Value Engineering Study Report

Georgia Department of Transportation

I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road
Collector Distributor System • P.I. No. 0009542
DeKalb County

285

20

d
la Roa
0/Pano
CR 515

February 2010
02217 | dv | 10

Value Engineering Team Design Team

February 2010

Ms. Lisa Myers

Design Review Engineer Manager/VE Coordinator
Georgia Department of Transportation-Engineering Services
One Georgia Center
600 W. Peachtree Street NW
Atlanta, GA 30308

RE: Submittal of the final Value Engineering Report

P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County

Dear Ms. Myers:

Please find enclosed two (2) hard copies and one (1) CD of our final Value Engineering
Report for I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road.
.
Using the Value Engineering “Job Plan” – Investigation, Analysis (Function),
Speculation, Evaluation & Development, the VE Team identified:

Nine (9) Alternatives recommended to improve the project value.

We trust that you will find this report to be in proper order. It should be noted that the
results of this workshop are volatile in that they can be overcome by the events that
accompany the expeditious continuance of the design process. Accordingly, we
encourage an equally expeditious implementation meeting to design the disposition of
the contents of this report.

On behalf of our VE Team, we thank you very much for this opportunity to work with you
and the hard working staff of the Georgia Department of Transportation.

Yours truly,
PBS&J

Les M. Thomas PE, CVS-Life

Project Manager
 Value Engineering Study Report
P.I. No. 0009542

I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road

Collector Distributor System

DeKalb County

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Introduction
Project Description
Project Concerns and Objectives
Value Engineering Process
Conclusions and Recommendations
Summary of Alternatives and Design Suggestions

Study Results

Introduction
Documentation of Alternatives and Design Suggestions

Project Description

Introduction of the Project

Representative Documents

Value Engineering Process

Introduction and Job Plan

Pareto Charts
Fast Diagram
Attendance Sheet for Designers and VE Team Presentations
Creative Idea Listing and Evaluation Worksheet
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes the analysis and conclusions by the PBS&J Value Engineering
workshop team as they performed a Value Engineering study during the period of
February 9 – February 12, 2010 in Atlanta, at the office of the Georgia Department of
Transportation. The subject of the Value Engineering study is identified in the Project
Concept Report as P.I. Number 0009542, I-20 Eastbound From I-285 to CR 5150/
Panola Road – CD System, in DeKalb County, Georgia. The design for the project has
been prepared by Arcadis. At the time of the workshop the plans had advanced to the
preliminary design level.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The purpose of the proposed project is to provide operational and safety improvements
along I-20 eastbound in the vicinity of I-285 interchange (from approximately Columbia
Drive to the I-20/Panola Road interchange) in DeKalb County. A primary goal of the
project is to renew and extend the operational life of a critical segment of Georgia’s
interstate system. This project is needed to address operational issues resulting from
significant weaving on I-20 eastbound between I-285 and Wesley Chapel Road. The
weaving in this section results from the conflict between entering traffic from I-285 and
exiting traffic to Wesley Chapel Road. This situation is made worse by a two-lane
reduction in mainline capacity at the Wesley Chapel Road exit. The resulting congestion
in this segment spills back on I-20 west of I-285 and up both ramps of entering I-285
traffic, thereby creating congestion on I-285 as well.

This construction work is proposed as an interim operational improvement along I-20

eastbound in the area noted above. These improvements include adding collector-
distributor (CD) lanes, modifying general purpose lanes, and making ramp
improvements from just west of the I-20/I-285 interchange, to the I-20/Panola Road
interchange, for a total distance of approximately 4.5 miles. Designed to address traffic
capacity/movement issues in the project area, the CD system would free up freeway
capacity that is currently not being fully utilized due to weaving, significantly increase
vehicle throughput, and would address conflicting vehicle movements and stop-and-go
traffic conditions to create safer travel conditions.

The proposed project that is the subject of this VE Study, is meant as a short-term
solution for the segment of I-20 between I-285 and Panola Road. This temporary
solution was identified by GDOT as a way to provide operational improvements until the
larger programmed project on I-20 East (Project NHIM0-0020-02(166), P.I. No. 713610,
I-20 East Collector/Distributor Lanes Project from Columbia Drive to Evans Mill Road)
can be implemented. This project is designed as an interim improvement project only,
with a design life of approximately 10 years. The larger project is planned for long-
range, but a funding source has not yet been secured for its implementation.

The traffic problems noted above, result in capacity shortcomings in the project area. In
order to address this problem, a collector distributor system is being proposed in this

4 of 77
segment which would revise the interstate access points at the existing I-20/I-285 and I-
20/Wesley Chapel Road interchanges. The proposed operational improvements would
need to include auxiliary lanes from the CD lane merge with mainline I-20 to Panola
Road in order to sufficiently address lane balance and operational efficiency of the
Wesley Chapel Road and Panola Road interchanges. The addition of two mainline
lanes at the merge of the proposed CD system with the I-20 mainline allows for proper
lane balancing between Wesley Chapel Road and Panola Road with the subsequent
lane drops. Because of the proximity of the CD lane merge with I-20 to the Wesley
Chapel Road on-ramp merge, the fifth lane is continued 4,700 feet through the merge of
the Wesley Chapel Road on-ramp and is dropped approximately 2,600 feet east of that
point, which meets both the AASHTO and GDOT lane drop recommendations. This
length also gives sufficient length for CD traffic to merge with mainline I-20. Because
traffic forecasts show the exiting traffic from I-20 to Panola Road being so high, the
extension of the fourth lane to Panola Road allows the lane to be used as an auxiliary
lane for this exit and to provide for the required weaving length.

This project is more fully described in the documentation that is located in Tabbed
section of this report, entitled Project Description.

VALUE ENGINEERING PROCESS

The Value Engineering team followed the seven step Value Engineering job plan as
promulgated by the Georgia Department of Transportation. This seven step job plan
includes the following:

 Investigative
 Analysis
 Speculation
 Evaluation
 Development
 Recommendation
 Presentation

This report is a component of the Presentation Phase. As part of the VE workshop in

Atlanta, the team made an informal presentation of their results on the last morning of
the workshop. This report is intended to formalize the workshop results and set the
stage for a formal implementation meeting in which alternatives and design suggestions
will typically be accepted, accepted with modifications, or rejected for cause. The
worksheet that follows, along with the formally developed alternatives and design
suggestions can be used as a “score sheet” for the implementation meeting. It is also
included in this report to identify, on a summary basis, the results of the workshop. The
reader is encouraged to visit the third tabbed section of this report entitled Study
Results for a review of the details of the developed alternatives. The tabbed section
Project Description includes information about the project itself and the tabbed section
Value Engineering Process presents the detail process of the Value Engineering
Study.

5 of 77
PROJECT CONCERNS AND OBJECTIVES

This project is being developed under the terms of a categorical exclusion. This requires
that the design and construction will not call for additional right-of-way, will not add to the
roadway encroachments on either streams or wetlands, and will not result in any
relocations to permit construction. There are also certain agreements that have been
put in place as a result of periodic public meetings with local stakeholders. Among these
agreements is the inclusion of fairly extensive runs of sound barriers to reduce the sound
and visual impact on local homes and businesses.

The work of this project is being done in order to facilitate a prompt fix to weaving
difficulties on this part of the I-20 eastbound corridor. It was determined that one way in
which the VE team could add value to the project was to identify ways in which to
expedite the project. Getting the weaving fix in place as soon as possible would be a
prized benefit to the traveling public. Accordingly, most of the ideas developed by the
VE Team had this goal in mind, along with potential cost savings.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

During the speculation phase the VE Team identified 40 Alternative Ideas that
appeared to hold potential for reducing the construction cost, improving the end product,
and/or reducing the difficulty and time of project construction.

