are then
used throughout the study to identify, evaluate, and document alternatives.
The VE Team, along with the Project Team, identified and defined the performance attributes
for this project and then defined the baseline concept against these attributes. Performance
attributes represent those aspects of a project’s scope and schedule that may possess a range
of potential values.
Baseline Concept
The baseline concept provides access to Highway 7 via button hook ramps located in the
northeast and southwest quadrants. All entering and exiting traffic is directed through
roundabouts at intersections with local streets that then connect to Louisiana Avenue. In this
concept, TH 7 goes over Louisiana Avenue.
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Project Analysis – 2.6
Date: August 10-13, 2010
The following are the key project performance attributes and their definition that were used in
this VE Study.
Evaluation of Baseline Project
Standard
Performance
Attribute
Mainline
Operations
Local
Operations
Description of Attribute
An assessment of traffic operations
and safety on TH 7. Operational
considerations include level of
service relative to the 20-year traffic
projections as well as geometric
considerations such as design
speed, sight distance, lane widths
and shoulder widths.
An assessment of traffic operations
and safety on the local roadway
infrastructure. Operational
considerations include level of
service relative to the 20-year traffic
projections; geometric
considerations such as design
speed, sight distance, lane widths;
bicycle and pedestrian operations
and access.
Baseline Design Rating Rational












50 mph design speed
2 - 12' lanes in each direction
4' inside & 10' outside shoulders
Walls limit future expansion
right-in, right out closed to Lake
and south service road
Louisiana Avenue
12' lanes, 2' shoulder and 2' curb
and gutter, 6' median
6' boulevard between curb and
path
6' sidewalk eastside, 10' shared
use path on west
Lake - 10' sidewalk on south
Walker - 6' sidewalk on north
Maintainability
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report




5
4 Roundabouts
o
o
o
An assessment of the long-term
maintainability of the transportation
facility(s). Maintenance
considerations include the overall
durability, longevity, and
maintainability of pavements,
structures and systems; ease of
maintenance; accessibility and
safety considerations for
maintenance personnel.
5
Acceleration lanes create 3rd
lane on structure
o

Rating
TH 7 eastbound on and off
ramps to Lake
Lake and Louisiana
Walker and Louisiana
TH 7 westbound on and off
ramps to Walker
Connection from Walker to
Republic is closed
Bituminous pavement over
crushed surfacing
Concrete pre-stressed girder
bridge
Some cast-in-place retaining
walls
5
Open stormwater ponds
Project Analysis – 2.7
Date: August 10-13, 2010
Evaluation of Baseline Project
Standard
Performance
Attribute
Description of Attribute
An assessment of the temporary
impacts to the public during
construction related to traffic
disruptions, detours and delays;
impacts to businesses and residents
relative to access, visual, noise,
vibration, dust and construction
traffic; and environmental impacts.
Baseline Design Rating Rational




Construction
Impacts



Environmental
Impacts
Project
Schedule
An assessment of the permanent
impacts to the environment including
ecological (i.e., flora, fauna, air
quality, water quality, visual, noise);
socioeconomic impacts (i.e.,
environmental justice, business,
residents); impacts to cultural,
recreational and historic resources.
An assessment of the total project
delivery from the time as measured
from the time of the VE Study to
completion of construction.
An assessment of the identified risks
of the project.
Risks













TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Rating
Access will need to be
maintained to local businesses
Louisiana Avenue and TH 7 will
need one-lane each direction at
all times
Noise ordinance 7 am to 10 pm
on weekdays and 9 am to 7 pm
on weekends
Pedestrian access will be
maintained through Louisiana
Avenue
5
Dewatering is possible
The Reilly Super Fund site is
adjacent to project – hazardous
material relocation may be
required with excavated material
Large quantity of embankment is
necessary for the raising of TH 7
Environmental Assessment is in
the early phases of development
Noise walls anticipated but not
defined in the NW and SW
quadrants
5
Flood plain impacts
Water quality impacts
Right-of-way will be needed
November 2011 Letting
(dependent on funding)
2 season construction schedule is
anticipated
5
Reilly Super Fund Site adjacent
to project
Utility relocations
NPDES permitting if project
letting slides
5
Subsurface materials
Loss of federal funds if project is
not authorized by March 2012
All funds are not currently
available
Project Analysis – 2.8
Date: August 10-13, 2010
Performance Attribute Matrix
The performance attribute matrix was used to determine the relative importance of the
performance attributes for the project. The project owner, design team, and stakeholders
evaluated the relative importance of the performance attributes that would be used to evaluate
the creative ideas.
These attributes were compared in pairs, asking the question: “Which one is more important to
the project?” The letter code (e.g., “A”) was entered into the matrix for each pair. After all pairs
were discussed, they were tallied (after normalizing the scores by adding a point to each
attribute), and the percentages calculated. The Performance Attribute Matrix is shown below.
Which attribute is more important to the project?
TOTAL
%
A/B
A
A
A/E
F
A
5.0
18%
B
B
B
B/E
F
B
5.0
18%
C
C
C/E
F
C
3.5
13%
D
E
F
G
1.0
4%
Environmental Impacts
E
F
E
4.5
16%
F
F
7.0
25%
G
2.0
7%
28.0
100%
A
Mainline Operations
Local Operations
Maintainability
Construction Impacts
Project Schedule
Risks
Value Matrix
As the VE Team develops alternatives, the performance of each is rated against the original
design concept. Changes in performance are always based upon the overall impact to the total
project. Once performance and cost data have been developed by the VE Team, the net
change in value of the VE alternatives can be compared to the original design concept. The
resulting “Value Matrix” provides a summary of these changes and allows a way for the Project
Team to assess the potential impact of the VE recommendations on total project value.
While the ratings for the individual VE recommendations are included with the documentation of
each recommendation, this section of the report includes the documentation of the performance
ratings for the concepts that were developed during the VE Study.
In order to compare and contrast the potential for value improvement, individual
recommendations are compared to the baseline project for the all attributes. For this exercise
the baseline is given a score of 5.
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Project Analysis – 2.9
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VALUE MATRIX
TH 7 at Louisiana Ave Interchange
Attribute
Mainline Operations
Local Operations
Maintainablity
Construction Impacts
Environmental Impacts
Attribute
Weight
17.9
17.9
12.5
3.6
16.1
Concept
Baseline
1a
1b
1c
2
3
4
5a
5b
Baseline
1a
1b
1c
2
3
4
5a
5b
Baseline
1a
1b
1c
2
3
4
5a
5b
Baseline
1a
1b
1c
2
3
4
5a
5b
Baseline
1a
1b
1c
2
3
4
5a
5b
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
1
2
3
Performance Rating
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Performance
5
89
5
89
5
89
5
89
5
89
5
89
89
5
7
125
7
125
5
89
5
89
5
89
5
89
89
5
8
143
107
6
4
71
7
125
5
63
5
63
5
63
5
63
5
63
63
5
75
6
5
63
5
63
18
5
7
25
7
25
21
6
21
6
18
5
18
5
21
6
21
6
80
5
96
6
80
5
80
5
7
113
80
5
80
5
96
6
7
113
Project Analysis – 2.10
Date: August 10-13, 2010
Project Schedule
Risks
25.0
7.1
Baseline
1a
1b
1c
2
3
4
5a
5b
Baseline
1a
1b
1c
2
3
4
5a
5b
5
125
5
125
5
125
5
125
5
125
5
125
5
125
5
125
5
125
36
5
8
57
8
57
21
3
5
36
5
36
5
36
5
36
5
36
The matrix is essential for understanding the relationship of cost, performance, and value of the
project baseline and VE proposals. Comparing the performance and cost suggests which
recommendations are potentially as good as or better than, the project baseline concept in
terms of overall value. Comparison at the value index level suggests which recommendations
have the best functionality per unit cost, or provides the project with the “best value.”
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
Performance
(P)
% Change
Performance
Cost
(C)
% Change
Cost
$16.5
Value Index
(P/C)
% Value
Improvement
Baseline
500
1a
Ground Improvements
545
9%
$14.1
15%
38.63
27%
1b
Lightweight Fill
489
-2%
$14.3
13%
34.22
13%
1c
Pile Supported Embankment
529
6%
$14.0
15%
37.76
25%
2
Reinforced Slopes
536
7%
$15.4
7%
34.79
15%
3
Single Lane Roundabouts
554
11%
$16.0
3%
34.60
14%
4
No Median on Louisiana
530
6%
$16.4
1%
32.34
7%
5a
Tight Urban Diamond Interchange
538
7%
$15.0
9%
35.83
18%
5b
Single Point Roundabout Interchange
607
21%
$16.2
2%
37.48
24%
Scenario 1
#1a, #2, #3, #4
541
8%
$12.4
25%
43.63
44%
Scenario 2
#1a, #2, #4, #5a
537
7%
$11.4
31%
47.11
55%
Scenario 3
#1a, #2, #4, #5b
554
11%
$12.6
24%
44.01
45%
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
30.30
Project Analysis – 2.11
Date: August 10-13, 2010
This page is left intentionally blank
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Project Analysis – 2.12
Date: August 10-13, 2010
Idea Evaluation
Introduction
The ideas generated by the VE Team are carefully evaluated, and project-specific attributes are
applied to each idea to assure an objective evaluation.
Evaluation Process
The VE Team, as a group, generated and evaluated ideas on how to perform the various
functions. The idea list was grouped by function or major project element. These ideas were
discussed fully and the advantages and disadvantages of each were listed.
The evaluation process considered seven attributes that considered key aspects of project
performance:







Mainline operations (MO)
Local operations (LO)
Maintainability (M)
Construction impacts (C)
Environmental impacts (E)
Project schedule (S)
Risk (R)
The VE Team compared each of the ideas with the baseline concept for each of the
performance attributes to determine whether it was better than (), equal to (), or worse than
() the original concept.
Deposition of Ideas
The VE Team reached a consensus on the overall rating of the idea (1 through 5). High-ranked
ideas (those ranked three or higher) were developed further; low-ranked ones (those less than
three) were dropped from further consideration. The ranking values are shown below:
5 = Significant Value Improvement
4 = Good Value Improvement
3 = Equivalent to the Baseline
2 = Minor Value Degradation
1 = Significant Value Degradation
0 = Fatal Flaw
Idea Evaluation Form
All of the ideas that were generated during the creative phase using brainstorming techniques
were recorded on the Idea Evaluation Form on the following pages.
Based on the available information along with the constraints and controlling decisions that were
given to the VE Team at the time of the study, many ideas were not advanced to
recommendations or design considerations. These ideas were either fatally flawed or the
baseline concept or other ideas proved to be a higher value improvement after discussion and
the initial evaluation was made. Please refer to the Idea Evaluation Forms for additional
information on those ideas.
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Idea Evaluation – 3.1
Date: August 10-13, 2010
This page intentionally left blank
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Idea Evaluation – 3.2
Date: August 10-13, 2010
IDEA EVALUATION
#
Performance Attributes
Ideas
MO
LO
M
C
E
S
Advantages
Disadvantages
Rating
R
Function: Move Earth



Use ground improvement
technologies (TH 7) rather than
excavating muck
1




Deep soil mixing in lieu of
excavation
Stone columns
Vibro-compaction
Densification

  


 



Reduces disposal of
contaminated soils
May have preservation effect
(containing contamination
movement)
Potential to reduce
construction schedule
Reduces borrow (no backfill
of muck excavation) –
reduced truck traffic in
corridor
Potential to eliminate
surcharge period
Potential reduction in noise
levels – bridge foundations
on spread footing w/ ground
improvements in lieu of piles
Eliminate or significantly
reduce settlement




May be higher cost than
baseline
May require specialty
contractor
Performance
specifications
Risk of soil wave –
outside embankment area
4
Comments: Material on east side of Louisiana Avenue is not anticipated to settle, and excavation of muck is not expected.
Rating Scale:
Performance Attributes:
5 = Significant Value Improvement
2 = Minor Value Degradation
4 = Good Value Improvement
1 = Significant Value Degradation or Doesn’t Meet Project Purpose & Need
3 = Equivalent to Baseline
0 = Fatal Flaw
Significant Improvement    Significant Degradation
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Idea Evaluation – 3.3
Date: August 10-13, 2010
IDEA EVALUATION
#
Performance Attributes
Ideas
MO
LO
M
C
E
S
Advantages


2
Land bridge – where applicable to
avoid muck/peat (potential
contaminated material) excavation
  


Disadvantages
Rating
R
 



Bridges potential settlement
area
Reduced excavation –
resulting in reduced truck
traffic
Potential for reducing
retaining walls (cost)
Eliminates borrow in areas
Eliminates risk of
contaminated material
disposal





May increase length of
noise impacts – pile
supported columns
Potential increase in cost
Additional structure to
maintain
Potential increase in
construction time
Potential increase in
design effort/time
2
Comments: Land bridge is a beam supported structure 1 to 2 feet off of the ground surface. Pile supported columns with bent caps. May not be beneficial.


3
Lightweight fill – Geofoam blocks
over concrete slab
  


 



Reduced settlement
Reduced truck traffic –
reduces excavation of muck
May reduce schedule
Reduces borrow material –
reduced construction traffic
Easy to construct





Increased cost?
Staging could be difficult
– interlocking blocks & ½
time construction
May complicate design
Potential risk associated
with foam/petroleum mix
(contaminated soils)
Would preclude utilities
from entering fill area
4
Comments:
Rating Scale:
Performance Attributes:
5 = Significant Value Improvement
2 = Minor Value Degradation
4 = Good Value Improvement
1 = Significant Value Degradation or Doesn’t Meet Project Purpose & Need
3 = Equivalent to Baseline
0 = Fatal Flaw
Significant Improvement    Significant Degradation
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Idea Evaluation – 3.4
Date: August 10-13, 2010
IDEA EVALUATION
#
Performance Attributes
Ideas
MO
LO
M
C
E
S
Advantages

4
Viaduct – use instead of
embankment/walls on west side
   

Disadvantages
Rating
Increased cost over
embankment
Increased maintenance
Potentially increase
construction schedule
Traffic staging
More noise impacts
Adds to complexity of
construction with ramps
tying into bridge
2
R
 


Potentially eliminates
excavation and fill on west
side of Louisiana
Reduces retaining walls
Less risk with bridge
construction vs. excavation
(overruns ground water, etc.)






