2009 AASHTO Value Engineering Conference. How VE and Decision Analysis are Improving Mobility across Borders 6/22/09

Transcription

1 2009 AASHTO Value Engineering Conference How VE and Decision Analysis are Improving Mobility across Borders By Mark Baza, Nicola Bernard, & Rob Stewart District 11 of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recently completed a Value Analysis (VA) study for the new State Route 11 (SR 11) Highway project. This project will provide the transportation infrastructure that will connect the planned Otay Mesa East border crossing with Mexico to the existing state highway system. One of the primary challenges of this project is the need to meet the goals and objectives of a diverse group of stakeholders that includes the Federal Highway Administration, General Services Administration, San Diego County, City of San Diego, San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), and Caltrans. This study utilized advanced decision support software called Decision Lens to assess the value of various design concepts, identify project issues, develop stakeholder consensus and guide the VA process in improving upon the initial design concepts. This paper will discuss the impact of the VA study from a project management perspective and the tools and techniques that made it successful. About the Authors: Mark Baza has been working for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for 19 years, and over the past nine years as a Senior Transportation Planner and Project Manager. Mark is the Project Manager for the State Route 11 and Otay Mesa East Port or Entry project, and has been managing a portfolio of other transportation projects that provide access to land ports of entry with Mexico and the marine terminals of San Diego. Prior to project management, Mark was responsible for regional and statewide planning, coordinating on behalf of Caltrans the future development of our highway, transit and freight rail corridors for San Diego and Imperial counties. Nicola Bernard has over 20 years experience as a Transportation Engineer at Caltrans. She has worked in Advanced Planning, Design and CADD Support and, for the past 6 years, as a Senior Transportation Engineer leading both CADD Support and Design groups. She is currently the Design Manager for the SR 11 project. Robert B. Stewart, CVS Life, PMP is Executive Vice President of Value Management Strategies, Inc. Rob has over 20 years of experience in leading value studies and is the author of Fundamentals of Value Methodology, published in He has been working as a consultant to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for nearly a decade and has led more than 70 studies on Caltrans projects during that time. 1

2 Introduction District 11 of the California Department of Transportation recently completed a Value Analysis (VA) study for the new SR 11 Highway project. This project will provide the transportation infrastructure that will connect the planned Otay Mesa East border crossing with Mexico to the existing state highway system. One of the primary challenges of this project is the need to meet the goals and objectives of a diverse group of stakeholders that includes the Federal Highway Administration, General Services Administration, San Diego County, City of San Diego, San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), and Caltrans. This study utilized advanced decision support software called Decision Lens to assess the value of various design concepts, identify project issues, develop stakeholder consensus and guide the VA process in improving upon the initial design concepts. This paper will discuss the impact of the VA study from a project management perspective and the tools and techniques that made it successful. Project Overview This project proposes to construct SR 11, a new freeway that will begin at the proposed SR 905/SR 125 junction and end at the future East Otay Mesa Land Port of Entry (LPOE) at the international border with Mexico. The total facility will be approximately 2 miles long. The future East Otay Mesa LPOE was identified by state and local governments in the United States and Mexico as necessary to alleviate existing congestion and accommodate future growth in trade and traffic between San Diego, California and Tijuana, Baja California. The scope of the SR 11 Project includes the LPOE facilities as they pertain to the environmental process. The LPOE itself will be designed and constructed by the U.S. General Services Administration. SR 11 will provide access to this future border crossing location. The project is in the Project Approval/Environmental Document (PA/ED) phase, as a project level Tier 2 EIR/EIS is being developed. The SR 11 Project objectives are to: Alleviate congestion at the existing San Ysidro and Otay Mesa LPOEs (this might also alleviate congestion at the Tecate LPOE) Accommodate traffic increases for projected regional growth Provide additional vehicle (cargo and passenger occupied) throughput capacity at the LPOE The cost of this project is estimated to vary between $387 million (FY 2013) and $499 million (FY 2013) dollars, exclusive of project support costs. It is anticipated that SR 11 will operate as a toll based facility and that revenues collected from it will be used to pay for the construction costs. At the time of the Value Analysis study, there were initially four design alternatives being considered. These included: Two Interchanges Two Interchanges with Southbound Collector Distributor System Texas U Turn Single Interchange 2

