Highway QualityCompendium

JANUARY 2007

Archive

d

NOTICE

This publication is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department ofTransportation in the interest of information exchange. The report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Governmentdoes not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ namesappear in the publication only because they are considered essential to the object of this document.

Archive

d

i

Foreword 1

Building Quality into Highways 3

New NHI Course Presents Strategies for Managing Construction Workmanship 5Focus, July 2006

Highways for LIFE: Changing the Way Today’s Infrastructure Is Built 7Focus, September 2005

Dispelling Highway Construction Myths 9Peter Kopac, Public Roads, May/June 2005

What If We Changed the Way Highways Are Built? 15Charles Churilla, Public Roads, May/June 2004

The Future Is Now 21Kathleen Bergeron, Public Roads, May/June 2004

Quality Assurance 35

The Road to Quality Assurance 37Focus, April 2006

Percent Within Limits: The Quality Measure of Choice 38Focus, March 2006

A Brief History of Highway Quality Assurance 40Richard M. Weed, TR News, November/December 2005

Maintenance Quality Assurance: Learning from Your Peers 43Focus, November 2004

Performance Standards and Performance Warranties 45

The Case for Performance Standards 47Cheryl Allen Richter, Public Roads, May/June 2004

Pavement Warranties Yield Innovation, Quality 53Focus, January/February 2003

Pavement Warranties: Learning from the European Experience 55Focus, January/February 2003

Table of Contents

Archive

d

Customer Satisfaction 59

Helping Roadway Contractors Fulfill Public Expectations 61Kathleen Bergeron, Public Roads, March/April 2006

Sometimes Quality Is in the Eye of the Beholder 67Kathleen Bergeron, Public Roads, May/June 2004

National Partnership for Highway Quality 75

Conference Captures the Many Faces of Highway Quality 77Focus, April 2006

Iowa Launching 79Bob Templeton, Roads & Bridges, February 2006

A Commitment to Quality 80Dennis Merida, Roads & Bridges, January 2004

Asset Management 83

Asset Management: Working for You 85Dave Geiger, Focus, December 2005

Formula for Success 88Jim Sorenson, Public Roads, November/December 2005

Accelerated Construction 97

ACTT Now 99Focus, October 2005

Teaming Up to Accelerate Lake Washington’s Floating Bridge Project 101Focus, May 2004

Project Pegasus: TxDOT Accelerates the Reconstruction of Dallas Interstate 103Focus, October 2003

Asphalt 105

Asphalt’s Generation of Change 107Tom Kuennen, Better Roads, November 2003

Innovations in Hot-Mix Asphalt 112David Newcomb, Better Roads, November 2003

Concrete 115

Advancing the Future of Concrete Pavement Technology 117Focus, August 2005

Achieving Concrete’s Full Potential 119Theodore R. (Ted) Ferragut, Dale Harrington, and Marcia Brink, Public Roads, July/August 2005

Concrete Pavement Technology Program Introduces New and Improved Tools for Pavements 126Focus, December 2004

ii

Archive

d

Better, faster, safer, and more cost-effective. For highway practitioners across the country,

highway quality is all about achieving the shared goal of building, preserving, and main-

taining better roadways. As we move further into the 21st century, State transportation

agencies, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), highway contractors, and others

in the transportation sector are faced with a number of significant challenges. Traffic

growth and increased congestion, freight management, national security, and an ever-

increasing sensitivity to the environment are all driving forces for future highway

improvements. Along with these challenges, transportation agencies must also contend

with limited budgets and shrinking workforces, and an aging transportation system with

an increasing percentage of the infrastructure in need of significant repair. Because of

these factors, a strong focus on quality is more important than ever. All of these issues will

require significant attention to improving quality and ensuring that we get the highest

performance possible from our future highway projects.

Quality is not a single definition or a one-step process, but rather encompasses every-

thing from project planning and design to construction materials, workmanship, and

durability of the finished product. Safety characteristics, project management, and finan-

cial stewardship are all critical concerns. An attention to quality in all aspects of a high-

way project is important to producing a final product that safely and efficiently meets the

long-term needs of communities and delivers value for taxpayer dollars. We see quality in

a highway that conforms to certain design or construction standards while providing

excellent long-term performance. The public sees quality in congestion relief, increased

mobility, and safety benefits. Quality is not one characteristic but an end result that pro-

vides value to all.

ForewordBy James B. Sorenson

1

Archive

d

The articles in this compendium reflect the broad range of quality characteristics that

add up to a successful highway construction program and satisfied customers, providing

a snapshot of where we are today and where we are headed in the future. Whether it be

new technologies, innovative work techniques, well-trained and motivated employees, or

accelerated construction schedules that ease driver inconvenience, these quality practices

are making a difference in many areas across the country. As this compendium illustrates,

they are also moving us forward as we seek to meet and exceed our customers’ expecta-

tions, obtain the best system performance for the dollar amounts invested, and sustain

the public trust.

With the increased demands on today’s highway agencies, continuous quality

improvements are essential for a successful highway program. Meeting our quality goals

ultimately depends on each of us.

James B. Sorenson is the Acting Director of FHWA’s Office of Asset Management.

2

Archive

d

3

Building Qualityinto highways

Archive

d

Archive

d

The many factors involved in constructing andinspecting a highway project to ensure the desiredquality of the finished product, including legal lia-bility, risk, and quality assurance issues, are thefocus of a new 2-day course now available from theFederal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Nation-al Highway Institute (NHI). Using real-life examples,“Managing Construction Workmanship” (CourseNo. FHWA-NHI-134055) looks at approaches thatwill help improve the quality of field decisions, withthe goal of enhancing overall product quality andimproving long-term system performance.

“With States facing serious attrition among theirinspection forces, it’s crucial to bring up newinspectors among the ranks to give them the confi-dence and skills they need to do the job to the bestof their ability,” says Christopher Newman ofFHWA’s Office of Asset Management. “While thereis little substitute for on-the-job experience, thiscourse educates field personnel in regard to the rolesand responsibilities of inspectors, the acceptance ofmaterials and what constitutes proper workman-ship, and the concepts and factors involved in riskand engineering analysis.”

On completion of the course, participants will beable to:

(1) Identify the components of workmanship asthey relate to highway and bridge constructionand assess their own inspection skills.

(2) Describe the construction team (owners, engi-neers, contractors, suppliers, and inspectors)and the roles of each team member in achievinggood communication and quality workman-ship.

(3) Link different types of specifications to theassociated roles and responsibilities of theinspector, contractor, engineer, and owner.

(4) Identify situations in which legal issues relatedto inspection and inspector duties affect theperformance of their assignments.

(5) Apply the basic concepts of risk assessment tocase studies from construction inspections.

Participants will also learn about various suc-cessful State training and certification programsthat lead to improved construction workmanship

5

New NHI Course Presents Strategies for

Managing Construction Workmanship

NHI’s new course on “Managing Construction Workmanship”covers the many factors involved in constructing and inspecting a highway project, including legal liability, risk, and quality assurance issues.

Archive

d

and quality, as well as how tolocate training and certificationprograms in their own jurisdic-tions.

“The course allows partici-pants to understand the nature ofconstruction inspection as well asthe expectations of both thedepartment of transportationinspection staff and the contrac-tor’s staff in completing a qualityconstruction project,” says BillBeuter of the Virginia Depart-ment of Transportation, whichhosted the course in Thornburg,Virginia, in October 2005. “Thecourse is very powerful in that itallows discussions about whatconstitutes a quality project.”

The course is designed for fieldpersonnel, from engineers to tech-nicians, who are involved in all aspects of highwayconstruction.“The ideal audience for the course willhave a mix of experience and responsibility levels so

that agency-specific practices canbe shared by more experiencedparticipants with those who arenewer to the field,” says Newman.Course materials are also appro-priate for project managers or res-ident engineers. The cost of thecourse is $270 per participant,with a minimum class size of 20and a maximum of 30. Partici-pants can earn 1.2 continuingeducation units.

For more information on thecourse content, contact Christo-pher Newman at FHWA, 202-366-2023 (email: christopher.newman@fhwa.dot.gov). To schedule thecourse, contact your local FHWAdivision office or the NHI Train-ing Team at 703-235-0534 (email:nhitraining@fhwa.dot.gov), or

visit the NHI Web site at www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov.

Reprinted from Focus, July 2006.

6

“The course allows participants to

understand the natureof construction

inspection as well asthe expectations of

both the departmentof transportationinspection staff

and the contractor’sstaff in completing

a quality construction project.”

Archive

d

It’s a new way of doing business. Just as the construc-tion of the Interstate Highway System transformedthe way America traveled over the past 50 years,the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) newHighways for LIFE program aims to bring a higherlevel of innovation and technology to improving theNation’s roadways.

At a time when congestion is on the rise, highwaysand structures are aging and requiring increasedrehabilitation and reconstruction, and road workcan bring months or years of delays, Highways forLIFE is about achieving the Long lasting, Innova-tive, and Fast construction of Efficient and safehighway infrastructure. Its goals are to:

• Improve safety• Reduce congestion due to construction• Improve quality.

“We want to get things done better, faster, safer,and cheaper,” says Kathleen Bergeron of FHWA’sHighways for LIFE team. “The key to that is creatinga culture within the highway community thatinvites innovation and rapidly adopts new practices,as well as effective technology transfer and im-proved ways for getting new technology to Statehighway agencies and practitioners faster.”

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Trans-portation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) provides $75 million in funding for Highwaysfor LIFE–$15 million for fiscal year (FY) 2006 and$20 million per year for FY 2007-2009. The programincludes demonstration construction projects,stakeholder input and involvement, technologytransfer, technology partnerships, information dis-semination, and monitoring and evaluation.

A transportation department can apply forHighways for LIFE funding for a highway project ifthe project constructs, reconstructs, or rehabilitatesa route or connection on an eligible Federal-aidhighway and uses innovative technologies, manu-

facturing processes, financing, or contracting meth-ods that meet performance goals for safety, conges-tion, and quality. The amount allocated for a High-ways for LIFE project may be up to 20 percent, butnot more than $5 million, of the total project cost.The Federal share for projects approved under thisprogram may be up to 100 percent.

The program’s technology partnerships will pro-vide incentive funding for the adaptation of proveninnovations from outside the U.S. highway commu-nity, so that the innovations are ready for use. Tech-nology transfer initiatives will market innovationsto highway practitioners and managers, introduceand deliver ready to use innovations to the highwaycommunity, and provide training and technicalassistance. Information dissemination efforts willprovide information to States, industry, the public,and FHWA about Highways for LIFE, project suc-cess stories, and innovations. Stakeholder input andinvolvement strategies will also inform States,industry, and highway users about Highways forLIFE and offer mechanisms to solicit feedback onthe implementation of the program. Through mon-itoring and evaluation, Highways for LIFE will gather information on all of the program elementsto improve the performance of the elements, docu-ment the benefits, and explain the expenditures.

The innovative technologies that the Highwaysfor LIFE program is promoting include prefabricat-ed bridge elements and systems, road safety audits,and tools and techniques for “Making Work ZonesWork Better.” Prefabricated bridge elements andsystems, ranging from substructures to entirebridges, can be manufactured offsite, under con-trolled conditions, and brought to the job site readyto install (see December 2004 Focus). Using theseprefabricated systems reduces the traffic congestionand environmental impacts of bridge constructionprojects and improves work zone safety for bothworkers and drivers. Other advantages can include

7

Highways for LIFEChanging the Way Today’s Infrastructure Is Built

Archive

d

improved constructibility, increased quality, andlower costs. More information on best practices forprefabricated bridge elements and systems anddetails on how these systems are being used aroundthe country are available online at www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/prefab.

A road safety audit (RSA) is a formal safety per-formance examination of an existing or plannedroad or intersection by an independent audit team.The RSA team assesses the crash potential and safe-ty performance of the roadway or intersection andthen prepares a report identifying potential safetyissues. Project managers can then evaluate the proj-ect plans and determine appropriate changes thatneed to be made. Additional information on RSA isavailable at safety.fhwa.dot.gov/state_program/rsa.

FHWA’s “Making Work Zones Work Better” out-reach campaign is designed to provide transporta-tion practitioners with tools, best practices, andinnovative technologies to reduce congestion andaccidents in work zones. These tools and technolo-gies include the Work Zones Best Practices Guide-book, fact sheets and case studies on State activitiesto improve mobility and safety in work zones, andthe QuickZone 2.0 software, which is being used byhighway agencies and contractors as a work zonedelay impact analysis tool (see April 2005 Focus).For more information on “Making Work ZonesWork Better” and the many resources available, visitops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz.

The Highways for LIFE Web site (www.fhwa.dot.gov/hfl) features a toolbox of information on inno-vative technologies, success stories, informationcontacts, and other resources. A Highways for LIFEworkshop on Innovation and a technical session onPerformance Goals will also be held at the January2006 Transportation Research Board Annual Meet-ing in Washington, DC. For more information onHighways for LIFE, contact Byron Lord at FHWA,202-366-1325 (fax: 202-366-3943; email: byron.lord@fhwa.dot.gov). Focus will also continue to provideupdates as Highways for LIFE implementationactivities and workshops are developed.

Reprinted from Focus, September 2005.

8

At a 2004 media event held at the construction site of the new Woodrow Wilson Bridgeoutside Washington, DC, U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta highlightedHighways for LIFE’s goals of achieving the long lasting, innovative, and fast constructionof efficient and safe highway infrastructure.

Archive

d

Sometimes when people hear or read an idea oftenenough, it becomes accepted as fact and ingrainedas a self-evident truth. Invariably, these notions arepassed on to others, and soon no one questionsthem any more. “Man was not meant to fly” wasaccepted as fact for centuries. But because a fewpeople did not accept that belief, they developed animportant means of transportation.

Part art and part science, the discipline of quali-ty assurance for highway construction aboundswith half-truths, myths, and misconceptions. Thesemyths typically originate from well-meaningsources. Some myths serve a worthy function bysimplifying the difficult to make it more under-standable. However, on the negative side, myths:

• May be partly true, but not all of the time, so they can lead to an incomplete understanding ofimportant concepts

• Encourage decisionmaking as a seat-of-the-pants approach rather than one based on factsand data

• Leave a narrow, rigid impression that stifles cre-ativity

For quality assurance to keep progressing, high-way agencies and contractors might examine sever-al key myths that have become firmly entrenched astruth. Dispelling the more persistent myths thathave gained a strong foothold can help engineersdevelop a better understanding of the concepts andprinciples needed to produce and implement soundand effective quality assurance specifications andprograms.

Myth No. 1—You Can’t Inspect Quality Into the Product

This assertion is often made to reinforce the view-point that only the highway contractor can build

quality into the product. This myth contends that itis too late for the agency to improve quality oncethe contractor’s product has been submitted foracceptance.

This is true under only one scenario, that inwhich the contractor’s product must be accepted asis, with a pay decrease being the agency’s solerecourse for deficient quality. Typically, that is notthe case in highway construction.

During construction, it is a daily occurrence foragency inspectors to reject truckloads of portlandcement or asphalt concrete. Although it does nothappen too often, the contractor is required toremove and replace entire lots exhibiting very lowquality. In some cases, inspections can lead toinplace correcting and reworking of unacceptableproduct. Some examples are pavement surfacegrinding to improve smoothness, scarification(loosening) and addition of material to increasebase course thickness, and removal and replacementof segregated or honeycombed areas to improvedurability and appearance.

One way to measure the effectiveness of a con-struction acceptance plan is by how much qualityhas improved as a result of inspection. This measureof the effectiveness of an acceptance plan is based onthe assumption that a person can inspect qualityinto the product. Practitioners of highway construc-tion quality assurance generally have overlookedthis measure. It calls for determining the differenceor ratio between the average incoming quality sub-mitted by the contractor and the average outgoingquality after inspection and rectification.

Some acceptance plans are designed to control oroptimize the average outgoing quality. These plansdepend on an initial sampling inspection to estimatethe number of defectives in a lot. When the numberis high, 100-percent inspection is conducted. Anyaccepted lot is improved by the elimination or cor-rection of defectives found during the inspection.

9

Dispelling Highway Construction Myths

by Peter Kopac

Examining a few commonly believed half-truths may help materials, structural, and pavements engineers develop sound and effective quality assurance programs.

Archive

d

Such acceptance plans have been applied mostlyin industrial situations, but they have the potentialfor various applications during highway construc-tion. To control the average outgoing quality, eitherthe highway agency or the contractor can use theacceptance plan to inspect such items as masonryunits, reinforcement bars, dowel bars, guardrail,right-of-way fence—indeed any product deliveredin bulk.

Myth No. 2—The Ultimate Goal Is Product Performance

Agencies often present this performance argumentin support of warranty specifications that hold thecontractor responsible for a specified level of pave-ment performance, as opposed to a specified level ofmaterials and construction quality. The argumentmaintains that although quality and performancego together and are both important, performanceshould be specified because it is the agency’s ulti-mate goal.

But is it really? Striving for high pavement per-formance without sufficient regard for the cost toachieve that performance level is not in keepingwith the best interests of the road user. Ideally, anagency’s goal should be neither maximizing qualitynor maximizing performance, but instead shouldconsider minimizing life cycle costs (including usercosts due to crashes, delays, noise, and so forth).

Although most developers of warranty specifica-tions consider costs in establishing performancethresholds, the established thresholds may not be atthe optimum values to also minimize life cycle costs.This issue can be addressed by developing warrantyspecifications that seek to minimize life cycle costs.Another approach would be for an agency to direct-ly specify the life cycle costs desired.

To assist agencies, the Federal Highway Adminis-tration (FHWA) developed guidance for perform-ance-related specifications that focus on minimiz-ing life cycle costs. The guide specifications arebased on pavement performance models that con-vert various levels of construction quality into esti-mated life cycle costs. The standard way for anagency to apply these specifications is to specify thedesired construction quality level and hence thedesired postconstruction life cycle cost of the pave-ment. The paving contractor can obtain a payincrease by providing a quality level that results in alower-than-specified postconstruction estimate oflife cycle cost.

Another more innovative way to apply thesespecifications might be for each potential pavingcontractor to submit a target life cycle cost as a bid.The contractor with the lowest bid is awarded theproject. Here again, the contractor can obtain a payincrease by achieving a lower-than-targeted esti-mate of life cycle cost.

Much knowledge has been gained in recent yearson the relationship between construction qualityand construction performance. Today, the weak linkin the advancement of quality assurance seems to belack of knowledge about the costs of quality andperformance. Any quality assurance effort to speci-fy or increase the level of construction performanceneeds to pay proper attention to the cost elements.

Myth No. 3—With the Evolution of SpecificationsCome Continual Improvements in Quality

Specifications evolve as a result of two general factors:

1. Advances in engineers’ knowledge of and experi-ence with the product being specified, includingthe materials, processes, and equipment

2. Political, economic, and societal demands placedon the product or on those responsible for theproduct

The first factor leads to product quality improve-ments and/or to more cost effective ways to producethe product. The second factor, however, does notnecessarily lead to quality improvements.

There are many examples of specifications evolv-ing due to items that fit into the second factor. Oneexample is the increased use of waste or recycledmaterials in highway construction. Waste and recy-cling programs may be driven more by environ-mental concerns than by the need for quality andperformance improvements. The dwindling supplyof natural resources has given little choice but toview entire pavements as potential aggregatesources that can be recycled.

The seemingly continuous downsizing of agencypersonnel is another example where specificationsare forced to evolve with little regard for theirimpact on quality. Faced with personnel reductions,some agencies are attempting to “do more with less.”Other agencies are delegating acceptance testingduties to the contractor in charge of constructionand in effect “doing less with less.” Such agencieshave placed themselves in the uncomfortable posi-

10

Archive

d

tion where their role is primarily to validate the con-tractors’ test results.

Yet another example is the steady increase of newdryer drum hot-mix asphalt plants since the 1970s,resulting in a decline in the percentage of batchplants. Dryer drum plants offer important advan-tages over batch plants in producing more tonnageper hour, operating more economically, and emit-ting fewer pollutants. However, dryer drum plantscannot supply several different mix designs in thesame production run easily (that is, without multi-ple additional silos, which would not be feasible forportability). Although they cost more to operate,batch plants also have advantages: They have theability to switch mix specifications—in the middleof a truck if needed—and there is more control overindividual components of the hot mix, such asaggregate size and gradation control. In the 1997Roads & Bridges article, “How to Choose the RightAsphalt Plant,” the author writes, “A batch plant’sstrength lies in its ability to make salable hot mixout of almost any reasonable stockpile of aggregate.”

The above examples illustrate how political, eco-nomic, and societal demands often conflict withand outweigh quality considerations. As specifica-tions evolve partly in response to these demands,the quality being specified does not necessarilyincrease continuously.

Myth No. 4—Quality Assurance SpecificationsProvide Higher Quality Than Method Specifications

This too is not necessarily true. The truth is thatquality assurance specifications have the potential toyield a higher quality.

Under method specifications, the contractor fol-lows agency-prescribed methods while using agency-approved materials and equipment. The resultingconstruction quality is thus dependent on the meth-ods, materials, and equipment described in thespecifications. The resulting quality is the minimumquality level described in those method specifica-tions. Under these specifications, the low-bid con-tractor has no incentive to use better methods ormaterials that will result in a higher quality thanthat corresponding to the specified methods andmaterials.

On the other hand, the contractor workingunder quality assurance specifications typically doeshave an incentive, in the form of positive/negativepay adjustment provisions, to provide as high a

quality as is profitable. Thus, assuming the sameminimum acceptable quality level is specified, prop-erly developed quality assurance specifications canresult in higher quality than method specifications.

The problem is that the vast majority, if not all,of comparisons of the quality produced under dif-ferent types of specifications (whether they bemethod, quality assurance, or warranty) are madewithout ascertaining the quality levels being speci-fied. Apples are not being compared to apples. Itstands to reason that if the quality level specifiedunder method specifications is greater than thatspecified under quality assurance specifications, themethod specifications will result in a higher quality,unless the difference in specified levels is so smallthat the incentive effect becomes significant. Forexample, if an agency specifies methods under themethod specification that lead to an initial Interna-tional Roughness Index (IRI) of 40, that methodspecification is likely to result in better smoothness(lower IRI) than a quality assurance specificationdesigned to provide an initial IRI of 80.

The whole point of specifications is that they aresupposed to tell the contractor what the agencywants. If the agency wants higher quality (withinreason), it should be able to describe that desiredquality level regardless of the type of specificationsit chooses to employ. Certainly, the best indicator ofthe quality to be achieved on a project is the qualitylevel being specified, not the type of specifications.The easiest and most straightforward way for anagency to obtain high quality construction is simplyto ask for it—that is, to specify it.

Myth No. 5—Percent Within Limits (PWL) Is the Ideal Quality Measure

The PWL, or its complement the Percent Defective(PD), is currently the recommended statistical meas-ure of specified materials and construction quality.Ninety percent within limits (that is, 10 percentdefective) generally is considered an acceptable qual-ity level. The basis for recommending PWL is that itnicely combines two important parameters, themean and the standard deviation, into a single qual-ity measure. For most acceptance quality character-istics, PWL provides a better measure of specifiedquality than the other single measures, such as theaverage, moving average, average absolute deviation,conformal index, and various other quality indexes.