Comments: Assumes baseline will design to minimize future settlement not eliminate all together.
5
Use deep soil mixing in lieu of
excavation
Comments: Included in Idea #1.


6
MSE Walls – base assumed to be
cast-in-place
      



Rating Scale:
Performance Attributes:
Potentially cheaper than CIP
wall
Can easily accommodate
settlement
Smaller footing required
(leveling pad)
Potentially easier to
construct
Potential reduced cost


Relatively small area –
may not get economy of
scale
Mn/DOT does not build a
lot of these wall types –
potential design and
construction issues
3
5 = Significant Value Improvement
2 = Minor Value Degradation
4 = Good Value Improvement
1 = Significant Value Degradation or Doesn’t Meet Project Purpose & Need
3 = Equivalent to Baseline
0 = Fatal Flaw
Significant Improvement    Significant Degradation
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Idea Evaluation – 3.5
Date: August 10-13, 2010
IDEA EVALUATION
#
Performance Attributes
Ideas
MO
LO
M
C
E
S
Advantages
Disadvantages
Rating
R
Comments: Move to design consideration.


7
Pile supported embankment
    
 


Eliminate excavation –
reduced construction traffic
Reduces long term
maintenance – no long term
settlement
Temporary sheeting not
needed
Less risk with bridge
construction vs. excavation
(overruns ground water, etc.)

Reduces staging complexity
– lower of Louisiana (6 to 7
feet) and raising of TH 7
(partial) will be very
complicated
Reduces excavation
Less risk vs. excavation
(overruns ground water,
contaminated soils, etc.)
May reduce construction
schedule



Potential increased cost need to evaluate
Increased noise – pile
driving – may be offset by
sheeting elimination
5
Comments:

8
Raise TH 7 higher and eliminate
excavation/lowering of Louisiana
  


 



Rating Scale:
Performance Attributes:


Increased embankment
May require lengthening
of vertical curve – tie-ins
to existing TH 7
Will increase grade on
loop ramps (on ramps)
Increases fill height in
front of apartment
complex – negative
impact
4
5 = Significant Value Improvement
2 = Minor Value Degradation
4 = Good Value Improvement
1 = Significant Value Degradation or Doesn’t Meet Project Purpose & Need
3 = Equivalent to Baseline
0 = Fatal Flaw
Significant Improvement    Significant Degradation
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Idea Evaluation – 3.6
Date: August 10-13, 2010
IDEA EVALUATION
#
Performance Attributes
Ideas
MO
LO
M
C
E
S
Advantages
Disadvantages
Rating
May have difficulty with
slope cover growing
(grass)
Increase maintenance –
landscape maintenance
4
R
Comments:

9
   
Reinforced slopes

 




Can accommodate
settlement – without needing
adjustments
Reduced cost
May increase footprint some
(70 degree max slope)
May improve aesthetics –
grass covered slope
Reduced construction time

Alignment along TH 7 may
be lower


Comments: Will need to investigate the right of way needs.


10
Balance earthwork – lower
Louisiana Avenue (assumes that
excavation can be used as fill)




Rating Scale:
Performance Attributes:
Significant increase in
excavation required
Will impact access to
businesses
Increases staging
complexity
Lengthen project limits
along Louisiana
Stock pile site required
Project area would need
to significantly increase to
obtain enough material
0
5 = Significant Value Improvement
2 = Minor Value Degradation
4 = Good Value Improvement
1 = Significant Value Degradation or Doesn’t Meet Project Purpose & Need
3 = Equivalent to Baseline
0 = Fatal Flaw
Significant Improvement    Significant Degradation
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Idea Evaluation – 3.7
Date: August 10-13, 2010
IDEA EVALUATION
#
Performance Attributes
Ideas
MO
LO
M
C
E
S
Advantages
Disadvantages
Rating
R
Comments: Fatally flawed – see disadvantages.

11
Lower hill between Texas and
Louisiana to acquire material for
embankment

 
   


Improved vertical alignment
along TH 7
Improves sight distance over
existing along TH 7
approaching Texas from the
east
Provides potential borrow



May need to construct cut
retaining walls
Potential increase in
design effort/time
Increase in construction
impacts to TH 7 outside of
the project limits
3
Comments: Moved to design consideration.
Span Roadway – Baseline Prestressed concrete girder, vertical abutments - TH 7 over Louisiana
12
      
Steel Girder Bridge

Similar construction to
concrete

Maintainability
3
Comments: Moved to design consideration.
Rating Scale:
Performance Attributes:
5 = Significant Value Improvement
2 = Minor Value Degradation
4 = Good Value Improvement
1 = Significant Value Degradation or Doesn’t Meet Project Purpose & Need
3 = Equivalent to Baseline
0 = Fatal Flaw
Significant Improvement    Significant Degradation
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Idea Evaluation – 3.8
Date: August 10-13, 2010
IDEA EVALUATION
#
Performance Attributes
Ideas
MO
LO
M
C
E
S
Advantages


13
Accelerated Bridge Construction
(ABC) (components)
Disadvantages
Rating
R
      
Potential construction
schedule savings
May be an avenue to
additional funding



Requires a lay down area
for the pre-cast
components
Relatively new technology
in the area
Currently a lot of cracking
is occurring on the few
attempts in this area with
bridge decks
4
Bridge barrier is added
last
Increased footprint
3
Comments: After evaluation this idea was moved to a design consideration.
14
Twin bridges in lieu of single bridge
   

 



May simplify staging
Added light under bridge
Eliminates closure pour



Depth of deck is reduced
Reduces borrow/retaining
wall height
Aesthetically nicer looking
bridge


Comments: Moved to design consideration.
15
  
Slab span bridge


 


Center pier needed to
span over Louisiana
More intricate falsework
2
Comments: Need for impact attenuators or other protection scores this low.
Rating Scale:
Performance Attributes:
5 = Significant Value Improvement
2 = Minor Value Degradation
4 = Good Value Improvement
1 = Significant Value Degradation or Doesn’t Meet Project Purpose & Need
3 = Equivalent to Baseline
0 = Fatal Flaw
Significant Improvement    Significant Degradation
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Idea Evaluation – 3.9
Date: August 10-13, 2010
IDEA EVALUATION
#
Performance Attributes
Ideas
MO
16
LO
M
C
E
S
Advantages
Disadvantages
Rating
R
Have Louisiana Avenue span TH 7

Steeper profile on
Louisiana


Increases cost
Increased construction
schedule
2 more bridge foundations
to construct
0
Comments: Fatally flaw based on grades needed for approaches to bridge.
17
Use three-span structure – no
vertical abutments
  


 





Less embankment
Increases light under bridge
More comfortable for
pedestrians
Easier to widen in the future
than vertical abutment
Reduces muck excavation

4
Comments: After evaluation this idea validated the baseline.
18
1
Tied Arch Bridge
Comments: Beyond the funding of the project.
19
Signature Structure – welcome to
Saint Louis Park (form vs. function)
3
Comments: Moved to design consideration.
Rating Scale:
Performance Attributes:
5 = Significant Value Improvement
2 = Minor Value Degradation
4 = Good Value Improvement
1 = Significant Value Degradation or Doesn’t Meet Project Purpose & Need
3 = Equivalent to Baseline
0 = Fatal Flaw
Significant Improvement    Significant Degradation
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Idea Evaluation – 3.10
Date: August 10-13, 2010
IDEA EVALUATION
#
Performance Attributes
Ideas
MO
20
LO
M
C
E
S
Advantages
Disadvantages
Rating
R

Reduced excavation of muck


Smaller footprint
Driver expectation is better
than with slip ramps to
roundabouts
Bike and ped friendly
Less impacts to current
access to business to the
north
Ramp design is better
Lengthen Bridge – additional spans
Comments: Added to Ideas #4 & #17.
Construct Ramps
21
Evaluate Tight Urban Diamond
Interchange – use the same
horizontal and vertical alignments as
baseline


  













Possible impacts to pump
station and medical
building in SE quadrant
Increased conflicts over
roundabouts
Business impacts to
Sam’s club (truck access)
Bikes and peds may have
more conflicts
Reduces the size of the
city land
Increased bridge
May be opposed by
apartments – proximity
4
Comments:
Rating Scale:
Performance Attributes:
5 = Significant Value Improvement
2 = Minor Value Degradation
4 = Good Value Improvement
1 = Significant Value Degradation or Doesn’t Meet Project Purpose & Need
3 = Equivalent to Baseline
0 = Fatal Flaw
Significant Improvement    Significant Degradation
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Idea Evaluation – 3.11
Date: August 10-13, 2010
IDEA EVALUATION
#
Performance Attributes
Ideas
MO
LO
M
C
E
S
Advantages

22
Single point diamond interchange
with one roundabout – use the same
horizontal and vertical alignments as
baseline

   

Disadvantages
Rating
R




Reduce overall project
footprint (no need for two
extra roundabouts)
Increase driver expectation
Less impacts to current
access to business to the
north
Ramp design is better

Removes one access point
to roundabout which
improves the operation
Improved angle at which
ramps approach



Requires a larger
structure because of
increase need sight
distance
Possible impacts to pump
station and medical office
in SE quadrant
Reduces the size of the
city land
4
Comments: Single lane roundabout will work but requires shift to the south for TH 7.

23
Cul-de-sac the frontage road in the
SW quadrant

     

Neighbors may not
approve
4
Comments:
24
0
Diverging Diamond Interchange
Comments: Fatally Flawed because it has no advantages over the typical diamond which was rejected in the evaluation matrix (little known).
25
Super tight diamond with shift TH 7
to the south – space from apartment
Rating Scale:
Performance Attributes:
5 = Significant Value Improvement
2 = Minor Value Degradation
4 = Good Value Improvement
1 = Significant Value Degradation or Doesn’t Meet Project Purpose & Need
3 = Equivalent to Baseline
0 = Fatal Flaw
Significant Improvement    Significant Degradation
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Idea Evaluation – 3.12
Date: August 10-13, 2010
IDEA EVALUATION
#
Performance Attributes
Ideas
MO
LO
M
C
E
S
Advantages
Disadvantages
Rating
R
Comments: Added to Idea #21

26
Offset single point (TH 36/Rice
Street)

Impacts to pump station,
medical office, and
parking lot
Access from lake street to
Louisiana Avenue is gone
1
Comments: Will work geometrically if combined with viaduct idea. Scored low because of no advantages over base.
27
Construct roundabouts first – shift
TH 7 to roundabouts – provide slip
ramps in SE and NW quads for TH 7
traffic – use ABC
Comments: Combined with Idea #45.
28
Construct TH 7 from the air by
suspending TH 7 from balloons
1
Comments: Unproven technology
29

Lengthen RR bridge to
accommodate ramps

Working with railroad
1
Comments: Not enough time to work with railroad to design new bridge.
Rating Scale:
Performance Attributes:
5 = Significant Value Improvement
2 = Minor Value Degradation
4 = Good Value Improvement
1 = Significant Value Degradation or Doesn’t Meet Project Purpose & Need
3 = Equivalent to Baseline
0 = Fatal Flaw
Significant Improvement    Significant Degradation
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Idea Evaluation – 3.13
Date: August 10-13, 2010
IDEA EVALUATION
#
Performance Attributes
Ideas
MO
30
Eliminate all left turns by creating a
single large traffic circle - TH 7 and
Louisiana Avenue would be
removed in the middle

LO

M

C

E

S
Advantages
Disadvantages
Rating
R
 



All at-grade construction
Eliminates muck excavation
Reduces cost




Buy-in by apartment
complex
Driver expectancy
Design speed on TH 7
would be reduced
Risk of Mn/DOT approval
1
Comments: Mn/DOT approval.
31
Use ovalabouts in NW and SE
quads instead of 2 roundabouts
1
Comments: operational doesn’t work.
32
Use right in – right out at W. Lake
Street and Louisiana Avenue



Truck access to Sam’s
Club
1
Comments: Operationally doesn’t work.
Reconstruct City Streets
33
3
Accommodate transit
Comments: Include with design considerations.
Rating Scale:
Performance Attributes:
5 = Significant Value Improvement
2 = Minor Value Degradation
4 = Good Value Improvement
1 = Significant Value Degradation or Doesn’t Meet Project Purpose & Need
3 = Equivalent to Baseline
0 = Fatal Flaw
Significant Improvement    Significant Degradation
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Idea Evaluation – 3.14
Date: August 10-13, 2010
IDEA EVALUATION
#
Performance Attributes
Ideas
MO
34
LO
M
C
E
S
Advantages
Disadvantages
Rating
R
Grade separate – eliminate access
at Louisiana
1
Comments: Doesn’t meet the purpose and need of the project.
35
Rain gardens in center of
roundabouts
Comments: Include as a design consideration.
36
Single lane roundabouts with one
lane between them






 





Reduces conflicts
Smaller footprint
Easier to navigate from the
drivers perspective
Ability to expand in future
when necessary
Reduces impervious surface
4
Comments: Construct to full size but use as a single lane until traffic warrants.
37
Narrow Louisiana – use three lane
section with two way left turn lane
(TWLTL)

Reduces ability to expand
in the future
1
Comments: No need for a TWLTL on Louisiana Ave (only two access and they are right in-right out.
Rating Scale:
Performance Attributes:
5 = Significant Value Improvement
2 = Minor Value Degradation
4 = Good Value Improvement
1 = Significant Value Degradation or Doesn’t Meet Project Purpose & Need
3 = Equivalent to Baseline
0 = Fatal Flaw
Significant Improvement    Significant Degradation
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Idea Evaluation – 3.15
Date: August 10-13, 2010
IDEA EVALUATION
#
Performance Attributes
Ideas
MO
38
Narrow Louisiana – remove raised
median and replace with double
yellow stripe
LO
M
  
C

E

S
Advantages
Disadvantages
Rating
R
 



Reduces impervious surface
Improve snow removal
Reduces bridge length

Public perception
4
Comments:
39
Louisiana – parking on outside in
each direction (one lane each
direction)
1
Comments: No need for parking in this stretch of Louisiana Avenue.
40
Louisiana – wider boulevard section
with rain gardens

