# Presentation: 146415

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

**Making Work Zones Work Better Workshop**

- John Leonard, PE
- Utah Department of Transportation

## Utah - Crossroads of the West

## Project Limits

**Project Limits**

## 17 miles of Interstate Highway
Utah’s First Car Pool Lanes
8 Major Interchanges Reconstructed
3 Freeway to Freeway Junctions Rebuilt
144 Bridges Replaced
9 Million Cubic Yards of Embankment
3.4 Million Square Yards of Pavement
Program Cost $1.59 Billion

- 17 miles of Interstate Highway
- Utah’s First Car Pool Lanes
- 8 Major Interchanges Reconstructed
- 3 Freeway to Freeway Junctions Rebuilt
- 144 Bridges Replaced
- 9 Million Cubic Yards of Embankment
- 3.4 Million Square Yards of Pavement
- Program Cost $1.59 Billion

- Project Scope

## Social and

**Social and**
**Traffic**
**Trends**

## Slide 6

## Background

- Early Public Perception
- Freeway is working OK—why do we need to rebuild?
- No public will to endure major construction
- No public desire to fund major project
- “We will take care of it when it gets bad”

## Background

- By 1994, public begins to believe freeway needs to be rebuilt
- Congestion and travel times increasing
- Major deterioration visible
- 1995, UDOT created a team to lead the Project and move it to completion
- Project Director
- Financial Manager
- Structures
- Design
- MOT/Operations
- Staff Support

## Background

- FEIS process
- Formal public meetings
- Open houses
- Community Councils
- Citizens groups
- NEPA process
- Over 130 separate meetings

## Conclusion of Research (1995)

***The public would prefer ***
***a greater level of impact***
***in exchange for a ***
***shorter construction duration***

## Research

**“****Get in,**
**Get it Done,**
**And Get out!!”**

## Background

- Original concept was traditional construction
- Design-Bid-Build
- 8-10 year duration
- Investigated different and innovative design and construction strategies
- Design/Build was chosen in January ‘96
- Construct project in 4 1⁄2 years

## Maintenance of Traffic

**Maintenance of Traffic**

## Maintenance of Traffic

- Large impact to traffic patterns
- We need to take a different approach to managing traffic during construction

## Maintenance of Traffic

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

## Team Approach

- Maintenance of Traffic
- Transportation Demand Management
- Public Information Plan

**Notes:**
Lets look at strategies those three groups will use to help us cope.   It is vitally important during the reconstruction that motorists have good information in order to cope with the impacts it will inevitably have on all of us.  An important  part of that information is how the contractor  and UDOT will maintain traffic, how the traveling public will participate in getting cars off the streets with Transportation Demand Management, and how UDOT will get information out to the public, so they can make good decisions.  

## Maintenance of Traffic

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

## Cost Influence Curve

**Cost Influence Curve**

- High

- Ability to Influence Cost

- Start

- Complete

- Low

- High

- Project Expenditures

- Low

**Time**

**Design**

**Procurement**

**Construction**

**Start-up**

**Conceptual Planning**

***DBIA***

## Process

- Involvement process began early
- Met with mayors, city engineers, and public works directors of affected jurisdictions
- 6 Cities, 1 County on corridor
- 8 Cities, 1 County off corridor
- Received endorsement for D/B concept
- Presented preferred alternative and potential construction schedule

## Parallel Streets

- Reviewed routes along the corridor
- Identified capacity constraints, community issues, and possible alternate routes
- Identified 21 potential projects to make improvements
- Used a macroscopic model to evaluate potential improvements
- 9 projects recommended for construction, with a value of $50 Million

## Parallel Street Projects

- 2 projects were ‘on the shelf’
- Had completed EIS’s
- Widened a parallel route from 2 to 6 lanes
- Remainder were ‘spot improvements’
- Removed choke points
- Removed medians and added lanes
- Enhanced intersection capacity