However, PWL is far from an ideal measure. Itsmajor shortcoming is that a given specified PWL

11

Archive

d

can describe an infinite number of populations. Inthe Possible Asphalt Content Populations chart, allthree represented populations have 15 percentdefective, yet each will result in a different pavementperformance because too much asphalt contentleads to bleeding and loss of skid resistance, and toolittle asphalt content leads to early deterioration.

This leads one to conclude that PWL does notcorrelate strongly with performance. Thus, the useof the PWL quality measure is problematic for high-way agencies seeking to develop pay adjustmentschedules that truly relate measured quality toexpected performance and to the contractor’s payfactor.

Agencies need to clearly specify the quality levelthey want. Instead of trying to specify through anambiguous single quality measure such as PWL,agencies should consider another option—twoquality measures. The typical way to describe a nor-mal distribution population is by its mean and itsstandard deviation. Several agencies have used thisapproach successfully in developing pay adjustmentschedules that relate various combinations of meanand standard deviation to contractor pay factors.FHWA’s Guide to Developing Performance-RelatedSpecifications for PCC Pavements (FHWA-RD-98-155) describes such an approach.

Myth No. 6—All Pay Adjustment Schedules Provide an Incentive for Quality

The Transportation Research Board’s CircularNumber E-C037, “Glossary of Highway QualityAssurance Terms,” makes a distinction between apay adjustment schedule and an incentive/disincen-tive provision. According to the glossary, an incen-tive/disincentive provision is “a pay adjustmentschedule that functions to motivate the contractorto provide a high level of quality.” The glossary fur-ther states: “A pay adjustment schedule, even onethat provides for pay increases, is not necessarily anincentive/disincentive provision, as all possible payadjustments may not be of sufficient magnitude tomotivate the contractor toward high quality.”

A pay adjustment schedule must be developedproperly if it is intended to serve as an incentive/dis-incentive provision. To develop the provision for agiven quality characteristic such as strength, asphaltcontent, or smoothness, the agency should firstunderstand the relationship between quality and thecost to the contractor of achieving that quality.

Unless the agency has a feel for how much it costscontractors to achieve higher quality strength, forexample, the agency does not know whether its payschedule for strength provides the contractor suffi-cient incentive to produce a higher quality strength.

What complicates the matter, however, is thatmost agencies develop not one but several schedulesdesigned to function together as a pay adjustmentsystem. These agencies typically employ variouscomposite equations to combine the calculated payfactors for each individual quality characteristic. Acomposite pay factor equation often includes capsto define the minimum and/or maximum compos-ite pay factor allowed. In some cases, the inclusionof caps makes it more profitable for a contractor totarget a decreased quality level for one or more indi-vidual quality characteristics and still be assured ofobtaining a high composite pay factor.

Agencies that have pay adjustment schedulesshould do a thorough check to determine whetherthey are true incentive/disincentive provisions. TheUniversity of Florida currently is developing com-puter software for that purpose, called Prob.O.Prof,an acronym for Probabilistic Optimization for Prof-it. Using the software, a State or local department oftransportation (DOT) should be able to identifythose pay adjustment schedules and systems thatmay not provide an incentive for quality. Contrac-tors also should be able to use the software to estab-lish optimum target values that will result in maxi-mum profit.

Myth No. 7—Agencies Need Not Measure Materials and Construction Quality on a Warranty Project

This is totally untrue. The use of warranty specifica-tions does not eliminate the need for agencies tomeasure quality during construction. In fact, duringthis time period when new warranty specificationsare being developed and tried, the need for qualitytesting is of utmost importance.

Many agencies currently using warranty specifi-cations already require some minimal testing toestablish whether the contractor has achieved thespecified quality levels on key characteristics, such asthickness or strength, and therefore can be relievedof the responsibility for certain corrective or remedi-al actions that may be necessary later. Other impor-tant reasons why agencies should measure quality onwarranty projects are the following:

12

Archive

d

• To determine whether quality is improving. Arematerials and construction quality better, worse,or the same under new warranty specificationsor under the current specifications? Do warrantyspecifications, once the contractor has sufficientexperience with them, promote continuousquality improvement?

• To establish or validate the relationship betweenquality and performance. What levels of qualityneed to be built into the construction to achievevarious levels of product performance?

• To obtain an estimate of how the delivered productwill perform. When can maintenance and repairsbe expected? How long will the product last?

• To identify the possible causes of poor performance.What went wrong? What test data will the dis-pute resolution team need?

The introduction of warranty specifications hascreated a shift from agency acceptance of productquality during construction to agency acceptance ofproduct condition at the end of the warranty peri-od. Under warranty specifications, the agency needsto establish a strong independent quality assuranceprogram, or, better yet, a strong independent per-formance assurance program. Either way, agencytesting of quality during construction is somethingthat agencies cannot afford to do without.

Myth No. 8—Buyer’s and Seller’s Risks Should Be Balanced

Buyer’s (agency) and seller’s (contractor) risks arenothing more than probabilities. Simply stated, thebuyer’s risk is the probability that poor-quality con-struction will be accepted, and the seller’s risk is theprobability that good-quality construction will berejected. For the development of a constructionacceptance plan, the objective is not to balance therisks themselves but to balance the multiplied prod-uct of the risks and their consequences.

Little guidance is available on the relative appro-priate size of buyer’s and seller’s risks. The NationalCooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)Report 17, Development of Guidelines for Practicaland Realistic Construction Specifications, suggeststhe risks shown in the Buyer’s and Seller’s Riskstable on this page. The table has served to generally

define what can be considered appropriate levels ofrisk, but one should note:

1. The buyer’s and seller’s risks are not balanced(that is, not equal).

2. The balancing involves the size of the risks andtheir consequences. Highway agencies should beable to better pinpoint the optimum risks forspecific quality characteristics and specific con-sequences. To do so requires an understanding ofoperating characteristic (OC) curves.

A simple subjective way to arrive at the “opti-mum” risks is for an agency and its contractors toexamine together the OC curves for a given accept-ance plan. If either party is not satisfied with therisks, adjustments can be made to the plan, resultingin revised OC curves. An iterative process of adjust-ing the plan and examining its OC curves can be followed until a satisfactory compromise has beenreached.

To arrive at the optimum risks more objectivelyshould not be too difficult. The process involveseconomic decision theory and, like the subjectiveapproach, requires an understanding of OC curves(probabilities) and economics (cost of conse-quences). Through such an approach, an agencyalso can determine the optimum sample size (thatis, the number of samples, n) necessary to minimizethe cost of its acceptance plan. For a given accept-ance plan, the larger the n, the greater the costs asso-ciated with testing; however, the larger the n, thelower the buyer’s and seller’s risks (that is, the lowerthe probability of incurring costs associated withundesirable consequences).

Summary

The field of quality assurance is full of myths. A fewof the more common ones, discussed here, are allsimple or absolute statements that sound good orlook good at first glance. Rather than fall into thetrap of believing all simple and catchy statements,the quality assurance practitioner should give suchstatements due consideration and thought. Once amyth is identified, a better conceptual understand-ing can be reached, promoting more of the out-of-the-box thinking that is necessary for quality assur-ance to keep progressing.

13

Archive

d

References

1. Hoerner, T.E. and Darter, M.I. Guide to Develop-ing Performance-Related Specifications for PCCPavements, Volume I: Final Report. Report No.FHWA-RD-98-155. Washington, DC: FederalHighway Administration, February 1999.

2. Burati, J.L., et al. Optimal Procedures for QualityAssurance Specifications. Report No. FHWA-RD-02-095. Washington, DC: Federal HighwayAdministration, April 2003.

3. Indiana Department of Transportation. Perfor-mance-Related Specifications for Use in Determin-ing Pay Factor Adjustments. Prepared for ProjectR-25175, Interstate 65. Clarksville, IN, March2002.

4. Committee on Management of Quality Assur-ance. Transportation Research Circular NumberE-C037, Glossary of Highway Quality AssuranceTerms. Washington, DC: Transportation ResearchBoard, April 2002.

5. Vidalis, S. Investigation of the RelationshipBetween the Quality and Cost of PCC PavementConstruction. A Ph.D. dissertation for the Uni-versity of Florida. Expected to be completed inMay 2005.

6. Miller-Warden Associates. National CooperativeHighway Research Program Report 17, Develop-ment of Guidelines for Practical and Realistic Con-struction Specifications. Washington, DC: NationalResearch Council, 1965.

Peter A. Kopac is a research highway engineer on the PavementMaterials and Construction Team of FHWA’s Office of InfrastructureResearch and Development. He has more than 35 years of highway-related experience, including 28 years with FHWA. Kopac’s primaryresearch focus has been on quality assurance systems. He hasassisted numerous agencies in developing, reviewing, and analyz-ing their quality assurance specifications. He is also an active mem-ber of Transportation Research Board Committee AFH20, Manage-ment of Quality Assurance.

Reprinted from Public Roads, May/June 2005.

14

Archive

d

In 1920, rocket pioneer Robert H. Goddard outlinedthe possibility of rocket flight to the moon. The sci-entist was promptly ridiculed by no less than TheNew York Times, which erroneously stated that arocket could not work in the vacuum of space. Butwhen Apollo 11 landed on the lunar surface in 1969,The New York Times issued a belated apology to thelate Professor Goddard. Today, Goddard’s words onthe importance of dreams are still meaningful, “Ithas often proved true that the dream of yesterday isthe hope of today, and the reality of tomorrow.”

Too often, “impossible dreams” are looked to notas inspirational motivators to achieve great things,but rather as the subject of derision as foolish fan-tasies. Yet, it is just such goals that move us ahead asa civilization. Without impossible dreams and theirdreamers, the world would not have electric lights,automobiles, penicillin, or overnight delivery.

The highway community has its own “impossi-ble” dreams, such as roads without traffic fatalitiesand without congestion caused by construction.Those dreams are matched by the public’s frustra-tion with the way highways are built and main-tained. Often people ask why roads are constantlybeing torn up, why roads don’t last longer, and whythere are so many orange cones and barrels on thehighways.

These concerns reflect the feelings of the Nationas a whole, as demonstrated by several national sur-veys undertaken by the Federal Highway Adminis-tration (FHWA) a few years ago. In Moving Ahead:The American Public Speaks on Roadways and Trans-portation in Communities (FHWA-OP-01-017), theFHWA researchers concluded, “Improvements intraffic flow, pavement conditions, and work zonesmay result in the greatest rise in traveler satisfaction.Work zones are especially critical [because] travelersview road repairs as a major reason for trafficdelays.”

The State of the Existing System

The transportation community has designed andbuilt highways in this country virtually the sameway for 70 years or more. Unfortunately, thisapproach is no longer keeping pace with the grow-ing demand. Statistics reveal the dilemma:

• According to a Texas Transportation Institute(TTI) study of the Nation’s 75 largest urbanareas, the average annual delay has climbed from16 hours per person in 1982 to 62 hours in 2000.TTI estimates the cost of congestion at $78 bil-lion in 2001.

• Approximately 15,000 highway fatalities resultannually from crashes in which substandardroadway conditions, obsolete designs, or road-side hazards are a factor.

• The average age of the 257,600-kilometer(160,000-mile) National Highway System (NHS)exceeds 35 years, well beyond the original pave-ment design life.

• More than 17,710 kilometers (11,000 miles) ofNHS pavements are currently in poor condition.

• Nearly 24,000 of the interstate bridges currentlyare classified as “deficient.”

Clearly, something has to be done because high-ways are, after all, the backbone of the Nation’stransportation system. Nearly all products and serv-ices travel over highways, and U.S. citizens dependupon highways to commute to work and for per-sonal trips. But just like a favorite restaurant thatnow has a 1-hour wait for a table, highways are suf-fering under their success. The only way out is tofind a better way.

Here is a potentially impossible dream: What ifengineers were able to build highways that are safer,

15

What If We Changed the Way Highways Are Built?

by Charles Churilla

A visionary approach to building roads…faster, safer, and of better quality.

Archive

d

smoother, quieter, and overall have better quality—in days, not months or years—and have them last 50years? A tall order? In reality, this dream is no moreimpossible than Goddard’s. A significant number ofproven technologies and practices currently exist toachieve safer highways, reduce congestion due toconstruction, accelerate highway construction, andprovide longer-lasting highways. However, a greatdeal of this innovation and advanced technology ispracticed on special projects or has not risen to thelevel of common practice.

The rate of adoption of new technologies andpractices creeps along at a snail’s pace. As FHWADeputy Administrator J. Richard Capka put it,“What is needed is to bring about a leap, instead ofcreep, in their use.” Without dramatic changes inhow the transportation community promotes,delivers, and deploys innovations and technologies,the realization of better ways of building highwayswould take decades.

Can It Be Done?

Innovative technologies and practices employed tospeed construction and improve safety and qualityalready exist and are being used today. Commonlycited as examples of rapid repairs are the replace-ment of the collapsed I-40 bridge over the ArkansasRiver in Oklahoma; the reconstruction of the I-65bridge in Birmingham, AL, after a fire; and therepair of roads and replacement of the freeways andbridges in California following the Loma Prietaearthquake. The impact of these projects mandatedthat virtually all project-related functions happenedsimultaneously rather than sequentially and at agreatly accelerated pace. But although such projectsmight be thought of as excellent examples of how toget projects rebuilt quickly and safely, in actual factthey were simply unique exceptions to how businessis typically done. Because they were emergencies,they required immediate action with an associatedneed for extraordinary staffing and funding.

But what if the transportation community tookthe best practices and lessons learned on theseemergency projects and applied the principles toeveryday projects that are developed and deliveredby highway agencies and the construction industryacross the Nation, every day, as part of routine busi-ness? Such projects currently are being builtthroughout the country—so many, in fact, that aseparate article, “The Future Is Now,” in this issue of

Public Roads describes them. These exemplary proj-ects were delivered quickly with improved safetyand reduced construction congestion, and theyshould last longer. In some cases the initial cost ofconstruction is lower.

If agencies wanted to change how highways arebuilt and delivered, what would it take to bring aboutrapid change? Guiding principles for considerationin planning a new way of building and deliveringhighway projects might include:

• Do the “never been done”—by breaking out ofone’s comfort zone and changing attitudes from“I can’t and won’t” to “I can and will.”

• Involve stakeholders—from the transportationcommunity and highway users—in the develop-ment and conduct of the program.

• Utilize proven successes—technologies, materi-als, processes, and practices—in the financing,design, construction, and operation of highways.

• Be bold and audacious—break the mold to “leapand not creep.” Implementing proven technolo-gies and innovations will result in significantbenefits by producing safer highways, reducingconstruction congestion, and building longer-lasting highways.

• Keep the focus—on the motorists and highwayusers.

• Improve safety—not only during the construc-tion phase, but also to provide a safer highwayafter the orange barrels are gone.

• Reduce congestion due to construction—byaccelerating the onsite phases of constructionprocess and employing the best technologies andpractices in the management of work zone traf-fic. Note that accelerating construction does notalways translate to more people, more equip-ment, or more overtime. Sometimes it simplymeans planning the project more carefully anddoing more advance work, so that the project canbe completed more quickly once the road closureis in place.

• Extend road life significantly—by increasingdesign life, using innovative materials, and prac-ticing preservation.

• Improve highway quality—to levels that representthe best of what the transportation communityproduces.

16

Archive

d

Changing the Focus

One approach to bringing about such a paradigmshift is to change the focus. Rather than tellingbuilders and suppliers how to build a project, theyshould be given a description of what the end prod-uct must “look like,” in terms of performance stan-dards. The standards should be based on the needsof motorists, such as pavement smoothness levels,safety criteria, and the like. Then, working together,the transportation agency, the contractors, and thesuppliers can devise innovative ways of getting thejob done.

An example is Colorado’s Mitchell Gulch Bridge,replaced in 2002. The Colorado Department ofTransportation (DOT) had envisioned a traditionalbox culvert design for the new bridge, which wouldhave required 2 to 3 months of detours and delayson the road. Through the use of precast structuralunits, extensive planning, and other “value engi-neering” concepts, the bridge was replaced within48 hours, over a single weekend. As this projectshowed, performance standards foster innovationand adoption of best technologies and practices. Tobe effective, the standards should represent the bestof what the highway community has and is able toproduce.

With user-focused performance standards inhand, the DOTs, the contractors, and suppliers canwork together to develop solutions that show thedriving public what is possible. And as more andmore projects are built using performance stan-dards and the tools and technologies they foster,perceptions will change about how impossible thedream really is. How many projects? Enough to spana wide range of project sizes, types, and locations.Enough to counter the reaction, “It won’t work inmy State or under these conditions.”

To persuade these organizations to start buildinghighways and bridges with such an approach, how-ever, will require incentives and assistance toencourage and promote innovation. Another keyingredient would be to find ways to make it easierfor agencies to undertake projects that would showthe highway community, the public, and the mediahow such projects that meet user-focused perform-ance standards are built. By using innovations andtechnologies, State and local DOTs will present theircustomers with a clear picture of their capabilities,and at the same time they will be meeting the expec-tations and needs of these customers.

But building a few projects will not be enough tobring about the newer way of building and deliveringhighways. Even if a percentage of the projects werepaid for in order to motivate agencies to build themunder the new approach, once the money was spent,there would not be a change in culture. Agencieswould go right back to building roads the traditionalway.

To move the entire highway community into thisnew performance standard-driven approach, leadersfrom various areas of the transportation communitywill have to step forward. These stakeholders willhave to participate in developing a program and indelivering the innovations.

If the goal is to be successful in promotingchange in the way the industry thinks about andmanages projects, Federal, State, and local trans-portation agencies will need to develop, equip, andtrain a workforce to embrace these new innovationsand technologies. Transferring technology to usersin the field should include training for personnel inthe public and private sectors; education at the tech-nical, associate, undergraduate, and graduate levels;Web-based information systems that include all theinnovative tools and techniques; a lead State (inbusiness, this would be the “early adopter” phase ofa product/project life cycle) program similar to theStrategic Highway Research Program implementa-tion effort; and workshop and showcase events.

In the final analysis, clear evidence is essentialthat the cultural change in how projects are built isworth the energy and investment, as is evaluation of

17

Archive

d

results and clear documentation of the benefits.Widespread demonstration of successes would, inturn, provide the impetus for more extensive appli-cation of the innovative methods and technologiesin the future. Documentation would involve collect-ing facts and figures on construction conditions,costs, results, outcomes, and benefits prior to con-struction, during the work, and after completion ofthe project. One use for the documentation wouldbe to employ it for teaching the concepts and appli-cations to others in the transportation community.

If a new method of building and delivering high-ways is to become standard practice, communicatingthe information, new practices, and new innovationsis critical. Without a high level of communication,innovative approaches would remain with thosewho initially developed or employed them. In addi-tion, recounting the successes and lessons learnedby other agencies tends to instill a higher level ofunderstanding and appreciation of the challenges aswell as the benefits. There is also a bit of “keeping upwith the Joneses” involved, where learning of thesuccesses of one’s neighbors can build a friendlyspirit of competition and a desire to keep up withthe rest of the transportation community. Tellingthe public about the highway community’s push forbetter roads builds goodwill and shows an appro-priate level of response to motorists’ needs. Finally,communication has the potential of demonstratingto the local highway builders the benefits of usinginnovative tools and technologies on more of theirprojects.

Innovations on the Fast Track

Fostering innovations would facilitate the imple-mentation of innovative technologies that wouldenhance the safety and speed of highway construc-tion and the safety characteristics, quality, and dura-bility of pavements and bridges.

The purpose of fostering innovations is to:

• Stimulate investment in innovation and acceleratedeployment

• Provide improved tools to facilitate achievementof performance standards

• Provide broad access to the innovations that goeswell beyond those involved in constructing a fewprojects

• Provide an improved technology infrastructureto support highway safety, construction, andquality

To foster innovations, it would be necessary toprovide the financial impetus to move proven butunderutilized market-ready technologies and meth-ods into practice. Although research and develop-ment are important, the emphasis of an effort tofoster innovation should not be on research, butrather on innovations, technologies, practices, orprocedures that have been used successfully in somevenue or have demonstrated a clear potential forsuccessful use in the U.S. highway industry, in asso-ciated or similar fields, or internationally.

What Would Success Look Like?

So what would be accomplished as a result of suchan effort to bring about changes in building high-ways and roads? The transportation communitymight anticipate four major results: First, by build-ing a sizable number of projects throughout thecountry using new methods, a broad and dramaticimprovement in the American driving experiencecould be demonstrated. Second, a new culture ofmeeting the needs of the customers could be creat-ed. Third, an impetus to build on success would beproduced, so that the new approach sticks long afterthe initial push for change has passed. And finally,an atmosphere that can accommodate and sustainrapid change and adoption of new innovationsmight be created.

Landing a man on the moon within 10 yearsseemed a big stretch in May 1961 when PresidentJohn F. Kennedy issued his challenge to do exactlythat. It was even more of a dream back in 1920. Yetspace flight and even the concept of lunar explo-ration have become part of today’s reality. Goddard’sstatement that the dreams of yesterday can become

18

Archive

d

19

Some observers have expressed concern about the feasibilityof building highways faster, cheaper, and with better qualitywithout having to sacrifice any of those objectives. Years ago,someone came up with a chart that listed cost, time, andquality as three points of a triangle. And the idea was that youcould get a high level of achievement on any two, but thethird would have to be sacrificed. If, for example, you wantedto do a high-quality job, and you didn’t want to give up anytime, you’d have to pay more for it. That approach assumes,however, that highways would continue to be built employingthe same methods that have been used in the past. Using tra-ditional methods may mean working nights or weekends tocut construction time, which requires overtime and thus anincrease in costs. But, instead, what often happens is that acontractor may find innovative ways of building the project—outside the box—given the right incentive.

A 1999 project in Kansas, described by Martin Miller ofthe Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT), did justthat on a 12-kilometer (7.5-mile) section of Interstate 135(I–135) south of Newton. The project, which won a NationalAward for Excellence from the American Concrete PavementAssociation, was ranked “excellent” for innovations related toconstruction schedule, public involvement, and overall qualityof construction.

The first innovation, an accelerated construction schedule,was suggested by the engineering staff at KDOT District Fiveafter an office review of the construction plans. The projectoriginally was slated to be completed in two construction sea-sons, but from experience with similar projects, District Fiveengineers felt confident that contractors working in Kansascould construct it in one season. So contractors were giventhe option of providing two bids, one for completing thework in 2 years and one for a 1-year completion.

When the project was opened for bids, the winning com-pany submitted the lowest overall bid for the 2-year option($18.5 million) and also submitted a bid for the 1-year optionat $1 in additional cost. KDOT selected the 1-year schedule toreduce disruption to the traveling public.

In addition, KDOT added financial incentives to the con-tract to speed reconstruction of the interstate ramps at Exit28 (SE 36th Street). Of the three sets of ramps on this sectionof I–135, Exit 28 was the most heavily traveled, serving anoutlet shopping mall and the surrounding business commu-

Can You Really Cut Construction Time Without Paying More?

nity. The contract included a 40-day maximum closure foreach ramp, a $2,000 per day disincentive for each day overthat period. To alleviate local concerns over the impact of anextended closure period, KDOT added a $2,000 per dayincentive to the contract for early completion of the ramps.Because of the incentive, the ramps were rebuilt in 23 days,reducing the closure period and resulting traffic disruptionby 17 days.