Aesthetics

Maintenance

Reduces footprint

Loss of area for snow
removal
Moves pedestrians closer
to traffic
2
More costly
Maintenance
Breaks down quicker
2
3
Comments: Move to design consideration.
41
Remove boulevard (strip between
curb and sidewalk)


    

Comments:
42
    
Use pervious pavement
Rating Scale:
Performance Attributes:
 


Infiltration is good
Reduction in stormwater
system



5 = Significant Value Improvement
2 = Minor Value Degradation
4 = Good Value Improvement
1 = Significant Value Degradation or Doesn’t Meet Project Purpose & Need
3 = Equivalent to Baseline
0 = Fatal Flaw
Significant Improvement    Significant Degradation
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Idea Evaluation – 3.16
Date: August 10-13, 2010
IDEA EVALUATION
#
Performance Attributes
Ideas
MO
LO
M
C
E
S
Advantages
Disadvantages
Rating
Pavement markings are
more difficult to see
Staging becomes more
problematic
3
Risk of coloration
differences within
roundabouts
3
R
Comments: Unknown if we would get any credit for this type of pavement – possibility to use on trails if not roadway.
43
Use concrete on roundabouts
  
   


Higher life cycle
Less maintenance


Comments: Move to design consideration.
44
Concrete roundabouts – use
pigmented concrete i.e., black

Ability to see pavement
markings

Comments: Move to design considerations.
Rating Scale:
Performance Attributes:
5 = Significant Value Improvement
2 = Minor Value Degradation
4 = Good Value Improvement
1 = Significant Value Degradation or Doesn’t Meet Project Purpose & Need
3 = Equivalent to Baseline
0 = Fatal Flaw
Significant Improvement    Significant Degradation
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Idea Evaluation – 3.17
Date: August 10-13, 2010
IDEA EVALUATION
#
Performance Attributes
Ideas
MO
LO
M
C
E
S
Advantages
Disadvantages
Rating
R
Stage Construction
S1
1. Build roundabouts first
w/temporary slip ramps in SE &
NW quads
2. Build ½ TH 7 at a time
3. Build twin (or half) structures to
facilitate staging
4. Move the Louisiana Avenue
intersection with TH 7 to Lake
Street (east) (current right inright out location) during
construction
Comments:


S2
Shift TH 7 traffic south (temporary
road) and construct TH 7 all at once


Reduces staging complexity
Can build as a single
structure
Potential reduction in cost
Reduced construction
schedule

Reduced spacing
between signal Louisiana
and Lake
Comments:
Rating Scale:
Performance Attributes:
5 = Significant Value Improvement
2 = Minor Value Degradation
4 = Good Value Improvement
1 = Significant Value Degradation or Doesn’t Meet Project Purpose & Need
3 = Equivalent to Baseline
0 = Fatal Flaw
Significant Improvement    Significant Degradation
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Idea Evaluation – 3.18
Date: August 10-13, 2010
IDEA EVALUATION
#
Performance Attributes
Ideas
MO
LO
M
C
E
S
Advantages


S3
Shift TH 7 south using Lake Street
for and TH 7 all at once
Disadvantages
Rating
R


Reduces staging complexity
Can build as a single
structure
Potential reduction in cost
Reduced construction
schedule



Lake may not be able to
handle the added traffic
May introduce additional
conflicts – thru traffic on
frontage road
Utilizes existing
infrastructure
Comments:
S4
Shift Louisiana Avenue to the
east during the lowering of the
profile
Comments:
Rating Scale:
Performance Attributes:
5 = Significant Value Improvement
2 = Minor Value Degradation
4 = Good Value Improvement
1 = Significant Value Degradation or Doesn’t Meet Project Purpose & Need
3 = Equivalent to Baseline
0 = Fatal Flaw
Significant Improvement    Significant Degradation
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Idea Evaluation – 3.19
Date: August 10-13, 2010
This page intentionally left blank
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Idea Evaluation – 3.20
Date: August 10-13, 2010
Recommendations
Introduction
The results of this study are presented as individual recommendations to the original concept.
The VE recommendation documents in this section are presented as written by the team during
the VE Study. While they have been edited from the draft VE Report to correct errors or better
clarify the recommendation, they represent the VE Team’s findings during the study.
Summary of VE Recommendations
Each recommendation consists of a summary of the original concept, a description of the
suggested change, a listing of its advantages and disadvantages, a cost comparison, change in
performance*, and a brief narrative comparing the original design with the recommendation.
Sketches, calculations, and performance measure ratings are also presented. The cost
comparisons reflect a comparable level of detail as in the original estimate.
*
Please refer to the Project Analysis section of this report for an explanation of how the
performance measures are calculated.
The VE Team generated 44 different ideas for this project. These concepts were compared
against the baseline that was developed by the project team. The concepts that performed the
best were further developed by the VE Team.
From these ideas the VE Team developed 8 recommendations resulting in a net cost savings of
$ 3.9 M to $5.1 M and an overall performance improvement of +7 to +11%.
Summary of Recommendations
TH 7 at Louisiana Ave. Interchange
Description
#
Cost
Savings
Performance
Improvement
1a
Ground Improvements
$2.4 M
9%
1b
Lightweight Fill
$2.2 M
-2%
1c
Pile Supported Fill
$2.5 M
6%
2
Reinforced Slopes
$1.1 M
7%
3
Single Lane Roundabouts
$0.5 M
11%
4
Remove Median on Louisiana Avenue
$0.1 M
6%
5a
Tight Urban Diamond Interchange
$1.5 M
7%
5b
Single Point Roundabout Interchange
$0.3 M
21%
$3.9 M to $5.1M
+7% to +11%
Total
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.1
Date: August 10-13, 2010
Implementation Strategies
Because of competing recommendations, three different implementation strategies or scenarios
are available. Recommendations 1a, 1b and 1c all offer different ways to construct
embankments. Recommendations 5a and 5b are both differing types of interchanges than the
baseline concept.

Scenario A includes Recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 4. These 4 recommendations all
improve the baseline concept. Collectively they have a net cost savings of $4.1 million and
an overall performance improvement of +8%.

Scenario B recommends a Tight Urban Diamond Interchange (5a). Combined with
Recommendations 1, 2 and 4 it has a net cost savings of $5.1 million and an overall
performance improvement of +7%.

Scenario C recommends a Single Point Roundabout Interchange (5b).
This
recommendation combined with Recommendations 1, 2 and 4 has a net cost savings of
$3.9 million and an overall performance improvement of +11%.
Summary of Recommendations
TH 7 at Louisiana Ave. Interchange
#
Description
Scenario A
Scenario B
Scenario C
Cost
Savings
Cost
Savings
Cost
Savings
1a
Ground Improvements
$2.4 M
$2.4 M
$2.4 M
1b
Lightweight Fill
$2.2 M
$2.2 M
$2.2 M
1c
Pile Supported Fill
$2.5 M
$2.5 M
$2.5 M
2
Reinforced Slopes
$1.1 M
$1.1 M
$1.1 M
3
Single Lane Roundabouts
$0.5 M
4
Remove Median on Louisiana Avenue
$0.1 M
$0.1 M
$0.1 M
5a
Tight Urban Diamond Interchange
5b
Single Point Roundabout Interchange
Total
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
$1.5 M
$0.3 M
$4.1 M
$5.1 M
$3.9 M
Recommendations – 4.2
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE Recommendation Approval
The Project Manager shall review and evaluate the VE Team’s recommendation(s) that are
included in the Final Report. The Project Manager shall complete the VE Recommendation
Approval form that is included in this report.
For each recommendation that is not approved or is modified by the Project Manager,
justification needs to be provided. This justification shall include a summary statement
containing the Project Manager’s decision not to use the recommendation in the project.
The completed VE Recommendation Approval form including justification for any
recommendations not approved or modified shall be sent to the State Value Engineer by
October 1 of each year so the results can be included in the annual Value Engineering Report to
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Design Considerations
The VE Team generated several ideas for consideration by the Project Team. These items
represent ideas that are relatively general in nature, and are listed below. Please refer to the
Idea Evaluation Forms for more detail.


Use MSE Walls







With the current low prices for steel, consider a steel girder bridge
Lower the hill (profile) on TH 7 between Texas Avenue and Louisiana Avenue to acquire
material for embankment
Use two bridges instead of one
Create a signature bridge
Include transit in final design
Consider the use of rain gardens in the roundabouts and boulevards
Use concrete instead of bituminous for the driving surface of the roundabouts
Use Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC), see write up on following pages.
Construction Staging
The VE Team also looked at how this project might be staged during construction. The team
felt it would be challenging to keep one lane of traffic open both directions on TH 7 at all times
because of the major excavation needed for muck removal.
Louisiana Avenue also needs to be maintained with one lane open at all times too. But the
profile of Louisiana is being lowered 6-7 feet again making traffic management during
construction a challenge.
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.3
Date: August 10-13, 2010
During the study the team came up with a few suggestions to how traffic might be staged during
the construction of the baseline concept as offered to the VE Team:
Idea #S1
1. Construct roundabouts first w/temporary slip ramps in SE & NW quads
2. Move intersection of Louisiana Ave and TH 7 to the intersection of Lake St. and TH 7
3. Construct TH 7 one half at a time (Construct a twin (or half) structure to facilitate staging)
Idea #S2 - Shift TH 7 traffic to the south (temporary road) and construct TH 7 all at once
Idea #S3 - Shift TH 7 south using Lake Street and construct TH 7 all at once
Idea #S4 – Shift Louisiana Avenue to the east during the lowering of the profile
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.4
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE DESIGN CONSIDERATION
Accelerated Bridge Construction
Function:
IDEA NO(s).
Span Roadway
13
Original Concept:
The baseline concept (button hook ramps with roundabouts) calls for a single-span bridge with
precast concrete girders supporting a cast-in-place deck. The structure will bear on cast-in-place
vertical abutments, which will be supported by driven H-piles.
Design Consideration:
This design consideration is to provide a design (contractor flexibility) that will accommodate ABC
technology. In essence provide design details that will give contractors the option to use precast
substructure (pile caps, bent caps, etc.), superstructure components (i.e., partial depth structural
precast concrete panels), and retaining walls (MSE wall with precast panels) in the construction of
the bridges for the project. Coordination of these elements in conjunction with each other could
result in construction time savings.
Advantages:



Potential construction schedule savings
o Superstructure could occur simultaneously with
embankment fill
Maybe an avenue to additional funding from FHWA
for using accelerated bridge concepts
For this project, there appears to sufficient area for
lay down areas to construct precast components onsite
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Disadvantages



Relatively new technology in the area
Some bridge decks are experiencing premature
deck cracking when using precast components
If the road project is staged, two separate bridges
would most likely would be required due to lack of
a cold-joint
Recommendations – 4.5
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE DESIGN CONSIDERATION
Accelerated Bridge Construction
Discussion/Justification:
It is important to minimize traffic disruption during the construction. There are several businesses
and a hospital to the south of TH 7 which use this intersection as a primary access point. The VE
Team has considered Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) to help achieve minimal impacts to the
traveling public as well minimize the impacts to local businesses.
Using prefabricated (precast) concrete elements as listed below will reduce the field forming and
curing time required. Because prefabrication of these elements could be accomplished in a
controlled, offsite environment without jobsite limitations; constructability will be improved, quality
increased, costs lowered and the schedule shortened. Construction schedule may be affected by
this method. Cost differentials are not presented because schedule costs cannot be quantified with
available data.
Some of the bridge components to be considered as a part of this recommendation include the
following:





Footings: Precast footings could be placed immediately following either pile driving or ground
improvements.
Vertical walls abutments: Precast walls could be placed directly on footings.
Specialty Girders: Inverted T or full-depth deck beams could be used to eliminate temporary
falsework required for casting of the deck.
Deck: Prestressed deck panels could be placed on top of in-place girders. This eliminates
the need to remove falsework after the deck has been casted.
Full Superstructure: The entire superstructure could be constructed in the existing parking lot
in the southwest quadrant of the intersection. Upon completion of the substructure
components, the entire superstructure could be moved into place and set up the
substructure. This allows for the construction of the substructure and superstructure to occur
simultaneously.
Connections between CIP and precast components would be done placing concrete in/through small
pockets cast into the precast elements. On-site forming, rebar installation, concrete placement and
curing, and form removal are eliminated from the critical construction path
In order to enhance the benefits of ABC, other portions of the project should also be accelerated. In
the baseline concept, the retaining walls are assumed to be cast-in-place walls. The recommended
concept would need to include a plan which accelerates the construction of the retaining wall and
embankment fill to ensure that the walls are ready at the same time as necessary bridge
components.
Assumptions:


A major assumption for the project is that TH 7 traffic will remain within the current7 right-ofway corridor during the construction. Due to this, the bridge could be constructed in stages.
Half of the bridge could be constructed first to maintain traffic within the existing right of way.
Once this half is constructed, TH 7 traffic could be moved to this new portion while the
second half of the bridge is being constructed. As a result of building the bridge in two
stages, a cold-joint would most likely occur in both the substructure and superstructure
components.
It is assumed that there will be no traffic on Louisiana Avenue at the bridge. The intersection
of TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue will be temporarily relocated.
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.6
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE DESIGN CONSIDERATION
Accelerated Bridge Construction
Sketches/Photos:
Precast components used for abutment construction.
Precast deck component used as falsework.
Moving entire superstructure into place.
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.7
Date: August 10-13, 2010
This page is left intentionally blank
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.8
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 1a
Ground Improvements
Function:
IDEA NO(s).
Move Earth
1
Original Concept:
Remove contaminated soil and muck and replace with borrow. It is assumed to require temporary
sheeting and shoring to maintain a stable excavation; depths are expected to be up to 35 feet for
removal in west bridge area. Another assumption is that the mineral soils and organic materials
that are encountered will be contaminated with coal tar, or other creosote-type products and byproducts.
Recommended Concept:
Use ground improvement technologies rather than excavating muck.