After the evaluation phase was completed, 9 Alternative Ideas remained for further
consideration. These Alternative Ideas may be found, in their documented form, in the
section of this report entitled Study Results.

The following Summary of Alternatives coupled with the documentation of the

developed alternatives should provide the reader with the information required to fully
evaluate the merits of each of the alternatives.

6 of 77
 Summary of Alternatives & Design Suggestions
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation SHEET NO.: 1 of 1
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road –
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
ALTERNATIVE INITIAL
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE
NUMBER
COST SAVINGS

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (AC)

AC-1 Utilize a 10’ in-lieu of a 12’ outside shoulder on collector $150,938

distributor (CD) lanes
AC-2 Coordinate with planned maintenance resurfacing project (P.I. $1,219,988
No. M003234)
AC-3 Utilize 4% cross-slope on outside shoulders in tangent $144,973
sections

MISCELLANEOUS (MS)

MS-3 Use double-sided guardrail in-lieu of barrier rail to separate $1,093,397

CD and general purpose lanes
MS-4 Use corrugated metal pipe for CD drainage $74,360

RETAINING WALLS (RW)

RW-1 Use MSE walls in-lieu of cast-in-place concrete retaining walls $1,931,439

RW-9 Affix sound walls to retaining walls where appropriate $505,230

RW-10 Use sheet piles in-lieu of concrete retaining walls $1,161,210

SOUND BARRIERS (SB)

SB-3 Defer sound barrier walls on westbound roadway $1,511,840

7 of 77
 STUDY RESULTS

INTRODUCTION

This section includes the study results presented in the form of fully developed value
engineering alternatives that include descriptions of the original design, description of
the alternative design configurations, comments on the technical justifications,
opportunities and risks associated with the alternatives, sketches, calculations and
technical justification for these alternatives. For the most part, these fully developed
alternatives represent an array of choices that clearly could have an impact on the
eventual cost and performance of the finished project.

This introductory sheet is followed by a Summary of Alternatives. It should be noted

that the alternatives that are included, which have cost estimates attached are not
necessarily representative of the final cost outcome for each alternative. Some of these
alternatives have components that are mutually exclusive so they may not be added
together.

The users of this report are asked to consider these alternatives and design suggestions
as a smorgasbord of choices for selection and use as the project moves forward. The
enclosed Summary of Alternatives may also be used as a “score sheet” within the
bounds of an implementation meeting.

COST CALCULATIONS

The cost calculations are intended only as a guide to the approximate results that might
be expected from implementation of the alternatives. They should be helpful in making
clear choices as to the pursuit of individual alternatives.

The composite mark-up of 10% for the construction cost comparisons was derived from
the cost estimate for the project. This estimate can be found in the section of this report
entitled Project Description.

8 of 77
 Value Analysis Design Alternative
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road – AC-1
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
DESCRIPTION: Utilize a 10’ in-lieu of a 12’ outside shoulder on CD lanes SHEET NO.: 1 of 4

Original Design:

The original design proposes constructing 12’ outside shoulders for the length of the CD lanes.

Alternative:

The alternative proposes using 10’ paved outside shoulders for the length of the CD lanes.

Opportunities: Risks:

 Reduction in full depth pavement  None apparent

quantities
 Reduction in construction costs
 Reduction in construction time

Technical Discussion:

Since the outside shoulder is not on the I-20 mainline alignment, and the design speed of the CD
lanes is 55 mph, the alternative suggests using a 10’ outside paved shoulder width. The
alternative would reduce paving costs incurred by 2’ of full depth pavement in the outside
shoulder section for the length of the CD lanes.

PRESENT WORTH PRESENT WORTH

COST SUMMARY INITIAL COST RECURRING LIFE-CYCLE COST
COSTS

ORIGINAL DESIGN $ 15,135,170 $ 0 $ 15,135,170

ALTERNATIVE $ 14,984,232 $ 0 $ 14,984,232
SAVINGS $ 150,938 $ 0 $ 150,938

9 of 77
 Illustrations
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road – AC-1
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
Utilize a 10’ in-lieu of a 12’ outside shoulder on CD lanes
DESCRIPTION: SHEET NO.: 2 of 4

10 of 77
 Calculations
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road – AC-1
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
Utilize a 10’ in-lieu of a 12’ outside shoulder on CD lanes
DESCRIPTION: SHEET NO.: 3 of 4

Assumptions:
Reduce outside shoulder width on CD lanes by 2’ of full depth pavement.
Reduce shoulder width from STA +/-65+00 to STA +/-135+00= 7000 LF.
7000LF x 2’= 14,000SF/9=1556 SY full depth pavement reduction.

Pavement reduction using preliminary pavement design. (Prepared by Ty Denning and submitted to VE
team, currently unapproved and dated 2/3/2010)

12.5mm PEM=135LB/SY x 1556SY/2000= 105 ton reduction

12.5mm SMA= 220LB/SY x 1556SY/2000= 171 ton reduction
19mm Superpave= 440LB/SY x 1556SY/2000=342 ton reduction
25mm Superpave= 1210LB/SY x 1556SY/2000=941 ton reduction
GAB=1556 SY reduction

11 of 77
 Cost Worksheet
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola AC-1
Road – Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
Utilize a 10' in-lieu of a 12' outside shoulder on
DESCRIPTION: SHEET NO.: 4 of 4
CD lanes
CONSTRUCTION ITEM ORIGINAL ESTIMATE PROPOSED ESTIMATE

NO. OF NO. OF
ITEM UNITS COST/ UNIT TOTAL COST/ UNIT TOTAL
UNITS UNITS

12.5 mm PEM TN 24,000 $ 80.00 $ 1,920,000 23,895 $ 80.00 $ 1,911,600

12.5 mm SMA TN 22,000 $ 101.00 $ 2,222,000 21,829 $ 101.00 $ 2,204,729
19.0 mm Superpave TN 24,000 $ 60.00 $ 1,440,000 23658 $ 60.00 $ 1,419,480
25.0 mm Superpave TN 95,000 $ 63.00 $ 5,985,000 94059 $ 63.00 $ 5,925,717
GAB SY 107,463 $ 20.40 $ 2,192,245 105907 $ 20.40 $ 2,160,503

Sub-total $ 13,759,245 $ 13,622,029

Cons't Mark-up 10.00% $ 1,375,925 $ 1,362,203
TOTAL $ 15,135,170 $ 14,984,232
Estimated Savings: $150,938

12 of 77
 Value Analysis Design Alternative
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road – AC-2
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
DESCRIPTION: Coordinate with the planned maintenance resurfacing SHEET NO.: 1 of 3
project P.I. No.: M003234

Original Design:
The original design proposes milling all of the asphaltic concrete on the inside two lanes down to
the underlying concrete layer.

Alternative:

The alternative design proposes coordinating the required paving with the maintenance project (P.I.
No.: M003234) in order to eliminate one layer of PEM and one layer of milling.

Opportunities: Risks:

 Reduction in paving cost  None Apparent

 Reduction in construction time

Technical Discussion:
If the PEM is placed in the maintenance project (P.I. No.: M003234) it will have to be milled and
replaced in order to place the final striping on this job. If it is left out of the maintenance project,
it will eliminate the milling and one layer of PEM.