Efforts to involve the public began prior to construction.Monthly public meetings were held at a food court in theoutlet mall, near the high-profile interstate interchange. Theconstruction work was one item on the agenda of the month-ly meetings already scheduled for outlet store tenants andsurrounding businesses.

Two main concerns surfaced during the public meetings.The first was that local businesses did not want the Exit 28ramps closed during holidays. The contractor adjusted theoriginal ramp construction schedule accordingly. The secondconcern was, “How will our customers find us during thisramp closure period?” In response, the management of themall posted signs directing customers from the nearest openI–135 interchange, using local roads. To reduce driver confu-sion and possible crashes, KDOT put up a variable messageboard in the work zone giving travelers information on theopen ramp. This cooperative signage effort was supported bythe county and the city’s chamber of commerce.

KDOT also offered incentives related to the quality of con-struction. A $93,000 smoothness incentive was paid as aresult of the pavement profile on the project. A $302,000quality incentive was paid as well. Due to the cooperativeefforts of KDOT and the contractor, and the company’s proficiency, the project was completed far ahead of the accel-erated schedule and has proven to be a high-quality highwayimprovement.

When agencies talk about incentives in highway construc-tion, it sometimes appears as though contractors are receivinga lot of extra money when they meet the criteria for theincentives. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that mostof these projects still are contracted using a “low-bid”process. Contractors who know how to do the job well willfactor the incentives they expect to earn into their bid price,thereby reducing the bid price by the anticipated incentiveamount.

Archive

d

the reality of tomorrow might give the transporta-tion community hope that with leadership, vision, aplan, and the support of a wide array of groups andindividuals, a better way of building highways cantruly be tomorrow’s reality.

Charles Churilla, P.E., is a program coordinator in FHWA’s Office ofInfrastructure. He has been with FHWA for 23 years and, prior to hiscurrent position, worked as a geotechnical engineer, pavementengineer, research engineer, implementation coordinator, andresearch program manager. Before joining FHWA, Churilla workedfor the Pennsylvania DOT from 1967 to 1981. He received a bache-lor’s of science degree in civil engineering from Pennsylvania StateUniversity.

Reprinted from Public Roads, May/June 2004.

20

Conceptually, a toolbox would provide acentral repository of information thattransportation agencies and the highwayconstruction industry can use to identifybest practices and innovative technological,contracting, and financial tools that may beuseful to a particular project, as well asresources for additional information andguidance on the application of those tools.In reality, the toolbox would likely take theform of a Web-based reference tool, whichwould contain additional resources thatagency and highway industry personnelcan access for help in identifying techno-logical, contracting, and financing toolsand methods that may be applicable totheir particular projects.

Toolbox of Knowledge

Archive

d

In this issue, several articles pose a “what if” ques-tion about a new vision for highway development.The approach envisions the construction of long-lasting roads using innovative technologies andpractices to accomplish fast delivery of efficient andsafe pavements and bridges. But is this approacheasier said than done? Are there examples out therenow, demonstrating what is possible?

State departments of transportation (DOTs) andtheir partners already are implementing many proj-ects employing one or more innovative approachesor technologies. And these examples are not allmega-budget projects; several cost only a few hun-dred thousand dollars to complete. Nor are they allemergency projects executed in response to crisissituations. Clearly, emergencies represent uniquesituations where highway officials set aside the needto hold lengthy public hearings and develop numer-ous design options because of the necessity of gettinga facility back into service quickly.

The following examples demonstrate the diversi-ty of ongoing projects. And they are not limited toone or two States but are scattered throughout thecountry.

Alabama Employs Incentives to Replace Bridge

On January 5, 2002, a loaded gasoline tanker travel-ing north on Interstate 65 (I–65) within the I–20/I–59/I–65 interchange in Birmingham, AL, crashedand burned under the I–65 southbound bridge. Thefire caused the steel girders of the main span oversouthbound I–65 to sag about 3 meters (10 feet),which required closing both northbound andsouthbound I–65. Removal of the damaged bridgebegan as soon as the wreck was cleared, and north-bound traffic was restored on January 6. The roaduser cost resulting from closure of the southboundbridge was estimated at $90,000 per day.

The department designed a new concrete girderbridge and awarded the contract on January 16;construction started on January 21. The contractallowed 90 days for completion of the new bridgewith an incentive/disincentive provision of $25,000per day. The successful bidder completed the newbridge in 37 days, earning a $1,225,000 incentive.The contract cost, including the incentive payment,was still less than the cost proposed by the secondbidder.

“Within 53 days, the damaged bridge wasremoved, the design completed, and a new bridgebuilt, demonstrating intense commitment andcooperation among all parties involved—especiallyState engineers, the concrete fabricator, and the con-tractor that built the new bridge,” says DivisionAdministrator Joe D. Wilkerson with the FHWAAlabama Division.

Alaska Upgrades 18 Bridges With Precast Concrete

Deadhorse, AK, is located on Prudhoe Bay, wherethe Alaska oil pipeline originates in the North Slopeoil fields. Although the 668-kilometer (415-mile)Dalton Highway has an average daily traffic count ofonly 250 vehicles, the highway is critical to Dead-horse because it is the only road connecting thecommunity to the outside world and carries all sup-plies for the oil field. In 1992, the Alaska Depart-ment of Transportation & Public Facilities beganreplacing the timber decks with precast concreteslabs on 18 bridges on the Dalton Highway betweenFairbanks and Deadhorse. Instead of continuallyreplacing the timber decks every 8 years, the agencydecided to use precast concrete panels that wouldlast for approximately 50 years, resulting in savingsin the cost of replacing the timber decks and inrecurring impacts on the traveling public.

21

The Future Is Now

by Kathleen Bergeron

These snapshots of successful projects from around the country show that the stage is set for a new approach to highway design, construction, and maintenance.

Archive

d

During reconstruction, the timber decks werereplaced with full-width precast concrete slab units.Through negotiations with the trucking and tourbus companies, the department agreed that the roadcould be closed completely to traffic for 12 hourseach day. During this period, the contractorremoved sections of the old timber deck, weldednew shear studs to the top flange of the steel girders,placed the precast slab units (which had block-outsto accommodate the new shear studs), placed quick-setting mortar in the block-outs, and then reopenedthe road to traffic. This process continued until eachbridge was completed. The construction techniqueenabled the department to redeck the bridges inapproximately 7 months, with minimal impact ontruck traffic.

Arizona Uses Innovative Bidding for HOV Project

The Arizona DOT is widening SR–51 (PiestewaFreeway) between I–10 and Shea Boulevard inPhoenix, AZ. Adding high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)lanes in each direction will make a direct connec-tion to the existing HOV lanes on I–10 at the southend of the project, representing a substantial exten-sion of the HOV concept in the Phoenix metropol-itan area. The connection to I–10 provides a smoothand efficient link between HOV lanes on the inter-secting freeways.

“Such linkages have been a major challenge forhighway engineers across the country,” says KenDavis, a senior engineering manager with theFHWA Arizona Division.“With the additions of thisproject, drivers will have no need for extensive lanechanging to transition from HOV lanes on one free-way to HOV lanes on another freeway.”

The project employs a design-build contract andincludes the A+B bidding (cost plus time) conceptas well. Together, these two contracting methodshave fostered considerable innovation and creativityin tackling this major freeway expansion in a con-fined corridor, while substantially reducing thelength of construction (only 330 days instead ofthe 480 days originally anticipated) and the extentof traffic disruption. Full-weekend closures areenabling the contractor to make maximum progressduring periods of lower freeway usage. In addition,the project incorporates substantial intelligenttransportation systems (ITS) features and enhancesthe Freeway Management System in the Phoenixmetro area.

The project also provides an asphalt-rubber fric-tion course surface (quiet pavement) throughout—in part to hide existing pavement joints and facili-tate relocating lane markings, but also to provide anadditional measure of noise mitigation. “This is avery significant feature—the adjacent neighbor-hoods have complained for years about this free-way’s high noise levels,” Davis says.

California Repaves a Major Freeway

Interstate 710 is 46 years old and heavily traveled,averaging 157,000 vehicles per day, with one of thehighest concentrations of deteriorated pavements inCalifornia. Trucks carrying cargo from the ports ofLong Beach and Los Angeles account for 13 percentof the freeway’s total traffic, but the original designa half century ago assumed that only 5 percent ofthe traffic would be trucks. Although the CaliforniaDepartment of Transportation (Caltrans) patchedthe road at various locations during its lifetime, theagency never had implemented a rehabilitationproject by separate contract.

A recent Caltrans rehabilitation project on I–710between State Route 1 and I–405, just north of LongBeach Harbor, CA, involved applying long-lifeasphalt pavement with a life expectancy of 30 to 35years. A task force on long-life pavements at Caltranshas been working since 1998 on this showcase proj-ect, which breaks tradition with how the departmentusually constructs freeway paving projects. The taskforce includes members from the asphalt concreteindustry and the University of California at Berke-ley’s Pavement Research Center. “We’re enthusiasticabout this pilot project testing new, longer-lastingasphalt paving methods,” says Doug Failing, directorof Caltrans District 7. “This is the first time thesecreative asphalt paving methods have been used ona California freeway.”

The project employed an innovative traffic man-agement plan that consisted in part of using a trafficstaging plan involving freeway crossovers. Duringthis critical stage, Caltrans employed eight 55-hourweekend closures that enabled the department toshut down one direction of the freeway for con-struction while traffic was detoured to the other sideusing movable barriers. This made it possible toprovide two open lanes of traffic in each directionthroughout the extended weekends. The project alsoprovided motorist information strategies such as an incident management program, an elaborate

22

Archive

d

public awareness campaign, and the use of morethan 40 permanent and portable changeable mes-sage signs.

In 2003, the project won a Roadway Work ZoneSafety Awareness Award in the category of Innova-tive Technologies (Methodology–Large Project)from the American Road & Transportation BuildersAssociation (ARTBA).

Colorado Constructs Major Multimodal Project

The Colorado DOT used a design-build contract forthe $1.2 billion Transportation Expansion Project(T-REX), a transit and highway project in the Den-ver metropolitan area, leading to significant savingsin time and cost. By combining light rail, highway,bike, pedestrian, and other transit options, T-REXrepresents a multimodal approach to addressingtraffic problems. Packaging the project into a singledesign-build contract creates economies of scaleand significant cost savings because constructioncan begin before the final design is complete. Thecombined packaging also allows for more innova-tions in design and construction techniques, creat-ing further cost savings.

Innovations in construction resulted from thelatitude afforded the contractor. Retaining walls, forexample, were constructed at the right-of-way usingdrilled caissons, which later were exposed on theroadway side and covered with fascia panels—pre-cast concrete panels that give the appearance of aconcrete wall when the actual retaining wall isformed by shoulder-to-shoulder caissons. Thistechnique enabled the contractor to construct thewall before excavation was complete. Normally, towiden the highway in a section where the roadway isbelow the surrounding ground, the excess materialwould be removed and a retaining wall would needto be constructed. Under the design-build contract,construction of the wall commenced immediatelywith the drilling and placement of caissons, andexcess material was removed when access becamemore favorable. The use of caissons, instead of aretaining wall and footing, also allowed for a small-er wall construction area.

Connecticut Installs Bridge Overnight

To minimize disruption to train service and elimi-nate the difficulty of building a bridge over activerail lines, the Connecticut DOT specified that a por-tion of the Church Street Bridge in New Haven, CT,

be completed in a single night operation over aweekend. After months of building the structurealongside the active lines of the New Haven Inter-locking and Rail Yard, the contractor lifted and setthe bridge into place at 2:30 a.m. on Sunday, May 4,2003.

The bridge span, a 97.5-meter (320-foot) trussweighing more than 771 metric tons (850 tons), isthe main segment of the 390-meter (1,280-foot)bridge. The new bridge and roadway extension willconnect New Haven’s Union Avenue with SargentDrive and provide an alternate route for trafficheading to the downtown, Sargent Drive, and LongWharf areas of the city.

This was the first time that the Connecticut DOTbuilt a structure offsite and lifted it into place usingthe largest mobile, land-based, and high-capacitycrane in existence. The crane was delivered in morethan 200 tractor-trailer loads of parts and requiredmore than 4 weeks to assemble. The crane lifted theentire truss span more than 20 meters (65 feet) intothe air and carried it more than 30 meters (100 feet)toward the tracks, where the span was set in its finalposition. The Connecticut DOT estimates that thisaccelerated construction method saved approxi-mately 1 year on its overall contract time.

Florida Uses Design-Build Process and Unique Work Zone

After a series of crashes involving fatalities in thespring of 1999, the Florida DOT (FDOT) funded aproject to widen the Panasoffkee Creek Bridge,carrying I–75 through Sumter County. The exist-ing structure featured two lanes in each directionwith 0.9-meter (3-foot)-wide inside and outsideshoulders.

The project involved widening the existingbridge to accommodate a six-lane facility, with stan-dard shoulders and bridge railings. The project alsoincluded upgrading the acceleration lane for theinterchange at County Road 470, which requiredwidening the approach to the northbound I–75bridge by 244 meters (800 feet) to improve the safetyof the merge area. The challenge was to widen theexisting bridge by closing the 16.5-meter (54-foot)-wide median without interfering with the high vol-ume of traffic on I–75.

“Major goals for the project were to provide a safework zone for the employees and public, and tobuild the project quickly,” says Michael McCammon,an operations engineer with FDOT. “The theme ‘get

23

Archive

d

in, get out, stay out’ is common in transportationprojects in Florida, and the Panasoffkee CreekBridge project in particular embodied this ideal.”

Using the design-build process, FDOT minimizedlane closures, adhered to an aggressive schedule, andbrought the project from concept to completion inapproximately 3 years (instead of the traditional 7)at a cost 42 percent less than estimated for tradi-tional design and construction approaches. In addi-tion, the project marked the first time that Floridaused a travel lift crane to construct a bridge. Thecrane used rails, supported on the median edges ofthe two existing bridges, and ran the entire 1,367meters (4,484 feet) of the structures, facilitatingsafer delivery of materials and equipment withoutlane closures.

The construction contractor also devised aninnovative method to access the work zone in themedian. By purchasing the property adjacent to theinterstate, the company enabled workers to parknearby and access the median by walking on theexisting embankment under the northbound bridge,and then using a temporary aluminum bridge toaccess the median at the end bent. “This innova-tion,” says McCammon,“contributed to the project’soutstanding safety record.”

Georgia Turns to Full Road Closures to Reconstruct I–285 Segment

Reconstruction of I–285 between I–675 and I–20 inAtlanta required a 25.4-centimeter (10-inch) milland inlay, all the way to the old PCC pavement. Theunusually deep mill was prompted by a strippedlayer of asphalt that had been placed over the oldPCC pavement in the late 1970s. The inlay consist-ed of approximately 17.8 centimeters (7 inches) ofSuperpave,™ 3.8 centimeters (1.5 inches) of stonematrix asphalt, and 3.2 centimeters (1.25 inches) ofcoarse, open-graded friction course.

Despite traffic volumes of 120,000 vehicles perday, GDOT and FHWA determined that the mosteffective way to complete the job would be to shutdown I–285, one direction at a time, on weekendsonly. GDOT estimated that reconstructing the 103kilometers (64 lane miles) of pavement would take11 weekends in each direction. The project wouldhave taken more than 2 years using conventionalnighttime construction methods. “By closing I–285in the direction of the work and detouring traffic,”says James McGee, a Georgia DOT constructionengineer, “we were able to accomplish the work in a

much shorter amount of time, which caused lessoverall impact on the traveling public.”

The project involved massive preparations,including media campaigns, mass mailings, com-munity meetings, and dynamic signing to get theword out to the public. GDOT orchestrated detoursonto I–75 and I–20 to bypass I–285. During recon-struction, GDOT added to the project scope byreconstructing shoulders, upgrading guardrails, andinstalling a conduit for an advanced transportationmanagement system. Using four pavers and eightmilling machines, contractors paved an average of12.9 kilometers (8 lane miles) of the deep mill andinlay each weekend. The entire project, includingpaving and roadside work, was completed in only 12weekends—6 for each direction.

With the road closed to the public, trucks deliv-ering construction materials to the site did not haveto wait in traffic, which ensured a constant supply offresh material. “As a result,” says Walter Boyd, atransportation engineer with FHWA’s Georgia Divi-sion, “pavement smoothness and quality were excel-lent because the paving machines ran for hours at atime without stopping.”

Hawaii Widens H–1 Through Honolulu

In Honolulu, the Hawaii DOT is adding one lane toH–1 in the westbound direction to alleviate a signif-icant traffic bottleneck during the afternoon rushhour. Known locally as the Waimalu Widening Pro-ject, the work will involve adding a long viaductstructure—essentially an elevated overpass—thatwill cross over several streets and connect the com-munity of Waimalu to other communities in thearea.

The need to minimize traffic disruption is amajor concern, so the new lane will be constructedunder normal traffic conditions. To complete roadand bridge construction quickly and efficiently, theproject incorporates A+B bidding, quick-changemovable barriers, and traffic monitoring and con-trol using ITS technologies. The department expectsthe project to begin in the spring of 2004 and reachcompletion in the fall of 2005.

Indiana Hyperfix Project Fixes City Streets to Facilitate Full Interstate Closure

To rehabilitate I–70 and I–65 in downtown Indi-anapolis in the shortest time possible, the IndianaDOT used incentives and complete closures to traf-

24

Archive

d

fic, thereby enabling the contractor to work full timeat the site.

“Full road closure facilitated completing theproject in a much shorter time frame—3 monthsversus 2 years,” says INDOT Commissioner J. BryanNicol. “It also resulted in better quality control, asuperior product, and a higher degree of safety forthe public and project staff.”

A significant issue for the Hyperfix project wasthe potential impact on the public in terms of con-gestion. Closing an interstate facility for 3 monthscould cause significant disruptions if not plannedand coordinated well. The city of Indianapolis andINDOT managed the closure from the perspectiveof the metropolitan region, coordinating other proj-ects and restricting construction on I–465, themajor detour route. In addition, the city completedstrategic improvements to its local street system toprepare for increased traffic on alternative routes.Dubbed “Cityfix,” the program resulted in $2 mil-lion in intersection and street improvements,including turn and parking restrictions, a moratori-um on street cuts by utilities, improved intersec-tions, and added travel lanes at strategic locations.

Another important strategy to reduce the impactof congestion and respond to public concerns wasthe establishment of a park-and ride program in thenortheastern portion of the metropolitan area, thesection anticipated to be affected the most. FHWAprovided $1 million in funds from the CongestionMitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) ImprovementProgram to provide express coach service at threelocations.

“Work zones are a dangerous environment forboth workers and motorists,” says Dan Rogers, anINDOT construction engineer. “The mainline clo-sure of I–65 and I–70 not only allowed for higherquality and accelerated construction, but also it cre-ated a much safer environment for the project crewand the motoring public.”

The $25 million Hyperfix project was completedon July 20, 2003, in 55 days, “exceeding everyone’sexpectations,” according to Commissioner Nicol.“This was a significant accomplishment, 30 daysunder the schedule, and with the contractor reapingthe maximum number of incentives.”

Iowa Employs Innovative Sawing in PCC Project

While completing a widening and resurfacing projecton Iowa 13 between Manchester and Iowa 3, theIowa DOT applied a thin PCC overlay to the exist-

ing pavement and used a full-depth PCC pavementmonolithic widening unit on each side as part of itsstrategy to ensure a long-life overlay. Innovativeaspects of the project included using a longitudinaljoint-forming knife, or “bobsled,” rather than con-ventional sawing to initiate the multiple joints in thepavement. Attached directly to the paver, the bob-sled creates a weakened plane by moving coarseaggregate out of the path. The result is a barely visi-ble crack that requires no sawing or sealing.

Workers placed 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of pave-ment per day, and each segment reached openingstrength by the following day. Employing the prop-er mix-design and maturity methods, Iowa DOTcould open the new pavement to automobiles 18hours after placement and to trucks after 30 hours.The department enhanced safety and capacity byproviding a wider road with paved shoulders, whileminimizing inconvenience to the public duringconstruction.

“The bobsled has the potential to not onlyreduce the environmental concerns associated withconcrete pavement sawing, but it also may producea better product at a lower cost,” says DivisionAdministrator Phil Barnes with the FHWA IowaDivision.

“This approach to rehabilitation, using theremains of the previous investment to the benefit ofthe new investment, offers significant promise tolocal and State officials,” adds Gordon L. Smith, P.E.,president of the Iowa Concrete Paving Association.

Louisiana Opens Center To Manage Traffic and Emergencies

Dedicated in January 2002, the Advanced TrafficManagement/Emergency Operations Center (ATM/EOC) in Baton Rouge is a state-of-the-art facilitythat integrates traffic surveillance, incident detection,traffic control, motorist information, and emer-gency response into one management center. NewITS functions recently implemented at the centerinclude advanced traffic signal systems, fiber-opticcommunications systems, and cameras and otherautomated equipment to monitor and count traffic,detect speed, and classify lanes. A new project onreduced visibility also is underway, involving vari-able message signs (VMS), variable speed signs,weather stations, and fog detectors.

The center houses the Baton Rouge emergencymedical services, 911 call center, fire and police dis-patch, regional traffic engineering, and the offices of

25

Archive

d

homeland security and emergency preparedness.“What makes the ATM/EOC truly unique andimportant to transportation is the existing andplanned integration of traffic, 911 dispatch, andincident management systems,” says DivisionAdministrator Tony Sussmann with the FHWALouisiana Division. “The different governmentagencies are not just sharing the same control room,they’re sharing information.”

Maine Upgrades Bridge Over Penobscot River

The Maine DOT is building a new cable-stayedbridge spanning the Penobscot River betweenWaldo and Hancock counties. In July 2003, thedepartment discovered that deterioration of theexisting main suspension cables had reduced thestructural integrity of the bridge. A series of meas-ures were implemented as short-term fixes until areplacement bridge is open to traffic.

The Waldo-Hancock Bridge, also known as thePenobscot River Crossing, will be a 646-meter(2,120-foot) single-plane, cable-stayed bridge with asegmental concrete trapezoidal box superstructureand a mainspan of 354 meters (1,161 feet). Duringplanning, the Maine DOT considered how the tow-ers might be used to enhance the bridge. As a result,the latest design proposal includes an elevator lead-ing to an observatory atop one of the bridge’spylons. Windows facing all directions would pro-vide views from 122 meters (400 feet) above theground. The estimated cost of the project is about$70 million, and the projected opening date is June30, 2005.

The project uses innovative contracting proce-dures for design and construction, and a stream-lined environmental review process brought theproject to construction 6 months after the decisionwas made to pursue a new river crossing. “It is ourhope that this bridge will serve to boost the region’seconomy by becoming an attraction in and ofitself,” says Maine DOT Commissioner David Cole.

Minnesota Reconstructs Freeway Using Innovations

The primary innovation that the Minnesota DOT(Mn/DOT) is using for a project to reconstruct thefour-lane Highway 52 (ROC 52) in Rochester, MN,is the design-build method of contracting.