Deep soil mixing in lieu of excavation
Stone columns
Vibro-compaction
Densification
Advantages:







Disadvantages


Reduces disposal of contaminated soils
May have preservation effect (containing
contamination movement)
Potential to reduce construction schedule
Reduces borrow (no backfill of muck excavation) –
reduced truck traffic in corridor
Potential to eliminate surcharge period
Potential reduction in noise levels – bridge
foundations on spread footing w/ground
improvements in lieu of piles
Eliminate or significantly reduce settlement

May require specialty contractor
Performance specifications
Risk of soil wave – outside embankment area
COST SUMMARY
ESTIMATE
Original Concept
$4.4 M
Recommended Concept
$2.0 M for deep soil mixing
Estimated Savings
$2.4 M
FHWA Functional Benefit
Safety
Operations
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Environment
Construction
Other



Recommendations – 4.9
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 1a
Ground Improvements
Discussion/Justification:
Baseline Design
All assumptions, including the base design, will require additional subsurface investigation to
determine the appropriate soil remedial mythology that should be used on this project. Listed below
are some alternatives that could be considered.
The base design raises TH 7 over Louisiana Ave. The current plan is to build up very large
embankments on the east and west to support approaches to bridge overpass.
There is a superfund site adjacent to the project limits on the North side. It is known that some of the
contaminated materials have migrated south into the project limits and are therefore under the
existing TH 7 and Louisiana Ave. roadways. There is a desire to limit removal quantities and
anticipated large hazmat waste costs.
Risk factors – with unknown soils, settlement and slope stability is unpredictable. The best option to
minimize settlement is also the most comprehensive option: an expensive muck removal and
replacement with borrow. However, this option is not necessarily the preferred option due to some
constraints:


Sheet pile construction will probably be needed and slope stability might be an issue due to
tight ROW
Too many unknowns
– extent of muck removal
– extent of contamination soils and disposal
– muck removal would require extensive borrow
 lots of trucks moving in and out of the project site
 Where would the borrow come from?
All ground improvement methods will be employed to control settlement/improve strength for the
construction of the west bridge approach embankment.
Methods of Ground Improvements
Deep soil mixing





Deep soil mixing has potential performance risks in peat soils,
particularly if pH is low.
Deep soil mixing may be able to bind up contaminants in place
(+), but tooling and drill slurry may require specialty
decontamination and disposal depending on actual
environmental contaminants.
(wet) Deep soil mixing requires specialty rig, specialty
contractors, and large mobilization charges; probably impractical
for a small job of this size. (Dry) soil mixing may be appropriate
(lime injection/stabilization), but QA is more difficult and results
are generally more variable.
Probably less noisy and vibratory than pile driving; may be more desirable than pile supported
embankment option.
If remediation is also used under bridge footings, shallow foundations may be used,
eliminating the need for piling on the project.
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.10
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 1a
Ground Improvements
Stone columns

Local contractors may be only able to install to
depths of 35 feet.
 Settlements are likely to be reduced to levels
tolerable for roadways and minor structures; may be
more than desired for bridge footings, depending on
technique. (Rammed aggregate piers may have
deflections suitable for bridge footings on spread
footings).
Vibro-compaction

Could be used in sandy areas to densify granular materials; not
appropriate for peat areas; probably not appropriate as a solution
for ground improvements at the entire site. Possibly useful on the
east side if bridge footings to be shallow foundations.
Blast Densification


Usually used to improve density in loose sands and decrease liquefaction potential in seismic
zones. Probably not appropriate here due to proximity of
business and residences. Would not address principal problem
of western peat soils.
Very unlikely to be used on this project. Rarely used in urban
areas at Mn/DOT due to potential damage to adjacent structures.
Dynamic [Deep] Compaction



Usually used in loose or low density mineral soils. Probably not
appropriate in organic soils and peats.
May have limited applicability to improve density in east and west
areas.
Uses a large drop weight. Depending on soils, the stress wave
created by the drop may disturb surrounding infrastructure
(utilities) in the immediate area (or create that perception) precondition surveys of nearby structures or residences are
probably necessary to protect against claims.
Design Assumptions:
Borings and mechanical cone soundings from 1975/1980 used for preliminary assessment.
Designs assumes that:

Soils may be contaminated
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.11
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 1a
Ground Improvements

Embankments will be constructed, raising the grade, and requiring settlement mitigation

Rock is at a depth of 65 feet or greater

Peat/organic soils are present

ROW is a constraint, limiting viability of “remove and replace” options without sheeting.

Ground improvement is only needed west of Louisiana Ave. on TH 7 and ramps
Calculations:
Deep Soil Mixing $120/CY installed Use 3’ diameter soil mixing 65’ deep
7.07 SF x 65’ = 459 CF / 27 = 17 CY per boring
110’ (width of roadway) x 880’ (length) =88,000 SF / 100 SF = 880 borings
880 x 17 = 14,960 CY x $120/CY = $1.795 M
Because the true extent of the muck is currently unknown, use a cost of approximately $2.0 M
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.12
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 1a
Ground Improvements
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Performance
Original
Alternative
5
5
Criteria and Rating Rationale for Recommendation
Mainline Operations
Rating
No change from baseline
Weight
17.9
Contribution
Local Operations
Rating
No change from baseline
Weight
Rating
Anticipated settlement will be less
Weight
Rating
Reduced excavation and construction traffic
Eliminates the need for sheet pile walls
Weight
Rating
Deep Soil mixing may encapsulate contaminated material that is
present
Weight
Rating
No change from baseline
Weight
Rating
Eliminates risk of contaminated material & muck disposal
Weight
89
5
5
63
63
5
7
18
25
5
6
80
97
5
5
25.0
Contribution
Risk
89
16.1
Contribution
Project Schedule
5
3.6
Contribution
Environmental Impacts
5
12.5
Contribution
Construction Impacts
89
17.9
Contribution
Maintainability
89
125
125
5
8
7.1
Contribution
Total Performance:
36
57
500
545
Net Change in Performance:
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
9%
Recommendations – 4.13
Date: August 10-13, 2010
This page is left intentionally blank
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.14
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 1b
Lightweight Fill
Function:
IDEA NO(s).
Move Earth
3
Original Concept:
Remove contaminated soil and muck and replace with borrow. It is assumed to require temporary
sheeting and shoring to maintain a stable excavation; depths are expected to be up to 35 feet for
removal in west bridge area. Another assumption is that the mineral soils and organic materials
that are encountered will be contaminated with coal tar, or other creosote-type products and byproducts.
Recommended Concept:
Lightweight Fill: EPS Geofoam or Shredded Tires
Bridge over compressible materials with a lightweight fill embankment.
Advantages:





Disadvantages
Reduced settlement
Reduced borrow/fill truck traffic during construction
Reduces excavation of muck
May reduce construction schedule
Easy to construct



May complicate design of other items (need for
drainage details, guardrail/moment slab.
Potential risk associated with foam/petroleum mix
(contaminated soils). Robust cover requirements
will be necessary.
Would preclude utilities from entering fill area.
COST SUMMARY
ESTIMATE
Original Concept
S4.4 M
Recommended Concept
$2.2 M for EPS blocks
Estimated Savings
$2.2 M
FHWA Functional Benefit
Safety
Operations
Environment
Construction
Other

Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.15
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 1b
Lightweight Fill
Discussion/Justification:
Additional soils borings will be necessary to determine the proper remedial methodologies to use on
this project.
Organic decay may result in long term settlement that is not adequately mitigated with lightweight fill
options. These options may/should be combined with soil surcharge (pre-load) for improved
performance over organic deposits that are not removed.
Some excavation will be required to provide ‘earth pressure balance’ which will provide the greatest
reduction in future settlement potential.
This solution needs only to be applied in areas with increased fill (assumed on the west side
approach embankment).
High water table will require that weight of soil cover is adequate to compensate for buoyant forces if
EPS Geofoam is installed below 100 yr flood elevation. Three borings from 1985 show that water is
approximately 2 feet below existing ground.
May wish to combine this option with cellular concrete below the water table to provide a more “inert”
inclusion where there is increased risk of damage to EPS geofoam. May also be used with shredded
tires.
Petroleum contamination may be a drawback to this design {EPS}, or require a more robust
geomembrane liner for protection with more intense inspection at plastic joint welds.
Mn/DOT practice has been to only use shredded tires above the water table, so this option is not
considered for use at this location. Another system would need to be used below water table- or risk
continued deformation due to organics.
Design Assumptions:
Borings and mechanical cone soundings from 1975/1980 used for preliminary assessment.
Designs assumes that:

Soils may be contaminated

Embankments will be constructed, raising the grade, and requiring settlement mitigation

Rock is at a depth of 65 feet or greater

Peat/organic soils are present

ROW is a constraint, limiting viability of “remove and replace” options without sheeting.

Ground improvement is only needed on the west side of Louisiana Ave.
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.16
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 1b
Lightweight Fill
Sketches/Photos:
EPS Geofoam blocks being assembled
Styrofoam blocks being assembled behind retaining walls for a bridge embankment
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.17
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 1b
Lightweight Fill
Because of the possibility of contamination of the Styrofoam blocks from petroleum within the
ground a concrete slab or other barrier should be placed between the blocks and the natural
ground.
Calculations:
EPS Geofoam $60/CY installed
(880’ x 110’ x 10’ average height) / 27 = 35,852 CY
35,852 CY x $60/CY = $2.15 M
Use $2.2 M
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.18
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 1b
Lightweight Fill
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Performance
Original
Alternative
5
5
Criteria and Rating Rationale for Recommendation
Mainline Operations
Rating
No change from baseline
Weight
17.9
Contribution
Local Operations
Rating
No change from baseline
Weight
Rating
No change from baseline
Weight
Rating
Less/lighter truck traffic
Weight
Rating
No change from baseline
Weight
Rating
No change from baseline
Weight
Rating
Risk of petro chemical contamination
Weight
89
5
5
63
63
5
6
18
22
5
5
80
80
5
5
25.0
Contribution
Risk
89
16.1
Contribution
Project Schedule
5
3.6
Contribution
Environmental Impacts
5
12.5
Contribution
Construction Impacts
89
17.9
Contribution
Maintainability
89
125
125
5
3
7.1
Contribution
Total Performance:
36
21
500
489
Net Change in Performance:
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
-2%
Recommendations – 4.19
Date: August 10-13, 2010
This page is left intentionally blank
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.20
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 1c
Pile Supported Fill
Function:
IDEA NO(s).
Move Earth
7
Original Concept:
Remove contaminated soil and muck and replace with borrow. It is assumed to require temporary
sheeting and shoring to maintain a stable excavation; depths are expected to be up to 35 feet for
removal in west bridge area. Another assumption is that the mineral soils and organic materials
that are encountered will be contaminated with coal tar, or other creosote-type products and byproducts.
Recommended Concept:
Pile Supported Fill - Drive or install (concrete or steel) piling or could use auger cast piles, or stone
columns as well - in the area where compressible soils are present to span over the problem
materials. Construct a reinforced soil mat above the piles to support the roadway or bridge
approach embankment.
Advantages:






Disadvantages
Eliminate excavation – reduced construction truck
traffic for hauling earth away and borrow to the site
Reduces long term maintenance, by eliminating long
term settlement
Temporary sheeting not needed for muck excavation
Less risk with bridge construction vs. excavation
(cost overruns, ground water, etc.)
Lower cost over base
Much more predictable over the base – do not know
extent of contamination and muck removal


Noise? Pile driving vs. sheet pile driving
May need to be coordinated with the sheet piling
that will be needed for bridge construction
COST SUMMARY
ESTIMATE
Original Concept
$4.4 M
Recommended Concept
$1.9 M
Estimated Savings
$2.5 M
FHWA Functional Benefit
Safety
Operations
Environment
Construction
Other

Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.21
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 1c
Pile Supported Fill
Discussion/Justification:
Additional soils borings will be necessary to determine the proper remedial methodologies to use on
this project.
Pile supported embankment can be installed without traffic moving significantly out of the way.
Embankment will require a “forest” of piling, and pile driving noise may have perceived negative
noise impacts on residences depending on the size of the footprint. Noise and vibration caused by
pile driving may be mitigated by using auger cast piles or stone columns, although auger-cast
pile/rammed aggregate/stone column rigs may have contamination/cleaning issues as the
auger/installer extends down into the ground.
Piles are expected to extend to rock at 65 feet; this is a reasonable pile length (<100).
Probably the least risk and largest benefit (in terms of settlement control in organic soils areas) while
not completely excavating the organic soils. Mn/DOT has built this type of embankment before.
Expected to be more certain a solution than lightweight fill alternatives. No problems with
groundwater anticipated. Problems with contamination are expected to be reduced as compared to
other alternatives.
Specialty design for load transfer platform is required, but construction is relatively easy with
standard materials.
In order to achieve the benefits from this system; other elements of the project, such as retaining
walls, will need to complement one another.
Column supported embankment with a geosynthetic reinforced load transfer platform
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.22
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 1c
Pile Supported Fill
SP 8612-11 column supported embankment (with piles installed and cut off during construction)
Embankment and roadway over the same pile supported embankment 1 year later
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.23
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 1c
Pile Supported Fill
Design Assumptions:
Borings and mechanical cone soundings from 1975/1980 used for preliminary assessment.
Designs assumes that:

Soils may be contaminated

Embankments will be constructed, raising the grade, and requiring settlement mitigation

Rock is at a depth of 65 feet or greater

Peat/organic soils are present

ROW is a constraint, limiting viability of “remove and replace” options without sheeting.