## Parallel Street Projects

- All projects were to be ‘fast track’ advertised by early 1996, with required completion prior to major construction beginning in summer 1997
- UDOT Region assisted both with design and project oversight

## Emergency Responders

- Facilitated cooperative meetings among all emergency agencies
- Law enforcement
- Fire
- Medical

## Emergency Responders

- Created command structure, and created cross jurisdictional responses
- Best able to respond
- Utah Highway Patrol was lead law enforcement agency
- Alleviated fears of increased response time

## Trucking Industry

- Large impacts to interstate travel
- Crossroads of the west
- Need to coordinate with closures
- Provide real time information for routing
- Detours to local streets for LCV’s and Hazmat carriers

## Business Community

- Hosted business fairs
- Encouraged flexible schedules
- Car pools
- Telecommuting
- “how to cope’ seminars
- Print ready materials

## Transportation Demand Management

- A variety of methods for reducing transportation demand on the street system.
- Coordination with existing Utah Transit Authority programs:
- Employee-sponsored bus passes (deep discount program)
- Rideshare (carpooling) - computerized rider matching program
- Vanpool (UTA financed van purchase or lease)
- Other trip reduction strategies
- Flextime
- Telecommuting
- Public Information Plan

## Public Information Plan Challenges

- Creating partnerships with the media, Communities, Businesses, and Public
- Convincing a change in driver habits -- promoting the benefits
- Communicating the vision

## Public Information Plan

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

**Notes:**
When I talk about public information, I don’t in any way mean a one-way feed of  information from UDOT to the public. Finally, the contractor is required to participate in our public information efforts.  They will be providing staff and support for many parts of that plan.  The public information effort will be staffed by a team with members from the contractor,  UDOT and the public. As I mentioned before, in the last couple of years UDOT has done extensive research primarily to find out what kind of information the public needs during construction projects, and how and when they want to receive it.  The public told us they wanted to know why we are reconstructing I-15 and what benefit it would bring to the State.  They want to know what it will look like when it’s finished, and what they can expect during construction.  Again, they wanted to know about tools they can use and actions they can take to cope throughout the reconstruction.   To be responsive to what the public has asked, we have created an interactive public information plan which will be followed, not only in getting information out to the public, but input back from the public.

## Design/Build

**Design/Build**

## Request for Proposals

- Set the framework for the contract
- Laid down the ground rules
- Provided contractor with flexibility, but with constraints
- Assigned risk to those who could best handle it
- Issued October, 1996
- Best and Final Offer in February, 1997

## Request for Proposals

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

## Maintenance of TrafficPerformance Specification

- I-15 Mainline
- 2 lanes open each direction during peak hours
- Peak Hours
- 6 AM to 10 PM weekdays
- 8 AM to 7 PM weekends
- Junctions
- maintain freeway to freeway movements through existing ramps or freeway detours
- Downtown
- 2 accesses open at all times

## Maintenance of TrafficPerformance Specification

- Interchanges
- cross streets at interchanges may be closed for a maximum of 6 months
- This may occur IF one is south of the I-15/I-215 Junction, and one is north of it.
- complete remaining construction in following 6 months
- close movement if it is available at adjacent interchange

## Maintenance of TrafficPerformance Specification

- Other
- Coordination with ATMS system
- Provide off-duty uniformed officer and car on the corridor
- Provide motorist guidance
- Aid in emergency response
- Provide a courtesy patrol
- Provide emergency pullouts every km

## The Selection Process

**The Selection Process**

**Price**

**Technical**
**Proposal**

## Proposal Evaluation

- Price and technical proposals had equal weight
- Maintenance of traffic was 1 of 6 technical areas
- Proposals were evaluated for ‘Best Value’

## EVALUATION FACTORS

- Technical Solutions
- Maintenance of Traffic
- Geotechnical
- Structures
- Pavement
- Maintainability
- Aesthetics, Drainage, Roadway Geometry, Lighting, Traffic Signals, Signing, Water Quality, Harmful/Hazardous Materials Remediation, Concrete Barriers, and ATMS
- Work Plan/Schedule
- Management
- Organizational Qualifications
- Price