The purpose of the project is to replace deficientpavement and bridges, thereby improving safetyand the level of service. The project involves com-pletely reconstructing and widening 17.7 kilometers(11 miles) of highway to three lanes in each direc-tion though the western portion of Rochester, MN.The reconstruction includes 7 interchanges, 24bridges, and installation of ITS technologies.

In addition to using the best-value method toselect a contractor, the State employed a number ofother innovative practices, including an integratedproject management team, a comprehensive qualitycontrol/quality assurance (QC/QA) program withsubstantial incentives for quality performance, abuilt-in dispute resolution process, and concurrentdesign and right-of-way acquisition.

Mn/DOT expects schedule and cost benefits toinclude a shortened construction time (from 11years down to 4) and at least $30 million savings ininflationary costs alone. Substantial benefits alsowill be realized from reduced out-of-pocket usercosts, less user inconvenience (delay), and substan-tially lower human and monetary costs associatedwith crashes. Mn/DOT expects the mainline andcrossroad construction on ROC 52 to be finished bythe end of 2005.

Mississippi Uses Pavement Warranty on I–55

On I–55 in Carroll County, the Mississippi DOTmilled an 11.4-kilometer (7.1-mile) section of hot-mix asphalt pavement and placed a concrete overlayon the four-lane divided facility. The I–55 projectrelied on A+B bidding to speed up constructiontime and was completed in 503 days, saving approx-imately 1 year of construction time compared to theconventional bidding process.

The project also represents the first use of a con-crete pavement warranty in Mississippi. The 10-yearmaintenance warranty required the contractor toprovide the PCC mix design, selection of materials,and construction methods.

“In the end,” says Roger McWilliams, transporta-tion engineer with the FHWA Mississippi Division,“the contractor successfully completed a project ofhigh construction quality with an excellent ride,while saving approximately 1 year of constructiontime.”

The American Concrete Pavement Associationselected the project as a finalist in the 2003 Excel-lence in Concrete Pavement Awards.

26

Archive

d

Missouri Replaces Bridge on I–70

The voided slab bridge over I–70 between Lake St.Louis Boulevard and Route 40/61 in St. CharlesCounty, MO, was more than 40 years old, and trafficstudies indicated the need for additional lanes toaccommodate increased traffic. Through a value-engineering proposal, Missouri DOT’s contractorsuggested building a new, wider structure ratherthan widening the existing Lake St. Louis Bridge.

The contractor estimated that a new bridgecould be built rapidly using precast deck beam sec-tions and mechanically stabilized earth wall abut-ments, which would provide a two-span bridgeinstead of the existing four-span. Lane capacitywould increase from two to six lanes, providing twothrough lanes and one turning lane in each direc-tion. The cost would be an additional $500,000, butthe new bridge would offer a safer clearance of 5meters (16.5 feet) for interstate traffic, in lieu of the4.9-meter (16-foot) clearance originally designed.In addition, the new deck beam structure would notrestrict overheight loads. Finally, building the newbridge reduced the actual construction time andimpact on motorists by several months.

The bridge closed on August 3, 2003, andreopened by November 24. The combination of thetype of bridge (prestressed box beam) and closingthe overpass during construction enabled the con-tractor to demolish the old bridge and erect the newone in less than 4 months. “To decrease the con-struction time, local officials agreed to allow thedepartment to close the old bridge, demolish it, andbuild the new one,” says Barry Bergman, projectmanager with the Missouri DOT.

By reducing the number of spans, the depart-ment improved the overall geometrics and increasedthe efficiency and safety of the interchange. Thetwo-span bridge also allows for widening Interstate70 to address capacity needs in the future. Mainte-nance costs decreased as well, since the new bridgewas approximately 30.5 meters (100 feet) less thanthe original facility. An additional benefit of the newstructure is that the bridge provides simple architec-tural enhancement opportunities (such as texturingand staining) for the city of Lake St. Louis.

Montana Issues Bonds to Upgrade U.S. 93

The segment of U.S. 93 between Evaro and Polson,MT, currently is a 90-kilometer (56-mile), two-lanerural highway that is heavily congested and exceeds

the statewide average for crash rates. The MontanaDOT is developing a series of projects to reconstructthis segment to address operational and safety defi-ciencies, at an estimated cost of $120 million. Theconventional funding scenario would complete theproject over a period of 15 to 20 years. The depart-ment, however, is proposing to issue bonds so thatthe work can begin sooner, thus accelerating com-pletion to within 7 years.

“This funding mechanism will enable the travel-ing public to realize the operational and safety benefits as expeditiously as possible,” says FHWAMontana Division Administrator Janice Brown.

New Hampshire to Replace Bridge Quickly

Working with the University of New Hampshire, theNew Hampshire DOT plans to replace two existingbridge spans over the Lamprey River on Mill Streetin Epping, NH, with a single, butted box beamsuperstructure supported on rapid-installation,precast structural elements. The existing bridges aredeteriorated severely and are on the State’s list ofbridges and municipal structures that are deemed inthe worst condition.

Using precast, high-performance elements andinnovative contracting techniques, the departmentexpects the new bridge will be constructed and opento traffic in just 2 weeks. With additional roadwaywork, the entire project should be completed in 3 to4 weeks. New Hampshire DOT anticipates that thework will be finished in late summer 2004.

New Jersey Goes Precast for Victory Bridge

The new Victory Bridge, which carries Route 35over the Raritan River, connecting Perth Amboy andSayreville, NJ, was designed with a record-setting134-meter (440-foot) main span—the longest pre-cast cantilever segmental construction in the UnitedStates. The long-awaited project will relieve conges-tion in the region, replacing the aging swing bridgewith its no shoulders and four narrow travel lanes.The new fixed structure will be high enough toaccommodate marine traffic.

To reduce the construction time, New JerseyDOT (NJDOT) selected the segmental precast con-struction method for both the superstructure andsubstructure. The department estimates that byusing this type of approach, it can reduce the dura-tion of construction by at least 1 year. By employingsegmental precast elements, NJDOT anticipates

27

Archive

d

saving millions of dollars, based on life cycle costanalyses. The new bridge will carry two 3.7-meter(12-foot) travel lanes in each direction with shoul-ders on each side and a sidewalk. Construction workbegan in February 2003 and should be complete byFebruary 2006.

New Mexico Employs Creative Alternatives to Cash Incentives

Reconstruction of the I–25 and I–40 interchange inAlbuquerque, NM, would require construction orrehabilitation of 55 bridges and 177 kilometers (110lane miles) of roadway. Lacking viable alternateroutes, the New Mexico DOT (NMDOT) had tocomplete the project while traffic continued to usethe roadway.

The original interchange was designed in 1967 tosupport 40,000 vehicles per day. At the time of itsreconstruction, however, the facility was severelyoverutilized with an estimated 300,000 vehiclesusing the interchange. Congestion resulted in anaverage of 1.7 crashes per day with a negative eco-nomic impact estimated at about $12 million annu-ally. The project enhanced the level of service andreduced the accident rate on the most heavily trav-eled interchange in the State. NMDOT estimatesthat the new interchange will benefit the Albu-querque economy by approximately $1 billion overits first 10 years. The public benefited from reducedtravel time, enhanced safety, and environmentalimprovements.

To minimize disruption to the community, theagency decided to reconstruct the interchangeunder a single contract with incentives to keep theconstruction time under 2 years. With little moneyavailable for cash incentives, NMDOT offered thecontractor innovative incentives, such as access toexcess right-of-way if the project was finished aheadof schedule. NMDOT purchased an 8.5-hectare (21-acre) parcel that included about 1.6 hectares (4 acres)of required right-of-way, with the remainder used asa staging area during construction. Since construc-tion was substantially complete before the contractcalendar date, the contractor received the deed tothe remaining 6.9-hectare (17-acre) parcel. Ulti-mately, several tracts of land owned by NMDOTand determined to be excess to future highwayneeds were transferred to the contractor in lieu ofcash incentives.

To minimize the impact on traffic, the projectteam used progressive techniques, such as segmen-tal bridge construction, and established a traffic sur-veillance system and incident response program forthe construction area.

Through close contact with the media during theproject, the department cultivated public support bykeeping motorists aware of potential delays. In theend, the incentives and careful management paid off:The completed interchange opened to traffic in May2002, after only 23 months of construction.

New York Uses Precast Decks on Gowanus Expressway

In 2001, the New York State DOT (NYSDOT)replaced approximately 20 bridge spans on theGowanus Expressway in New York City. After large-scale patching work failed to reduce deterioration ofthe existing decks in this section of the expressway(I–278) viaduct, NYSDOT determined that fulldeck replacement with precast panels offered aneconomical solution.

During weekend closures, the agency installed3,716 square meters (40,000 square feet) of precastdeck panels. The innovative panels consisted of afabricated steel grid (the bottom portion) and areinforced concrete slab (the upper portion). Thetop portion of the main bearing bars of the steelgrid extend upward into the reinforced concretecomponent and act as shear connectors, assuringinternal composite behavior. Advantages of thisdesign include light weight, rapid construction, andefficiency of overall structural design. The projectwas completed in February 2002.

North Carolina Speeds Up Highway DeliveryUsing Design-Build

U.S. 64 between Wendell and Raleigh, NC, is a heav-ily congested commuter route and primary east-westhighway that currently carries between 45,000 and65,000 vehicles per day. The Knightdale Bypass inWake County will route traffic around Knightdale,reducing travel time between Wendell and Raleighby as much as 30 minutes.

“Because of its connection to eastern North Car-olina and the daily congestion for commuters alongthis route, the Knightdale Bypass is a critical projectfor the region,” says State Transportation Secretary

28

Archive

d

Lyndo Tippett. “By using the design-build process,we will be able to deliver this project about 3 yearsahead of schedule.”

The North Carolina DOT expects to completethe 15.5-kilometer (9.6-mile) project in early- tomid-2005. The total cost is about $131 million.

North Dakota Enhances Construction Using Fabrics

Although engineering fabrics, or geotextiles, arenot new to construction, the North Dakota DOT(NDDOT) recently began using them to facilitatefaster construction on urban projects with complexwork phasing and congested work areas. The fabricsare used in lieu of more time-consuming subgradepreparations, allowing rapid placement of thegranular base and leading to quicker pavementinstallation.

A successful example includes a $20 millionurban project near the North Dakota Capitolgrounds through a busy retail area of Bismarck. Theproject was completed in 2 years, with all of thework concentrated in half of the project’s lengtheach year. The engineering fabrics consist of poly-meric filaments and are manufactured to specifiedstrength and permeability standards. In this appli-cation, the fabric serves the combined purpose ofreinforcing the material below the pavement andseparating the natural earth material from theaggregate base supporting the pavement. Usingengineering fabrics in combination with readilycompacted aggregates to replace poor soils elimi-nates drying and reworking saturated soils andtime-consuming compaction required when under-lying soils are less than ideal for supporting pave-ment. The technique reduces the time betweenremoving an existing pavement and placing a newpavement, particularly in urban areas where utilitiesand other obstacles preclude large-scale operations.

The agency also used the fabrics in projects neara traffic-congested section of I–29 in Fargo and atan interchange to a major regional shopping center.NDDOT project personnel are convinced that thisacceleration technique is a significant time saver,adding quality to the pavement support system.“The process reduced the construction time forsubgrade preparation by about 50 percent,” saysAdrian Fesser, construction coordinator for the Bismarck District Office of NDDOT.

Ohio Builds Bridges Faster, Smarter, Better

The Ohio DOT cut construction time by more thanhalf on six bridge projects last year by using itsstrategic initiative: “Build Bridges Faster, Smarter,Better.” Ohio has applied many bridge deck overlaysin Cleveland and Cincinnati by closing traffic onmajor interstate routes after the Friday evening rushhour and opening the bridges before the Mondaymorning rush, thereby minimizing the impact ontraffic during the rehabilitations.

“Ohio DOT is dramatically reducing the incon-venience of road closures for thousands of Ohiomotorists by using innovative materials and con-tracting techniques,” says Ohio DOT Director Gordon Proctor.

The department uses a variety of techniques tospeed up the construction process, such as prefabri-cated materials, faster concrete curing methods, andcontractor incentives and disincentives. The pilotprogram uses prefabricated concrete bridge mem-bers, which include deck slabs, barriers, and approachslabs that are post-tensioned together onsite. Otherinnovations include stay-in-place metal forms forthe decks and single-span steel construction madecontinuous with concrete closure pours. Manybridge components can be manufactured offsite and“snapped” into place when crews are ready. In addi-tion, steel forms can remain as part of the structure,eliminating the time needed to remove traditionalwooden forms.

“If the program proves successful, it could haveenormous implications for the reconstruction ofour interstate system,” Proctor says. “We’ve rebuiltabout one-third of Ohio’s interstate over the pastdecade, but two-thirds remain. If we can find waysto build these bridges faster, we can dramaticallyreduce delays for millions of motorists.”

“Building bridges faster is more expensive,” saysDeputy Director Jack Marchbanks of Ohio DOTDistrict 6,“however, Ohio motorists save millions ofdollars because of the reduction in travel time delaysand the associated fuel, vehicle, and productivitycosts.” The pilot program will last until 2006.

Oregon Invests in Bridge Delivery

In 2003, the Oregon legislature passed House Bill2041, which provides $1.3 billion primarily for thereplacement and repair of bridges on State high-ways. Through the Oregon Transportation Invest-

29

Archive

d

ment Act III State Bridge Delivery Program, a totalof 365 bridges on the State highway system will bereplaced or rehabilitated over the next 10 years.Most of the bridges are located on I–5, I–84, andother National Highway System routes. The pro-gram presents the opportunity to showcase alterna-tive delivery methods and innovative technologiesand materials.

“Accelerated design and construction techniquesare crucial to the timely replacement of these defi-cient bridges,” says FHWA Oregon Division Admin-istrator David Cox. “These techniques will allow theOregon DOT to minimize the negative safety andeconomic impacts due to out-of-service andrestricted service bridges.”

South Carolina Constructs New Parkway

To relieve congestion along U.S. 17 in the MyrtleBeach area, SCDOT initiated the Carolina BaysParkway project to provide nearly 38 kilometers (21miles) of controlled-access, six-lane divided freewayon a new alignment between U.S. 501 and SC–9. Anumber of innovative contracting approaches wereused to get this roadway built and opened to thepublic.

The parkway project consisted of laying asphaltpavement, building 25 bridges, and constructingfive new interchanges. The project was developedusing the design-build concept with right-of-wayacquisition services also included in the contract. Abest value/fixed budget proposal outlined the mini-mum project requirements and additional options.SCDOT set the fixed budget at $232 million. Fund-ing was acquired through the South Carolina StateInfrastructure Bank, established by the State in 1997to provide loans and other financial assistance formajor projects. Federal-aid participation was estab-lished using advanced construction to facilitatefuture debt servicing. The contractor accomplishedthe minimum project scope and all additionaloptions within budget and 6 months early. Theparkway was opened to traffic in December 2002.

South Dakota Reduces Impact of Bridge LaunchAt Rail Yard

In the city of Aberdeen, the South Dakota DOT con-structed a 97-meter (318-foot) steel truss bridge onan embankment next to a rail yard. The departmentminimized interruptions to traffic on the 15 train

tracks to less than 16 hours while the truss bridgewas moved into place. The contractor transportedthe 745-metric ton (820-ton) structure across therail yard on rolling platforms, a launching techniquethat previously had been used on only one otherproject in the United States. If SDDOT had chosento build a more conventional two-span structure,the impact on rail service would have lasted severalmonths and involved relocating a significantamount of track.

In addition, rather than using a conventionalpainting system, SDDOT opted to “metalize” thesteel used in the truss. Metalizing is a protectivecoating for steel with a low life-cycle cost. Thedepartment anticipates that the coating will last thelife of the structure, which is estimated to be 75years. Only minor maintenance may be necessaryon the clear coating over the metalized steel, once ortwice during the life of the structure. This steel pro-tection option will reduce the potential for futuremaintenance activities that would affect rail andvehicle traffic.

The project began during the summer of 2000and was opened to traffic in July 2002.

Tennessee Uses High-Performance Concrete for Bridge Construction

The Porter Road Bridge and Hickman Road Bridge,spanning State Route 840 in Dickson County, TN,both feature precast prestressed concrete girdersand cast-in-place reinforced concrete deck slabs.The structures are jointless with integral abutments.This construction results in first-cost savings byavoiding expensive expansion joints and long-termmaintenance costs. The Porter Road Bridge wascompleted in May 2000, and the Hickman RoadBridge was completed a few months later, in Sep-tember 2000.

The Tennessee DOT used high-performanceconcrete in the pretensioned girders and reinforceddeck slab. Coupled with jointless construction, thegirders and deck are monolithic with the abutmentwall, and the deck slab is continuous over the inter-mediate bent. The agency expects this combinationof materials and structural system to result in dra-matic short- and long-term benefits due to thegreater strength and durability of high-performanceconcrete. Components of the bridges were instru-mented to record their performance during allstages of construction and service.

30

Archive

d

Texas Chooses Precast for Bridge over Lake Belton

The Texas DOT is working on a $20 million con-struction project to carry State Highway 36 overLake Belton. The job includes removing the existingstructure and constructing dual bridges.

“Using precast bridge caps, rather than cast-in-place, for the substructure, facilitates rapid and effi-cient construction,” says David Hohmann, bridgedesign engineer at the Texas DOT. “In addition, thequality of the finished concrete products will beimproved compared to cast-in-place products, espe-cially considering the logistics of working out in themiddle of a lake.”

The project is 50 percent complete, with one halfof the ultimate configuration already carrying traf-fic. The remaining half should be finished in sum-mer 2005.

Utah Uses Design-Build Contracts for Traffic Signal Projects

The Utah DOT recently became one of the firstState DOTs to use design-build contracting as a pro-curement method for traffic signal projects.

In February 2003, UDOT issued a request forqualifications to create a pool of design-build teamsfor these types of projects. The teams selected forthe pool are thereby prequalified to submit propos-als to design, construct, or modify warranted trafficsignal projects throughout the State.

UDOT continuously studies intersections forcrash trends and traffic volumes. When a specificintersection reaches the threshold to warrant a signalinstallation, the department now can select a con-tractor from the pool to begin work immediately,completing work in a shorter time than with tradi-tional contracting methods.

“This dramatically reduces the time betweenwhen a signal is warranted and when it is turnedon,” UDOT Initiative Contracting Engineer BobDyer says. “It can save us up to 8 months over tradi-tional contracting methods.”

Dyer also notes an unexpected benefit fromusing design-build contracting on traffic signals:avoiding utility relocations that otherwise wouldhave taken place if traditional contracting methodshad been used. “This is saving taxpayers and utilityusers’ money while helping us get jobs done faster,”Dyer says.

UDOT is using a best-value selection process tochoose the design-builder on a project-by-projectbasis. Two signals have been completed already, withfour more currently under construction.

Virginia Widens Bridge Over York River

The George P. Coleman Bridge carries Route 17 overthe York River in Yorktown, VA. In October 1993,the State of Virginia awarded a $72.7 million con-tract to widen the existing 1,143-meter (3,750-foot)two-lane bridge to four lanes using the existing sub-structure. The original bridge was 9.5 meters (31feet) wide with no shoulders, and the new structurewould be 23.6 meters (77 feet) with full shoulders.

The new bridge was built to improve traffic flowacross the York River. The original structure, built in1952, was designed to carry only 15,000 vehicles perday. By 1986, it was carrying 27,000 vehicles per day,and the Virginia DOT projected the number togrow to 43,000 by 2015. VDOT considered 17 solu-tions, but selected the widening project as the bestin terms of cost, environmental impact, and meet-ing current and future traffic demands.

Construction included replacing six truss spansapproximately 774 meters (2,540 feet) long. Innov-ative technologies employed in the project includedstate-of-the-art construction methods, truss spansconstructed offsite 48 kilometers (30 miles) down-river at the Norfolk International Terminal andfloated to the bridge site on barges with specialtysupport towers, and lightweight concrete used forthe deck to minimize the dead load on existingpiers.

These features reduced the time to replace thetrusses by 36 days, or 60 percent, and resulted in a 27percent cost savings. The project marked the firsttime a bridge had been floated in already preparedto carry traffic. The conventional method of float-ing only the steel trusses, placing the deck and thebarriers on the bridge at the site, and using a tem-porary floating bridge to handle traffic would havecost VDOT an estimated $15.2 million.

The contract documents allowed two 12-dayperiods to swap out the old truss spans with the newones. In May 1996, the contractor completed theswap and restored the bridge to full use in 9 days.The department dedicated the structure on August2, 1996, after the approach spans were reconstruct-ed and the toll facilities were completed.

31

Archive

d

Washington State Rolls Bridge into Place

In November 2003, the Washington State DOT(WSDOT) completed the NE 8th Street/I–405Bridge in Bellevue, marking the completion of the$16.4 million project after 18 months of construc-tion—2 months ahead of schedule. The widerbridge over Interstate 405 makes it easier for com-muters and visitors to get in and out of downtownBellevue on the highway.

The project consisted of replacing the old bridgewith a structure 10.7 meters (35 feet) longer and 0.9meter (3 feet) higher to accommodate wideningI–405. An innovative design for the new bridgecalled for half of the structure to be built in a tem-porary location and rolled into its permanent posi-tion. Conventional reconstruction would have takenthe bridge out of commission for up to a year orreduced its capacity by half for even longer. Instead,construction caused relatively few disruptions toarea drivers, with most closures limited to nightsand select weekends. The contractor moved the1,996-metric ton (2,200-ton) structure into place inabout 12 hours.

Benefits include a wider, safer bridge with morelanes of traffic, space for widening I–405 in thefuture underneath the structure, and new ramps ata location just south of the bridge that improvedowntown access for carpools, vanpools, and buses.

Washington State Rehabs Lewis and Clark Bridge

When upgrading the Lewis and Clark Bridge overthe Columbia River between Longview, WA, andRainier, OR, WSDOT committed to a tight con-struction window to minimize the impact on thetraveling public. Rather than closing the bridgeentirely, WSDOT shut it down from 9:30 p.m. to5:30 a.m. nightly for 120 nights.

To replace the deck panels, the contractor usedan innovative approach—a large specialized trans-port device that helped remove the old deck panelsand deliver the new ones. Benefits to the publicinclude leaving the bridge open for normal daytimetraffic, which is important due to the bridge’s closeproximity to the Port of Longview. At a cost ofapproximately $25 million, the redecking projectwill extend the life of the Lewis and Clark Bridge for25 years. WSDOT expects to complete the project bylate spring 2004.

West Virginia Uses FRP Decks for Bridge

The West Virginia DOT replaced the existing struc-turally deficient Howell’s Mill Bridge in CabellCounty with a superstructure using 727 squaremeters (7,833 square feet) of fiber-reinforced poly-mer (FRP) deck on weathering steel beams. Carry-ing County Route 1 over Mud River, the bridge is atwo-span structure 74.5 meters (245 feet) long and9.9 meters (32.5 feet) wide.