Ground improvement is only needed on the west side of Louisiana Ave.
Calculations:
Piles $30/ft installed. Load Transfer Platform/Mat is similar to embankment construction cost +
geogrid reinforcement.
10’ center to center grid for pile installation
880 piles that are 65’ to bedrock at $30 per foot
800 LF x 110’ wide = 88,000 SF
88,000 SF/100 = 880 piles x 65 x $30/LF = $1.72 M
Load transfer platform is approximately $140 K
Use $1.9 Million
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.24
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 1c
Pile Supported Fill
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Performance
Original
Alternative
5
5
Criteria and Rating Rationale for Recommendation
Mainline Operations
Rating
No change from baseline
Weight
17.9
Contribution
Local Operations
Rating
No change from baseline
Weight
Rating
Slight reduction in settlement possible
Weight
Noise increase from pile driving
No excavation of muck and contaminated material
Less truck traffic
5
5
89
89
5
5
12.5
Contribution
Construction Impacts
89
17.9
Contribution
Maintainability
89
Rating
63
63
5
7
3.6
Weight
Contribution
Environmental Impacts
Rating
No change from baseline
Weight
Rating
No change from baseline
Weight
Rating
Eliminates risk of contaminated material & muck disposal
Weight
5
5
80
80
5
5
25.0
Contribution
Risk
25
16.1
Contribution
Project Schedule
18
125
125
5
8
7.1
Contribution
Total Performance:
36
57
500
527
Net Change in Performance:
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
6%
Recommendations – 4.25
Date: August 10-13, 2010
This page is left intentionally blank
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.26
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 2
Reinforced Slopes
Function:
IDEA NO(s).
Move Earth
9
Original Concept:
Cast-in-Place (CIP) Concrete Cantilever Walls where needed.
Recommended Concept:
Replace CIP walls with reinforced steepened slopes (RSS) where right of way (ROW) permits.
Footprint will be wider if either 70 degree or 45 degree slopes are used.
Advantages:






Disadvantages
Can accommodate settlement – without needing
adjustments
Reduced cost
May increase footprint a little (70 degree max slope)
May improve aesthetics – grass covered slope
Reduced construction time
Eliminates the needed for a structural foundation

Increase maintenance – landscape maintenance
COST SUMMARY
ESTIMATE
Original Concept
$2.2 M
Recommended Concept
$1.1 M
Estimated Savings
$1.1 M
FHWA Functional Benefit
Safety
Operations
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Environment
Construction


Other
Recommendations – 4.27
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 2
Reinforced Slopes
Discussion/Justification:
Reinforced steepened slopes (RSS) can accommodate settlement so if minimal settlements are
anticipated these slopes can be installed and allowed to remain in place during any initial settlements
(e.g. surcharge fills can be constructed permanently- perhaps applicable on the east side).
RSS are “green” and only need seeding/watering, but no “retaining wall” type of maintenance.
Generally, aesthetically pleasing. May be a good alternative for facing businesses and residences.
May be beneficial in gore areas or areas where geometry is tight and walls may be difficult to
maintain.
Requires reinforcement elements into backfill, but easy to install in fill sections. Desirable in locations
where aesthetics may rule-out MSE panel walls.
Drainage can be installed normally. Usually moment-slabs are used for traffic barriers on the top of
the wall similar to MSE wall designs.
Guardrail or concrete barrier will be required, as slopes are steep and not recoverable. Inspection
during guardrail installation is important so as not to hurt the fabric.
Calculations:
Anticipated costs are less than wall costs due to elimination of fascia elements, could be about 50%
savings (+/-) 10%, over cantilever costs. Will use 50% for this estimate.
Base cost from LWD was $2.2 M, therefore cost of RSS (and savings) is $1.1 M.
Reinforced Slope during construction
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.28
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 2
Reinforced Slopes
RSS at Bailey Road in SE corner, shortly after construction and turf establishment
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.29
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 2
Reinforced Slopes
Sketches/Photos:
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.30
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 2
Reinforced Slopes
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Performance
Original
Alternative
5
5
Criteria and Rating Rationale for Recommendation
Mainline Operations
Rating
No change from baseline
Weight
17.9
Contribution
Local Operations
Rating
No change from baseline
Weight
Rating
Slopes are naturally vegetated
Weight
Rating
Minimal improvements
Weight
Rating
Slopes are naturally vegetated
Weight
Rating
No change from baseline
Weight
Rating
No change from baseline
Weight
89
5
5
63
63
5
6
18
21
5
7
80
113
5
5
25.0
Contribution
Risk
89
16.1
Contribution
Project Schedule
5
3.6
Contribution
Environmental Impacts
5
12.5
Contribution
Construction Impacts
89
17.9
Contribution
Maintainability
89
125
125
5
5
7.1
Contribution
Total Performance:
36
36
500
536
Net Change in Performance:
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
7%
Recommendations – 4.31
Date: August 10-13, 2010
This page is left intentionally blank
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.32
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 3
Single Lane Roundabout
Function:
IDEA NO(s).
Reconstruct City Streets
36
Original Concept:
Original Concept
The base plan currently has 2 lanes in each direction on
Louisiana Avenue under the TH 7 bridge connecting the north
roundabout (Walker Street) to the south roundabout (W. Lake
St.). Both roundabouts are 2 lanes.
Recommended Concept:
Louisiana Avenue and the roundabouts be constructed with just
one lane each direction. They can be expanded in the future
when level of service drops.
Advantages:






Disadvantages
Reduces conflicts
Smaller footprint
Easier to navigate from the drivers perspective
Ability to expand in future when necessary
Reduces impervious surface
Single lane roundabouts are easier to navigate and
have fewer conflicts


Single lane roundabouts will not handle 2031
projected volumes
Stormwater will need to be moved in the future
COST SUMMARY
ESTIMATE
Original Concept
N/A
Recommended Concept
N/A
Estimated Savings
$0.5 M
FHWA Functional Benefit
Safety
Operations
Environment
Construction
Other

Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.33
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 3
Single Lane Roundabout
Discussion/Justification:
Existing and projected volumes were run through the Excel Visual Basic Program, “Conversion of Turning
Movements into Roundabout Volumes”, (Ken Johnson, Mn/DOT). In this method, the entry capacity of each
leg is dependent on the circulatory volume just prior to that leg entrance. The results of the program provide
analysis on whether to consider a single lane vs. a double lane roundabout. Generally, if the v/c ratio for each
individual leg is below 85% a single lane roundabout can work. If the v/c ratio is above 85% a double lane
roundabout should be considered.
Louisiana Ave & Walker Street
Existing PM Volumes
A single lane roundabout works well using 2010 PM
volume numbers. All legs fall below the v/c ratio of
85%.
Louisiana Ave & Walker Street
2031 Volumes – Single Lane Roundabout
Results of the model using 2031 PM volumes show
that three legs of the roundabout are over the v/c ratio
of 85%. This indicates that a double lane roundabout
is necessary to handle 2031 projected volumes.
Louisiana Ave & Walker Street
2031 Volumes – Double Lane Roundabout
A double lane roundabout works well using 2031 PM
volume numbers. All legs fall below the v/c ratio of
85%.
.
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.34
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 3
Single Lane Roundabout
Discussion/Justification, continued:
Louisiana Ave & W. Lake Street
Existing PM Volumes
A single lane roundabout works well using 2010 PM
volume numbers. All legs fall below the v/c ratio of
85%.
Louisiana Ave & W. Lake Street
2031 Volumes – Single Lane Roundabout
Results of the model using 2031 PM volumes show
that three legs of the roundabout are over the v/c
ratio of 85%. This indicates that a double lane
roundabout is necessary to handle 2031 projected
volumes.
Louisiana Ave & W. Lake Street
2031 Volumes – Double Lane Roundabout
A double lane roundabout works well using 2031 PM
volume numbers. All legs fall below the v/c ratio of
85%.
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.35
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 3
Single Lane Roundabout
Because the roundabouts are the intersections where you will have delay, and the roundabouts can
handle the initial volumes, you can assume that the roadway between them can handle the initial
volumes as well.
To be easily expandable in the future care should be taken to design the stormwater system so the
catch basins and pipes are in the final location.
Calculations:
2000 LF of lane removed
$1,360,000/LF of lane per the LWD Estimate
2000/5280 x $1.36 M = $0.5 M
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.36
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 3
Single Lane Roundabout
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Performance
Original
Alternative
5
5
Criteria and Rating Rationale for Recommendation
Mainline Operations
Rating
No change to baseline
Weight
17.9
Contribution
Local Operations
Rating
Slightly better because the single lane roundabouts are more easily
understood by the traveling public and have a lower overall crash rate
Weight
Rating
Less pavement markings on a single lane roundabout
89
5
8
17.9
Contribution
Maintainability
89
89
143
5
5
12.5
Weight
Contribution
Construction Impacts
Rating
Slightly worse because multi-lane roundabouts are more easily staged
for 2-way traffic when not constructed under detour
Weight
Rating
Reduced impermeable surface
Weight
Rating
No change to baseline
Weight
Rating
Slightly greater risk because increases in traffic might occur sooner
than expected
Weight
5
18
18
5
5
80
80
5
5
25.0
Contribution
Risk
5
16.1
Contribution
Project Schedule
63
3.6
Contribution
Environmental Impacts
63
125
125
5
5
7.1
Contribution
Total Performance:
36
36
500
554
Net Change in Performance:
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
11%
Recommendations – 4.37
Date: August 10-13, 2010
This page is left intentionally blank
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.38
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 4
Remove Median on Louisiana Avenue
Function:
IDEA NO(s).
Reconstruct City Streets
38
Original Concept:
The baseline option shows raised median on Louisiana Avenue. Currently there is raised median
throughout the project area.
Recommended Concept:
It is recommended that the raised median be eliminated from the design in order to give the
roadway more of a “neighborhood feel” and to potentially provide some measure of traffic calming
and less impervious surface.
Advantages:





Disadvantages
Reduces impervious surface
Improve snow removal
Reduces bridge length
Traffic calming
Urban character

Public perception
COST SUMMARY
ESTIMATE
Original Concept
N/A
Recommended Concept
N/A
Estimated Savings
$0.1 M
FHWA Functional Benefit
Safety
Operations
Environment
Construction
Other

Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.39
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 4
Remove Median on Louisiana Avenue
Discussion/Justification:
Eliminating the raised median will provide for a more urban feel to the roadway. Raised median
provides some measure of safety on a 4-lane roadway with turn lanes. The stretch of roadway
between the north roundabout at Louisiana Ave and Walker Street and the south roundabout at
Louisiana Ave and W. Lake Street has no access points and no turn lanes thus reducing the
benefit.
Eliminating the raised median may provide for traffic calming and slower speeds leading up to the
roundabout areas. Splitter islands should still be used at the roundabouts to channel traffic.
Proposed Typical Section - Louisiana Avenue
With the median removed the inside lanes would be sloped to the outside removing the need for
catch basins in the middle of the roadway.
Calculations:
1000 LF of median removed
2000 LF of median stormwater removed
Use $0.1 M as cost savings
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.40
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 4
Remove Median on Louisiana Avenue
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Performance
Original
Alternative
5
5
Criteria and Rating Rationale for Recommendation
Mainline Operations
Rating
No change to baseline
Weight
17.9
Contribution
Local Operations
Rating
Removal of median may serve as a traffic calming device
More urban feel
Weight
Rating
No curb to deal with during snow removal
Weight
Rating
No change to baseline
Weight
Rating
No change to baseline
Weight
Rating
No change to baseline
Weight
Rating
No change to baseline
Weight
107
5
6
63
75
5
5
18
18
5
5
80
80
5
5
25.0
Contribution
Risk
89
16.1
Contribution
Project Schedule
6
3.6
Contribution
Environmental Impacts
5
12.5
Contribution
Construction Impacts
89
17.9
Contribution
Maintainability
89
125
125
5
5
7.1
Contribution
Total Performance:
36
36
500
530
Net Change in Performance:
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
6%
Recommendations – 4.41
Date: August 10-13, 2010
This page is left intentionally blank
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.42
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 5a
Tight Urban Diamond Interchange
Function:
IDEA NO(s).
Construct Ramps
22
Original Concept:
The baseline idea provides access to TH 7 via button hook ramps located in the northeast and
southwest quadrants. All entering and exiting traffic is directed through intersections with local
streets (Lake Street & Walker Street) that then connect to Louisiana Avenue via roundabouts.
Recommended Concept:
Using the same plan and profile as the baseline idea for TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue construct a
tight urban diamond interchange (TUDI).
Advantages:






Disadvantages


Smaller overall project footprint
Less impacts to current access to business to the
north
Ramp design is improved
Traffic operations should be improved
The driver expectancy is improved
Would fit within the existing TH 7 right-of-way
Increased conflicts over roundabouts
May be opposed by apartments
COST SUMMARY
ESTIMATE
Original Concept
$16.5 M
Recommended Concept
$15.0 M
Estimated Savings
$1.5 M construction – right of way savings are substantial but not
quantifiable at this time
FHWA Functional Benefit
Safety
Operations
Environment
Construction



Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Other
Recommendations – 4.43
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 5a
Tight Urban Diamond Interchange
Discussion/Justification:
Tight urban diamond interchanges (TUDI) are found in most large cities in the United States. Ramp
spacing of a TUDI usually range from 250’ to 350’ but they can work with as little as 125’ of spacing
depending on the turning movements needed at the intersections. A TUDI desirably has one
continuous left-turn lane per direction on the cross street between the signals.
Tight urban diamonds can operate better than normal diamond interchanges. To achieve this, the
spacing between ramp intersections must be kept to below 350’ and a single traffic-actuated signal
controller should be used and it must be designed and timed properly to best satisfy the traffic
conditions. Special signal phasing allows queuing of vehicles outside the ramp intersections and
minimizes queuing of vehicles between the ramp intersections.
For this project the spacing between the ramp termini would be 150’.
C/L
5’
100’
19’
36’
40’
40’
TH – 7
80’ total roadway width including walls
4 – 12’ lanes
2 ‐ 4’ inside shoulders
2 ‐ 10’ outside shoulders
2’ median barrier
1’ for each retaining wall
ROW
ROW
100’
19’
36’
5’
Ramps
55’ of total ramp width
2 – 12’ lanes
1 ‐ 4’ inside shoulders
1 ‐ 8’ outside shoulders
19’ of slope (near intersection)
Typical Section of TH 7 and the ramps at the ramp terminus with Louisiana Ave.
Louisiana Avenue would consist of:







