Printable version of this report (.pdf, 2.8 mb)

Final Report September 2009

Table of Contents

• Introduction
  • Highways for LIFE Demonstration Projects
  • Project Solicitation, Evaluation, and Selection
  • Hfl Project Performance Goals
  • Project Solicitation, Evaluation, and Selection
  • Report Scope and Organization
• Project Overview and Lessons Learned
  • Project Overview
  • Data Collection
  • Economic Analysis
  • Lessons Learned
  • Conclusions
• Project Details
  • Background
  • Project Description
  • M-115 Request for Proposal and Project Goals
  • Best-Value Contractor Selection
  • Construction
  • Contractor Performance and Awarded Incentive/Disincentives
• Data Acquisition and Analysis
  • Safety
  • Construction Congestion
  • Quality
  • Sound Intensity Testing
  • Smoothness Measurement
  • User Satisfaction
• Technology Transfer
• Economic Analysis
  • Construction Time
  • Detour
  • Construction Costs
  • User Costs
  • Initial Cost Summary
  • Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
• Appendix A: Showcase Agenda
• Appendix A: Showcase Agenda

List of Figures

• Figure 1. Existing typical section.
• Figure 2. Overview of deteriorated pavement.
• Figure 3. Small bridge over Norway Creek.
• Figure 4. Typical deteriorated PCC joint reflecting through the HMA overlay.
• Figure 5. Deteriorated bridge approach joint over Doc and Tom Creek.
• Figure 6. Typical delamination of HMA overlay.
• Figure 7. Deteriorated bridge leave joint over Doc and Tom Creek.
• Figure 8. Proposed typical section.
• Figure 9. Proposed staging of bridge superstructure replacement over Doc and Tom Creek and Norway Creek.
• Figure 10. Removal of part of the old bridge with one-lane traffic on the rest of the bridge.
• Figure 11. Controlling one-lane traffic using temporary traffic signals.
• Figure 12. Transporting and unloading the bridge elements.
• Figure 13. Moving the bridge element into place.
• Figure 14. Adjusting the placement of the bridge element.
• Figure 15. Final placement of a bridge element
• Figure 16. Bridge elements set to grade.
• Figure 17. Grading the bridge elements in preparation for placing the HMA layers.
• Figure 18. Completed placement of the bridge with AC shoulder before application of the HMA surface layers over the bridge.
• Figure 19. Widening of shoulders to provide two-way temporary lanes.
• Figure 20. Fully open roadway with two lanes open to traffic.
• Figure 21. Sign directing traffic to emergency pulloff areas.
• Figure 22. Milling the existing HMA.
• Figure 23. Rubblization of PCC pavement.
• Figure 24. Seating the rubblized pavement.
• Figure 25. ASCRL application.
• Figure 26. 4E3 leveling application.
• Figure 27. Final pavement surface following application of 5E3 top course.
• Figure 28. Distribution of delay time measurements.
• Figure 29. OBSI dual probe system and the SRTT.
• Figure 30. Tread of the SRTT.
• Figure 31. Mean preconstruction A-weighted sound intensity one-third octave frequency spectra for road sections.
• Figure 32. Mean preconstruction A-weighted sound intensity one-third octave frequency spectra for bridge sections.
• Figure 33. Resulting preconstruction mean A-weighted sound intensity one-third octave frequency spectra for bridge and road sections.
• Figure 34. Mean postconstruction A-weighted sound intensity one-third octave frequency spectra for road sections.
• Figure 35. Mean postconstruction A-weighted sound intensity one-third octave frequency spectra for bridge sections.
• Figure 36. Resulting postconstruction mean A-weighted sound intensity one-third octave frequency spectra for bridge and road sections.

LIST OF TABLES

• Table 1. Warranty thresholds and requirements
• Table 2. Recommended corrective actions.
• Table 3. Ride quality requirements.
• Table 4. Evaluation factors and sample score sheet.
• Table 5. Results of the best-value selection process.
• Table 6. Global preconstruction SI levels of bridge and road sections and related statistics.
• Table 7. Global postconstruction SI levels of bridge and road sections and related statistics.
• Table 8. Preconstruction ARAN data collected on M-115.
• Table 9. Postconstruction ARAN data collected on M-115.
• Table 10. M-115 capital costs calculations.
• Table 11. Summary of LCCA cost computations (20-year analysis period).

Foreword

The purpose of the Highways for LIFE (HfL) pilot program is to accelerate the use of innovations that improve highway safety and quality while reducing congestion caused by construction. LIFE is an acronym for Longer–lasting highway infrastructure using Innovations to accomplish the Fast construction of Efficient and safe highways and bridges.

Specifically, HfL focuses on speeding up the widespread adoption of proven innovations in the highway community. "Innovations" is an inclusive term used by HfL to encompass technologies, materials, tools, equipment, procedures, specifications, methodologies, processes, and practices used to finance, design, or construct highways. HfL is based on the recognition that innovations are available that, if widely and rapidly implemented, would result in significant benefits to road users and highway agencies.

Although innovations themselves are important, HfL is as much about changing the highway community's culture from one that considers innovation something that only adds to the workload, delays projects, raises costs, or increases risk to one that sees it as an opportunity to provide better highway transportation service. HfL is also an effort to change the way highway community decisionmakers and participants perceive their jobs and the service they provide.

The HfL pilot program, described in Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) Section 1502, includes funding for demonstration construction projects. By providing incentives for projects, HfL promotes improvements in safety, construction–related congestion, and quality that can be achieved through the use of performance goals and innovations. This report documents one such HfL demonstration project.

Additional information on the HfL program is at www.fhwa.dot.gov/hfl.

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the object of the document.

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8–72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

Acknowledgments

The project team would like to acknowledge the invaluable insights and guidance of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highways for LIFE Team Leader Byron Lord and Program Coordinators Mary Huie and Kathleen Bergeron, who served as the technical panel on this demonstration project. Their vast knowledge and experience with the various aspects of construction, technology deployment, and technology transfer helped immensely in developing both the approach and the technical matter for this document. The team is also indebted to Michigan Department of Transportation Engineers Jack Hofweber, Bill Mayhew, and Tony Kratofil and FHWA Division Administrator Jim Steele and Engineering and Operations Manager Tom Fudaly for their advice, assistance, and coordination during this project.

Abbreviations and Symbols