Completed in late July 2003, the project demon-strated the use of FRP technology on a larger-scaleproject on a secondary route with significantlyhigher average daily traffic—3,400 vehicles per day.The site conditions required serious hydraulic considerations, given that the existing structure’sroadway is submerged during flood events. Byemploying a slight change in grade and using thelightweight FRP deck to reduce dead load andachieve a minimal structure depth, WVDOT nowhas a structure capable of withstanding a 100-yearstorm event.

“The FRP decks are installed easily,” says JohnBargo, assistant bridge engineer at the FHWA WestVirginia Division, “resulting in a shorter construc-tion time, thus reducing delay and making thereplacement structure available to the public muchquicker.” With the application of this innovativetechnology, WVDOT has provided the public with a longer lasting service life for the replacementstructure.

Wisconsin Plans Marquette Interchange

The planned Marquette Interchange in downtownMilwaukee will replace deteriorated structures andimprove safety and traffic operational characteris-tics at the junction of I–43, I–94, and I–794. Theestimated cost of the project is $810 million.

Design and construction contracts will providemaximum opportunities for small businesses anddisadvantaged enterprises. The project also willemploy innovative technologies, such as high-performance steel and concrete to ensure a designlife of more than 75 years. The project will be con-structed in 4 years, between 2004 and 2008, and twolanes of through traffic will be open in the cardinaldirections during construction.

32

Archive

d

A World of Opportunities

This brief review of past, present, and future high-way projects demonstrates the viability of employ-ing innovative technologies programmatically,rather than sporadically, across the country, fromthe icy North to the tropical South, and from down-town urban areas to rural America. Money is not thedeciding factor. The key ingredient is the will anddetermination of the design and construction teamsto make the projects responsive to the needs of thepublic, whether that means completing construc-

tion faster or setting up a shuttle bus service to helptravelers get around during construction. The toolsare out there—now is the time to embrace them.

Kathleen A. Bergeron is a marketing specialist in FHWA’s Office ofInfrastructure. She has 27 years of experience in all aspects of mar-keting, including market research, public relations, and advertising.Her experience includes working for major consumer products cor-porations, a market research company, consulting engineeringfirms, and State and Federal transportation agencies.

Reprinted from Public Roads, May/June 2004.

33

Archive

d

Archive

d

35

Quality Assurance

Archive

d

Archive

d

Learn the basic elements of a statistically-basedquality assurance program for highway projects withthe Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA)National Highway Institute (NHI) course on Mate-rials Control and Acceptance-Quality Assurance.The course features an introduction to quality man-agement and quality assurance. Participants thenlearn techniques for collecting, organizing, analyz-ing, and interpreting materials data, as well asassessing the strengths and weaknesses of processcontrol and acceptance plans. The course also pro-vides an introduction to risk.

The course is available in both a 4.5-day version(Course No. FHWA-NHI-134042) and a 2-day con-densed version (Course No. FHWA-NHI-134042A).Topics covered include:

• Sampling theory.• Organization of data.• Analysis of data.• Sources of variability.• Process control.• Acceptance plans and risks.• Percent Within Limits acceptance plans.• Implementation.

Among the skills participants will gain are theability to describe necessary forms of data organiza-tion; identify population and sample means, stan-dard deviation, and coefficient of variation; indicate

sources of variability and how to use precision andbias statements; explain process control plans; iden-tify the elements of acceptance plans; and identifyprocedures for verifying contractor tests used inacceptance decisions.

The course is designed for Federal, State, andlocal highway agency engineers in materials, con-struction, research, and other highway fields. Thetarget audience also includes technicians involved inspecification development and laboratory and fieldtesting of highway materials. The course has a min-imum class size of 20 and a maximum of 30. The feeis $600 per participant for the 4.5-day class and$270 for the condensed course.

To schedule the course, complete the “On-SiteCourse Request-Form 1530” at www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/registration.asp. For more information on thecourse content, contact Michael Rafalowski atFHWA, 202-366-1571 (email: michael.rafalowski@fhwa.dot.gov). For more information on schedulinga session, contact the NHI Training Team, 703-235-0534 (email: nhitraining@fhwa.dot.gov). A coursedescription for the 4.5-day class is available atwww.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/coursedesc.asp?coursenum=102. The course description for the 2-day class canbe found at www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/coursedesc.asp?coursenum=1208.

Reprinted from Focus, April 2006.

37

The Road to Quality Assurance

Archive

d

Meet the new quality measure of choice. Now avail-able from the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA) is a 1-day introductory workshop on Per-cent Within Limits (PWL). As the workshopdemonstrates, PWL is not just business as usual.“Generally the highway industry does not use anaccept/reject model for evaluating contractors’work,” notes Jim Walls of FHWA. “Rather highwayagencies accept what is produced and pay accord-ingly, using payment systems that have incentivesand disincentives.” In contrast, the PWL modelencourages highway contractors to produce consis-tent quality work and then rewards that work bytying payment to a statistically valid measure ofquality.

The PWL workshop debuted February 8, 2006,in Raleigh, North Carolina. The workshop providesan overview of quality measures in general, detailson how PWL works, and specifics on computingPWL. Also covered are payment issues and imple-mentation steps and resources. Hands-on exercisesgive participants the opportunity to compare andcontrast quality measures and compute PWL forsample materials data. A refresher module on basicstatistical concepts is also included, covering suchtopics as probability, standard deviation, and sam-ple size. The workshop is designed for State highwayagency and FHWA division personnel responsiblefor developing and overseeing quality assurancespecifications, as well as pavements and materialsengineers.

More than 20 staff from the North CarolinaDepartment of Transportation (NCDOT) attendedthe workshop. “There is a lot of interest in learningmore about PWL, but also a lot of questions,” notesCecil Jones, State Materials Engineer for NCDOT.“PWL gives you a mathematical way to evaluatequality, but we have to make sure it’s implementedin a way that’s user friendly,” says Shannon Sweitzerof NCDOT.

Quality measures for roadway projects aredesigned to obtain a more uniform product,increase service life, reward contractors for excellentwork, and ensure that payment is appropriate to theproduct received. “With PWL, we’re focusing on thedegree to which a product or service conforms witha given requirement,” says Ewa Flom of FHWA.Using PWL, a State can set specification limits andthen determine the acceptable quality level for a job,which is the PWL value at which the contractorshould receive 100 percent payment, and therejectable quality level. The rejectable quality level isthe PWL value at which the material or construc-tion is unacceptable. Specification limits should bebased on expected performance and contractorcapabilities, and linked to life-cycle costs.

“PWL is a more efficient quality measure, allow-ing quality to be assessed with the lowest number oftests,” says Walls. And unlike such quality measuresas computing an average from material samples,PWL captures both the mean and standard devia-tion in one measure. This encourages contractors toproduce a more uniform product.

To use PWL, material is sampled and tested andthen analyzed statistically to determine the totalestimated percentage of the lot that meets the spec-ification. This is the PWL estimate. A PWL of 98.3,for example, means that 98.3 percent of the materi-al meets the project specification. The workshopcovers possible pay plans that can then be used,including stepped, continuous, and multilinearplans.

The workshop concludes by looking at challengesthat have to be addressed when implementing PWL,including the need to define goals and expectations,understand best practices, reach agency consensus,and get top management and industry support.Resources available to assist with implementationinclude such FHWA publications as Optimal Proce-dures for Quality Assurance Specifications (Publication

38

Percent Within LimitsThe Quality Measure of Choice

Archive

d

No. FHWA-RD-02-095) and Evaluation of Proceduresfor Quality Assurance Specifications (Publication No.FHWA-HRT-04-046). These publications are avail-able online at www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/pub_listing.cfm.

“The workshop was a good introduction toPWL. It enabled us to learn more about PWL andwhat it is all about,” says Wiley Jones of NCDOT. Onthe day following the workshop, some NCDOT staffmet with Dennis Dvorak of FHWA’s PWL team tomore specifically discuss applying PWL in NorthCarolina. “We went over practical guidelines forusing PWL, such as how to set up limits and what tolook for,” says Randy Pace of NCDOT. “It gave us anopportunity to ask questions and get more specificexamples. There is a lot of interest in learning moreabout PWL.” North Carolina is now looking atscheduling another PWL workshop.

For more information on PWL or scheduling theworkshop in your State, contact one of the FHWAPWL team members listed below. The PWL teammembers are also available to provide technicalassistance in conjunction with the workshop.

FHWA PWL Team

Dennis Dvorak, Resource Center708-283-3542 (email: dennis.dvorak@fhwa.dot.gov)

Ewa Flom, Office of Pavement Technology202-366-2169 (email: ewa.flom@fhwa.dot.gov)

Lee Gallivan, Office of Pavement Technology317-226-7493 (email: victor.gallivan@fhwa.dot.gov)

Jim Walls, Resource Center410-962-4796 (email: jim.walls@fhwa.dot.gov)

Reprinted from Focus, March 2006.

39

Archive

d

One of the nation’s most valuable assets is the net-work of roads and bridges linking suppliers of goodsand services with customers. The nation’s wellbeingdepends on the highway system’s condition, which inturn relates to the quality of construction.

Highway quality assurance has evolved overapproximately four decades and encompasses all theprograms and procedures for controlling andaccepting construction quality. For the most part,the procedures in use today are fair and effective,but that was not always the case. As a former statis-tical engineer with the New Jersey Department ofTransportation (DOT), I spent most of my career inquality assurance; following are some of the moreimportant lessons learned.

Real-World Variability

The first of these lessons occurred while I was study-ing for a civil engineering degree. The lesson wastaught not by one of my professors, but by a high-way inspector who had few academic credentials. Iwas working in the summers on highway construc-tion for New Jersey DOT when one of the inspectorshad an interesting idea: “Let’s send two identicalsamples to the department laboratory to see if theycome out the same.”

We carefully prepared two samples as nearly alikeas possible and sent them to the laboratory. I do notrecall the exact results, but they differed consider-ably more than we had expected. That was my firstexposure to the real world of variability, and Isensed that this must be an important aspect ofengineering.

Today we understand that there are several pos-sible explanations for differences between tests ofidentical samples. Maybe the samples were not asidentical as we thought; maybe the samples werehandled differently during transportation; or maybethe samples were tested by different operators, or on

different testing equipment, or on different days.But despite the potential sources of variability,samples of this type are used routinely to makeimportant decisions about the acceptability of theconstruction items they represent. If this ever-presentvariability causes substandard work to be erroneous-ly accepted, performance problems will arise thatare likely to prove both costly and inconvenient. Ifsatisfactory work is mistakenly rejected, completionof the project is delayed, the contractor is treatedunfairly, and the result may be increases in futurebid prices. Obviously, we need to minimize bothtypes of mistakes.

Road Test Results

At roughly the same time I became acquainted withthe realities of variability, the highway profession waslearning a similar lesson from the American Associ-ation of State Highway Officials (AASHO) RoadTest. This elaborate experiment alerted everyone thathighway construction was far more variable thananyone had realized and, in some cases, was of lesserquality than anyone had recognized.

The reports from the AASHO Road Test usedstatistical measures to describe construction quality,and a few engineers saw that these same measuresmight offer a better way to specify what was desiredthan did the materials-and-methods specificationsthen in use. Not only would a statistical approachafford greater freedom to the construction industryto use its considerable skills and innovative abilitiesto achieve the desired results, but the approach alsowould provide a valid, quantitative way for highwayagencies to judge the acceptability of the finishedproduct.

The approach also would offer legal advantages,because in some cases, courts of law had not allowedhighway agencies to reject defective work overwhich the agencies had exercised primary control

40

A Brief History of Highway Quality Assurance

by Richard M. Weed

Archive

d

via materials-and-methods specifications. Anotheradvantage would be the creation of valid databasesthat eventually could improve understanding of therelationships between construction quality and ulti-mate performance.

This new approach of basing construction speci-fications on statistical concepts clearly was a win-winsituation for all concerned. As engineers gainedfamiliarity with statistical techniques, the usebecame more frequent and more effective. Growingpains were inevitable, but these early efforts turnedout well enough that within a few years many otherhighway agencies had followed suit.

Analyzing the Risks

One of the most significant realizations from thisearly work was that the analysis of operating charac-teristic (OC) curves and of expected payment (EP)curves was an indispensable part of statistical quali-ty assurance. Only through the study of these curvescan two critical risks be known and controlled atsuitably low levels: the highway agency’s risk ofaccepting defective work, and the contractor’s risk ofhaving good work penalized or rejected.

This offers both technical and diplomaticadvantages. The correction of faulty specificationsin the office before reaching the field greatlyincreases the likelihood of making good acceptancedecisions. Assuring that statistical specificationsperform correctly and fairly greatly improves theworking relationship between the highway agencyand the construction industry.

Statistical Quality Measures

The first specifications of this type applied simplestatistical measures, often the mean—or average—of the test values. As more construction databecame available for analysis, engineers realized thatthe mean by itself was not always an adequate pre-dictor of performance. Two lots of material havingthe same mean might have markedly different levelsof variability and, consequently, substantial differ-ences in the amounts of substandard material andin the expected levels of performance.

The next step was to look for statistical qualitymeasures that would take variability into account.The moving average was out—it was as insensitive asthe mean was to variability. In addition, the movingaverage was influenced by adjoining lots of material,making any type of risk analysis extremely difficult.

A few agencies tried average absolute deviation,which has never been studied thoroughly as a formalstatistical measure and is not well suited for sin-glesided specifications for which a unique targetvalue cannot be defined. The conformal index alsowas proposed, but the drawbacks are essentially thesame as those of the average absolute deviation.

This left as the logical choices percent defective(PD) and percent within limits (PWL)—which aredifferent representations of the same thing. PD/PWL is a standard statistical measure, extensivelystudied, known to be an unbiased estimator, capableof handling single-sided and double-sided applica-tions, and with published tables for use. For thesereasons, PD/PWL continues to have the strongestintuitive appeal to most writers on statistical qualityassurance.

Bonus Provisions

Another key milestone in the development of high-way acceptance procedures was the advent of bonusprovisions. The earliest statistical specificationseither paid full price or assessed some degree of payreduction, depending on the deficiency in quality.Highway engineers eventually realized that if with-holding payment for substandard work made sense,offering some degree of monetary incentive forsuperior work also made sense. The idea was toencourage and compensate contractors whoseattention to quality control produced work thatsubstantially exceeded the specified levels of qualityand, as a result, could be expected to provide above-average performance.

Several arguments support an incentive approach.Once OC/EP curve analyses became more commonpractice, some degree of bonus provision was recog-nized as necessary for the long-term average payfactor to be 100 percent for work exactly at the leveldefined as acceptable. The natural variability of sta-tistical measures often produces quality estimatesthat are either too low or too high. Bonus provisionsallow the resulting underpayments or overpaymentsto balance in a way that turns out to be fair andequitable.

Other benefits of bonus provisions include moti-vation for higher quality work, improved relationswith the construction industry, and the likelihoodthat better contractors more often will be the suc-cessful bidders—because contractors more assuredof receiving bonus payments can afford to bid lower.Because of these benefits, a substantial majority of

41

Archive

d

highway agencies now use bonus provisions in oneform or another.

Performance-Related Specifications

A goal in highway specification writing is to relatebasic engineering properties—for example, theresilient modulus of pavement—directly to per-formance, so that specifications only state appropri-ate levels of appropriate properties. That goalremains elusive, however, and efforts have focusedon developing performance-related specifications(PRS) based on mathematical models linking quality characteristics—such as air voids in asphalt concrete or the compressive strength of portlandcement concrete—or statistical quality measures,such as PD or PWL, to performance and longevity.Typically, these specifications include pay schedulesdeveloped through life-cycle cost analysis.

PRS developmental efforts have produced adichotomy of approaches. On the one hand, highlycomplex national studies have produced sophisti-cated computer programs like HMASPEC and PCCSPEC, based on mechanistic design principles,life-cycle cost analyses, and various decision-makingprocesses. On the other hand, a few state trans-portation agencies, including New Jersey DOT, areengaged in grassroots efforts to use their own data to create simplified mathematical models with thesame underlying scientific principles.

The methods developed by the national studiesoffer the potential for greater precision and accuracy,but at the expense of considerably greater data

requirements and complexity. The grassroots mod-els are more empirical, but their simplicity and easeof being tailored to local conditions make themattractive from a practical standpoint. States thatwould like to convert statistical specifications toactual PRS will have to decide which of the two pro-foundly different approaches to take. The optimalapproach may lie somewhere between these twoextremes.

Simple but Scientific

Much has been accomplished in the field of highwayquality assurance, but much remains to be done.A slight variation of the KISS rule has served NewJersey DOT well: Keep It Simple but Scientific. Theguidance may be useful to other agencies as theycontinue to advance the state of the art of PRS.

In other words, start with the simplest approachthat makes scientific sense, and switch to somethingmore complex only if there is evidence or datashowing that the simple method is not working. Asa statistical practitioner always concerned about theaccumulation of error in any complex system, Iadvocate this practical approach for designing anyengineering process.

The author, who retired from the New Jersey Department of Trans-portation in 2002, is a full-time consultant based in Trenton. He isan Emeritus Member of the TRB Management of Quality AssuranceCommittee.

From TR News, November–December 2005, pp. 30-32. Copyright,Transportation Research Board (TRB), National Research Council,Washington, D.C. Reprinted with permission of TRB.

42

Archive

d

Adjusting highway agency budget allocation modelsto include roadway condition data was one of thechallenges for highway maintenance managersraised at the first National Maintenance QualityAssurance Peer Exchange Conference held in Madi-son, Wisconsin, from October 11–13, 2004. Thirty-six States and Canadian provinces and three coun-ties were represented at the conference, as well as theU.S. Forest Service and the University of Wisconsin.The conference was sponsored by the Federal High-way Administration (FHWA), the Midwest RegionalUniversity Transportation Center (MRUTC) at theUniversity of Wisconsin, the American Associationof State Highway and Transportation Officials(AASHTO) Highway Subcommittee on Mainte-nance, and 21 State departments of transportation.As the first peer exchange of its type, it offered par-ticipants a rare chance to network and compare bestpractices with others in their field.

“Maintenance quality assurance programs havebeen growing over the last 20 years, and the peoplerunning them don’t have many peers in their organ-ization,” says Alison Lebwohl of the WisconsinDepartment of Transportation (DOT) and chair ofthe conference. “When you have a question, youdon’t have anyone to bounce infor-mation off of.”

Maintenance quality assurance(MQA) programs help measure andreport on the condition of highwayassets, linking results to budgets andproviding managers with programmeasurements. Highway programmanagers are often struggling tomeasure their programs in mean-ingful ways.“If you invest ‘x’ dollars,you’ve got to be able to prove you’vegot a better program,” notes JasonBittner of MRUTC. “What doesmeasuring the tons of salt on the

roadway give you? It doesn’t really give you any-thing. It doesn’t tell you about the resulting condi-tion of the roads.”

Keynote speaker Carlos Braceras, deputy directorof the Utah Department of Transportation andchair of the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee onMaintenance, noted the importance of carefullyanalyzing what matters most to customers and thenreallocating funds to improve levels of service. “Ourcustomers will be asking us to do more and more,and we will not be getting more resources in thefuture,” Braceras said. “We will need to make gooddecisions on what we are spending our money on,and we need to make good decisions about what weare not spending our money on.”

Participants met in breakout sessions to discusstheir top concerns and issues. These included devel-oping a budget allocation model that is not onlybased on history, but also incorporates MQA data;determining how to use conditions and dollarsspent to predict outcomes; developing meaningfuland consistent performance measures for wintermaintenance; integrating pavement management,maintenance management systems, and MQA;developing a set of frequently asked questions about

43

Maintenance Quality AssuranceLearning from Your Peers

The first National Maintenance Quality Assurance Peer Exchange Conferenceoffered participants a chance to compare best practices with others in their field.

Archive

d

MQA statistics, with illustrativecase studies; and developing aguide to highway maintenancethat looks at why it matters, whatit costs, and what happens when itis not done.

Participants also shared theirexperiences and best practices.Larry Galehouse, Director of theNational Center for PavementPreservation in Okemos, Michi-gan, spoke about the value ofpavement preservation programs.These programs combine pave-ment preventive maintenance,rehabilitation, and reconstructioninto a single comprehensive strat-egy to improve the future long-term condition of the highway network. The mix offixes helps optimize the use of available funds tomeet network condition needs, producing a betterreturn on the money spent. Using preventive main-tenance treatments, such as micro-surfacing, chipseals, and slurry seals, allows highway agencies to

postpone costly reconstruction orrehabilitation activities by extend-ing the service lives of their origi-nal pavements.

Topics discussed at the confer-ence will be edited into a formallist of national priorities by theconference steering committee.The committee hopes that this listwill be used to determine researchprojects and priorities. Missouri,for example, has already usedinformation from the list to makeresearch decisions, Lebwohl notes.

All presentations and confer-ence materials are available in anonline resource library (www.mrutc.org/outreach/mQA), and a

listserv is also available for networking. For moreinformation on the conference or MQA, contactAlison Lebwohl at 608-266-8666 (email: Alison.Lebwohl@dot.state.wi.us), or Jason Bittner at 608-262-7246 (email: bittner@engr.wisc.edu).

Reprinted from Focus, November 2004.

44

Maintenance qualityassurance (MQA)

programs help measure and report on the condition of

highway assets, linking results to

budgets and providingmanagers with

program measurements.

Archive

d

45

Performance Standards and

Performance Warranties

Archive

d

Archive

d

Ambitious, but achievable, expectations are the firststep to improve safety, to reduce construction-related congestion, and to enhance quality.

What if the highway community were to gaugethe success of a highway construction project notfrom the perspective of engineers and public offi-cials, but from the perspective of highway users?What might standards for customer service in theareas of safety, construction-related congestion, andquality look like? What if the government agenciesand contractors responsible for highway construc-tion were to use customer-focused performancestandards—standards addressing characteristicssuch as smoothness, noise, longevity, and conges-tion—to define the highway infrastructure withoutbeing prescriptive about how it is built? How mightsuch standards contribute to achieving a highwaycommunity that is more focused on meeting theneeds of users and more open to new technologiesthat can improve highway safety, reduce construc-tion-related congestion, and enhance the quality ofour highway infrastructure?

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)has identified customer-focused performance stan-dards as one measure that could contribute to sig-nificant advancement in highway constructionpractices.

Specifications Versus Performance Standards

While specifications define or provide a recipe forgetting to a specific final product, performancestandards tell what level of performance is expectedfor that product and then leave it up to the targetedorganization to work out how to get there. Inessence, performance standards represent a stepbeyond end-result specifications. The primary ben-efit is that an organization is allowed to use itsexpertise and experience to come up with innova-tive ways of obtaining the desired performance,

rather than simply doing what has always been donebefore.

Skeptics who doubt that performance standardscan be used effectively might look at the relation-ship between the Federal government and the auto-mobile industry. Although the Federal governmentdoes not dictate specifically how manufacturersbuild their cars, several agencies are involved withmaking sure those vehicles are designed and built tocertain levels of performance.