Outside lanes 14’
Inside lanes 12’
Left turn lanes 14’
Median 6’
West side of roadway is a 6’ sidewalk with a 6’ boulevard
East side of roadway is a 10’ path with a 6’ boulevard
Total width = 114’
The baseline estimate and plan view has a 150’ long bridge which would be more than adequate for
this roadway section. The typical section for Louisiana Ave. shows a 120’ long span, this too would
work.
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.44
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 5a
Tight Urban Diamond Interchange
Stage Construction
1. Move TH 7 traffic to the north half of the existing intersection and reduce down to one lane
each direction
2. Construct the south half of TH 7 including the new ramps
3. Move intersection of TH 7 & Louisiana east to current right-in/right-out location
4. Move TH 7 to new south half of alignment
5. Lower Louisiana Ave.
6. Move TH 7 to new south ramp once Louisiana is ready and remove temp intersection to east
7. Construct north half of TH 7 including new ramps
While the highway is much larger than TH 7 the example TUDI above does show the ramps
“hugging” the retaining walls of the highway.
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.45
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 5a
Tight Urban Diamond Interchange
Sketches/Photos:
Sketch of a tight urban diamond interchange at the TH 7 & Louisiana Ave. intersection
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.46
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 5a
Tight Urban Diamond Interchange
Design & Estimate Assumptions:

The baseline profile of TH 7 and Louisiana Ave. would be used. (no change in cost)

The baseline bridge length of 150’ can be used. (no change in cost)

Length ramps and tapers is similar (no change in cost)

Retaining walls square footage is less - Base = 30,000 SF
$0.38 M)

No work needs to be done to Walker or Lake streets (savings of $1.1 M)

Right of way cost savings are anticipated to be substantial but can’t be quantified at this
time.
#6a = 25000 SF (savings of
It was initially felt that the proposed design would have greater impacts to land available for
development; however, a sketch design indicates that the overall right of way impacts are
significantly less. In the northeast quadrant, the proposed design reduces right of way impacts
significantly – as the buttonhook connection to Walker would no longer be necessary, private
parcels would not need to be acquired. In the southwest quadrant, the right of way impacts are
reduced to a lesser degree – the buttonhook requires a total take versus a more limited taking with
the proposed design. Local business acceptance is anticipated to be greater due to having fewer
impacts to access on the local road system.
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.47
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 5a
Tight Urban Diamond Interchange
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Performance
Original
Alternative
5
7
Criteria and Rating Rationale for Recommendation
Mainline Operations
Rating
The access to/from TH 7 is more familiar to drivers
Weight
17.9
Contribution
Local Operations
Rating
The existing local roads system is maintained
No impacts to businesses/resident access
Roundabouts have less conflicts
Added pedestrian conflict point
89
125
5
4
17.9
Weight
Contribution
Maintainability
Rating
3 signals vs. 4 roundabouts
Less illumination
Weight
Rating
Less disruption to Lake Street and Walker Street
Weight
Rating
Right of way cost savings are anticipated to be substantial but can’t be
quantified at this time.
Roundabouts have a more neighborly feel than signals
5
5
63
63
5
6
3.6
Contribution
Environmental Impacts
72
12.5
Contribution
Construction Impacts
89
18
21
5
6
16.1
Weight
Contribution
Project Schedule
Rating
No change to baseline
Weight
Rating
Ramp in NW quadrant is within right of way but apartment owners may
object
Weight
97
5
5
25.0
Contribution
Risk
80
125
125
5
5
7.1
Contribution
Total Performance:
36
36
500
538
Net Change in Performance:
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
7%
Recommendations – 4.48
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 5b
Single Point Roundabout Interchange
Function:
IDEA NO(s).
Construct Ramps
22
Original Concept:
Four roundabouts constructed to get TH 7 traffic to/from Louisiana Avenue using a buttonhook
interchange. Two roundabouts are the buttonhook intersections accepting the ramp traffic to/from
TH 7 with frontage roads (Lake Street and Walker Street). Two roundabouts constructed on
Louisiana with said frontage roads.
Recommended Concept:
Construct a single point roundabout interchange with a convertible single-lane roundabout
accommodating the ramp traffic to/from TH 7. The single point roundabout will be on Louisiana
and will be spanned by TH 7. Convertible single-lane roundabouts will still be constructed at the
intersections of Louisiana/Lake and Louisiana/Walker.
Advantages:







Disadvantages

Increase driver familiarity
Reduced right of way impacts
Ramp design is improved
Smaller overall project footprint
Less impacts to current access to business to the
north
Traffic operations should be improved
The driver expectancy is improved
Requires a longer bridge structure to fit over the
roundabout
COST SUMMARY
ESTIMATE
Original Concept
N/A
Recommended Concept
N/A
Estimated Savings
$0.30 M construction – right of way savings is substantial
FHWA Functional Benefit
Safety
Operations
Environment
Construction



Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Other
Recommendations – 4.49
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 5b
Single Point Roundabout Interchange
Discussion/Justification:
The recommendation of a Single Point Roundabout Interchange (SPRI) will be more in line with
driver expectation as the exits/entrances to TH 7 connect directly to Louisiana Ave. The current
design requires drivers to navigate an additional intersection before getting to/from the minor arterial
of Louisiana. In addition, the ramps will allow a longer distance to reduce speed prior to the
roundabout intersection. The baseline design has, in comparison, tighter radii for drivers to
navigate prior to reaching the buttonhook intersections.
The proposed design will also eliminate access changes to the businesses in the northeast
quadrant of the interchange. These businesses currently have access to Walker Street via
Republic Avenue and the baseline design cuts off the connection of Republic to Walker. The
proposed design will require no changes to the intersection of Walker and Republic.
While the proposed design will require the TH 7 bridge span over Louisiana to be lengthened by
about 80’ (from 150’ to about 230’), it will reduce the width of the bridge by 24’ (from 104’ to about
80’) as the acceleration lanes of the baseline design are not needed. Thus the bridge will be 4
lanes wide vs. 6. The net increase in bridge square footage is estimated to be 2,800. The
estimated cost per square foot used in the original estimate is $150. The estimated additional cost
for the extended bridge is $420,000.
It was initially felt that the proposed design would have greater impacts to land available for
development; however, a sketch design indicates that the overall right of way impacts are
significantly less. In the northeast quadrant, the proposed design reduces right of way impacts
significantly – as the buttonhook connection to Walker would no longer be necessary, private
parcels would not need to be acquired. In the southwest quadrant, the right of way impacts are
reduced to a lesser degree – the buttonhook requires a total take versus a more limited taking with
the proposed design. Local business acceptance is anticipated to be greater due to having fewer
impacts to access on the local road system.
An additional recommendation is to initially construct single-lane roundabouts that are convertible to
multi-lane roundabouts at all three locations. Planning level analysis indicates that the current
volumes could be accommodated by single-lane roundabouts (with the possibility of necessary
right-turn bypass lanes); however, the forecast volumes would need multi-lane roundabouts. This
would allow the drivers to get used to navigating roundabouts in general and would increase safety
– while multi-lane roundabouts typically have similar overall crash rates to that of a signal and 75%
less injury crashes, single lane roundabouts would be anticipated to have 40% less overall crashes
As mentioned previously, the buttonhook roundabout intersections would no longer be necessary,
thus the number of roundabouts to be constructed would be reduced by one, resulting in an
estimated cost reduction of approximately $750,000.
Construction cost savings is anticipated to be just over $300,000 compared to the baseline concept.
Right of way cost savings are anticipated to be substantial but can’t be quantified at this time.
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.50
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 5b
Single Point Roundabout Interchange
Sketches/Photos:
I-135 in Newton, Kansas – similar design to proposed
This interchange is bigger than what would be necessary at TH 7 and Louisiana – there is a larger
distance between the bridges on the Interstate.
Below is a sketch drawing of the 200’ diameter of the proposed footprint:
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.51
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 5b
Single Point Roundabout Interchange
Design Assumptions:
The roundabout intersection is estimated to have a footprint diameter of 200 feet. This footprint
includes a multi-lane roundabout with shared use paths outside the circulatory roadway. It is
assumed that the trail location will be set outside the ultimate multi-lane design needed for the
forecast traffic; however, it is anticipated that the current volumes can be accommodated with singlelane roundabouts.
The cross-section of TH 7 through the bridge area is very similar to that shown in VE
Recommendation No. 5a Tight Urban Diamond Interchange.
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.52
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 5b
Single Point Roundabout Interchange
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Performance
Original
Alternative
5
7
Criteria and Rating Rationale for Recommendation
Mainline Operations
Slightly better:
 The ramps don’t have a tight radius to navigate
 The access to/from TH 7 is more familiar to drivers
Local Operations
Slightly better:
 Less changes for the local drivers.
 Added roundabout to Louisiana Ave.
 No access changes for businesses in the NE quadrant.
Maintainability
Slightly better:
 1 less roundabout intersection to maintain.
 Increased bridge length
Rating
17.9
Weight
Contribution
Rating
89
125
5
7
17.9
Weight
Contribution
Rating
89
125
5
5
12.5
Weight
Contribution
Construction Impacts
Rating
Slightly better:
 Less disruption to Lake Street and Walker Street
Weight
Rating
Slightly better:
 Right of way acquisition will be substantially reduced
Weight
Rating
No change from baseline
Weight
Rating
No change from baseline
Weight
6
18
21
5
7
80
113
5
5
25.0
Contribution
Risk
5
16.1
Contribution
Project Schedule
63
3.6
Contribution
Environmental Impacts
63
125
125
5
5
7.1
Contribution
Total Performance:
36
36
500
607
Net Change in Performance:
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
21%
Recommendations – 4.53
Date: August 10-13, 2010
This page is left intentionally blank
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.54
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE VALIDATION NO. 1
3-Span Structure
Function:
IDEA NO(s).
Span Roadway
17, 20
Original Concept:
The baseline concept (button hook ramps with roundabouts) calls for a single-span with precast
concrete girder supporting a cast-in-place deck. The structure will bear on cast-in-place vertical
abutments and supported by driven H-piles.
Recommended Concept:
Replace the vertical walls and a single span bridge with concrete slope paving and the three-span
bridge.
After evaluation and discussion the baseline concept of a single span bridge over
Louisiana Ave. was validated.
Advantages:






Disadvantages
Less embankment
Increases light under bridge
More comfortable for pedestrians
Easier to widen in the future than vertical abutment
Reduces muck excavation
Potential to decrease span length and depth of
structure
COST SUMMARY



Possibly increases cost
Increased construction schedule
2 additional bridge foundations to construct
ESTIMATE
Original Concept
N/A
Recommended Concept
N/A
Estimated Savings
N/A
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.55
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE VALIDATION NO. 1
3-Span Structure
Discussion/Justification: The idea of increasing the number of spans was developed from the
thought that this would be a visual enhancement to the area. The existing intersection serves as an
important north-south connect for the city. Some of the potential advantages that were anticipated
from a three-span bridge, including increased light beneath the bridge and more comfort for
pedestrians, can still be achieved by the one-span bridge from the baseline concept. Other
advantages listed have been speculated, which could impact the effectiveness of adding additional
spans.
Given the baseline concept (as shown below) already has many of the anticipated advantages,
there appears to be no need to increase the number of spans. It should be noted however that the
typical section shows approximately a 120 foot span where the plan view shows approximately a
150 foot span. These details need to be evaluated for future design considerations.
Sketches/Photos:
Typical baseline concept section.
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.56
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE VALIDATION NO. 2
Cul-de-sac SW Frontage Road
Function:
IDEA NO(s).
Construct Ramps
23
Original Concept:
The original concept is a roundabout in the southwest quadrant of the project area.
roundabout includes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The
TH 7 eastbound button hook exit ramp
Kilmer Lane (frontage road just south of TH 7)
W. Lake Street
Louisiana Avenue
Recommended Concept:
The recommended concept is to close Kilmer Lane (frontage road) by creating a cul-de-sac.
After evaluation and discussion there was no need to cul-de-sac the frontage road. The
baseline concept was validated.
Advantages:



Disadvantages
Removes one access point to roundabout which
may improve operation
May improve the angle at which the EB TH 7 exit
ramp enters the roundabout (although the baseline
angle slows traffic before entering the roundabout
which is a plus)
Would reduce conflict points at the roundabout
COST SUMMARY



Neighbors may not approve
May drive truck traffic into the neighborhood
Possible new angle from EB TH could introduce
higher speeds into the roundabout
ESTIMATE
Original Concept
N/A
Recommended Concept
N/A
Estimated Savings
N/A
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.57
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE VALIDATION NO. 2
Cul-de-sac SW Frontage Road
Discussion/Justification:
In order to determine whether or not the cul-de-sac would be a worthwhile option, volume projections were
run through the Excel Visual Basic Program, “Conversion of Turning Movements into Roundabout Volumes”,
(Ken Johnson, Mn/DOT). In this method, the entry capacity of each leg is dependent on the circulatory
volume just prior to that leg entrance. If the volume/capacity ratio for any leg is above 85% further analysis is
recommended.
The results shown below (using PM projected volumes) show that all legs of the roundabout are well within the
range of a single lane roundabout (less than 85%). The results also show that the projected volumes on
Kilmer Lane (frontage road) are so low that it shouldn’t affect operations. Inputs to note: 97% car traffic, 3%
truck with trailer traffic (percentages used were determined using Mn/DOT’s Interactive Basemap), peak hour
factor of .9.
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.58
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE VALIDATION NO. 2
Cul-de-sac SW Frontage Road
Sketches/Photos:
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.59
Date: August 10-13, 2010
This page is left intentionally blank
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.60
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE VALIDATION NO. 3
Don’t Lower Louisiana Ave.
Function:
IDEA NO(s).
Move Earth
8
Original Concept:
The original concept (base) has Louisiana being lowered by approximately 6 – 7 feet at the center
of TH 7. The roundabouts at Walker and Lake Street will remain essentially at their current
elevations and the grade of Louisiana Ave. will drop 0.5% as it approaches TH 7 thereby creating
a low point beneath the new bridge.
Recommended Concept:
Maintain existing profile of Louisiana Avenue.
After evaluation and discussion the baseline concept to lower the profile of Louisiana
Avenue was validated.
Advantages:




Disadvantages
Reduces staging complexity – lower of Louisiana (6
to 7 feet) and raising of TH 7 (partial) will be very
complicated.
Reduces excavation
Less risk vs. excavation (overruns ground water,
contaminated soils, etc.)
May reduce construction schedule.
COST SUMMARY




Increased embankment
May require lengthening of vertical curve – tie ins
to existing TH 7.
Will increase grade on loop ramps (on ramps)
Increases fill height in front of apartment complex
– negative impact.
ESTIMATE
Original Concept
N/A
Recommended Concept
N/A
Estimated Savings
N/A
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.61
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE VALIDATION NO. 3
Don’t Lower Louisiana Ave.
Discussion/Justification:

Reduces staging complexity – It was initially thought that the complexity would be reduced. A
detour would reduce staging complexity in both the base and proposed option.