PRESENT WORTH PRESENT WORTH

COST SUMMARY INITIAL COST RECURRING LIFE-CYCLE COST
COSTS

ORIGINAL DESIGN 1,219,988 $ 0 $ 1,219,988

ALTERNATIVE $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
SAVINGS $ 1,219,988 $ 0 $ 1,219,988

13 of 77
 Calculations
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road – AC-2
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
DESCRIPTION: Coordinate with the planned maintenance resurfacing SHEET NO.: 2 of 3
project P.I. No.: M003234

Paving & Milling:

Station 1147+18 to Station 1380+49 =>23,330 LF

Assume milling and placement of one layer of PEM can be saved.

23,300 LF X 36 FT = 838,800SF / (9SF/SY) => 93,200 SY

Milling => 93,200 SY

PEM 12.5mm = [(93,200 SY x 135#/SY-IN) / (2000#/Ton )] => 6,291TN

14 of 77
 Cost Worksheet
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
AC-2
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola
Road – Collector Distributor System, DeKalb
County
DESCRIPTION: Coordinate with the planned maintenance SHEET NO.: 3 of 3
resurfacing project P.I. No.: M003234
CONSTRUCTION ITEM ORIGINAL ESTIMATE PROPOSED ESTIMATE

NO. OF NO. OF
ITEM UNITS COST/ UNIT TOTAL COST/ UNIT TOTAL
UNITS UNITS

PEM 12.5 mm TN 6,291 $ 80.00 $ 503,280 0 $ -

Milling Asphalt Pavement SY 93,200 $ 6.50 $ 605,800 0 $ -

Sub-total $ 1,109,080 $ -
Mark-up at 10.00% $ 110,908 $ -
TOTAL $ 1,219,988 $ -
Estimated Savings: $1,219,988

15 of 77
 Value Analysis Design Alternative
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road – AC-3
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
DESCRIPTION: Utilize 4% cross-slope on outside shoulders in tangent SHEET NO.: 1 of 4
sections

Original Design:

The original design calls for construction of the outside shoulders with full depth pavement at a
cross-slope of 6% in tangent sections.

Alternative:

The alternative proposes to construct the outside shoulders with full depth pavement with a cross-
slope of 4% in tangent sections.

Opportunities: Risks:

 Reduction in future milling costs  May impact sheet flow drainage

 Reduction in future leveling costs

*It is noted that this alternative provides an

opportunity for future savings at no cost to the
current project, thus adding value and utility to
the current project

Technical Discussion:

The alternative proposes using 4% cross slopes on the outside shoulder in tangent sections
instead of the originally designed cross-slope of 6%. The intent is to reduce future work required
for widening the shoulders for travel lane usage. By constructing the outside shoulders at 4%,
future milling and leveling is reduced by minimizing the “wedge” area to mill and level prior to seal
overlay to correct cross-slope for travel lanes at 2% in tangent sections (see Illustration). An
identified risk is that the reduction in cross slope of the outside shoulder from 6% to 4% may have
an adverse effect to sheet flow drainage across the existing travel lanes.

PRESENT WORTH PRESENT WORTH

COST SUMMARY INITIAL COST RECURRING LIFE-CYCLE COST
COSTS

ORIGINAL DESIGN $ 144,973 $ 0 $ 144,973

ALTERNATIVE $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
SAVINGS $ 144,973 $ 0 $ 144,973
16 of 77
 Illustrations
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road – AC-3
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
DESCRIPTION: Utilize 4% cross-slope on outside shoulders in tangent SHEET NO.: 2 of 4
sections

17 of 77
 Calculations
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road – AC-3
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
DESCRIPTION: Utilize 4% cross-slope on outside shoulders in tangent SHEET NO.: 3 of 4
sections

Assumptions:

Project Length- 4.5 miles

Approximately 50% of project length is in tangent section-3.67 miles x 5280=19,378LF Eastbound outside
shoulder. 19,378LF x 12’ w/9=25,837 SY shoulder area impacted.

Cross slope is set from grading operation on roadbed processing and transferred through base, binder, and
seal. (i.e. no additional paving quantities required to construct 4% cross slope vs. 6%).

At 6%, cross slope from edge of travel lane to edge of paved 12’ shoulder is 7.2”.
7.2” max. to 0” min.= 3.6” avg.

At 4%, cross slope from edge of travel lane to edge of paved shoulder is 4.8”.
4.8” max. to 0” min.=2.4” avg.

3.6”-2.4”=1.2” average thickness saved across shoulder width.

1.2”=+/- 135LB/SY

135LB/SY x 25,837 SY/2000=1,744 tons leveling saved.

18 of 77
 Cost Worksheet
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola AC-3
Road – Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
DESCRIPTION: Utilize 4% cross-slope on outside shoulder in SHEET NO.: 4 of 4
tangent sections
CONSTRUCTION ITEM ORIGINAL ESTIMATE PROPOSED ESTIMATE

NO. OF NO. OF
ITEM UNITS COST/ UNIT TOTAL COST/ UNIT TOTAL
UNITS UNITS

402-1812 Recy Asph Conc

Leveling TN 1,744 $ 75.57 $ 131,794 0 $ 75.57 $ -

Sub-total $ 131,794 $ -
Cons't Mark-up 10.00% $ 13,179 $ -
TOTAL $ 144,973 $ -
Estimated Savings: $144,973

19 of 77
 Value Analysis Design Alternative
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road – MS-3
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
DESCRIPTION: Use double-sided guardrail in-lieu of concrete barrier rail SHEET NO.: 1 of 5
to separate CD-GP lanes

Original Design:

The original design proposes constructing a Type 26 Concrete Median Barrier for positive
separation between the general purpose and CD lanes from approximate STA 65+00 to
approximate STA 135+00.

Alternative:

The alternative proposes using double-faced guardrail, Type W in-lieu of concrete barrier rail.

Opportunities: Risks:

 First cost savings on materials used  Requires drainage revisions

 Less obtrusive for removal for future  Increases maintenance costs
widening
 Reduction in time of installation

Technical Discussion:

The alternative proposes using double-faced guardrail to separate the CD lanes from the GP
lanes. The cost savings derived represent a reduction in cost per unit for the guardrail compared
to the concrete median barrier. The original design contemplates drop inlets adjacent to the
barrier rail to a closed drainage system. The alternative, if implemented, provides the
opportunity for exploring other methods for conveying the drainage which may reduce costs
further. For future widening on I-20, removal of the guardrail would be less expensive and easier
to utilize than removing the concrete median. First cost savings by using the guardrail instead of
the concrete median may be diminished by an increase in maintenance costs by
repairing/replacing damaged sections of guardrail.
PRESENT WORTH PRESENT WORTH
COST SUMMARY INITIAL COST RECURRING LIFE-CYCLE COST
COSTS

ORIGINAL DESIGN $ 1,223,860 $ 0 $ 1,223,860

ALTERNATIVE $ 130,463 $ 0 $ 130,463
SAVINGS $ 1,093,397 $ 0 $ 1,093,397

20 of 77
 Illustrations
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road – MS-3
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
DESCRIPTION: Use double-sided guardrail in-lieu of concrete barrier rail SHEET NO.: 2 of 5
to separate CD-GP lanes

21 of 77
 Calculations
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road – MS-3
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
DESCRIPTION: Use double-sided guardrail in lieu of concrete barrier rail SHEET NO.: 3 of 5
to separate CD-GP lanes

Use double sided guardrail at $21.32/LF (1/11/2010 Item Mean Summary) instead of Concrete Median
Barrier, Type 6 at $200/LF.