For example, the National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration is charged with maintaining crash-worthiness standards, so the agency developed stan-dards such as the frontal crash compliance test,which calls for a 48.3 kilometers per hour (kph), or30 miles per hour (mph), impact into a rigid, fixedbarrier. The agency also coordinates the CorporateAverage Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, whichdictate the average level of fuel efficiency that anautomobile manufacturer’s vehicles must maintain.That standard is currently 11.7 kilometers per liter(27.5 miles per gallon) for passenger automobilesand 8.8 (20.7) for light trucks.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) regulates standards for motor vehicle pollu-tion. As EPA’s Office of Mobile Sources indicates onone of its Web sites (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/invntory/overview/solutions/vech_engines.htm),EPA standards direct how much pollution autos mayemit, but automakers decide how to achieve the pol-lution limits. The emission reductions of the 1970scame about because of fundamental improvementsin engine design, plus the addition of charcoal canis-ters to collect hydrocarbon vapors and exhaust gasrecirculation valves to reduce nitrogen oxides. Carcompanies are left to determine how best to meet thestandards while delivering the best value to their cus-tomers. The result is an automobile industry that isresponsive to the needs of the public, yet free tomake use of innovation and imagination to compete

47

The Case for Performance Standards

by Cheryl Allen Richter

Archive

d

in the marketplace. The standards actually appear todrive quality up!

The highway infrastructure analog to the threeperformance standards for automobiles—crash-worthiness, CAFE, and emissions standards—might be safety, quality, and congestion resultingfrom construction. As with the auto world, in high-way construction, performance standards shouldnot spell out a recipe for building a section of high-way or a bridge, but rather give the contractor thelevels of safety, quality, and the like that are expect-ed, and then allow the contractor to use its ownabilities to meet that challenge. Another importantparallel is that it would not be sufficient to meetonly one or two of the standards; safety, quality, andcongestion minimization are all necessary to cus-tomer satisfaction.

Finally, although the focus here is on construc-tion, it must be recognized that just as the productionof safe, fuel-efficient, low-emissions automobilesbegins well before the manufacturing process starts,highway construction projects that meet demand-ing standards for safety, construction-related con-gestion, and quality begin with plans and designsthat consider the needs and behavior of highwayusers in addition to the host of issues and factorsthat affect the highway construction process and thequality of the end product.

Why Performance Standards?

The most obvious rationale for performance stan-dards is reflected in the preceding discussion of autosafety, CAFE, and emissions standards. They work!Automobiles coming off the assembly line today aresafer and more fuel efficient and produce feweremissions than those built a decade or two ago, notbecause someone dictated how they should be built,but because the desired end result was defined, andthe industry was given the freedom to innovate and figure out how that result could be achieved.Consequently, lives and fuel have been saved, andthe air that Americans breathe is cleaner than itwould otherwise be.

The success of the auto safety, CAFE, and emis-sions standards demonstrates that such standardsare highly effective drivers of change. Faced withthis success, why would the highway constructioncommunity not want to adopt a proven approach toaddressing the pressing challenges of highway con-struction? Why not establish specific targets to drive

improvements in safety, construction-related con-gestion, and quality?

Most would agree that making highways safer,reducing construction-related congestion, and im-proving the quality of our highway infrastructureare laudable and appropriate goals. But what—specifically—do these goals mean? To be meaning-ful, lofty goals such as these must be translated intospecific targets—performance standards—thatclearly define and communicate expectations forimproved safety, reduced construction-related con-gestion, and improved quality. A performance standard can serve not only as a “target to shoot at”but also as a benchmark against which success canbe assessed. As such, these standards can provide abasis for gauging the value of specific tools, materi-als, and technologies, and construction or contract-ing practices, and the success, strengths, and weak-nesses of individual construction projects or groupsof projects.

A side benefit of performance standards is thatthey bring the construction contractor into the customer satisfaction equation. Rather than simplygiving a contractor a set of specifications and wait-ing for the contractor to build a highway in aninformation vacuum, the owner agency focuses thecontractor’s efforts on specific customer-relatedneeds, such as minimal traffic disruption, speed ofcompletion, smoothness level, quiet level of ride, orincreased level of safety. Thus, the contractor andowner agency become a team aimed at satisfying theneeds of the customer, rather than simply getting aroad built.

Performance Standards in Practice

Although the proposed role for performance stan-dards goes well beyond current highway construc-tion practice, performance standards for highwayconstruction are nothing new. Because pavementsmoothness is widely recognized as important froma standpoint of both user satisfaction (no one likesto drive on a rough road) and long-term perform-ance (because smooth roads last longer and areoften of higher overall quality than rough roads),performance standards for pavement smoothnesshave seen widespread use. Most State highway agencies use smoothness specifications of one formor another. These specifications establish target values (standards) for smoothness as measuredusing standard engineering test methods that have

48

Archive

d

been related to user perceptions. Many includeincentives and/or disincentives to encourageachievement of the high levels of smoothness thatresult in reduced operating costs for highway usersand reduced maintenance costs for the owner agencies. Current performance standards forsmoothness and the results obtained with them are illustrated by examples from Arizona, Virginia,and Kansas.

ArizonaFor new construction, Arizona has a target Interna-tional Roughness Index (IRI) value of 41, withsmoothness expressed as IRI in inches per mile.Incentives are earned for values below 38, and disin-centives are assessed for values in excess of 48.

For rehabilitation projects, the target, incentive,and disincentive values vary as a function of high-way type, the nature of the work to be performed,and (in some cases) the smoothness of the existingpavement. Ranges are as follows:

• Target smoothness: 39 to 68• Thresholds for incentives: 37 to 66 (target minus

2)• Threshold for disincentives: 49 to 78 (target plus

10)

Removal and replacement (as opposed to othercorrective action) is required for smoothness valuesthat exceed the target plus 45.

Incentives Earned. In general, typical pavementsmoothness incentives paid by the Arizona DOTaverage approximately $7,500 per lane mile orapproximately $1.00 per square yard.

Typical or Average Levels of Smoothness ActuallyProvided. Average contractors in Arizona produceIRI smoothness values in the mid 30s. Some verygood contractors consistently achieve IRI smooth-ness values in the low 30s, with substantial areasoften in the 20s.

VirginiaVirginia has smoothness special provisions for newconstruction and maintenance resurfacing, withsmoothness expressed as IRI in inches per mile. Fornew construction, payment of 100 percent is for anIRI between 55 and 70 inches/mile. Bonus paymentsare earned for achieving IRI values less than 55, andpenalties are incurred for IRI values greater than70, to a maximum of zero payment at IRI valuesgreater than 160 inches/mile. Corrective action is

required when the average IRI for a section exceeds100 inches/mile.

For maintenance resurfacing, a maximum 10percent bonus based on the AC surface cost is pos-sible for interstate sections with an IRI less than 45and for noninterstates with an IRI less than 55.Additionally, 100 percent payment is for interstatesfrom 55 to 70, while noninterstates must have an IRIbetween 65 and 80 for 100 percent payment.

Unlike new construction projects, most resurfac-ing projects are tested prior to and after paving.These projects are either a straight overlay or a mill-and-replace. The before-and-after testing is used todetermine the amount of improvement in ridequality. If the contractor is able to improve the qual-ity by more than 30 percent, then the contractor isguaranteed 100 percent payment for ride.

Incentives Offered by These Specifications. Fornew construction, the contractor can receive anincentive of up to 5 percent based on IRI results.The amount of the incentive is based on the unitcost for all AC layers or the square yard unit cost forthe PCC.

Maintenance resurfacing contracts allow up to a10 percent bonus. This amount is based on the ACsurface cost.

Typical or Average Levels of Smoothness ActuallyProvided. Virginia has been actively using a ride spe-cial provision since the late 1990s. Most of the ridedata have been collected on maintenance resurfac-ing projects. With more than 150 projects in 2002,the average IRI on interstates was 60 inches/mile.For noninterstate routes, the average was 67 inch-es/mile on U.S. routes and 74 inches/mile on Stateroutes. Over the last 6 years, the average IRI on theinterstates has stabilized; the ride quality on nonin-terstate routes continues to improve. Analysis of the2003 ride sites is underway.

In addition to improved ride quality, Virginia hasseen other benefits through use of these special pro-visions. During the mix-design process, contractorsare developing mixes that better balance mix pro-duction costs and level of effort to achieve goodquality field placement. These mixes result in betterride, better density, less tendency to segregate, lesspermeability, and more liquid asphalt for durability.When the ride special provision is applied to theproject, more attention to detail is given during thepaving process through use of a materials transfervehicle, continuous feed of material, no stopping ofthe paver, and proper rolling techniques. The use of

49

Archive

d

the ride special provision provides initial monetaryincentives to the contractor and longer lasting pave-ments for the taxpayer.

KansasWith smoothness expressed as profile index in mil-limeters/kilometer (mm/km), Kansas specifications,in general, require an average profile index of 475mm/km or less per 0.1 km section as measured witha California-type profilograph, a wheeled instru-ment for measuring smoothness by amplification ofany variations from the plane. For PCC pavements,a higher value of 710 mm/km is allowed for road-ways with a posted speed of 45 miles per hour(mph) or less and ramps. For flexible pavements, anexception is made for ramps and acceleration anddeceleration lanes, for which a profile index of 630

mm/km or less is required. In addition, PCC pave-ment areas within each section having high pointswith deviations greater than 7.5 mm and flexiblepavement areas within each section having high orlow points with deviations greater than 10 mm in alength of 7.5 meters are to be corrected regardless ofthe profile index. The full specifications may befound at www.ksdot.org/public/kdot/burconsmain/specprov/pdf/90m-0111-r10.pdf (PCC) and www.ksdot.org/public/kdot/burconsmain/specprov/pdf/90m-0039-r09.pdf (flexible pavements).

Incentives Offered by These Specifications. Payadjustments are based on the average profile indexdetermined for the sections prior to any correctivework such as grinding. If the contractor elects toremove and replace the sections (or overlay flexiblepavements) to meet the smoothness specification,pay adjustments will be based on the average profileindex obtained after replacement or overlay. Seetables labeled “Schedule for Adjusted Payment—Flexible Pavements” and “Schedule for AdjustedPayment—PCC Pavements” for pay adjustmentschedules.

Typical or Average Levels of Smoothness ActuallyProvided. Although some fluctuation has occurredfrom year to year, Kansas has seen a substantialincrease in the percentage of pavements built withhigh levels of smoothness (0 to 240 mm/km forPCC pavements and 0 to 160 mm/km for flexiblepavements).

How Might Performance Standards Look?

In highway construction, “the devil is in the details,”and so it is with performance standards for highwayconstruction. Although the smoothness specifica-tions discussed in the preceding paragraphs representimportant and successful steps toward customer-focused performance standards, they address onlyone aspect of performance. A complete set of cus-tomer-focused performance standards would addressnot only smoothness (which might be thought of asone element of quality), but also safety, congestion,and other aspects of quality. Moreover, an effectiveset of customer-focused performance standardswould be founded on extensive input and participa-tion from stakeholders throughout the highwaycommunity. Criteria that might be considered informulating performance standards include:

50

Schedule for Adjusted Payment—PCC Pavements

Average Profile Index Contract Price Adjustment (mm/km per lane per 0.1 km section) (per 0.1 km section per lane)

(greater than 45 mph) (45 mph or less and ramps)

95 or less +$760.00

96 to 160 240 or less +$630.00

161 to 240 +$470.00

241 to 400 +$310.00

241 to 285 +$240.00

286 to 475 401 to 710 +$0.00

476 to 630 711 to 1025 +$0.00*

631 or more 1026 or more -$470.00*

* Correct to 400 mm/km (710 mm/km for 45 mph or less and ramps)

Schedule for Adjusted Payment—Flexible Pavements

Average Profile Index Contract Price Adjustment (mm/km per lane per 0.1 km section) (per 0.1 km section per lane)

110 or less +$100.00

111 to 160 +$50.00

161 to 475 0.00*

476 to 630 0.00*

* Correct to 475 mm/km (630 mm/km for ramps, acceleration and deceleration lanes)

Archive

d

• Availability of a standard test procedure for themetric

• Feasibility of applying the performance standardwithin the context of highway constructionprojects

• Ability of the work performed to influence thecharacteristic measured by the metric

• Specificity of the standard to the desired out-come—improved safety, reduced construction-related congestion, or improved quality

To be truly effective, standards should be set at alevel of performance well above average, but withinthe bounds of what has been achieved with currentbest practices and technologies. That is, they shouldrequire that agencies and contractors strive forexcellence without setting a goal that cannot beachieved.

Several candidate performance standards areidentified in the tables labeled “Possible Perfor-mance Standards for Safety,” “Possible PerformanceStandards for Construction-Related Congestion,”and “Possible Performance Standards for Quality.”Identification of these candidate standards wasguided, but not wholly driven, by the criteria out-lined above. Identification of appropriate, nonpre-scriptive standards and performance measures foroverall quality and longevity is especially challeng-ing because the most obvious measures requirelong-term monitoring of performance. In practice,it may be appropriate to identify a small number ofsurrogate “quality indicators” in lieu of true qualitystandards.

Application of the Performance Standards

How might performance standards be applied inpractice? A good place to start, after completing the development of a preliminary set of standardsthrough dialogue with highway stakeholders, wouldbe to apply them on some pilot projects that includethe collection of data prior to, during, and after con-struction to support evaluation and refinement ofthe performance standards.

Customer-focused performance standards havethe potential to be a key driver of innovation in thehighway construction business. Such standardscould establish elevated expectations for achieve-ment in the areas of highway safety, minimization of

51

Possible Performance Standards for Quality

User Concern Parameter Measure and Standard

Ride is comfortable Smoothness IRI less than 0.80 m/km (pavements)

Profile Index Value < 10 inches per mile (bridges)

Ride is quiet for Noise Close Proximity 94.0drivers, passengers, Method (CPX), and those adjacent A-weighted to the highway decibels (dBA)

Intensity 97.0

The end product User Satisfaction with Customer satisfaction ratingof the construction Construction Process process was worth and End Productthe inconvenience incurred to get it done

Possible Performance Standards for Safety

User Concern Parameter Measure and Standard

Travelers are able Work Zone Safety Work zone crash rate less to navigate the work than statewide averagezone safely

(Two options identified) Work zone safety index(to be defined)

Highway construction Worker Safety Worker injury rate less than workers are not During Construction 7.7 injuries and illnesses injured per 100 full-time workers

Travelers are able to Facility Safety After Reduction in fatalities and navigate the highway Construction injuries as reflected in safely under both wet 3-year average crash rates, and dry conditions using preconstruction rates

as baseline

Possible Performance Standards for Construction-Related Congestion

User Concern Parameter Measure and Standard

Avoid or minimize Travel Time Less than 10 percent travel delays caused reduction in average speed, by highway using 100 percent samplingconstruction

Queue Length < 0.5-mile stopped queue (speed less than 10 mph)

< 1.5-mile moving queue (travel speed 20 percent less than posted speed)

Archive

d

construction-related congestion, and highway qual-ity, all of which are of vital importance to the usersof the national highway system.

Cheryl Richter, P.E., Ph.D., is the pavement technical coordinator inFHWA’s Office of Infrastructure. Prior to her current assignment, sheserved as the team leader for Portland Cement Concrete PavementResearch and Development and as part of the Long-Term PavementPerformance Program staff at FHWA’s Turner-Fairbank HighwayResearch Center in McLean, VA. Prior to joining FHWA, she workedfor the Strategic Highway Research Program and the New York

State DOT. She earned her B.S. and M.S. from Cornell Universityand her Ph.D. from the University of Maryland. She is registered asa professional engineer in Maryland.

The author would like to thank Lorenzo Casanova, Ken Davis,and Kirk Fredrichs of the FHWA Virginia, Arizona, and Kansas Divi-sions for gathering information for this article.

For more information on performance standards, contact CherylRichter at 202–366–3039 or cheryl.richter@fhwa.dot.gov.

Reprinted from Public Roads, May/June 2004.

52

Archive

d

Faced with staff and budget shrinkages and the needto increase pavement quality and life-cycle perform-ance, some State highway agencies are finding thatpavement warranties offer an alternative way toassure performance. These warranties guarantee the integrity of the product and the contractor’sresponsibility to repair or replace defects for adefined period.

The Indiana Department of Transportation(INDOT) started using warranties on asphalt pave-ments 7 years ago. The agency’s goal was to encour-age contractor innovation and at the same timecompensate for a decrease in manpower for inspec-tion and oversight. “We wanted to be able to domore with fewer people,” says Dave Andrewski ofINDOT. Indiana awards about two or three war-rantied projects a year, with the warranties good for5 years. The warranties are placed on very high traffic volume projects in conjunction with timeincentives. This is done to ensure that the fast paceof construction that time incentives encourage stillproduces a high quality project for INDOT. Theeffort started with asphalt pavements but expandedlast year to concrete with the construction of a war-rantied pavement on I-65 in the southern part ofthe State. The warranty specifications were devel-oped in concert with industry. Indiana is pleasedwith the results to date. “The projects are built fasterand we get quality work and very smooth pave-ments,” says Andrewski.

At the end of the 5-year warranty period, thresh-old values for International Roughness Index, surfacedeformation (rutting for asphalt pavements/scalingfor concrete pavements), transverse cracking, longi-tudinal cracking, friction number, and joint sealantcondition (for concrete pavement only) are meas-ured. If the pavement meets those values at the 5-year mark, then INDOT is confident based on his-torical data that the pavement will be serviceablethrough its design life. To date, two asphalt pave-

ment contracts have reached the 5-year mark andboth have been accepted.

The Michigan Department of Transportation(DOT) started using warranties in 1996. While theagency started with materials and workmanshipwarranties, it has since expanded the warranty pro-gram to include performance warranties also. Per-formance warranties allow the contractor moreflexibility in terms of materials selection, workman-ship methods, and design decisions. “We startedexploring warranties as a way to reduce oversightbut still ensure that contractors are delivering thehigh quality product we need. It’s also about gettingcontractors to take a long-term interest in pavementperformance,” says Steve Bower of Michigan DOT.“We’re trying to get the contractors to have a highlevel of self awareness with regard to constructionquality. It raises awareness about how workmanshipand materials decisions can affect long-term pave-ment performance.” From 1996-2002, the State let473 preventive maintenance projects that had war-ranties and 131 rehabilitation projects. More than90 percent of projects in the agency’s 2002 CapitalPreventive Maintenance (CPM) Program were war-rantied, while more than 50 percent of 2002 recon-struction and rehabilitation projects included apavement warranty.

CPM pavement warranties are for a 3-yearduration and include treatments such as thinasphalt overlays, concrete patching, chip seals, andmicrosurfacing. Rehabilitation and reconstructionwarranties are for a 5-year duration and includefixes such as new concrete and asphalt construc-tion, hot-mix asphalt (HMA) overlays on repairedpavement, and HMA overlays on rubblized con-crete pavement.

In December 2002, the DOT began work on a19.3-km (12-mi) project on the M-6 Freeway Bypassin Grand Rapids that will have a 7-year performancewarranty. “The contractor will have additional flex-

53

Pavement Warranties Yield Innovation, Quality

Archive

d

ibility with the mix design, more than would usuallybe given under the standard QC/QA approach,” saysBower. Two more performance warranty projectswill be let in March 2003, using the same specifica-tions.

Michigan reports that its construction oversightcosts have dropped since it started using warranties.The DOT has not yet seen a longer service life forpavements but it has observed more innovation onthe part of contractors. Lessons learned have includ-ed the need to have a good pavement managementsystem (PMS) in place. A good PMS is necessary inorder to have the comprehensive pavement perform-ance data that is needed for developing pavementperformance measures and thresholds. Bower notesthat the agency picked thresholds and performance

levels that are attainable based on pavement man-agement data from past projects. “It is imperativethat you manage the risk for contractors or it willtranslate into higher bid prices,” says Bower.

For more information on Indiana’s warranty use,contact Dave Andrewski at INDOT, 317-610-7251,x. 212 (email: dandrewski@indot.state.in.us). Formore information on Michigan’s warranty program,contact Steve Bower at Michigan DOT, 517-322-5198 (email: bowers@michigan.gov). To learn moreabout pavement warranties in general, contact JohnD’Angelo at FHWA, 202-366-0121 (fax: 202-493-2070; email: john.d’angelo@fhwa.dot.gov).

Reprinted from Focus, January/February 2003.

54

Archive

d

Does your road come with a warranty? TraditionalU.S. construction contracts have typically requiredcontractors to provide a project warranty for just 1year following construction completion. Highwayagencies are now increasingly requesting longerterm warranty contracts on large asphalt pavingprojects, with the goal of improving pavement per-formance and reducing life-cycle costs. Four- and 5-year warranties are already common in Europe,where some highway agencies have been using themfor more than 40 years. To learn more from Europe’sexperiences, a U.S. panel of Federal, State, and localgovernment and industry representatives traveled toSpain, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and GreatBritain in September 2002 for a “European AsphaltPavement Warranties Scan.” The Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA) and the American Associ-ation of State Highway and Transportation Officials(AASHTO) jointly sponsored the scanning tour,under the guidance of the FHWA Office of Interna-tional Programs and the National CooperativeHighway Research Program.

The scan was designed to review and documentthe policies and strategies used in Europe to deter-mine risk assessment and administer warranty contracts. As the participants learned, all of thecountries visited believe that warranties haveimproved the quality of their highway systems.“They’re achieving a better quality product and abetter relation with contractors,” says scan co-chairJohn D’Angelo of FHWA. Specific items studiedwere:

• Methodologies used to determine risk assess-ment for the government agency and contractor;

• Methodologies for administration of warrantycontracts;

• Methodologies to select criteria to account fortraditional performance indicators of rutting,fatigue cracking, and low temperature cracking;

• Practices to maintain prescribed levels ofsmoothness and skid resistance;

• Criteria used in successful asphalt pavementwarranties; and

• Pavement performance prediction tools.

Meetings were held with government agencies,academia, and private sector organizations. Partici-pants also had the opportunity to visit sites whereinnovative asphalt warranty contracting techniqueswere being applied. “I found particularly interestingEurope’s long standing experience with materialsand performance warranties,” says Steve Bower ofthe Michigan Department of Transportation.“These materials and workmanship warrantiescover all types of road construction work, includingpavements, bridges, roadway embankments, seedingand sodding, and pavement marking.”

All of the countries visited use materials andworkmanship warranties, which ensure that thecontractor will build the pavement as specified bythe owner and fix any defects resulting from the useof improper materials or inferior installation. War-ranty periods vary, with Spain employing a 1-yearwarranty period, for example, and Germany using a4-year warranty.

Three of the countries, Denmark, Sweden, andGreat Britain, use performance warranties. Thistype of warranty covers the performance of thecomplete asphalt pavement, in addition to materialsand workmanship, and allows for contractor inno-vation in mix design and/or material installation.All three countries have a 5-year warranty period. Inaddition to rutting, cracking, and durability,smoothness and friction are often measured as well.

All of the countries use a best-value procurementprocess instead of a low bid one. Under this pro-curement process, the contract is awarded based ontechnical and/or performance items, not just cost.The best-value criteria include safety features, inno-

55

Pavement WarrantiesLearning from the European Experience

Archive

d

vation, and environmental impact. Denmark alsoconsiders the bidding of additional years of warrantyas a best-value criterion. The host countries consid-er this best-value criteria to be critical to their war-ranty programs, as highway agencies must havegreater confidence in contractors’ ability to get thejob done.