Reduces excavation – It is thought that the excavated material will be suitable for fill.

Less risk vs. excavation (overruns ground water, contaminated soils, etc.) – Proximity of new
roadbed to ground water may require dewatering to construct lowered Louisiana which may
increase risk.

It is thought that the advantages of raising Louisiana are less than expected. Staging complexities
are probably better handled by removing traffic from Louisiana Ave at the bridge crossing thru use
of detours and temporary bypasses.

There are no construction cost advantages to raising Louisiana Ave. Raising Louisiana creates
additional costs in retaining walls and embankment material which are greater than the associated
costs of lowering Louisiana.
Sketches/Photos:
Design Assumptions:
Raise retaining walls by an average of 3.5 feet and lengthen an average of 100 feet.
It is thought that the road bed material beneath Louisianan Avenue will be suitable for use as fill
elsewhere on the project.
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.62
Date: August 10-13, 2010
VE VALIDATION NO. 3
Don’t Lower Louisiana Ave.
Estimate:
Original Concept
Item Description
Unit
Qty
Unit Cost
Recommended Concept
Total
Qty
Unit Cost
Total
Retaining Walls (west)
SF
940*17
$75
$1,318,350
1040*20.5
$75
$1,599,000
Retaining Walls (east)
SF
885*15
$75
$1,095,188
985*18.5
$75
$1,366,687
Excav & Embank (Louisiana)
CY
120*6*400
$5
$54,000
Excav & Embank (TH 7 west)
CY
$0
700*3.5*100
$5
$45,370
Excav & Embank (TH7 east)
CY
$0
600*3.5*100
$5
$38,888
Temp Signal
LS
$100,000
Temp Bypass (connect TH 7 to
Lake)
LS
$150,000
Sheet Pile (During construction)
ft
80*200
Total Cost
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
$0
$9
Original
Concept
$200,000
$2,717,538 Recommended Concept
$3,249,945
Estimated Savings
-$532,407
Recommendations – 4.63
Date: August 10-13, 2010
This page is left intentionally blank
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Recommendations – 4.64
Date: August 10-13, 2010
Appendix
Value Engineering
Value Engineering (VE) is a systematic process using a multi-disciplinary team to improve the
value of a project through the analysis of its functions. The VE process incorporates, to the
extent possible, the values of design; construction; maintenance; contractor; state, local and
federal approval agencies; other stakeholders; and the public.
The primary objective of a Value Engineering study is value improvement. The value
improvements might relate to scope definition, functional design, constructability, coordination
(both internal and external), or the schedule for project development. Other possible value
improvements are reduced environmental impacts, reduced public (traffic) inconvenience, or
reduced project cost.
Pre-VE Study
Prior to the start of a VE Study, the Project Manager, VE Team Leader and the Statewide Value
Engineer carry out the following three activities:



Initiate Study – Identify study project; define study goals; prepare VE Study Request.
Organize Study – Conduct pre-VE Study meeting; select team members.
Prepare Data – Collect and distribute data; prepare cost models.
All of the information gathered prior to the VE Study is given to the team members for their use.
Value Engineering Job Plan
The VE Team employed the six-phase VE job plan in analyzing the project. This process is
recommended by SAVE International and is composed of the following phases:
Investigation/Information - The objective of this phase was to obtain a thorough
understanding of the project’s design criteria and objectives by reviewing the project’s
documents and drawings, cost estimates, and schedules.
Function Analysis - The purpose of this phase was to identify and define the primary and
secondary functions of the project. A Functional Analysis System Technique (FAST) was
used to quickly define the functions of the project.
Speculation/Creative - During this phase the team employed creative techniques such as
team brainstorming to develop a number of alternative concepts that satisfy the project’s
primary functions.
Evaluation - The purpose of this phase was to evaluate the alternative concepts developed
by the VE Team during the brainstorming sessions. The team used a number of tools to
determine the qualitative and quantitative merits of each concept.
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Appendix – 5.1
Date: August 10-13, 2010
Development - Those concepts that ranked highest in the evaluation were further
developed into VE recommendations.
Narratives, drawings, calculations, and cost
estimates were prepared for each recommendation.
Presentation - The VE Team presented their finding in the form of a written report. In
addition, an oral presentation was made to the owner and the design team to discuss the VE
recommendations.
Value Metrics
The Value Metrics process is an integral part of the Value Engineering Process. This process
provides the cornerstone of the VE process by providing a systematic and structured means of
considering the relationship of a project’s performance and cost as they relate to value. Project
performance must be properly defined and agreed upon by the stakeholders at the beginning of
the VE Study. The performance attributes and requirements developed are then used
throughout the study to identify, evaluate, and document alternatives.
Introduction
The methodology described herein measures project value by correlating the performance of
project scope and schedule to the project costs. This process is known as Value Metrics. The
objective of this methodology is to prescribe a systematic, structured approach to study and
optimize a project’s scope, schedule, and cost.
Value Engineering has traditionally been perceived as an effective means for reducing project
costs. This paradigm only addresses one part of the value equation, oftentimes at the expense
of overlooking the role that VE can play with regard to improving project performance. Project
costs are fairly easy to quantify and compare through traditional estimating techniques.
Performance is not so easily quantifiable.
The VE Team Leader will lead the team and external stakeholders through the methodology,
using the power of the process to distill subjective thought into an objective language that
everyone can relate to and understand. The dialog that develops forms the basis for the VE
Team’s understanding of the performance requirements of the project and to what degree the
current design concept is meeting those requirements. From this baseline, the VE Team can
focus on developing alternative concepts that will quantify both performance and cost and
contribute to overall project value.
Value Metrics yields the following benefits:

Builds consensus among project stakeholders (especially those holding conflicting
views)


Develops a better understanding of a project’s goals and objectives


Identifies areas where project performance can be improved through the VE process
Develops a baseline understanding of how the project is meeting performance goals and
objectives
Develops a better understanding of a VE alternative’s effect on project performance
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Appendix – 5.2
Date: August 10-13, 2010

Develops an understanding of the relationship between performance and cost in
determining value

Uses value as the true measurement for the basis of selecting the right project or design
concept

Provides decision makers with a means of comparing costs and performance (i.e., costs
vs. benefits) in a way that can assist them in making better decisions.
Methodology
The application of Value Metrics consists of the following steps:
1. Identify key project (scope and delivery) performance attributes and requirements for the
project
2. Establish the hierarchy and impact of these attributes upon the project
3. Establish the baseline of the current project performance by evaluating and rating the
effectiveness of the current design concepts
4. Identify the change in performance of alternative project concepts generated by the
study
5. Measure the aggregate effect of alternative concepts relative to the baseline project’s
performance as a measure of overall value improvement
The primary goal of Value Engineering is to improve project value. A simple way to think of
value in terms of an equation is as follows:
Value 
Performance
Cost
Assumptions
Before embarking on the details of this methodology some assumptions need to be identified:

The methodology described in the following steps assumes the project functions are well
established. Project functions are “the what” the project delivers to its users and
stakeholders; a good reference for the project functions can be found in the
environmental document’s purpose and need statement. Project functions are generally
well defined prior to the start of the VE Study. In the event that project functions have
been substantially modified, the methodology must begin a new from the beginning
(Step 1).
Step 1 – Determine the Major Performance Attributes
Performance attributes can generally be divided between Project Scope components (Highway
Operations, Environmental Impacts, and System Preservation) and Project Delivery
components. It is important to make a distinction between performance attributes and
performance requirements. Performance requirements are mandatory and are binary in nature.
All performance requirements MUST be met by any VE alternative concept being considered.
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Appendix – 5.3
Date: August 10-13, 2010
Performance attributes possess a range of acceptable levels of performance. For example, if
the project was the design and construction of a new bridge, a performance requirement might
be that the bridge must meet all current seismic design criteria. In contrast, a performance
attribute might be Project Schedule which means that a wide range of alternatives could be
acceptable that had different durations.
The VE Team Leader will initially request that representatives from project team and external
stakeholders identify performance attributes that they feel are essential to meeting the overall
need and purpose of the project. Usually four to eight attributes are selected. It is important
that all potential attributes be thoroughly discussed. The information that comes out of this
discussion will be valuable to both the VE Team and the project owner. It is important that the
attribute be discretely defined, and they must be quantifiable in some form. By quantifiable, it is
meant that a useable scale must be delineated with values given on a scale of 0 to 10. A “0”
indicates unacceptable performance, while a “10” indicates optimal or ideal performance. The
vast majority of performance attributes that typically appear in transportation VE studies have
been standardized. This standardized list can be used “as is” or adopted with minor
adjustments as required. Every effort should be made to make the ratings as objective as
possible.
Step 2 – Determine the Relative Importance of the Attributes
Once the group has agreed upon the project’s performance attributes, the next step is to
determine their relative importance in relation to each other. This is accomplished through the
use of an evaluative tool termed in this report as the “Performance Attribute Matrix.” This matrix
compares the performance attributes in pairs, asking the question: “An improvement in which
attribute will provide the greatest benefit to the project relative to purpose and need?” A letter
code (e.g., “a”) is entered into the matrix for each pair, identifying which of the two is more
important. If a pair of attributes is considered to be of essentially equal importance, both letters
(e.g., “a/b”) are entered into the appropriate box. This, however, should be discouraged, as it
has been found that in practice a tie usually indicates that the pairs have not been adequately
discussed. When all pairs have been discussed, the number of “votes” for each is tallied and
percentages (which will be used as weighted multipliers later in the process) are calculated. It is
not uncommon for one attribute to not receive any “votes.” If this occurs, the attribute is given a
token “vote”, as it made the list in the first place and should be given some degree of
importance.
Step 3 – Establish the Performance “Baseline” for the Original Design
The next step in the process is to evaluate how well the original design is addressing the
project’s performance attributes. This step establishes a “baseline” against which the VE
alternative concepts can be compared. The Performance Rating Matrix is used to assist the VE
Team in determining the performance ratings for the original design concept. Representatives
from the design team and external stakeholders next begin assigning a 0 to 10 rating for each
attribute, using the definitions and scales developed in Step 1.
Once the 0 to 10 ratings for the various attributes have been established, their total performance
should be calculated by multiplying the attribute’s weight (which was developed in Step 2) by its
rating. Once the total performance for each attribute has been determined, the original design’s
total performance can be calculated by adding all of the scores for the attributes. The concept’s
total performance will be somewhere between 0 and 1,000 points. A concept scoring 1,000
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Appendix – 5.4
Date: August 10-13, 2010
would represent a hypothetically “optimal” design concept, with all performance attributes being
addressed to their theoretical maximum. This numerical expression of the original design’s
performance forms the “baseline” against which all alternative concepts will be compared.
Step 4 – Evaluate the Performance of the VE Alternative Concepts
Once the performance baseline has been established for the original design concept, it can be
used to help the VE Team develop performance ratings for individual VE alternative concepts as
they are developed during the course of the VE Study. The Performance Measures form is
used to capture this information. This form allows a side-by-side comparison of the original
design and VE alternative concepts to be performed.
It is important to consider the alternative concept’s impact on the entire project, rather than on
discrete components, when developing performance ratings for the alternative concept
Step 5 – Compare the Performance Ratings of Alternative Concepts to the
“Baseline” Project
The last step in the process completes the Value Matrix that was initially begun to develop the
performance ratings for the original design concept. The VE Team groups the VE alternatives
into a strategy (or strategies) to provide the decision makers a clear picture of how the
alternatives fit together into possible solutions. At least one strategy is developed to present the
VE Team’s consensus of what should be implemented. Additional strategies are developed as
necessary to present other combinations to the decision makers that should be considered.
The strategy(s) of VE alternatives are rated and compared against the original concept. The
performance ratings developed for the VE Strategies are entered into the matrix, and the
summary portion of the Value Matrix is completed. The summary provides details on net
changes to cost, performance, and value, using the following calculations.

% Performance Improvement =  Performance VE Strategy / Total Performance
Original Concept


Value Index = Total Performance / Total Cost (in Millions)
% Value Improvement = Value Index VE Strategy / Value Index Original Concept
Reporting
Following the VE Study, the Team Leader assembles all study documentation into the final
report.

Publish Results – Prepare a Draft and Final VE Study Report; distribute printed and
electronic copies.