Additional savings may be realized by configuring roadway drainage with guardrail (surface drainage,
slotted drain) as opposed to drop inlets presumed to be used for concrete median rail.

For future consideration, the guardrail would be much easier to remove and patch/overlay when future
widening of I-20 takes place.

It is likely that the first cost savings by using guardrail will be diminished somewhat by future maintenance
costs in repairing/replacing damaged sections.

22 of 77
 Cost Worksheet
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola MS-3
Road – Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
Use double-sided guardrail in-lieu of concrete SHEET NO.:
DESCRIPTION: 4 of 5
barrier rail to separate CD-GP lanes
CONSTRUCTION ITEM ORIGINAL ESTIMATE PROPOSED ESTIMATE

NO. OF COST/ NO. OF COST/

ITEM UNITS TOTAL TOTAL
UNITS UNIT UNITS UNIT

Concrete Median Barrier,

LF
Type 6 5,563 $ 200.00 $ 1,112,600 0 $ 200.00 $ -
641-2200- Double Faced
Guardrail LF 0 $ 21.32 $ - 5,563 $ 21.32 $ 118,603

Sub-total $ 1,112,600 $ 118,603

Cons't Mark-up 10.00% $ 111,260 $ 11,860
TOTAL $ 1,223,860 $ 130,463
Estimated Savings: $1,093,397

23 of 77
 Life Cycle Cost Worksheet

PROJECT:Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.

P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR
5150/Panola Road – Collector Distributor MS-3
DeKalb County
Use double-sided guardrail in-lieu of concrete barrier
SHEET NO. 5 of 5
rail to separate CD-GP lanes
Life Cycle Period 10 years Original Proposed
Interest Rate 3.00% Escalation Rate 0.00% Concrete Metal
A. Initial Cost $ 1,222,860 $ 130,463
Useful Life (Years) 30 10
Initial Cost Savings: $ 1,092,397

B. Recurrent Cost (Annual Expenditures) Original Proposed

1. Maintenance % of First Cost during ea. Yr Concrete @ 0.50% $ 6,114
2. Maintenance % of First Cost during ea. Yr Metal @ 10.00% $ 13,046

Total Annual Costs $ 6,114 $ 13,046

Present Worth Factor 8.53 8.53
Present Worth of Recurrent Costs $ 52,156 $ 111,288
PW Present
C. Single Expenditure Year Amount Present Worth
factor Worth
Orig Prop < Put "x" in appropriate box (original design or proposed design)
1. $ - $ -
2. $ - $ -
3. $ - $ -
PW Present
D. Salvage Value Year Amount Present Worth
Factor Worth
x 1. 1.000 $ - $ -
2. 1.000 $ - $ -
Present Worth of Single Expenditures: $ - $ -
E. Total Recurrent Costs & Single Expenditures (B + C - D) $ 52,156 $ 111,288
RECURRENT COSTS & SINGLE EXPENDITURES SAVINGS $ (59,132)
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST (A + E) $ 1,275,016 $ 241,751
TOTAL LIFE CYCLE SAVINGS $ 1,033,265
Note - escalation shown as 0.0% since using constant dollar LCC analysis

24 of 77
 Value Analysis Design Alternative
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road – MS-4
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
DESCRIPTION: Use corrugated metal pipe for CD road drainage. SHEET NO.: 1 of 4

Original Design:
The original design proposes using reinforced concrete pipe for the drainage along the barrier
line separating the general purpose lanes and the collector distributor road.

Alternative:

The alternative design proposes using corrugated metal pipe for the drainage along the barrier line
separating the general purpose lanes and the collector distributor road.

Opportunities: Risks:

 Reduction in drainage cost  None Apparent

 Reduction in construction

Technical Discussion:
Normally, CMP would not be proposed for a closed drainage system along an interstate roadway.
However, this system is installed with the intent of abandoning and filling it in the foreseeable
future. It should also be noted that this drainage will be located under the shoulders separating
the general purpose lanes and the collector distributor road and will not be subject to direct traffic.

PRESENT WORTH PRESENT WORTH

COST SUMMARY INITIAL COST RECURRING LIFE-CYCLE COST
COSTS

ORIGINAL DESIGN $ 186,780 $ 0 $ 186,780

ALTERNATIVE $ 112,420 $ 0 $ 112,420
SAVINGS $ 74,360 $ 0 $ 74,360

25 of 77
 Illustrations
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road – MS-4
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
DESCRIPTION: Use corrugated metal pipe for CD road drainage. SHEET NO.: 2 of 4

26 of 77
 Calculations
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road – MS-4
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
DESCRIPTION: Use corrugated metal pipe for CD road drainage. SHEET NO.: 3 of 4

C/D Road Barrier Length:

Station 1179+72 to Station 1230+25 =>5,100 LF

Assume 80% trunk line => 4,200 LF => 500 LF 30”/ 1,200 LF 24” / 2,500 LF 18”

27 of 77
 Cost Worksheet
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
MS-4
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola
Road – Collector Distributor System, DeKalb
County
DESCRIPTION: Use Corrugated Metal Pipe for CD Road SHEET NO.: 4 of 4
drainage.
CONSTRUCTION ITEM ORIGINAL ESTIMATE PROPOSED ESTIMATE

NO. OF NO. OF
ITEM UNITS COST/ UNIT TOTAL COST/ UNIT TOTAL
UNITS UNITS

18" RCP LF 2,500 $ 36.00 $ 90,000 0 $ 36.00 $ -

24" RCP LF 1,200 $ 44.00 $ 52,800 0 $ 44.00 $ -
30" RCP LF 500 $ 54.00 $ 27,000 0 $ 54.00 $ -
18" CMP LF 0 $ 22.00 $ - 2,500 $ 22.00 $ 55,000
24" CMP LF 0 $ 26.00 $ - 1,200 $ 26.00 $ 31,200
30" CMP LF 0 $ 32.00 $ - 500 $ 32.00 $ 16,000

Sub-total $ 169,800 $ 102,200

Mark-up at 10.00% $ 16,980 $ 10,220
TOTAL $ 186,780 $ 112,420
Estimated Savings: $74,360

28 of 77
 Value Analysis Design Alternative
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road – RW-1
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
DESCRIPTION: Use MSE walls in-lieu of cast-in-place concrete retaining SHEET NO.: 1 of 4
walls

Original Design:

The original design calls for the use of GDOT Standard CIP retaining walls. The walls, ranging
in height from 2.5 feet to 7.0 feet run along the south side of project for almost the entire length of
the segment between I-285 and Wesley Chapel Road and in partial sections between Wesley
Chapel Road and Panola Road.
Alternative:
The alternative proposes the use of MSE walls in lieu of the cast-in-place retaining walls.
The alternative maintains the original design wall envelope and geometry.

Opportunities: Risks:

 Cost savings  None apparent

 Reduces construction time
 GDOT Standard designs readily available
 Improves aesthetics
 MSE Walls have been utilized on this
corridor

Technical Discussion:
MSE walls are an acceptable standard GDOT wall type and have demonstrated satisfactory
performance. This is a common wall type used in the Metro Atlanta area, similar to where the
current project is located.

See the next sheet for the calculation of the savings noted below.

