Got a major road project coming up soon? Chances are if you don’t now, you probably will in the near future. With much of the interstate system more than 30 years old, the reconstruction of major sections is almost a certainty.
Is your project a critical transportation link in your area? Something that will impact the mobility of thousands of motorists and truckers every day for months or even years to come while the roadwork is done? A project whose work-zone congestion could become a public relations nightmare? Have you considered any alternatives to the potential for extended work-zone traffic congestion and increased crashes and incidents?
Here’s one: Close the road. Completely.
What, you say incredulously? You know I can’t close the road completely. The backups will be too long, the public won’t allow it, it’ll cost too much and besides I don’t have adequate alternative roads.
Practically every one of those arguments against closing a road for repair, repave or complete rebuild has been satisfactorily addressed and disproved by a number of state transportation departments across the U.S. And, oh yes, some projects using full closure actually saved a considerable amount of money, both in construction costs and time saved by closing the road completely, rather than using a series of individual lane closures. But not having alternative routes that can absorb the detoured traffic is indeed a reason for concern when considering this approach. However, even that drawback has been overcome by some states that have closed roads completely only during off-peak periods.
While closing a road completely may seem like a drastic measure, when used in the appropriate situations the benefits outweigh the inconvenience and complications that may arise.
Still skeptical? Here are some projects that were done under full closure, together with benefits, caveats and lessons learned on each project.
The rains are coming
In Portland, Ore., the I-84 corridor is one of the area’s most heavily traveled highways, serving as a major interstate freight and commuter route to the downtown area. After wear from more than 20 years of traffic, including heavy commercial truck traffic, the pavement had begun to experience severe rutting. Although the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) had planned to rehabilitate 33 lane-miles of I-84 (5.5 miles of the six-lane roadway) in 2005, the condition of the road was worsening and ODOT decided that would be too long to wait to effect repairs. The rapidly deteriorating condition of the roadway plus the late-season availability of funds led ODOT to tackle the project sooner.
Initially, ODOT planned a half-width construction program, with traditional work-zone lane closures. But immediately after the contracts were let in June 2002, ODOT engineers recommended that full-road closure be implemented to accelerate the project and enable it to be completed in the summer before the rainy season began. A change order was implemented on the existing contract, and full weekend closure was planned for the paving elements and temporary striping. Unfortunately, this late change did not allow time for ODOT to include in the contract all ancillary work to be performed on the barrier walls, inlet, manhole work or permanent striping. This work was performed after the full closure using normal work-zone procedures. In addition, no incentive or disincentive clauses could be added to the contract at such a late date.
Still, using full closure was expected to minimize the overall disruption to the traveling public from the rehabilitation work by increasing work-zone mobility and safety. The original plan called for partial closure for a total of 32 nights. In contrast, the full closure allowed the work to be completed in just two weekends, with eastbound lanes closed on the first weekend and traffic detoured and westbound lanes closed the following weekend with traffic detoured.
Before the actual project started, studies were conducted to assess the effect of fully closing part of I-84. ODOT used an equilibrium assignment transportation model to be sure the detour routes could accommodate the increased traffic. The model predicted that traffic on the detour routes during the full-closure periods on the weekends would be comparable to existing weekday peak-period traffic. To accommodate this increase, traffic signals were reset to weekday settings during the closure. Even with another full closure under way at nearby I-5, the signal re-timing on the detour routes was the only change necessary.
ODOT recognized that public outreach would be essential to the success of this project. Even though the closure reduced project workdays by 85%, the public and stakeholders needed a full explanation for the closure and how it would be expected to affect their lives. ODOT also took this opportunity to cite the safety benefits accruing both to workers and drivers from not having active work zones disrupting traffic during the repaving phase.
The outreach effort began with development of a call list that included local businesses, entertainment venues, travel agents, satellite mapping software services, emergency service providers and local associations. Mailers, radio ads, TV commercials, news stories, fliers, newsletters and messages on the project’s website were used both in advance and during the closure to assist in informing everyone of what was happening. Citizens and travelers paid attention to the messages. The project website broke a record with double the number of hits that had previously been recorded for an ODOT website.