Close Out VE Study - Provide final deliverables to the State VE Coordinator/Manager.
The VE Study is complete when the report is issued as a record of the VE Team’s analysis and
development work, as well as the project development team’s implementation dispositions for
the recommendations.
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Appendix – 5.5
Date: August 10-13, 2010
This page is intentionally left blank
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report
Appendix – 5.6
Date: August 10-13, 2010
SP 2706-226 - TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Agenda
Tuesday August 10th – Friday August 13th, 2010
nd
2
Municipal Service Center (MSC)
floor multi-purpose room (by the lunchroom)
7305 Oxford Street
St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2216
Tuesday, August 10
8:30 am
Team Meet and Greet
9:00 am
Project Team presentation of the project
Constraints and controlling decisions
Potential Risks
10:00 am Site visit
Noon
Lunch
1:00 pm
Continue Investigation Phase
3:00 pm
Functional Analysis – Define functions
Define & weight performance attributes
4:00 pm
Begin Speculation
5:00 pm
Adjourn for the day
Wednesday, August 11
8:00 am
Continue Speculation Phase
Noon
Lunch
1:00 pm
Evaluation Phase
5:00 pm
Adjourn for the day
Thursday, August 12
8:00 am
Development Phase
Noon
Lunch
1:00 pm
Complete Development Phase
5:00 pm
Adjourn for the day
Friday, August 13
8:00 am
Review Recommendations
9:00 am
Team revise and rehearse presentation
10:00 am Presentation of Findings
Noon
Adjourn
Value Engineering Study Phases
The Value Engineering (VE) team documents the VE study as it goes through the
phases described below. The team members will provide interim review of the
report throughout the study and final review before the report is printed.
Investigation Phase
The VE team begins the study by investigating the project. Several pages are
provided in the report to document what is known about the project and what
documents are available upon which the team will base the development of their
recommendations. Often, teams want to rush right into speculating solutions
before they have taken the time to acquaint themselves with the information that
is already available. The Investigation Phase pages of the report force the team
to delve into the available information. The project office provides some of this
information, but team members may also contact other offices and state and
local agencies for additional information that will apply to the project. Good
groundwork in the Investigation Phase is important to providing viable
recommendations at the end of the study. The investigation process encourages
team building and allows the team members get to know each other and identify
areas of expertise.
In addition to a project briefing by the design team and management and a field
review, the VE team reviews and documents available project information. They
develop lists of authorizing persons, personal contacts for the study, and
available references. The team spends an adequate amount of time to acquaint
themselves with all of the documents, photos, and other information provided.
During this process, the team develops a list of available documents, including
when they were prepared. This provides a record of the document versions the
team used as the basis for the VE recommendations.
Once the team is familiar with the project and the available documentation, they
need to agree upon and document the objective of the study and any constraints
or controlling decisions that will affect the recommendations they develop.
Based on the study objective, the team will determine the primary and secondary
functions of the project in verb/noun format. A functional analysis is performed,
using a FAST diagram, to determine the critical path necessary to accomplish
each primary function of the project.
The Investigation Phase provides the VE team with a thorough understanding of
the project and what the VE study is expected to accomplish.
Speculation Phase
During the Speculation Phase, the VE team brainstorms ideas that satisfy the
project functions. A team member can explain an idea to the rest of the team,
but no evaluation is allowed at this point. Off-the-wall, out-of-the-box ideas
should be encouraged, as they often lead to innovative, workable solutions. The
team should list all of the brainstorm ideas, even the most improbable.
Evaluation Phase
The Evaluation Phase begins by going back through the ideas brainstormed
during speculation to determine those that have fatal flaws. Ideas that are not
viable will be dropped.
The team lists the advantages and disadvantages of each idea that warrants
further consideration. If the disadvantages of an idea outweigh the advantages,
in number or importance, that idea should not be considered further.
When all the ideas have been evaluated, the most promising may be put through
an evaluation matrix. The evaluation matrix is used to determine which idea
ranks highest against desired criteria.
The evaluation matrix is the final step in determining which ideas will be
developed into recommendations.
Development Phase
The team leader will assign a subgroup to develop the appropriate
documentation and descriptions for each recommendation.
The VE team needs to include cost estimates when developing
recommendations. Although the goal of the Value Engineering is to add value,
due to the nature of projects and funding we must also consider and document
cost savings and cost added.
Presentation Phase
The team develops a presentation to be given after the final day of the study to
the project team and other project stakeholders, such as Project owners and
managers, and other agencies.
VE Study Attendees
TH 7 at Louisiana Ave. Interchange
2010
August
10
11
12
NAME
ORGANIZATION
POSITION/DISCIPLINE
TELEPHONE
Office
Cell
E-MAIL
13
   
Don Owings
HDR
Team Leader/Facilitation
   
Blane Long
HDR
Co-Facilitator/Geometrics
   
Minnie Milkert
Mn/DOT
State Value Engineer

 
Mark Dierling
SEH
Principal/Project Manager
   
Nick Haltvick
Mn/DOT
Bridge Engineer
   
Hossana Teklyes
Mn/DOT
Assistant Foundation Engineer
   
Mike Rardin
City of Saint Louis Park
Public Works Director
   
Brian Kelly
Mn/DOT
Water Resources
   
Jim Olson
City of Saint Louis Park
Project Manager
(503) 423-3856
(360) 601-3061
donald.owings@hdrinc.com
(360) 570-4411
(360) 742-7682
blane.long@hdrinc.com
(651) 366-4648
minnie.milkert@state.mn.us
(651) 765-2953
(612) 819-1871
mdierling@sehinc.com
(651) 366-4512
nick.haltvick@state.mn.us
(651) 366-5497
hosanna.teklyes@state.mn.us
(952) 924-2551
(612) 708-7278
mrardin@stlouispark.org
(651) 234-7536
brian.kelly@state.mn.us
(952) 924-2552
(612) 750-0404
jolson@stlouispark.org
VE Study Attendees
TH 7 at Louisiana Ave. Interchange
2010
August
10
11
12
NAME
ORGANIZATION
POSITION/DISCIPLINE
E-MAIL
13

Bill Gregg
AECOM
Environmental Consulting
   
Diane Colton
Mn/DOT
Traffic
   
Ken Johnson
Mn/DOT
Traffic
   
April Crockett
Mn/DOT
West Area Engineer

Steve Barrett
Mn/DOT
GV Construction Resident
Engineer
Derrick Dasenbrock
Mn/DOT
Geometrics Engineer

Brian Hogge
FHWA
Program Operations Team
Leader

Ryan Coddington
Mn/DOT
West Area Traffic Engineer

Scott Brunk
City of St. Louis Park
City Engineer

   
TELEPHONE
Office
Cell
(651) 367-2328
(952) 412-8066
bill.gregg@aecom.com
diane.colton@state.mn.us
(651) 234-7386
ken.johnson@state.mn.us
(651) 234-7727
april.crockett@state.mn.us
(651) 234-5132
steve.barrett@state.mn.us
(651) 366-5597
(651)338-6881
derrick.dasenbrock@state.mn.us
(651) 291-6114
brian.hogge@dot.gov
(651) 234-7841
ryan.coddington@state.mn.us
(952) 924-2687
sbrink@stlouispark.org
VE Study Attendees
TH 7 at Louisiana Ave. Interchange
2010
August
10
11
12
NAME
ORGANIZATION
POSITION/DISCIPLINE
E-MAIL
13

TELEPHONE
Office
Cell
Nancy Yoo
Mn/DOT
Director - Design Services
Section
(851) 366-4703
nancy.yoo@state.mn.us
Value Engineering Study
TH 7
Louisiana Avenue Interchange
SP 2706-226
August 10th thru August 13th, 2010
Value Engineering Team
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Steve Barrett, Mn/DOT
Diane Colton, Mn/DOT
April Crockett, Mn/DOT
Derrick Dasenbrock,
Dasenbrock Mn/DOT
Nick Haltvick, Mn/DOT
Ken Johnson, Mn/DOT
Brian Kelly, Mn/DOT
Blane Long, HDR
Minnie Milkert, Mn/DOT
Jim Olson,, Cityy of Saint Louis
Park
• Don Owings, HDR
• Mike Rardin, City of Saint Louis
Park
• Hossana Teklyes, Mn/DOT
1
Project Description
The purpose of the proposed TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue Interchange
project is to address deteriorating safety and operational conditions at the
TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue intersection. The proposed project removes
the existing at
at-grade
grade signalized intersection and replaces it with a grade
gradeseparated interchange.
Project Description
2
Team Objective
The primary objectives for this study include:
• Conduct a thorough review and analysis of the key project issues
using a multidiscipline, cross-functional team
• Review and improve the proposed design by focusing on:
– Improving mobility and reducing the conflicts of vehicular and
non-vehicular traffic.
– Minimizing impacts to existing developments and enhancing
opportunities for future development/redevelopment.
• Apply the principles and practices of the VE Job Plan.
Constraints/Controlling Decisions
• Must accommodate pedestrians and bike traffic – both
temporary & permanent
• Avoid Louisiana Oaks apartment complex
• Avoid Sam’s club
• Must close RIRO access at/near RR bridge upon project
completion
• Mar 2012 funding obligation date.
• Nov 2011 Letting date.
• Minimize ROW impact/acquisition
• Minimize excavation (high potential of contaminated
soils)
3
Constraints/Controlling Decisions
• Minimize excavation (high potential of contaminated
soils)
• EA process just starting – draft document out by Oct 2010
• Must mitigate impacts to flood plain – no net increase in
100 yr flood elevation.
• Strong desire to not impact pump station and medical
offices along Lake Street
• Strong desire to not impact medical offices along Walker
Street
• Avoid impact to 4f.
• Desire to minimize impacts in SW quadrant of IC
Performance Attributes
Value Engineering has traditionally been perceived as an effective
means for reducing project costs. This paradigm only addresses one
part of the value equation, often times at the expense of overlooking
the
h role
l that
h VE can play
l with
i h regardd to improving
i
i project
j
performance.
•Mainline Operations
•Local Operations
•Maintainability
•Construction Impacts
•Environmental Impacts
•Project Schedule (VE To Letting)
•Risk
4
Performance Attributes
PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTE MATRIX
TH 7 at Louisiana Ave. Interchange
Which attribute is more important to the project?
A
A
A/E
F
A
5.0
18%
B
B
B
B/E
F
B
5.0
18%
C
C
C/E
F
C
3.5
13%
D
E
F
G
1.0
4%
Environmental Impacts
E
F
E
4.5
16%
F
F
7.0
25%
G
2.0
7%
28.0
100%
Local Operations
Maintainability
Construction Impacts
Project
j
Schedule
More Important
A/B Equally Important
%
A/B
A
Mainline Operations
A
TOTAL
Risks
Recommendation # 1a – Ground Improvements
5
Recommendation # 1b – Lightweight Fill
Recommendation # 1c – Pile Supported
Embankment
6
Recommendation # 2 – Reinforced Slopes
Recommendation # 3– Single Lane Roundabouts
7
Recommendation # 4 – Remove Median on
Louisiana Ave.
Eliminate curbed median and use
stripe
Recommendation # 5a – Tight Urban Diamond I/C
8
Recommendation # 5b – Single Point Roundabout I/C
Validation # 1 – 3-Span Structure
9
Validation # 2 – Cul-de-sac Frontage Road
Validation # 3 – Raise Profile of Louisiana & TH 7
10
Other Items – Construction Staging
Design Considerations
• Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC)
• MSE Walls
• Lower hill between Texas and Louisiana to acquire
material for embankment
• Twin Bridges in lieu of single bridge
• Bridge Type
• Use concrete on roundabouts
11
Recommendation Summary
Summary of Recommendations
TH 7 at Louisiana Ave. Interchange
Cost
Savings
Description
#
Performance
Improvement
1a
Ground Improvements
$2.4 M
9%
1b
Lightweight Fill
$2.2 M
-2%
6%
1c
Pile Supported Fill
$2.5 M
2
Reinforced Slopes
$1.1 M
7%
3
Single Lane Roundabouts
$0.5 M
11%
6%
4
Remove median on Louisiana Ave.
$0.1 M
5a
Tight Urban Diamond Interchange
$1.5 M
7%
5b
Single Point Roundabout Interchange (SPRI)
$0.3 M
21%
$3.9 M to $5.1M
+7% to +11%
Total
Implementation Strategies
Summary of Recommendations
TH 7 at Louisiana Ave. Interchange
#
Description
Scenario A
Scenario B
Scenario C
Cost
Savings
Cost
Savings
Cost
Savings
1a
Ground Improvements
$2.4 M
$2.4 M
$2.4 M
1b
Lightweight Fill
$2.2 M
$2.2 M
$2.2 M
1c
Pile Supported Fill
$2.5 M
$2.5 M
$2.5 M
2
Reinforced Slopes
$1.1 M
$1.1 M
$1.1 M
3
Single Lane Roundabouts
$0.5 M
$0 1 M
$0.1
$0 1 M
$0.1
$0 1 M
$0.1
4
R
Remove
median
di on L
Louisiana
i i
A
Ave.
5a
Tight Urban Diamond Interchange
5b
Single Point Roundabout Interchange
(SPRI)
Total
$1.5 M
$0.3 M
$4.1 M
$5.1 M
$3.9 M
12
Questions
13
Value Engineering Recommendation Approval Form
Project:
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
VE Study Date:
August 10-13, 2010
Lightweight Fill
1c
Pile Supported Fill
2
Reinforced Slopes
3
Single Lane Roundabouts
4
Other
1b
Construction
Ground Improvements
Environment
1a
Approved
Y/N
Operations
Recommendation
Safety
FHWA Functional Benefit



VE Team Estimated
Cost Avoidance
or Cost Added
Actual Estimated
Cost Avoidance
or Cost Added
$2.4 M
$

$2.2 M
$

$2.5 M
$

$1.1 M
$

$0.5 M
$
Remove Median on Louisiana Avenue

$0.1 M
$
5a
Tight Urban Diamond Interchange



$1.5 M
$
5b
Single Point Roundabout Interchange



$0.3 M
$
$ 3.9 M to $5.1 M
$M
Totals

Please provide justification if the value engineering study recommendations are not approved or are implemented in a modified
form.
Mn/DOT is required to report Value Engineering results annually to FHWA. To facilitate this reporting requirement, a Value
Engineering Recommendation Approval Form is included in the Appendix of this report. If the region elects to reject or modify a
recommendation, please include a brief explanation of why. Please complete the form and return it to Minnie Milkert, Mn/DOT
State Value Engineer, MS 696
_____________________________________
__________________
Signature Project Manager
Date
_____________________________________
Name (please print)
FHWA Functional Benefit Criteria
Each year, State DOT’s are required to report on VE recommendations to FHWA. In addition to cost implications, FHWA
requires the DOT’s to evaluate each approved recommendation in terms of the project feature or features that recommendation
benefits. If a specific recommendation can be shown to provide benefit to more than one feature described below, count the
recommendation in each category that is applicable
Safety: Recommendations that mitigate or reduce hazards on the facility
Operations: Recommendations that improve real-time service and/or local, corridor, or regional levels of service of the facility.
Environment: Recommendations that successfully avoid or mitigate impacts to natural and or cultural resources.
Construction: Recommendations that improve work zone conditions, or expedite the project delivery.
Other: Recommendations not readily categorized by the above performance indicators.