3 The design alternative presented in the Tier 1 Environmental Document most closely resembled the Two Interchange design alternative (Figure 1). This concept was also consistent with the County of San Diego s General Plan. Value Analysis Objectives The objectives of the Value Analysis study included: Figure 1 Two Interchanges Design Alternative Evaluate the current design alternatives to assess their performance, cost and value using the Value Metrics process. Perform a qualitative risk analysis for each of the design alternatives. Develop VA alternatives that will improve project value. Value Metrics & Decision Lens The Value Metrics process was facilitated for this project using a sophisticated decision support software package called Decision Lens. Decision Lens is based on advanced analytical methods designed to support decision makers in structuring decisions, quantifying intangible factors and evaluating choices in a comprehensive and rational framework. The underlying methodology, called the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), was first developed by mathematician and decision scientist Dr. Thomas Saaty while he was a professor at the Wharton School of Business. His methods have been applied to assist organizations in allocating billions of dollars towards selecting the best projects, vendors, people and organizational strategies. 3

4 The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) enables decision makers to structure decisions hierarchically with the overall goal of the decision at the top of the model, strategic objectives in the higher levels, evaluation criteria in the middle levels, and alternative choices at the bottom. The AHP provides a structured framework for setting priorities on each level of the hierarchy using pair wise comparisons, a process of evaluating each pair of decision factors at a given level on the model for their relative importance with respect to their parent. The consistency of the judgments is tracked using the rigorous math analytics behind the AHP to validate the decision process. In cases where inconsistency is above 10% it is recommended that the criteria and judgments be revisited. Decision makers are then able to create a model of their priorities where the weight of the decision is distributed from the goal downwards. If a user increases the weight of a criterion, the alternatives that performed well on that criterion will always get higher scores. This sensitivity analysis is portrayed graphically in the Decision Lens software products and is extremely valuable for testing the impact of changing priorities on alternative business decision choices. The software makes use of independent voting consoles whereby each participant inputs their decision data in real time. At each phase of the process, group discussions were held to consider the rationale of the decision makers and improve the common understanding of the objectives. Seven major Performance Attributes were identified by the project stakeholders. attributes were further broken down into sub attributes. These included: Some of these Performance Attributes o Mainline Operations o SR 11 Mainline Operations o Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Facility (CVEF) Operations o LPOE Operations o Toll Operations o Local Operations o Enrico Fermi Rd. Operations o Alta Rd. Operations o Siempre Viva Rd. Operations o Other Local Road Operations o Land Use Compatibility o Maintainability o Environmental Impacts o Construction Impacts o Temporary Traffic Impacts o Temporary Environmental Impacts o Project Schedule o Pre Construction Schedule o Construction Schedule 4

5 A pair wise comparison utilizing AHP was first performed to determine the relative importance of the Performance Attributes in meeting the project s function, Connect Routes. The Performance and Cost Attributes were evaluated independent of one another. Figure 2 shows the facilitation of the pairedcomparisons process using Decision Lens. Figure 2 Paired Comparison Process The use of Decision Lens provided a catalyst for drawing out the differences in stakeholder opinion concerning the importance of the performance attributes. Figure 2 above shows that the majority of the stakeholders strongly preferred Mainline Operations over Local Operations with the exception of two of the stakeholders, who represented the County of San Diego. The VA Facilitator then asked the two participants why they felt that the two attributes were equally preferred, to which they responded that local operations addressed access to SR 11 which in turn supported the County s General Plan. In their eyes, access was a key factor in promoting the economic development of the region. This discussion led to an improved shared understanding of the project for all stakeholders and highlighted a key issue. The relative importance of each performance attribute is expressed as a fraction of one. Figure 3 shows the outcome of the paired comparison process. 5

6 Figure 3 Relative Importance of Performance Attributes Once the relative importance of the attributes was identified, each of the design alternatives was rated relative to each attribute. To do this, measurement scales were developed for each of the performance attributes. Figure 4 provides an example of one of the attribute scales. Maintainability Rating Definition Weight Excellent The highway facility provides the highest possible level of maintainability and far exceeds expectations when compared to comparable facilities statewide. Examples are the use of long life pavement, low maintenance water quality facilities, low maintenance structures, etc. (0.95) Good Fair Poor Very Poor The highway facility provides a high level of maintainability. The facility utilizes many low maintenance features and is better than average in terms of expected maintenance. The highway facility provides a satisfactory level of maintainability and is typical of a highway facility of this kind statewide. The highway facility is expected to require greater than normal maintenance due to existing site conditions or materials selection. The highway facility is expected require maintenance that far exceeds the norm for a facility of its kind. (0.75) (0.5) (0.25) (0.05) Figure 4 Example Performance Rating Scale 6