Conclusions
ODOT project personnel estimated that using full closure for this project saved the state about $100,000; 70% from improved contractor efficiency and 30% from reduced traffic-management costs. Project personnel also noted that savings on this $5 million project could have been significantly greater had full closure been a part of the project specification in the very beginning.
Because the lanes were completely closed, the contractor was able to have a higher rate of productivity. The continuous work period also resulted in a higher quality of pavement because of fewer joints, and hence a quieter ride. About 40,000 tons of asphalt were delivered and laid in less than 100 hours. Two asphalt plants were employed; the redundancy paid off, because one of the plants broke down during the second weekend.
Because full closure eliminates the traveler and worker interaction that occurs in work zones, there were no serious crashes or injuries on this project during the full-closure phase.
The extensive public outreach and educational program contributed greatly to the public’s positive view of the project. ODOT personnel reported that they received more than 50 phone calls and e-mails from travelers and citizens pleased with the way the project was handled. In fact, ODOT said it did not receive any complaints, highly unusual on a project with this much visibility.
Fix the Six
In 2002, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) decided to take on an ambitious reconstruction program involving six major travel routes in and around the city of Detroit. They assigned a name to the effort “Fix Detroit 6” and began the planning process that is so important to the success of any project.
One of the six routes was on a state road (M-10), a highway that mainly serves commuter traffic and other travelers to the downtown business district, attractions such as the Joe Louis Hockey Arena and entertainment venues, and two border crossings to Canada: the Windsor Detroit Tunnel and the Ambassador Bridge. This was a major rebuilding project, including not only the reconstruction of 1.27 miles of roadway (7.6 lane-miles) but also the repair, removal or replacement of five bridges.
Initially, the planning showed that this and the other five construction projects would have to be spread out over two construction seasons. For the M-10 project, the desire to have it completed in one season led to the recommendation of full closure in both directions during the summer months, specifically the months of July and August 2002.
But the city of Detroit initially objected to completely shutting down the route. Full closure, it was noted, could affect access to downtown traffic, sporting venues and businesses. “M-10 is the main entrance to downtown Detroit,” said Maryann Mahaffey, president of the Detroit City Council.
But MDOT was able to convince the city that using full closure would reduce the negative effects of the project and lessen the time that detours and work zones would have to be in place. MDOT met with the city and local businesses to develop ways to address stakeholder concerns. For example, concessions were made to accommodate area events. Construction closures did not begin until July, allowing full access to the hockey arena to be maintained until the hockey season and playoffs were completed. To address the concerns of area casinos also depending on M-10 for access, additional road signs to direct customers to the casinos, as well as other attractions, were installed. These actions eased the city’s concerns.
“We chose to close an entire stretch of (M-10) in the downtown area in the summer of 2002 for reconstruction, opting to get it done quicker, at a lower cost, rather than spread the construction over two seasons,” said Mahaffey.
A project affecting 97,900 vehicles per day, as did the M-10 work, required an extensive public outreach and communications program. The Fix Detroit 6 program included an initiative that provided public information to Detroit residents and travelers on the six major projects being done in the Detroit area. The cornerstone of this program was a comprehensive website that provided up-to-date information, including closures and project progress. Travelers also could opt to get project- or route-specific detour information through e-mails as changes were made. The Fix Detroit 6 initiative also included distribution of fliers in the Sunday Detroit Free Press newspaper. The fliers highlighted the project’s purpose and status, and locations of diversion routes. Television and radio covered the M-10 project and local transportation columnists provided significant coverage of the closures.
Conclusions
Fully closing the road in both directions meant that the contractor had more space for equipment and material staging and operation. There was no necessity for a constant routine of work-zone setup and removal. This entirely eliminated the construction worker/traffic interface, which eliminated crashes in the work zone. Project personnel noted that contractor damage claims also were dramatically lower than they would have been for typical projects not using full closure, demonstrating reduced negative impacts to motorists and potential improvements to safety. MDOT found that a downside to full closure was the potential for theft and vandalism because local or state police do not routinely patrol fully closed freeways.