PRESENT WORTH PRESENT WORTH

COST SUMMARY INITIAL COST RECURRING LIFE-CYCLE COST
COSTS

ORIGINAL DESIGN $ 4,556,937 $ 0 $ 4,556,937

ALTERNATIVE $ 2,625,498 $ 0 $ 2,625,498
SAVINGS $ 1,931,439 $ 0 $ 1,931,439

29 of 77
 Illustrations
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road – RW-1
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
DESCRIPTION: Use MSE walls in-lieu of cast-in-place concrete retaining SHEET NO.: 2 of 4
walls

30 of 77
 Calculations
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road – RW-1
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
DESCRIPTION: Use MSE walls in-lieu of cast-in-place concrete retaining SHEET NO.: 3 of 4
walls

Current Design – GDOT STD Cast-in-Place Concrete Retaining Walls

Wall Height = Varies (0 ft – 20 ft)

Total Wall Area = 59,181 SF

Alternate – MSE WALLS WITH COPING

Total Area of MSE Walls = Total Area of Concrete Walls (conservative)

Assume average height of wall to be 12 ft

Approximate length of walls = 59.181 SF / 12 ft = 5000 ft (say)

Length of Coping = Length of walls = 5000 ft (say)

Note:

Savings from Alternative = Cost for current design

31 of 77
 Cost Worksheet
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola RW-1
Road – Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
DESCRIPTION: Use MSE walls in-lieu of cast-in-place concrete SHEET NO.: 4 of 4
retaining walls
CONSTRUCTION ITEM ORIGINAL ESTIMATE PROPOSED ESTIMATE

NO. OF COST/ NO. OF COST/

ITEM UNITS TOTAL TOTAL
UNITS UNIT UNITS UNIT

Ga. Std. Rtg Walls (0-20 ft) SF 59,181 $ 70.00 $4,142,670 0 $ 70.00 $ -
MSE Walls (0 - 20 ft high) SF 0 $ 34.29 $ - 59,181 $ 34.29 $ 2,029,316.49
Coping (approximate) LF 0 $ 71.50 $ - 5000 $ 71.50 $ 357,500.00

Sub-total $ 4,142,670 $ 2,386,816

Cons't Mark-up 10.00% $ 414,267 $ 238,682
TOTAL $ 4,556,937 $ 2,625,498
Estimated Savings: $1,931,439

32 of 77
 Value Analysis Design Alternative
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road – RW-9
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
DESCRIPTION: Affix sound walls to concrete retaining walls where SHEET NO.: 1 of 4
appropriate

Original Design:

The original design calls for the provision of sound walls along the both sides of the corridor.
Currently, CIP retaining walls are used adjacent to the roadway.

Alternative:
The alternative proposes implementing soil stabilization techniques to facilitate steeper slopes in
lieu of the cast-in-place retaining walls. The alternative maintains the original roadway
geometry.

Opportunities: Risks:

 Cost savings  None apparent

 Reduction in construction time
 Less intrusive construction
 Saves trees

Technical Discussion:
Keeping in perspective the long range plan for improvements to this corridor, utilization of soil
stabilization techniques to facilitate steeper slopes to accommodate the additional lanes would
obviate the need for cast-in-place retaining walls.

Guard rails could be used in-lieu of concrete barriers.

See the next sheet for the calculation of the savings noted below.

PRESENT WORTH PRESENT WORTH

COST SUMMARY INITIAL COST RECURRING LIFE-CYCLE COST
COSTS

ORIGINAL DESIGN $ 505,230 $ 0 $ 505,230

ALTERNATIVE $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
SAVINGS $ 505,230 $ 0 $ 505,230

33 of 77
 Illustrations
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road – RW-9
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
DESCRIPTION: Affix sound walls to concrete retaining walls where SHEET NO.: 2 of 4
appropriate

EXAMPLE OF CONCRETE WALL MOUNTED SOUND BARRIER

34 of 77
 Calculations
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road – RW-9
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
Affix sound walls to concrete retaining walls where
DESCRIPTION: SHEET NO.: 3 of 4
appropriate

Current Design – Stand Alone Sound Barrier

1) Assume panel widths are 16’

2) Assume HP 10X42 Piles are used every 16’
3) Assume Piles are embedded 10’ below ground surface
4) Assumed cost for tree removal as lump sum amount ($50,000 – conservative)

Alternate – Concrete Wall Mounted Sound Barrier

For approximately 16,000 LF of Sound Barriers, number of piles = 16000 ft/16 ft = 1000
(approx.)

Savings in embedded portion of pile = 10 ft X 1000 = 10,000 LF

Savings in tree removal = $50,000

Note:

Savings from Alternative = Cost for current design

35 of 77
 Cost Worksheet
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola RW-9
Road – Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
DESCRIPTION: Affix sound walls to concrete retaining walls SHEET NO.: 4 of 4
where appropriate
CONSTRUCTION ITEM ORIGINAL ESTIMATE PROPOSED ESTIMATE

NO. OF NO. OF
ITEM UNITS COST/ UNIT TOTAL COST/ UNIT TOTAL
UNITS UNITS

Fdn. Standalone Sound Barrier LF 10,000 $ 40.93 $ 409,300.00 0 $ 40.93 $ -

Tree Removal (Assumed) LS 1 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 0 $50,000.00 $ -

Note:
1) Assumed that stand alone Sound Barriers would require at least 10' embedment of 1000 HP 10X42 Piles
2) Assumed cost for tree removal as lump sum amount
3) Savings from Alternative = Cost for current design

Sub-total $ 459,300 $ -
Cons't Mark-up 10.00% $ 45,930 $ -
TOTAL $ 505,230 $ -
Estimated Savings: $505,230

36 of 77
 Value Analysis Design Alternative
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road – RW-10
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
DESCRIPTION: Use sheet piles in-lieu of cast-in-place concrete retaining SHEET NO.: 1 of 4
walls

Original Design:

The original design calls for the use of GDOT standard CIP retaining walls. The walls, ranging
in height from 2.5 feet to 7.0 feet run along the south side of project for almost the entire length of
the segment between I-285 and Wesley Chapel Road and in partial sections between Wesley
Chapel Road and Panola Road.
Alternative:
The alternative proposes the use of sheet piles in-lieu of the cast-in-place retaining walls. The
alternative maintains the original design wall envelope and geometry.

Opportunities: Risks:

 Cost savings  None apparent

 Reduction in construction time
 Sheet piles can be salvaged for later use
resulting in additional savings in future

Technical Discussion:
Keeping in perspective the long range plan for improvements to this corridor which would result in
the demolition of the cast-in-place retaining walls, the reusability of sheet piles is an added
advantage that could result in future cost savings.

Coping could be provided on the sheet piles for improved aesthetics.

See the next sheet for the calculation of the savings noted below.

PRESENT WORTH PRESENT WORTH

COST SUMMARY INITIAL COST RECURRING LIFE-CYCLE COST
COSTS

ORIGINAL DESIGN $ 4,556,937 $ 0 $ 4,556,937

ALTERNATIVE $ 3,395,728 $ 0 $ 3,395,728
SAVINGS $ 1,161,210 $ 0 $ 1,161,210

37 of 77
 Illustrations
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road – RW-10
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
DESCRIPTION: Use sheet piles in-lieu of cast-in-place concrete retaining SHEET NO.: 2 of 4
walls

38 of 77
 Calculations
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road – RW-10
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
DESCRIPTION: Use sheet piles in-lieu of cast-in-place concrete retaining SHEET NO.: 3 of 4
walls

Current Design – GDOT STD Cast-in-Place Concrete Retaining Walls

Wall Height = Varies (0 ft – 20 ft)

Total Wall Area = 59,181 SF

Alternate Design – Sheet Piles with Coping

Assume average height of concrete wall to be 12 ft

Approximate length of concrete walls = 59,181 SF / 12 ft = 5,000 ft (say)

Length of Coping = Length of walls = 5,000 ft (say)

Assume 10 ft embedment of sheet piles into natural ground (below estimated concrete wall base).