## Proposals

- Enhancements by successful proposer
- Maintain 3 lanes on southern end of project through junction with I-215
- Restripe west side of I-215 belt route to 4 lanes each direction
- Required modification and enhancements
- Reduce interchange cross street closure to 4 months
- Expanded use of night operations
- Freeway closures in the off-peak hours

## Proposals

- Enhancements by successful proposer
- Added courtesy patrol to west side belt route
- Expanded use of off-duty law enforcement
- Much simpler construction phasing
- Better driver expectancy
- Opened south end of project 1 year early

## Proposals

- Enhancements by successful proposer
- Provided glare screen entire length of corridor to reduce construction ‘gawking’ and improving capacity
- Use of ITS elements as they became available
- Dedicated staff for both design and implementation of MOT

## Coordination

- Weekly meetings with UDOT, the contractor, design, UHP, all Segments, public information, and local jurisdications
- Coordinated proposed work schedule for following week corridor wide
- No conflicts or overlaps
- Conformance with contract

## Coordination

- Web site and phone tree up to date
- Constant interaction with local entities
- Personal visits to affected neighborhoods
- Personal visits to affected businesses
- Photo-ready maps and materials
- Respond to individual requests
- Dedicated contractor staff to work out any issues
- Hot line
- Interactive
- Could leave message or talk to ‘real’ person

## How the Public is Informed

- 60 % of Drivers get information from the Media
- 15 % from the Internet
- 9 % from UDOT
- 3 % from I-15 Hotline (1-888-INFO-I15)
- Only 7% don’t know where to get information
- this number continues to decline

## Deseret News/Dan Jones PollJuly 28, 1997

- 82% inconvenienced
- 86% are well informed
- 70% still agree with design/build decision

## Traffic Conditions

**Traffic Conditions**

## Corridor Traffic Conditions

- 209,000 vehicles per weekday on I-15 in June, 1996
- Lane use of 17,400 vplpd in 12 lanes
- 24 hour per day use
- 12’ lanes, full shoulders
- 93,500 vehicles per weekday on I-15 in June, 1999
- Lane use of 23,400 vplpd in four lanes
- 16 hour per day use (closed 10 pm to 6 am)
- 11’ lanes, 2’ shoulders
- 115,500 vpwd displaced

## Slide 48

## Slide 49

## Results

- This indicated traffic was not entering local neighborhoods, as originally feared by residents
- Parallel street projects provided route continuity and capacity
- Public education informed motorists which routes were available

## Summary

- The decision to fast track the project was driven by the public, not the Department
- The public was a partner in the development of the MOT specification, through many outreach meetings and focus groups

## Summary

- Local governments were a partner in the process, including the determination of early action item improvements to surface streets
- Emergency responders were partners in the determination of restrictions on adjacent movements, and were involved intimately throughout the Project

## Summary

- Other transportation industry stakeholders were partners, including the trucking industry, the recreation industry, bus transit, light rail, and the cab/private hire industry
- The business community were partners in changing work and delivery schedules

## Summary

- The media was a partner in providing up to date and accurate information to the public
- Traffic reporters were ‘in the loop’ on what was going to happen
- The approval rating of UDOT was higher than it had ever been
- Seen as responsive to the public needs

## Summary

- Communication is the key
- If you aren’t sick of communicating, you are not communicating enough
- Work with all stakeholders, find common ground, and keep all commitments
- Be proactive when possible
- Be reactive when necessary

## Summary

- Maintain flexibility
- Allow innovation
- Think “outside the box”
- Project mitigation begins long before the first barrel hits the pavement

## Questions?

**Questions?**

**	****	****John Leonard, PE**
**            ****Operations Engineer**
**          ****Division of Traffic and Safety**
**          ****Utah Department of Transportation**
**          ****801-965-4045**
**          **

**jleonard@utah.gov**