7 Figure 5 shows a screen shot of the performance rating process. Figure 5 Rating the Performance of the Design Alternatives Once all four of the original design alternatives were rated for each performance attribute, the total performance was calculated by multiplying the attribute weight by the performance rating to develop an adjusted score. One of the most powerful tools that Decision Lens offers is the ability to perform a sensitivity analysis by changing the relative importance (i.e., weights) of the performance attributes to see how it affects the final scoring. Using this tool, the VA Facilitator was able to respond to the County s previous concerns related to the importance of Mainline and Local Operations. Although the initial analysis showed indicated a strong preference for Mainline Operations over Local Operations (0.29 vs. 0.11), the weights were adjusted to show equal preference using the sensitivity analysis function. The results showed that the relative scores of the design alternatives did not significantly change. The stakeholders representing the County felt more comfortable with the quality of the analysis once this was demonstrated. This greatly contributed to developing a stronger group consensus. The outcome of the performance assessment indicated that the Single Interchange design alternative offered the highest overall performance (Figure 6). 7

8 Figure 6 Sensitivity Analysis Conceptual cost estimates prepared by the design team were used to represent the construction and right of way costs. These quantities were then used to develop a Value Index, which is the product of the performance score (P) divided by the cost (C) as expressed in $ millions. This information is presented in the Value Matrix in Figure 7. When factoring in cost, the Single Interchange design alternative still prevailed in terms of providing the highest overall value. VALUE MATRIX Design Alternatives Performance ( P ) Cost ( C ) Value Index (P/C) Normalized Value Index Texas U Turn % Two Interchanges w/sb CD System % Two Interchanges % Single Interchange at Alta Rd % Figure 7 Value Matrix 8

9 Value Analysis Based on the outcome of the initial evaluation of the design alternatives, the VA team focused on identifying VA alternatives that would improve the value of the design alternatives that offered the highest initial value, namely the Two Interchange and Single Interchange options. The VA team developed five VA alternatives. Four of these alternatives addressed a number of operational issues identified in the original Two Interchange concept and significantly enhanced its performance while achieving savings of about $7.6 million in project costs. Specifically, the VA alternatives will eliminate weaving between the southbound SR 125 to eastbound SR 11 connector and the Enrico Fermi Drive off ramp. Further, it provided additional storage on segregated passenger and commercial vehicle lanes for traffic moving into and out of the new LPOE. These alternatives were combined to create a new modified version of the original Two Interchange concept. In addition, another VA alternative was incorporated into the original Single Interchange concept. It was felt that the inclusion of this alternative was essential in order for the Single Interchange concept to function properly. Lastly, the PDT decided to add two additional design alternatives that were not initially considered. The first included an interim No Interchange option that would then be developed into one of the design alternatives as funding became available. The second considered developing a Partial Interchange at Siempre Viva Rd. These two design alternatives, along with the VA Team s Modified Two Interchange concept, were added to the analysis using Decision Lens. The results are shown in Figure 8. VALUE MATRIX Design Alternatives Performance ( P ) Cost ( C ) Value Index (P/C) Normalized Value Index Texas U Turn % Two Interchanges w/sb CD System % Two Interchanges % Partial Interchange at Siempre Viva % Single Interchange at Alta Rd % Modified Two Interchanges (VA Concept) % No Interchange % Figure 8 Value Matrix The results of this analysis indicate that the VA Team s Modified Two Interchange concept provides the highest overall value of the ultimate configuration options and nearly as high as the No Interchange interim concept. This option is currently being advanced as the preferred option for the project. 9

10 Project Management Perspective A primary goal of the VA study was to identify additional design alternatives other than the original twointerchange concept for consideration in the Tier II environmental process. The time frame for conducting study was extremely valuable because the Caltrans team had identified various operational and design constraints to the two interchange concept during the Tier I environmental process. The external stakeholders also recognized the potential operational and design challenges but were uncomfortable with the possibility of adding design alternatives that might be inconsistent with the long established land use plans and the Tier I environmental study. At the conclusion of the Tier I study it was also evident that some community representatives and property owners were very supportive of the two interchange concept. In addition, there was an urgent need to identify the primary design alternatives that would be analyzed in the Tier II environmental study. The Value Analysis study and process provided the VA team an opportunity to consider and evaluate some traditional and non traditional alternatives. The process allowed each of the stakeholders (Caltrans internal and external public agencies) to develop a better understanding of the potential constraints to the original two interchange concept and to provide input reflecting their respective priorities and concerns to the proposed alternative designs considered in the VA study. Conclusion At the conclusion of the Value Analysis study, the VA team members were able to collectively understand the rationale for selecting the following key alternatives that would be analyzed in the Tier II environmental study: 1. Two Interchange Alternative 2. Modified Two Interchange Alternative 3. Single Interchange Alternative at Alta Road 4. No Interchange Alternative The VA Study, through the application of the Value Metrics process and the Decision Lens software, enabled each stakeholder to relate their highest priorities to the various alternatives evaluated and to clearly see how their input was taken into consideration. For each of the stakeholders, this led to an improved and shared understanding of one of the project s key important issues for the project and the community. 10