Total Area of Sheet Piles = Total Area of Concrete Walls + 10 ft X 5,000 ft

= 59,181 SF + 50,000 SF = 109181 SF

Note:

Savings from Alternative = Cost for current design

39 of 77
 Cost Worksheet
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola RW-10
Road – Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
DESCRIPTION: Use Sheet Piles In-Lieu of Cast-In-Place SHEET NO.: 4 of 4
Concrete Retaining Walls.
CONSTRUCTION ITEM ORIGINAL ESTIMATE PROPOSED ESTIMATE

NO. OF NO. OF COST/

ITEM UNITS COST/ UNIT TOTAL TOTAL
UNITS UNITS UNIT

Ga. Std. Rtg Walls (0-20 ft) SF 59,181 $ 70.00 $4,142,670 0 $ 70.00 $ -
Sheet Piles (0 - 20 ft high) SF 0 $ 25.00 $ - 109,181 $ 25.00 $ 2,729,525.00
Coping (approximate) LF 0 $ 71.50 $ - 5,000 $ 71.50 $ 357,500.00

Sub-total $ 4,142,670 $ 3,087,025

Cons't Mark-up 10.00% $ 414,267 $ 308,703
TOTAL $ 4,556,937 $ 3,395,728
Estimated Savings: $1,161,210

40 of 77
 Value Analysis Design Alternative
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road – SB-3
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
DESCRIPTION: Defer installation of sound barrier walls along the SHEET NO.: 1 of 3
westbound roadway

Original Design:
The original design proposes installing sound barriers along the westbound (offside) roadway.

Alternative:

The alternative design proposes deferring the installation of sound barrier walls along the
westbound roadway until such time that the westbound section of roadway is reconstructed.

Opportunities: Risks:

 Reduction in overall cost  None apparent

Technical Discussion:

Since no modification is being made to the westbound roadway it may be possible to delay
installation of sound barriers until such time that it is reconstructed or widened. Further, it could
be argued that placing sound barriers on the westbound side slopes might result in having to
relocate the barriers when the future alignment needs are better understood.

PRESENT WORTH PRESENT WORTH

COST SUMMARY INITIAL COST RECURRING LIFE-CYCLE COST
COSTS

ORIGINAL DESIGN $ 1,511,840 $ 0 $ 1,511,840

ALTERNATIVE $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
SAVINGS $ 1,511,840 $ 0 $ 1,511,840

41 of 77
 Calculations
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road – SB-3
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
DESCRIPTION: Delay installation of sound barrier walls along the SHEET NO.: 2 of 3
westbound roadway

Sound walls:

Sound Wall #5-Station 1263+23 left to Station 1285+16 left =>2,193 LF

Sound Wall #7-Station 1308+57 left to Station 1321+00 left =>1,243 LF
Total- =>3,436 LF

42 of 77
 Cost Worksheet
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation ALTERNATIVE NO.:
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/ Panola
SB-3
Road – Collector Distributor System, DeKalb
County
Delay Installation of sound barrier walls along
DESCRIPTION: SHEET NO.: 3 of 3
the westbound roadway
CONSTRUCTION ITEM ORIGINAL ESTIMATE PROPOSED ESTIMATE

NO. OF NO. OF
ITEM UNITS COST/ UNIT TOTAL COST/ UNIT TOTAL
UNITS UNITS

Sound Barrier Wall LF 3,436 $ 400.00 $ 1,374,400 0 $ 400.00 $ -

Sub-total $ 1,374,400 $ -
Mark-up at 10.00% $ 137,440 $ -
TOTAL $ 1,511,840 $ -
Estimated Savings: $1,511,840

43 of 77
 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
INTRODUCTION

The subject of the Value Engineering study is identified in the Project Concept Report as
P.I. Number 0009542, I-20 Eastbound From I-285 to CR 5150/ Panola Road – CD
System, in DeKalb County, Georgia. The design for the project has been prepared by
Arcadis. At the time of the workshop the plans had advanced to the preliminary design
level.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The purpose of the proposed project is to provide operational improvements along I-20
eastbound in the vicinity of I-285 interchange (from approximately Columbia Drive to the
I-20/Panola Road interchange) in DeKalb County. A primary goal of the project is to
renew and extend the operational life of a critical segment of Georgia’s interstate
system. This project is needed to address operational issues resulting from weaving on
I-20 eastbound between I-285 and Wesley Chapel Road. The weaving in this section
results from the conflict between entering traffic from I-285 and exiting traffic to Wesley
Chapel Road. This situation is made worse by a two-lane reduction in mainline capacity
at the Wesley Chapel Road exit. The resulting congestion in this segment spills back on
I-20 west of I-285 and up both ramps of entering I-285 traffic, thereby creating
congestion on I-285 as well.

This construction work is proposed as an interim operational improvement along I-20

eastbound in the area noted above. These improvements include adding collector
distributor (CD) lanes, modifying general purpose (GP) lanes, and making ramp
improvements from the I-20/I-285 interchange, to the I-20/Panola Road interchange, for
a total distance of approximately 4.5 miles. Designed to address system deficiencies in
the project area, the CD system would free up freeway capacity that is currently not
being fully utilized due to weaving, increase vehicle throughput, and would address
conflicting vehicle movements and stop-and-go traffic conditions to create safer travel
conditions.

The proposed project that is the subject of this VE Study is meant as a short-term
solution for the segment of I-20 between I-285 and Panola Road. This temporary
solution was identified by GDOT as a way to provide operational improvements until the
larger programmed project on I-20 East (Project NHIM0-0020-02(166), P.I. No. 713610,
I-20 East Collector Distributor Lanes Project from Columbia Drive to Evans Mill Road)
can be implemented. This project is designed as an interim improvement project only,
with a design life of approximately 10 years. The larger project is planned for a long-
range, but a funding source has not yet been secured for its implementation.

Traffic count (AADT) eastbound only:

Current Year: (2009) I-285 to Wesley Chapel 96,000

Wesley Chapel to Panola 83,460

Open Year: (2012) I-285 to Wesley Chapel 96,875

Wesley Chapel to Panola 87,030

44 of 77
 Design Year: (2032) I-285 to Wesley Chapel 148,420
Wesley Chapel to Panola 132,095

No right-of-way will be required. Existing right-of-way varies from 300-400 feet.

Consequently, there will be no displacements.

There are no existing bridge decks the will need to be modified or widened in the
proposed project. There are several types of retaining walls, L-walls, soil nail, tie-back,
and MSE. Wall types are to be analyzed on a case by case basis taking into account
right-of-way cost, utility impacts, and wall-type usage.

There are four major interchanges on the project:

 I-20 at Columbia Drive – no changes are planned.

 I-20 and I-285 – the ramp from I-285 eastbound to !-285 will be realigned
 I-20 at Wesley Chapel Road – eastbound on and off ramps will be
realigned
 I-20 at Panola road – eastbound off ramp will be realigned

There are two major intersections on the project:

 I-20 eastbound ramps at Wesley Chapel Road – proposed ramp

construction will tie to the existing intersection
 I-20 eastbound ramps at Panola Road – proposed ramp construction will
tie to the existing intersection

I-20 and Wesley Chapel Road Interchange

45 of 77
 I-20 and Panola Road Interchange

I-285 and I-20 Interchange

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

The estimated construction cost for the project is projected at $61,654,000. There are
no Right-of-Way costs. Reimbursable utilities are estimated at $3,222,852. The
projected total cost for the project is $64,876,940.