Full closure significantly shortened the project’s duration. Incentives built into the A + B contract provided for $25,000 per day for early completion. With full closure the M-10 project was scheduled to be completed in 65 days. The contractor beat that deadline by 12 days, finishing it in 53 days and earning his company a substantial bonus.
While it is difficult to determine the overall cost savings from using full closure, MDOT engineers estimated that the maintenance of traffic cost for this project would be about 1.3% of the bid price. Typically, traffic maintenance costs for a project this size would be more in the neighborhood of 5-10% of the project cost, a number that far exceeds the bonus given the contractor for early completion of this $12.5 million project. Additionally, the traveling public realized substantial savings in user costs because they didn’t experience two construction seasons of higher than usual congestion.
Inner-city roadway construction often involves infrastructure with substantial utility lines. If they are older lines, the chances are good that they will be difficult to locate. This could result in unpredictable delays, significantly impacting the duration of the full closure. In the M-10 project, there was one bridge that carried a substantial number of utilities. This issue was addressed by making the redecking component a separate item in the contract and not including it in the A + B requirements.
One of the key issues in deciding to implement full closure is the availability of alternative detour routes. There were several useful detours that were signed so motorists could find their way around the closed portion of the roadway. MDOT’s experience also has shown that vehicle load on alternative travel routes tends to balance out about two weeks after the closure is implemented. MDOT engineers found that many drivers will find their own routes around the closed facility, potentially reducing congestion on the detours.
“We’re Closing I-95!”
The Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) faced a problem when it took a hard look at the condition of I-95, the main north-south interstate on the East Coast. The stretch under consideration was between two major East Coast cities: Wilmington, Del., and Philadelphia. The highway was over 30 years old and in poor condition. Yet it still managed to carry 100,000 vehicles a day, with some 11,000 being commercial vehicles.
In need of complete rebuilding were 6.1 miles (24.4 lane-miles) of roadway. Included were 10 interchange ramps, bridges, the drainage system, lighting and safety features.
In looking at project options, total closure became a key consideration. Partial closure during non-peak hours would not be possible because peak traffic hours had expanded dramatically, making the time interval between them too short to do any meaningful rehabilitation.
Because of the wide consequences that full closure would have on the area, DelDOT decided to form a partnership with the many stakeholders involved. These included political leaders, community activists, business leaders, government officials and the general public. The partnership worked together to develop and implement a program of public outreach and operational improvements.
An extensive public outreach campaign was undertaken, starting two years in advance of the roadwork. This included the publication of a “survival guide,” taking out ads in local newspapers and outreach events and public meetings. In a very unusual move, a radio station was purchased to relate traffic and travel information, an action that gave the area a permanent outlet for broadcasting information on future highway projects.
A parallel interstate route existed for the detour, making the decision to implement full closure much easier. It was estimated that 35% of the 100,000-plus vehicles daily was through traffic and would not incur much inconvenience from the detour. To handle local traffic, many improvements were made, including retiming of traffic signals, adding and improving left-hand turn lanes, adding capacity to ramps, deploying intelligent transportation systems, enhancing rail service and providing additional bus service to downtown locations. The improvements continued to reduce traffic congestion even after the project was completed.
Conclusions
Some additional lessons were learned on this full-closure project:
Maintenance of traffic costs were reduced on this project. Engineers estimated that these costs were about 2% of the project cost, down from the traditional 5-10%. While the overall cost of this full-closure project was higher than if it had been staged with traditional maintenance of traffic methods, much of the higher cost was attributed to the permanent improvements made at the local level that provide benefits beyond this project. These improvements continued to reduce congestion after the project concluded.
On a project of this magnitude, prequalifying contractors is important. For this project, contractors were required to prequalify based on their capability with respect to manpower, equipment and asphalt production.
Involving public affairs people from the very inception of the project is vital to any full-closure project. In this case, the public affairs people were instrumental in informing the public from the beginning, two years prior to the actual construction.
One of the biggest incentives in any full-closure project is the reduction in time to complete the project. In the I-95 reconstruction, project duration was reduced from two years to 185 days by using full closure.
TME
RSS: Roads & Bridges Articles