The European countries are also looking at alter-native contracting as a way to increase innovationwithout creating a burden for highway agencies,which are increasingly short-handed. Two of these

alternative contracting methods are pavement per-formance contracts (PPCs) and design-build-finance-operate (DBFO) contracts. PPCs extendperformance warranties to cover a warranty periodthat is closer to the design life of the pavement. Thecontractor is responsible for designing, construct-ing, and maintaining the performance of the pave-ment at pre-specified levels. Maintenance caninclude anything from filling potholes to a completemill and overlay of a section of pavement. All fivecountries are using or experimenting with some

56

The scanning tour panel in Germany.

The scanning tour panelmeets with the government

in Denmark, as well asindustry representatives

from Denmark and Sweden.

Archive

d

form of PPCs, which have warranty periods of 11 to 20 years. The PPCs are being developed in closecollaboration with industry.

Both Spain and Great Britain are using DBFOs toturn a small fraction of their highway network overto the private sector for long-term financing, opera-tion, and maintenance. These DBFO contractsrange from 25 to 30 years. Several factors are con-tributing to the use of the contracts, including a lackof public funding and the belief that private financ-ing and maintenance can sometimes deliver a higherquality product.

Following its observation of the successful Euro-pean warranty programs, the scan team’s recommen-dations include:

• The Federal Government should considerrequiring short-term material and workmanshipwarranties on all federally-funded projects.

• The Federal Government should also assist withenabling legislation to allow contract awardsbased upon technical and quality factors in addi-tion to cost.

• State and local highway agencies should work toenable legislation allowing contract awards basedupon technical and quality factors in addition tocost.

• Industry partners should develop an awarenessand understanding of warranty issues and risks.

• State and local highway agencies should developmaterial and workmanship warranty programsthrough internal education and industry partici-pation, and should implement short-term per-formance warranties when it is appropriate.

For more information about the scan or toobtain an Executive Summary of the trip’s findings,contact John D’Angelo at FHWA, 202-366-0121(fax: 202-493-2070; email: john.d’angelo@fhwa.dot.gov). A detailed report on the scan will be publishedthis summer.

Reprinted from Focus, January/February 2003.

57

Archive

d

Archive

d

59

Customer Satisfaction

Archive

d

Archive

d

A joke that made the rounds a few years back tells ofa software mogul who, speaking at a computer tradeshow stated that if the automobile industry had keptup with technology the way that the computerindustry does, everyone would be driving $25 carsthat average 1,000 miles to the gallon.

The joke continues: In response, the auto indus-try issued a press release stating that if it had devel-oped technology the way the software industry does,cars would have some rather odd quirks. Every timeworkers repainted the lines on the road, motoristswould have to buy a new car. For no reason whatso-ever, the car would crash twice a day. Maneuverssuch as a left turn occasionally would cause the carto shut down and refuse to restart, and the motoristwould have to reinstall the engine. The airbag sys-tem would ask, “Are you sure?” before deploying.And every time a new car was introduced, buyerswould have to learn to drive all over again becausenone of the controls would operate the same as theydid in the older car.

Although amusing, the story perhaps is morevaluable as an object lesson than as a joke: People inthe highway community might well ask themselves,“How well do I serve my customers compared to theway other industries serve theirs?”

How does the highway industry compare, forexample, with utilities such as water, electricity, ornatural gas, or with other public services? Better yet,how does it compare with more competitive con-sumer-products industries—manufacturers oflaundry detergents, breakfast cereals, soft drinks,and, yes, automobiles and computers? On somelevel, all are trying to do the same thing—maketheir customers happy. Further, State departmentsof transportation (DOTs) also have the responsibil-ity to provide a safe and efficient driving experience.

“One of the greatest challenges for State DOTs ismotivating construction contractors to achieve oreven surpass an agency’s goals for customer satisfac-

tion,” says former New Jersey Department of Trans-portation Commissioner Jack Lettiere. When severalcontractors bid on a highway construction project,and the lowest bidder gets the job, how does theDOT motivate the winner to complete the projectbetter, faster, or with less impact on the travelingpublic? In other words, how does a DOT encouragecontractors to build highway projects in such a waythat the process responds to the public’s desires andneeds?

The obvious way is simply to demand it—writespecifications and contract provisions that clearlydefine the schedule requirements. The problemwith such an approach is that the DOT may notreceive any bids if it makes the project requirementstoo stringent, or contractors may include large con-tingencies in their bids to offset potential losses ifthey do not meet the contracting agency’s schedule.Moreover, if the agency specifies exactly how itwants the project done, it is not benefiting from thecreativity of the marketplace. The very basis of afree-market economy is that the company or indi-vidual who can come up with a better approach getsthe advantage. So if a DOT can somehow devise away for a contractor to use its own creativity toreach a specified level of performance, the result willbe a win-win for both the DOT and the private firm.

A Two-Way Street

Of course, the challenge is not simply persuadingcontractors to respond appropriately to what isrequired of them. It also entails knowing exactlywhat to demand in the first place. What, precisely,does the public want with regard to particularroads or projects? And how do DOTs gather thatinformation?

Like other government organizations, mosttransportation agencies maintain an office that hasthe responsibility of communicating with the public.

61

Helping Roadway Contractors Fulfill

Public Expectations

by Kathleen Bergeron

Incentive and disincentive provisions can help motivate highway builders to complete projects economically, safely, and quickly.

Archive

d

Usually the office is dubbed Public Affairs or PublicInformation or Public Outreach. Much of theoffice’s work is one-way communication: telling thepublic the story the agency wants to deliver. Theoffice sends press releases to the media (which, it ishoped, will convey the story to the public), distrib-utes brochures at hearings and trade shows, andpublishes newsletters geared toward specific projectsthat target businesses and residents who may beaffected by the projects.

Although such communications help demon-strate how an agency is spending the funds entrustedto it, something may be missing. In comparison tothe volume of information leaving the agency, verylittle feedback from highway users is brought intothe organization to help determine its responses tothe public’s wants and needs. True communication,however, is a two-way street, providing informationand listening or receiving feedback.

This deficiency is not unique to highway agencies.In a 1976 article published in Public RelationsReview, authors Sue H. Bell and Eugene C. Bell dis-cuss two approaches to public relations, one theycall “functionary” and the other “functional.” Thefunctionary approach is based on the assumptionthat the purpose of public relations (or publicaffairs, or public outreach) is limited to effectingchanges to the environment outside the organiza-tion. On the other hand, functional public relationsassumes that changes can be made to the organiza-tion itself as a result of information gained fromoutside.

“Functionaries” attempt to preserve and pro-mote a favorable image of the organization in thecommunity based on the hypothesis that if theorganization is “liked,” the public will continue toabsorb its outputs. In contrast, “functionals” seekoutside information to see where the organizationcan better serve its constituents. So, instead of talk-ing about “relating to the public,” or “public rela-tions,” the reference is to two-way communication.And in private industry, being able to change aproduct or service (whether it is computers, auto-mobiles, or whatever) to meet the public’s changingneeds can be critical to survival. This is importantfor public agencies too. Consider for a moment howlocal fire departments have changed over the last 50years. Today they encompass emergency/medicalresponse departments in addition to traditional firesuppression/prevention departments, as a result ofthe changing public need for these services.

In the Federal highway business, Section 128 ofTitle 23 of the United States Code requires publichearings whenever Federal funds are included in ahighway project. But too often, comments are mere-ly recorded. As stated in the forward to the reportPublic Involvement Techniques for TransportationDecision-making (FHWA-PD-96-031), “Acting inaccord with basic democratic principles means thatpublic involvement is more than simply followinglegislation and regulations. In a democratic society,people have opportunities to debate issues, framealternative solutions, and affect final decisions inways that respect the roles of decisionmakers.Knowledge is the basis of such participation. Thepublic needs to know details about a plan or projectto evaluate its importance or anticipated costs andbenefits. Agency goals reflect community goals.Through continued interaction with the entirecommunity, agencies build community supportand, more importantly, assure that the public hasthe opportunity to help shape the substance of plansand projects.”

Opening a Dialogue

Beyond two-way communication, where informa-tion is gained from both sides, lies the realm of truedialogue, where one side makes a point and theother responds constructively, and where there is, ineffect, a conversation. One good example of dialoguein the highway community is now occurring on thetopic of pavement performance.

In late 1995, FHWA sponsored a national surveyof highway users. The survey consisted of an 18-minute telephone questionnaire with 2,205 inter-views completed in the end. The responses wereweighted to reflect U.S. Census Bureau norms forgender, age, race/ethnicity, education, and censusregion. The report that came from the interviews,the National Highway User Survey, looked at thepublic’s overall satisfaction with various aspects ofthe highway system. “It is clear that the top priorityfor improving the Nation’s highways is to focus onthe quality of the roadway surface,” FHWA and itsconsultants concluded. “This is the factor that willmost significantly increase public satisfaction withthe highway system.”

Responding to that call for action, FHWA createda multiagency team in 1997 to develop and marketa national pavement smoothness initiative. Using asmodels the pioneering incentive program for

62

Archive

d

asphalt pavement smoothness created by the ArizonaDepartment of Transportation (ADOT) and a sim-ilar program for portland cement concrete champi-oned by the Kansas Department of Transportation,FHWA strongly encouraged State DOTs and theircontractors to focus on building smoother pave-ment surfaces.

The challenge was determining how to motivateconstruction contractors to perform above andbeyond their normal levels. This is where the con-cept of incentives came into play. “Incentives aregreat tools because they enable a transportationagency to set a goal for contractors and, within cer-tain limits, allow the contractor to use its ingenuityto come up with the means by which to achieve thegoal,” says FHWA Senior Pavement Design EngineerMark Swanlund.

This approach is similar to the way the FederalGovernment works with automobile manufacturersto ensure regulatory compliance. Rather than speci-fying exactly how the car companies should buildtheir products, the Government sets a number ofgeneral standards to which manufacturers mustadhere. For example, Corporate Average Fuel Econ-omy standards guide the fuel efficiency of a compa-ny’s products in general, National Ambient AirQuality Standards govern the volume of air pollu-tion that companies can emit, and the New CarAssessment Program sets standards for how wellvehicles should handle front-end crashes.

According to Swanlund, encouraging State DOTsto adopt incentive specifications through theFHWA-sponsored pavement smoothness initiativewas one of many factors that resulted in significantlyimproved pavement conditions on the nationalhighway system. The “response” to the public’s callfor action was, in effect, the other half of a conver-sation between the motoring public and theNation’s transportation professionals.

Surveys Say…

But that was not the end of the conversation. In2000 FHWA again brought the driving public intothe conversation through a survey and issued areport the following year. FHWA intentionallymodeled the survey on the 1995 instrument to facil-itate comparison, study customer satisfactiontrends, and direct future activities based on changesin the public’s priorities or on improvements inpublic satisfaction with pavement smoothness.

The 2000 survey revealed that although pavementconditions still resonated as a significant concern(21 percent) among highway users, traffic flow (28percent) and safety (26 percent) were now moreimportant priorities.

In 2005 FHWA and its partners completed athird effort, the Traveler Opinion and PerceptionSurvey. This latest effort tracks closely with earlieruser surveys. The following “Important Character-istics of an Effective and High Quality Transporta-tion System” were listed as priorities:

• Highway and roadway safety • Ability to get where I want to go easily • Bridge conditions • Being able to get around as a pedestrian safely

and easily • Pavement conditions

“These results clearly show that travelers placehigh value on their ability to get around safely andeasily,” says Rebecca Elmore-Yalch, president andCEO of Northwest Research Group, Inc., the firmthat conducted the survey on behalf of FHWA.“These represent the most important aspects of ahigh-quality and effective transportation system,and travelers wish to see this as a continued focus.”

By 2005, it seemed, highway users had relegatedpavement conditions to the fifth position on theirlist of priorities. The results do not indicate whetherthe highway community made a significant enoughimpact on pavement conditions to have an impacton user perceptions or whether user priorities sim-ply changed over the previous decade.

A Work Zone Incentive In Arizona

Several highway agencies are using innovativeincentives to encourage contractors to minimize thenegative impact of highway construction on theircustomers. In Arizona, for example, ADOT kept aneye on customer service when it developed anincentive/disincentive approach for a $42 millionproject in the northwestern part of the State. Theproject called for widening 21.7 kilometers (13.5miles) of State Route 68 (S.R. 68) from a two-lanerural road into a four-lane divided highway.

Rather than looking at the job as simply buildinga highway from point A to point B, ADOT officialstook the time to understand the customers who usethe route. From that, ADOT determined that thissection of S.R. 68 is a major commuter route for

63

Archive

d

people who are employed by casinos and otherentertainment venues across the State line in Laugh-lin, NV. But a large number of commercial truckersand vacationers travel the route as well. Thus, S.R.68 does not have the morning and afternoon peaktraffic periods typical of other parts of the country.Rather, a steady stream of traffic generally runsfrom early morning to late evening, meaning thatconstruction crews could not simply schedule theirwork around the traditional rush hours.

ADOT realized early on that the constructionproject, which ultimately lasted almost 2 years,could have been a major headache for its customers,so agency officials set up what they termed a trafficmanagement incentive specification. Under thespecification, ADOT established an incentive/disin-centive fund of $400,000 to encourage the design-build contractor to maintain a target travel timethrough the work zone during the entire construc-tion schedule. To determine whether the target wasmet, the contractor was required to measure theamount of time it took travelers to go through thework zone. Further, the contractor had to select amethod for collecting the raw data, calculating theaverage travel times through the work zone, andthen reporting those averages to ADOT. The specifi-cation required that the average travel time notexceed 27 minutes. For each minute above thattime, the contractor would be charged $21.50.

The contractor chose a measuring system thatemployed cameras, positioned at both ends of thework zone, to snap pictures of the license plates ofvehicles entering and leaving the work zone. A cen-tral processor then matched photos of the sameplates and determined the elapsed time betweenwhen the car entered and left the work zone. At theend of the project, only $14,857 had been deductedfrom the $400,000 incentive, thereby earning thecontractor 96 percent of the bonus fund.

ADOT had hired a public relations firm for theproject as well. The firm developed public serviceannouncements, radio media alerts, a Web site, aninformational phone number, and a newsletter, allaimed at keeping the public informed on the statusof the project.

Critics might question whether the $400,000incentive might have been better spent buildingmore roadways elsewhere in the State. “Due to thelack of detour routes for S.R. 68,” responds JenniferLivingston, then-resident engineer for ADOT’s King-man District, “the traffic management incentive/disincentive clause was vital in minimizing delays to

the traveling public, especially for commuters andthose getting to and from medical appointments,government facilities, and other daily trips.”

The case becomes clearer when individual costsare considered as well. In the 2005 Urban MobilityReport, the Texas Transportation Institute estimatesthat, as a national average, being stuck in a workzone costs each motorist $13.45 per hour in terms ofthe value of lost time. Further, each hour a commer-cial motor carrier sits in a congested work zone coststhe firm $71.05. But in the end, ADOT received agreat deal of positive feedback from the public, bothfor the agency’s outreach related to construction andfor minimizing delays in the work zone.

A Work Zone Disincentive In New York

When congestion delays due to work zones arepotentially significant, some States require contrac-tors to suspend construction entirely during peaktraffic periods. In June 2005, experts from aroundthe country joined the New York State ThruwayAuthority (NYSTA) for an intensive, 2-day work-shop focused on a deck replacement project on theTappan Zee Bridge. Sponsored by FHWA’s Acceler-ated Construction Technology Transfer (ACTT)initiative, the workshop helped NYSTA settle on aprefabricated system that would shorten construc-tion time and improve safety and quality.

NYSTA selected a construction method usingprecast concrete slabs, which offered speedy con-struction and minimized exposure of workers totraffic. The project involved sawing up and removingthe existing pavement, putting down a beddingmaterial, installing the slabs, grouting dowels, andthen placing the bedding grout. The contractorinstalled about 279 square meters (3,000 square feet)of panels in each 8-hour, offpeak traffic closure.

The toll plaza services more than 125,000 vehi-cles per day, so any delay in opening it on time couldbe disastrous. NYSTA, therefore, devised a perform-ance standard to meet the need: For every minutepast 6 a.m. that the toll plaza was delayed in opening,the contractor faced a penalty of $1,300, up to amaximum penalty of $250,000 per day. The instal-lation proved so successful that no penalties wereassessed.

When Time is of the Essence

The ADOT and NYSTA projects used incentives, anapproach that says to the construction contractor,

64

Archive

d

“Here’s the goal you need to reach to get somebonus money. You figure out the best way of gettingthere.” And, as in the New York case, if the contractorfails to look for innovations, it might actually losemoney on the project.

Perhaps the most widely used performance spec-ification is one focused on how quickly a contractorcan complete a project. More and more, agencies arerecognizing that the bottom line construction costof a project has to include the impact on the drivingpublic. So the DOTs offer contractors monetaryincentives for early completion with the daily incen-tive amount based on estimated road-user costs.

A case in point: On January 5, 2002, a gasolinetanker traveling Interstate 65 (I-65) within the I-20/I-59/I-65 interchange in Birmingham, AL, crashedand burned under a bridge. The fire caused the steelgirders of the main span over southbound I-65 tosag about 3 meters (10 feet), which required closingall northbound and southbound lanes. Removal ofthe damaged bridge began as soon as the wreck wascleared, and northbound traffic was restored thenext day. The Alabama Department of Transporta-tion (ALDOT) estimated costs to road users causedby the southbound closure at $90,000 per day.

ALDOT designed a new concrete girder bridgeand awarded the contract on January 16. Construc-tion began January 21. The contract allowed 90 daysfor completion of the new bridge, with an incen-tive/disincentive provision of $25,000 per day. Thesuccessful bidder completed the new bridge in 37days, earning an extra $1,325,000. The contract cost,including the incentive payment, was still less thanthe cost proposed by the second-place bidder.

“Within 53 days, the damaged bridge wasremoved, the design completed, and a new bridgebuilt, demonstrating intense commitment and coop-eration among all parties involved,” says FHWAAlabama Division Administrator Joe Wilkerson,“especially State engineers, the concrete fabricator,and the contractor that built the new bridge.”

New Mexico Uses Innovative Incentives

A look at a New Mexico example ties many elementsof the story together. A recent project needed speedyconstruction, and the New Mexico Department ofTransportation (NMDOT) added its own twist.Reconstruction of the I-25 and I-40 interchange inAlbuquerque required construction or rehabilitationof 55 bridges and 177 kilometers (110 miles) ofroadway. Lacking viable alternate routes, NMDOT

had to complete the project while motorists contin-ued to use the roadway.

The original interchange was designed in 1967 tosupport 40,000 vehicles per day. At the time of itsreconstruction, however, it was severely overuti-lized, with an estimated 300,000 vehicles daily. Con-gestion resulted in an average 1.7 crashes per day,with an economic impact estimated at $12 millionannually.

In the end, reconstruction enhanced the level ofservice and reduced the crash rate on the most heavily traveled interchange in the State. NMDOTestimates that the new interchange will benefit theAlbuquerque economy by approximately $1 billionover the first 10 years. The public benefits fromreduced travel time, enhanced safety, and environ-mental improvements.

To minimize disruption to the community,NMDOT decided to reconstruct the interchangeunder a single contract with incentives to keep con-struction time under 2 years. But with little fundingavailable for monetary incentives, the agency offeredthe contractor innovative incentives, most notablyownership of excess right-of-way if the project wasfinished ahead of schedule. NMDOT purchased an8.5-hectare (21-acre) parcel that included about 1.6hectares (4 acres) of required right-of-way, with theremainder used as a staging area during construc-tion. Since construction was substantially completebefore the contract calendar date, the contractorreceived the deed to the remaining 6.9-hectare (17-acre) parcel. Ultimately, several tracts of land ownedby NMDOT and deemed in excess of future high-way needs were transferred to the contractor in lieuof cash incentives.

To minimize the impact on traffic, the projectteam used progressive techniques, such as segmen-tal bridge construction, and established a traffic surveillance system and incident response programfor the construction area. Through close contact withthe media during the project, NMDOT cultivatedpublic support by apprising motorists of potentialdelays. In the end, the incentives and careful man-agement paid off: The completed interchangeopened to traffic in May 2002, after only 23 monthsof construction.

Staying Tuned

The need to learn what the public wants has beenrecognized for decades. As noted in the FHWAreport Moving America: New Directions, New Oppor-

65

Archive

d

tunities, published in February 1990, “An under-standing of what Americans want from their trans-portation system is as important to the formation of transportation policy as analysis of facts and figures.”

But understanding what the public wants andneeds—whether smoother roads, less interferencewith traffic by construction, or something else—isnot necessarily the same as attaining the desiredlevel of performance from U.S. highways. Incentivesand disincentives are an invaluable tool for attainingthose levels of response.

Kathleen A. Bergeron is a marketing specialist with FHWA in Wash-ington, DC. She works on Highways for LIFE, a program with thegoal of dramatically enhancing the quality, safety, and speed ofhighway construction in the United States. Prior to joining FHWA,she managed communications and marketing programs for consult-ing engineering firms and transportation agencies at the State andlocal levels. She holds a bachelor’s degree in journalism from theUniversity of Texas at Austin and a master’s degree in transporta-tion management from San José State University. Bergeron isaccredited by the Public Relations Society of America.

Reprinted from Public Roads, March/April 2006.

66

Knowing what needs to be done and having the tools to do it are two separate things. So how does one move to a morecustomer-focused approach, both in personal approachesand organizationally? FHWA sponsors a number of programsand activities that can help State and local agencies improvetheir delivery of quality roadway projects. They include thefollowing:

National Highway Institute Course. Public Involvement inthe Transportation Decision-Making Process (#142036) is a3-day course that teaches attendees how to identify key decision points where the public should be involved. Amongthe topics covered are selecting and applying specific tech-niques for sharing information with the public, identifyingand adapting to different cultural sensitivities, and develop-ing public involvement plans. For more information, visitwww.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov.

Accelerated Construction Technology Transfer (ACTT).ACTT is a program through which State DOTs can gain

Selected Customer-Focused Activities at FHWA

access to a team of nationally recognized leaders in an arrayof disciplines who conduct a workshop focused on a singlehighway corridor or project selected by the host agency. Formore information, visit www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/accelerated.

Performance Specifications Strategic Roadmap. FHWAdeveloped this report as a tool to guide the highway commu-nity in developing, implementing, and accepting performancespecifications as viable tools for highway construction. Toview the roadmap document, visit www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/pssr04tc.htm.

Transportation Curriculum Coordination Council (TCCC).The TCCC is a partnership between FHWA, State DOTs, andthe highway transportation industry to support the trainingof the highway construction personnel. The council providesa core curriculum of materials and training available to Stateand local transportation agencies. For more information,visit www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/tccc.

Archive

d

A familiar parable from India tells of six blind menwho came upon an elephant for the first time. Aseach man touched a different part of the animal, hecame to a different conclusion about the elephant.The first felt the pachyderm’s side and said that anelephant is like a wall. Others, upon touching theelephant’s tusk, trunk, knee, ear, and tail, argued,respectively, that the elephant certainly was morelike a spear, a snake, a tree, a fan, or a rope. As JohnGodfrey Saxe concluded in a poem based on thefable (paraphrased), “though each was partly in theright, all were in the wrong.” A one-dimensionalviewpoint rarely tells the full story.