The design for the project has been prepared by Arcadis.

46 of 77
REPRESENTATIVE DOCUMENTS

 Georgia Department of Transportation

o Concept Report
o Project Location Map
o Construction Cost Estimate
o Photos of the Project
o Anticipated Environmental Concerns
o Traffic Analysis & Accident Data
o Pavement Analysis

The VE Team utilized the GDOT supplied project materials noted above plus the
preliminary plans and drawings provided by Arcadis.

47 of 77
48 of 77
49 of 77
50 of 77
51 of 77
52 of 77
53 of 77
54 of 77
55 of 77
56 of 77
57 of 77
58 of 77
59 of 77
60 of 77
61 of 77
62 of 77
63 of 77
64 of 77
65 of 77
66 of 77
67 of 77
 

VALUE ENGINEERING PROCESS 
This report summarizes the analysis and conclusions by the PBS&J Value Engineering team as
they performed a VE study during the period 9 – 12 February 2010 in Atlanta, Georgia for the
Georgia Department of Transportation. The study was conducted at the offices of the Georgia
DOT.

INTRODUCTION

The Value Engineering Study team and leadership were provided by PBS&J supplemented by a
bridge design engineer from Civil Services, Inc. (CSI). This team consisted of the following:

Charles R. McDuff, PE, CVS-Life PBS&J Team Leader

Luke Clarke, PE, AVS PBS&J Senior Highway Design Engineer
Kevin Martin, Esq., AVS PBS&J Highway Construction Specialist
Ramesh Kalvakalvaa, PE, AVS CSI Senior Bridge Design Engineer

The Value Engineering Team followed the Seven Step Value Engineering Job Plan as
promulgated by SAVE International. The Seven Step Job Plan includes the following:

 Investigation/Information Phase – during this phase of the VE Team’s work, the team
received a briefing from the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) staff and
their design consultants from Arcadis. This briefing included discussions of the design
intent behind the project, the cost concerns, and the physical project limitations. In the
working session that followed, the VE team developed cost models from the cost data
provided by the designers and familiarized themselves with the construction drawings
and other data that was made available to the team. Some of the representative project
information (concept report, cost estimate, and special provisions) may be found in the
tabbed section of this report entitled Project Description. Following this current
narrative the reader will also find a cost model done in the Pareto fashion, i.e., identifying
the high cost items down to the lowest costs, for the larger construction cost elements.
This cost model, developed by the VE Team was used by the team to help focus their
week of work. The headings on the Pareto Chart also were used as headings for the
creative phase activities.

 Analysis Phase – during this phase the VE Team determined the “Functions” of the
project. This was accompanied by reviewing the project from the simplest format in
asking the questions of “What is the project supposed to do?”, and “How is it supposed
to accomplish this purpose?”. In the Value Engineering vernacular, the answers to these
questions are cast in the form of active verbs and measurable nouns. These verb/noun
pairs form the basis of the function analysis which distinguishes a Value Engineering
effort from a potentially damaging cost cutting exercise. A FAST diagram was prepared
highlighting the project’s required functions.

68 of 77
 o In the specific instance of this project, the important functions of the project were
identified as follows:
 Project Objectives and Goals:
 Enhance Operational Characteristics
 Project Basic Functions
 Reduce weaving conflicts
 Mitigate Noise
 Convey Storm Water

 Speculation Phase – The VE Team performed a brainstorming session to identify ideas

that might help meet the project objectives:

o Explore ways to widen the proposed 11’ lanes to 12’ lanes

o Reduce sound wall costs through alternative wall types, alternative materials or
by reducing wall heights and lengths of runs
o Review traffic geometric design in order to add to the already effective design
that will greatly reduce the weaving conflicts along this portion of the I-20 corridor

The brainstorming session initially identified numerous ideas that were then evaluated in
the Judgment Phase. The reader will find the creative worksheets enclosed. These
same work sheets were also used to record the results off the Judgment/Evaluation
Phase.

 Evaluation Phase – Once the VE Team identified the creative ideas, it was necessary
to decide which alternatives should be carried forward. This is the work of the
Evaluation or Judgment Phase. The VE Team reflected back on the project constraints
and objectives shared with the team by the Owner’s representatives and the design
team members. This guidance emerged on the first day of the study at the kick-off
meeting. From that guidance, the team selected ideas that they believed would improve
the project by a vote process.

Following that selection process, the VE Team used the following values as measures of
whether or not an alternative had enough merit to be carried forward in the VE process:

o Expedite project delivery

o Live within critical design constraints (avoid R/W acquisition, stay within the
bounds of the existing environmental categorical exclusion, etc.)
o “Implementability” of the alternatives
o Improve Value
o Enhances maintainability
o Construction Cost Savings
o Life Cycle Cost Savings

Based on these criteria, the VE Team evaluated the alternatives and graded them from 5
(Excellent) down to 1 (Poor). Other notes about the alternatives are annotated at the
bottom of the enclosed creative and evaluation sheets.

 Development Phase – During this phase, the VE Team developed each of the selected
alternatives whose rating was “4” or “5” because of time constraints. If time permits, the
team will develop additional recommendations. This effort included a detailed

69 of 77
 explanation of the idea with sketches as appropriate to clarify the idea from the original
concept, advantages and disadvantages, a technical explanation and an estimation of
the cost and resultant cost savings if implemented. (See the tabbed section of this
report entitled – “Study Results”.

 Recommendation Phase – During this phase the VE Team reviews the alternative
ideas to confirm which ones are appropriate for the project, provide an opportunity for
success and which will improve the value of the project if implemented.
 
 Presentation Phase – As noted earlier, the team made an informal “out-briefing” on the
last day of the workshop. This presentation was designed to inform the Owners and the
Designers of the initial findings of the VE study. This written report is intended to
formalize those findings. 

70 of 77
 PARETO CHART - COST HISTOGRAM
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation
P.I. No. 0009542

I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road - Collector Distributor System

DeKalb County
CUM.
PROJECT ELEMENT COST PERCENT PERCENT

Asphalt Paving 12,125,000 21.74% 21.74%

Traffic Control 7,756,000 13.90% 35.64%
Sound Barrier Walls 6,516,000 11.68% 47.32%
Grading Complete 5,038,000 9.03% 56.35%
Asphalt Cement - Price Adjustment 4,166,767 7.47% 63.82%
Retaining Walls 4,142,688 7.43% 71.25%
Drainage 2,905,898 5.21% 76.46%
Class A Concrete 2,363,880 4.24% 80.70%
Base 2,192,245 3.93% 84.63%
Fuel Price Adjustment 2,004,051 3.59% 88.22%
Signing and Marking 1,758,780 3.15% 91.37%
Milling 1,373,400 2.46% 93.83%
Concrete Barriers 1,174,415 2.11% 95.94%
ITS 600,000 1.08% 97.02%
Erosion Control 526,970 0.94% 97.96%
Chain Link Fence 364,560 0.65% 98.61%
Temporary Barrier System 327,360 0.59% 99.20%
Guardrails 250,975 0.45% 99.65%
Miscellaneous Roadway Items 118,105 0.21% 99.86%
Field Engineers Office 76,758 0.14% 100.00%

Construction Cost $ 55,781,852

E & C Rate @10% $ 5,872,236
Total Construction Costs $ 61,654,088
Right-of-Way $ -
Utilities Reimbursement $ 3,222,852
TOTAL $ 64,876,940

71 of 77
 P.I. No. 0009542
DeKalb County

Asphalt Paving

Traffic Control

Sound Barrier Walls

Grading Complete

Asphalt Cement - Price

Adjustment

Retaining Walls

Drainage

Class A Concrete

Base

Fuel Price Adjustment

Signing and Marking

Milling

Concrete Barriers

ITS

Erosion Control

Chain Link Fence

Temporary Barrier System

Guardrails

Miscellaneous Roadway Items

Field Engineers Office

0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000 9,000,000 10,000,000

72 of 77
 CUSTOMER FUNCTION/TASK DIAGRAM
P.I. No. P.I. No. P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road
Collector-Distributor System
Dekalb County
HOW WHY

Reduce Segregate
Conflicts Traffic

Increase Build CD
Capacity Lanes
Enhance
Operations
ImproveTraffic Route
Assure Access Stormwater
Convenience
Maintain
SCOPE LINE

Access during
Construction

Assure Meet
Dependability Standards

Reduce Noise Deflect Noise

Satisfy
User
Minimize
Environmental Absorb Noise
Impacts

Attract Improve
User Aesthetics

73 of 77
 DESIGNER PRESENTATION
MEETING PARTICIPANTS
Geogia Department of Transportation February 9, 2010
P.I. No. 0009542
DeKalb County

NAME ORGANIZATION & TITLE E-MAIL PHONE

Lisa Myers GDOT - Engineering Services [email protected] 404-631-1770

James K. Magnus GDOT-Construction [email protected] 404-631-1971

Matt Sanders GDOT-Engineering Services [email protected] 404-631-1752

Ken Werho GDOT-Traffic Operations [email protected] 404-635-8144

Charles McDuff, PE, CVS PBS&J [email protected] 919-576-4017

Luke Clarke, PE, AVS PBS&J [email protected] 205-746-4615

Kevin Martin, Esq., AVS PBS&J [email protected] 205-969-3776

Ramesh Kalvakalva, PE, AVS CSI [email protected] 770-312-2014

Keith Kunst Arcadis [email protected] 770-431-8666

Steve Callis Arcadis [email protected] 770-431-8666

Prasoon Sinha Arcadis [email protected] 770-431-8666

Tyler Denning Arcadis [email protected] 770-431-8666

Robin Stevens Arcadis [email protected] 770.431-8666

Marlo Clowers GDOT-IPD [email protected] 404-631-1713

Melanie Nable GDOT-Environmental Services [email protected] 404-631-1144

Bill Duvall GDOT-Bridge Design [email protected] 404-631-1883

Mike Dover GDOT-IPD [email protected] 404-631-1733

74 of 77
 VE TEAM PRESENTATION
MEETING PARTICIPANTS
Geogia Department of Transportation February 12, 2010
P.I. No. 0009542
DeKalb County

NAME ORGANIZATION & TITLE E-MAIL PHONE

Lisa Myers GDOT - Engineering Services [email protected] 404-631-1770

James K. Magnus GDOT-Construction [email protected] 404-631-1971

Matt Sanders GDOT-Engineering Services [email protected] 404-631-1752

Charles McDuff, PE, CVS PBS&J [email protected] 919-576-4017

Luke Clarke, PE, AVS PBS&J [email protected] 205-746-4615

Kevin Martin, Esq., AVS PBS&J [email protected] 205-969-3776

Ramesh Kalvakalva, PE, AVS CSI [email protected] 770-312-2014

Keith Kunst Arcadis [email protected] 770-431-8666

Steve Callis Arcadis [email protected] 770-431-8666

Tyler Denning Arcadis [email protected] 770-431-8666

Marlo Clowers GDOT-IPD [email protected] 404-631-1713

Bill Duvall GDOT-Bridge Design [email protected] 404-631-1883

Mike Dover GDOT-IPD [email protected] 404-631-1733

Jennifer Giersch FHWA [email protected] 404-562-3653

75 of 77
 CREATIVE IDEA LISTING
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation SHEET NO.: 1 of 2
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road –
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
NO. IDEA DESCRIPTION RATING

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (AC)

AC-1 Utilize a 10’ in-lieu of a 12’ outside shoulder on collector/distributor 4
(CD) lane
AC-2 Coordinate with planned maintenance resurfacing project (P.I. No. 4
M003234)
AC-3 Utilize 4% cross-slope on outside shoulders in tangent sections 4
AC-4 Utilize 10’ paved shoulders on I-20 mainline 2
AC-5 Utilize 11’ travel lanes on CD 2
AC-6 Utilize 11’ travel lanes on I-20 widening 1
AC-7 Use full depth pavement on inside shoulders 2
AC-8 Improve inside shoulder for traffic shift between Snapfinger Cr Bridge 3
and Miller Road Bridge
AC-9 Replace Miller Road Bridge 3
AC-10 Optimize lane drops 2
AC-11 Reconfigure CD road at Wesley Chapel Road 3

MISCELLANEOUS (MS)
MS-1 Use precast in lieu of cast-in-place structures 3
MS-2 Use single ConSpan-type structure at Cobb’s Creek 3
MS-3 Use double-sided guardrail in-lieu of concrete barrier rail to separate 4
CD-GP lanes
MS-4 Use corrugated metal pipe for CD drainage 4
MS-5 Use slab span for 4 – 10’ x 12’ box extension 2
MS-6 Use “HOV” striping to separate CD from general purpose lanes 2
MS-7 Use open graded friction course (OGFC) in lieu of porous European Mix 2
(PEM)
MS-8 Use micromill/inlay on mainline 2
MS-9 Use ramp meters to manage flow 2
MS-10 Use two lane flyover at Miller Road 2
Rating: 12 = Not to be Developed; 3 = Varying Degrees of Development Potential;
45 = Most likely to be Developed; DS = Design Suggestion; ABD = Already Being Done

76 of 77
 CREATIVE IDEA LISTING
PROJECT: Georgia Department of Transportation SHEET NO.: 2 of 2
P.I. No. 0009542
I-20 Eastbound from I-285 to CR 5150/Panola Road –
Collector Distributor System
DeKalb County
NO. IDEA DESCRIPTION RATING

RETAINING WALLS (RW)

RW-1 Use MSE walls in-lieu of cast-in-place concrete retaining walls 5
RW-2 Use modular block walls in-lieu of cast-in-place walls 1
RW-3 Provide soil stabilization in-lieu of wall construction 4
RW-4 Selectively lower wall height 1
RW-5 Selectively reduce wall length See RW-3
RW-6 Selectively use Gabion Baskets 1
RW-7 Use gravity walls where appropriate 2
RW-8 Construct earthen shoulders where appropriate 4
RW-9 Affix sound walls to retaining walls where appropriate 5
RW-10 Use sheet piles in lieu of concrete retaining walls 4

SOUND BARRIERS (SB)

SB-1 Eliminate sound barriers 1
SB-2 Selectively reduce length of sound barriers 1
SB-3 Defer sound barrier walls on westbound roadway 4
SB-4 Defer sound barriers for undeveloped subdivision areas (between 4
Snapfinger Creek and Miller Road Eastbound)
SB-5 Selectively reduce height of sound barriers 1
SB-6 Selectively use earth berms in-lieu of sound barriers 2
SB-7 Use HESCO baskets in lieu of sound walls See RW-3
SB-8 Use European planter baskets in lieu of sound walls 2
SB-9 Relocate sound barriers to be adjacent to shoulder to save trees 5

Rating: 12 = Not to be Developed; 3 = Varying Degrees of Development Potential;

45 = Most likely to be Developed; DS = Design Suggestion; ABD = Already Being Done

77 of 77