Consider a modern example of this principle.During the planning of a roadway in Cupertino,CA, several years ago, local authorities proposedbuilding a major highway interchange. Although thedesign seemed to fill the need, according to SanJose’s The Mercury News, local residents derided theplan as a “Berlin Wall,” because its height wouldphysically split the community. Residents wantedthe interchange sunk below ground level to reducethe visual impact and traffic noise. The engineerfrom the traffic authority, however, refused to com-promise, arguing that during storms the nearbycreek might flood a below-grade interchange. Theresidents returned a few days later with a petitionsigned by 1,800 residents, demanding the below-grade approach. Finally bending to the show ofpolitical force, the traffic authority went forwardwith the sunken design.

But that was not the end of the story. When TheMercury News article ran in February 1998, it waspart of a larger piece on the extensive flooding fromthat year’s El Niño phenomenon. The writer point-ed out that during the week before the article ran,the interchange flooded for the second time in 3years. The reporter asked a local resident how thecommunity felt about the sunken interchange now,since the engineer had been proven correct about

the flooding. The resident responded, “Our viewwas that if it only happens once every 100 years, wecan live with it. It’s better than having the large con-crete structure.”

It is not unusual to find that what engineers andplanners see as the perfect solution to a transporta-tion problem may not conform to the residents’ideas of perfection. As with the blind men in theparable, determining the true nature of the beastrequires a number of viewpoints. This principle is atthe heart of why public transportation agencies holdlistening sessions during the planning stage of aproject. Even though transportation agencies arestaffed with experienced and knowledgeable designand construction professionals, they often arefocused on just a few aspects of the overall project.Failing to address the concerns of other stakeholders—including the driving public, disabled persons,trucking and bus operators, and business ownersalong the right-of-way—leads to a narrow viewpointand approach that may cause problems in the future.

The USDOT Approach

When officials at the U.S. Department of Trans-portation (USDOT) and the Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA) decided to look moreclosely at their approach to designing highways,they sought to capture the perspectives of multiplestakeholders. Asking only the people who design orbuild the highways is not enough.

“Our focus on the customer must drive our pri-ority setting and the way we use our resources, rightdown to how each of us spends our day,” says FHWAExecutive Director Frederick G. “Bud” Wright. “Ourchoices must be governed by what we know to bethe most important needs of our customers,because we have asked them.”

In 2003, USDOT sponsored a series of listeningsessions with representatives from several key

67

Sometimes Quality Is in the Eye of the Beholder

by Kathleen Bergeron

Highway users and other stakeholders share their views on what makes a successful road project.

Archive

d

groups, including owners and operators of high-ways, contractors who build roads, suppliers of con-struction materials and equipment, and users of thehighway system. The purpose was to shed light onhow the various constituencies view and define thenotion of quality in highways and constructionprojects.

Each session lasted several hours and began witha brief orientation on a topic related to improvingthe quality of the Nation’s highways. The partici-pants met with key highway leadership at USDOT,including Transportation Secretary Norman Y.Mineta, FHWA Administrator Mary E. Peters, andFederal Motor Carrier Safety Administration(FMCSA) Administrator Annette M. Sandberg. Thehosts posed specific questions and then opened thefloor for discussion.

The diversity of opinions expressed by the par-ticipants suggested that definitions of qualitydepend on the perspective of each respondent. Fol-lowup interviews with a few of the participantshighlight some of the key factors identified asimportant to specific constituencies and emphasizethe value of inviting diverse stakeholders to the tablewhen planning highway projects.

The following questions and responses wereposed to Darrin Roth, director of highway opera-tions at the American Trucking Associations (ATA);Mike Acott, president of the National Asphalt Pave-ment Association (NAPA); Val Riva, president of theAmerican Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA);Kathleen Marvaso, managing director for govern-ment relations and traffic safety policy at the Amer-ican Automobile Association (AAA); and JohnBukowski, a pavements engineer at FHWA.

What Is a Quality Highway?

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definesquality as “degree of excellence.” This article discuss-es what quality means to a customer in defining afinished product, not as criteria or managementconcepts from the Baldrige National Quality Pro-gram. To transportation officials, the degree ofexcellence typically relates to pavement smoothnessand durability, adherence to budget and schedules,and improved road safety. Input from some of theparticipants in the listening sessions and followupinterviews help broaden this definition.

Darrin Roth (ATA): “The term ‘quality’ in general isvery important for the trucking industry becauseindividual companies have to be able to distinguishthemselves from their intramodal and railroadcompetitors. As far as the customer is concerned,price is always a consideration. But that’s usuallysecondary to meeting certain standards of quality,or customer expectations. For the trucking indus-try’s customers, quality means that the shipment ispicked up or delivered on time and without damage,and that the customer is notified of any unexpectedoccurrences when they happen so necessary adjust-ments can be made. Similarly, highways should bebuilt and maintained in a way that meets customerexpectations of smoothness and reliability, and pricemay be a secondary concern.”

Mike Acott (NAPA): “When we look at quality, welook at it from the perspective of both the user andthe engineer. From the highway user’s perspective,we’re concerned with how well the pavement rides,how smooth it is, the noise level, skid resistance, andspeed of construction. From the engineering side,we look at the materials and mix design, the consis-tency of the material, and the density specifications,so that it will provide good performance.”

Val Riva (ACPA): “In the concrete pavement indus-try, quality is synonymous with exceptionally goodlong-term performance and minimal maintenanceand rehabilitation requirements. Quality pavementscombine all aspects of design and construction,including project management, materials, equipmentinnovations, process control, workmanship, and thelike. It’s not one thing that makes a quality pave-ment—it’s attention to everything.”

John Bukowski (FHWA): “Let me give a narrow def-inition for those of us who might be called ‘stewards’of the highways—and by that I mean those whosejob it is to see that highways are designed, built, andmaintained for the public good—organizations likeFHWA and State and local transportation agencies.For us, a narrow definition would tie in with what wecall ‘quality assurance.’ That means we look at certainparameters such as how good the materials are andhow smooth the final surface is. These can be meas-ured. So ‘quality’ in that narrow sense means fallingwithin those prescribed tolerances. In a broadersense, quality to us means the final product also hasto meet the expectations of the users, in terms oflongevity, noise, and smoothness.”

68

Archive

d

Kathleen Marvaso (AAA): “As the largest organiza-tion representing motorists—the primary usergroup—we define quality in terms of safety andmobility. We recognize the critical importance ofproperly designed and maintained roads to serveexisting and future mobility needs, and the safetybenefits gleaned by improved road design and con-struction. The transportation network is essential tocommerce and the Nation’s ability to prosper in aglobal economy, to improve our quality of life, andto facilitate national and civil defense. The ongoingneed for safe, well-maintained roads and bridges iscritical for the millions of Americans who travel forbusiness or leisure.”

What Is Most Important When Building a Quality Highway?

To build and maintain successful highways, Federal,State, and local transportation agencies need tomake quality a primary focus during the life of aproject—planning, design, construction, and main-tenance. Typical factors that influence the directionand scope of highway projects include an evaluationof the need for the new facility, anticipated futuretraffic demand, improved safety, specifications forperformance and durability, and environmental,cost, and scheduling considerations. The interviewswith key stakeholders elicited further opinions onwhat constitute the most important aspects of high-way quality.

Darrin Roth (ATA): “Time between maintenanceand repair cycles, and geometric design that accom-modates the configuration of vehicles expected touse the highway.”

Mike Acott (NAPA): “One of our goals is to designand build pavements that are long lasting. We talkabout ‘perpetual pavements,’ meaning that youdesign the roadway so that the only work that needsto be done is on the surface. It’s like a builder whobuilds a house. Periodically, the roofing materialneeds to be replaced, and some other minor main-tenance, but if he builds it well, it can last a long,long time.”

Val Riva (ACPA): “Our thought is that it’s importantto address all aspects of design and construction.Our industry is working continuously to improvethe products and processes used in paving, while

also working closely with agencies to address designand construction considerations.

“We cannot overlook the need for appliedresearch, which is essential to developing safer, morecost-effective, and better performing highways. It’simperative that this research effort involve all stake-holders to ensure we are meeting the needs of agen-cies and the traveling public, based on input fromroad builders, researchers, and public officials.”

John Bukowski (FHWA): “One of the things that wetalk about is speed of construction, and there are anumber of tools to accomplish this—fast-settingconcrete or asphalt, innovative project managementtechniques, or even innovative design approaches.”

Kathleen Marvaso (AAA): “Safety must be para-mount in all stages of road design—from planningto construction to signage. Our members tell us thatthey want a transportation system that is reliable,efficient, and safe. They want road repair and main-tenance work to be completed on schedule, and theywant their gas tax dollars at work improving thetransportation systems they use in their daily lives.Educating the public to engender trust that theirtaxes are spent wisely is critical.”

What Should Be Considered During Planning?

During the planning stage, State departments oftransportation (DOTs) increasingly are designingroads that fit into their physical settings and pre-serve scenic, historic, cultural, and environmentalresources, while improving safety and mobility.Known as context-sensitive design, this approachinvolves reaching out to stakeholders within andoutside the highway community to identify trans-portation solutions that will add lasting value tothe community. The interviewees zeroed in on spe-cific attributes of the planning process that theirconstituencies see as integral to building a qualityhighway.

Darrin Roth (ATA): “Longevity of the highway isimportant, particularly in urban areas, since conges-tion has become a major problem. Therefore, usinglonger-life pavements in certain areas, includingurban settings and regions subject to freeze-thawcycles and other harsh environmental conditions, iscritical to avoiding frequent road construction. Inaddition, trucks have operating characteristics that

69

Archive

d

require geometries that are different from thoserequired for cars. This includes wider shoulders.Trucks are 102 inches wide [2.6 meters], so even a10-foot [3-meter] shoulder only leaves 18 inches [46centimeters] of clearance when the truck is pulledonto the shoulder.

“Trucks take longer to accelerate, so longer on-ramps are necessary and should be gradual. Manytrucks will take a ramp too fast, causing the load toshift and possibly tip the vehicle over. One effectiveremedy is to install a message board on the rampwarning trucks to slow down. Since many truckersserve customers in unfamiliar areas, good signage isimportant. Signs usually are designed to accommo-date the line-of-sight for passenger vehicles, butsince truckers sit higher up, they may miss the signs.It may be worth looking into having top and bottomsigns on the same pole in certain areas where trafficis moving at high speeds. Also remember thatbecause trucks are much higher than passengervehicles, they may block the view of signs and over-head traffic signals for motorists idling behind ornext to a truck.”

Val Riva (ACPA): “It’s important to plan for everycontingency that can occur on the grade. We’ve seenexamples of excellent projects, which from the ear-liest stages involve a comprehensive outreach effortto ensure communication among those involved inand affected by the project. This [outreach] not onlyincludes specifying agencies and the industry, butalso the public, law enforcement agencies, businessleaders, and others.”

John Bukowski (FHWA): “One critical thing is howmuch you’re going to disrupt the local traffic. Interms of materials, perhaps you want to use a quick-setting pavement. Or in terms of scheduling, maybeyou want to have the work done at night or onweekends.

“Another aspect is communication with thework crews. Some of the best projects we have areones using new technology. I think maybe some ofthat is because when we use a new technology, wespend an inordinate amount of time bringing thecrews in early to show them how to use the tech-nology. The challenge comes when it gets to thepoint of becoming a standard procedure. There’s atendency not to communicate as much becauseeveryone is assumed to know what their job’s goingto be.”

Kathleen Marvaso (AAA): “Communication withthe public is key. Advance notification announcingroad closings or construction delays allowsmotorists to make decisions regarding their drivetime. Providing motorists with options to take a dif-ferent route or travel at less congested times canhelp alleviate some of the frustration drivers experi-ence when driving through highway constructionareas.

“Increased visibility of law enforcement andpatrol cars are two ways to improve work zone safe-ty. As part of our commitment to traffic safety, AAAincludes tips for safer driving in work zones in ourmanuals and driver improvement classes. The AAAFoundation for Traffic Safety, a nonprofit researchand educational organization, has created a varietyof materials, including a video highlighting safedriving practices in work zone areas.”

During Construction, What Is Most Important to Your Constituents?

Achieving national objectives for mobility dependson constructing highway improvements to a desiredlevel of quality to ensure long-lasting performanceand reduce impacts on traffic, congestion, and theenvironment. Safety is improved by minimizing thefrequency, duration, and extent of work zones,which disrupt the normal flow of traffic. In additionto these considerations, the interviewees noted spe-cific techniques or approaches that agencies can useto enhance the operation of work zones.

Darrin Roth (ATA): “Work zone lanes should not beso narrow that trucks have a difficult time gettingthrough. Also, providing information about laneclosures and other restrictions through a phonehotline or Web site would help truckers immensely.”

Val Riva (ACPA): “In addition to building funda-mentally high-quality pavements, we’re also focusedon maximizing safety and minimizing disruptionsto road users. It’s imperative that we do all we can toensure the safety of the traveling public and workzone personnel.”

John Bukowski (FHWA): “For the people who actu-ally oversee the projects, it’s a matter of making surethat the work is coordinated in one continuous flow,one smooth operation—what you might call thelogistics of the project. You have to make sure thecontractors have the proper materials available and

70

Archive

d

the work zones are marked off properly. Once oneof these operations gets going, it becomes criticalthat all the right pieces are in place. You can’t, forexample, have a truck driver not show up and thewhole process shuts down.”

After the Highway Is Completed, What Spells Success?

Resources like the “National Highway Specifica-tions” Web site at www.specs.fhwa.dot.gov, whichconsists of a searchable library of highway specifi-cations from across the country, provide theframework with which engineers evaluate con-struction projects, from the quality of materials tothe final pavement smoothness. FHWA and StateDOTs also consider cost-effective completion,enhanced safety during and after construction,long-life durability, visual appearance, noise reduc-tion, and improved mobility as primary measuresof a project’s success. How do other stakeholdersrank successful highways?

Darrin Roth (ATA): “Quality management andinformation dissemination. Clear crashes quickly,clear snow and ice, etc. If there’s a crash, make thatinformation widely available quickly so truckers canplan alternate routes.”

Val Riva (ACPA): “One of the key measures of suc-cess is the assurance that the pavement will live upto design expectations and fulfill an importantpromise to taxpayers and other stakeholders: Get in,do it right, get out, and stay out. We are focused onproviding the best long-term, cost-effective invest-ment to agencies and the traveling public.”

John Bukowski (FHWA): “The key question is,‘What kind of quality did you build into it?’ Qualitydoesn’t mean simply that a pavement projectreceives high marks upon completion. It’s impor-tant to anticipate the level of use it will get. Qualityis not about providing a usable road today. Not if 3or 5 years from now the pavement starts breakingdown. Then it wasn’t a quality project. Part of ourproblem is that we design a highway to last 20 years,and then the level of wear and tear on that sectionof highway is way out of proportion to those earlyestimates. We need to do a better job of anticipatingthe patterns and magnitude of growth that weanticipate our highways will have to endure.”

In Terms of Maintenance, What Is Ideal?

As demands on the Nation’s highway system contin-ue to grow, finishing maintenance jobs quickly andeffectively has never been more important. Extend-ed construction and maintenance activities increasetravel time and costs for highway users, affect theflow of commerce, and prolong safety risks tomotorists and highway workers. But through strate-gies like conducting work during nights and week-ends and using preservation techniques that helpextend the life of existing pavements, DOTs areimproving the speed and reducing the duration ofmaintenance activities.

Darrin Roth (ATA): “Deferred maintenance is morecostly and disruptive to traffic than regular mainte-nance, so establish the right schedule and stay withit. Get in and get out as soon as possible. Whileweekend and nighttime road work is more expen-sive, it pales in comparison to the costs involvedwith crashes and congestion caused by road workduring times of heavy traffic volume.”

Mike Acott (NAPA): “The goal should be that anywork on the pavement is limited to periodic resur-facing. If complete rebuilding of the pavement isrequired, then you’ve failed to meet the needs of theroad user.”

Val Riva (ACPA): “Noting that a quality concretepavement is one that requires little or no unsched-uled maintenance, the ideal is to follow a well-planned preventive maintenance program. Routinemaintenance for concrete pavements essentiallyrequires periodic joint resealing. Although requiredon an infrequent basis, it is nonetheless an impor-tant part of assuring good long-term performance.”

How Important Is Smoothness?

Pavement smoothness, sometimes called road con-dition or roughness, is one attribute that is impor-tant for the ride and operation of roads. Almost adecade ago when FHWA performed research on thisaspect of roadways, it found that smoother roads dohave a definite impact over time—for the owner oragency and for the user. A survey by the NationalQuality Initiative (now the National Partnership forHighway Quality) indicated that pavement smooth-ness is one of the most significant measuresmotorists use to judge the quality of the Nation’s

71

Archive

d

roads. Pavement smoothness directly relates to driv-er comfort as well as the life expectancy of pave-ments. The interviewees echoed this concern forsmoothness.

Darrin Roth (ATA): “Average operating costs for atruck on a poor road surface versus a good surfaceis 12 cents per mile [7 cents per kilometer]. In addi-tion, poor surfaces can damage cargo and con-tribute to crashes.”

Val Riva (ACPA): “Good long-term performance isaffected by pavement smoothness, which should notbe confused with texture. Smooth pavements do notexperience the dynamic loads of rough pavements,which means less wear-and-tear on vehicles and thepavement. There are tangible benefits in terms ofreduced costs to road users and agencies, and, ofcourse, the taxpaying public.”

How Important Is Overall Traffic Flow?

Strategies to improve or maintain efficient trafficflow range from expanding roadway capacity toenhancing the operation of existing facilities. DOTsare deploying a growing variety of intelligent trans-portation system (ITS) technologies that monitorand manage flow, such as electronic toll paymentsystems, video surveillance, weather informationservices, and weigh-in-motion technologies. Theseapproaches can help keep traffic moving and reducethe impact of factors like construction, weather, andcrashes that inhibit mobility. Interviewees stressedthe importance of improving traffic flow to theeconomy and personal travel.

Darrin Roth (ATA): “Just-in-time [JIT] deliverysaves the U.S. economy around $700 billion per yearthrough lower transportation costs and reducedinventories. JIT has enabled retailers, wholesalers,and manufacturers to reduce their inventories substantially, reducing freight transportation andlogistics costs from 16 percent of the gross domesticproduct in 1980 to 10 percent today. JIT is only possible with reliable deliveries, and predictabletraffic flow is critical to reliable deliveries.”

Val Riva (ACPA): “We have developed some innova-tive solutions to improve work zone safety and min-imize traffic disruptions, such as a comprehensiveguide and ongoing training in traffic management

during construction, as well as fast-track methodsof construction.”

Kathleen Marvaso (AAA): “AAA members wouldmeasure success by the improved mobility and safe-ty they see as road improvements are made. Whatdoes that mean? Fewer crashes and reliable traveltimes. Well-designed and maintained roads reducethe frequency of crashes. Are the driving lanes andshoulder areas wider? Are roadside hazards a safedistance from the travel lanes? Infrastructureimprovements should be aimed at accommodating,rather than stifling, projected growth in traveldemand.”

How Important Is Traffic Flow in Work Zones?

Work zones account for nearly 24 percent of nonre-curring congestion, or 482 million vehicle-hours ofdelay per year. ITS technologies are a key tool inmaintaining traffic flow in work zones. Dynamiclane-merge systems, for example, facilitate efficientand safe traffic merging as vehicles approach closedlanes in a work zone. And real-time data gatheredthrough ITS technologies can be synthesized andreported to motorists through variable messagesigns, Web sites, and traveler advisory radio. Con-stituents consistently reported that communicationis essential to improving mobility in work zones.

Darrin Roth (ATA): “Truckers will try to avoid workzones if possible, but they need to be aware that theyexist.”

Mike Acott (NAPA): “Less time in the work zone iskey. The idea is to build the pavement so that all youever need to do is periodic overlays, nothing more.If you can get to that mode, then delay time will beminimal.”

Val Riva (ACPA): “By its nature, a quality pavementwill help reduce congestion and costs by minimizingthe downtime associated with construction, mainte-nance, and rehabilitation.”

Kathleen Marvaso (AAA): “Traffic flow is extremelyimportant to our members, and work zones are a source of frustration. Time is a precious commod-ity in our society. Whether it’s movement of peopleor freight, the Nation depends on its transportationinfrastructure. Keeping traffic flowing safelythrough work zones is critical.”

72

Archive

d

How Important Are Safer Highways?

More than 41,000 fatalities occur on U.S. roadwayseach year. In 2003, Transportation Secretary Minetachallenged USDOT and the States to reduce theNation’s highway death toll by decreasing the fatali-ty rate, currently at 1.5 fatalities per 100 millionvehicle miles traveled, to 1.0 by 2008. Once again,the interviewees made some telling points regardingtheir constituents’ concerns with highway safety.

Val Riva (ACPA): “Safety is one of the most com-pelling arguments for investing in highways androadways. As a Nation, we should be outraged bythe number of fatalities attributable to road condi-tions, as well as those occurring in work zones. Indesigning and constructing safer highways, it isimperative that we examine all aspects of the high-way, including some basic pavement constructionvariables such as geometry and surface texture.”

Kathleen Marvaso (AAA): “According to a 1995report by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety,Safety Effects Resulting from Approval of the NationalHighway System, increasing the lane width to 12 feet[3.7 meters] from 10 feet [3 meters] or less couldlead to a 12–40 percent decrease in crashes. Decreas-ing road curvature by 20 degrees could lead to adecrease of nearly 50–75 percent.”

Darrin Roth (ATA): “Safety is the trucking indus-try’s number one priority.”

How Important Is Reduced Air and Noise Pollution?

Highway traffic noise—emanating from vehicleengines, exhaust systems, and tires interacting withpavement—affects the quality of life for nearby res-idents and businesses by drowning out conversa-tions, disrupting sleep, and discouraging outdooractivities. Given that clean air and minimal trafficnoise are qualities sought by all road users, howimportant is reducing air and noise pollution?

Darrin Roth (ATA): “Important from a ‘good citi-zen’ standpoint, but also because pollution concerns—particularly noise—are a factor in many accessrestrictions for trucks. Obviously, congestion is amajor cause of air pollution for all vehicles.”

Kathleen Marvaso (AAA): “Transportation andenvironmental stewardship should be complemen-

tary goals. Integrating all modes of transportationinto a system that maximizes the utility of each for the benefit of the traveling public should be our goal. Employing as many tools as possible toimprove the system and protect the environmentreaps rewards for all transportation users.”

How Important Is Compatibility with the Environment?

The public expects Federal, State, and local govern-ments to provide highway, transit, and bicycle andpedestrian improvements that are environmentallysound, that are safe, and that maintain a standard ofmobility that is envied by the world. In fact, in 2001,FHWA identified environmental stewardship andstreamlining as one of the agency’s “vital few” prior-ities, along with safety and congestion mitigation.

John Bukowski (FHWA): “The group I called the‘stewards’ constantly have to balance factors againstone another. We cannot always get 100 percent inevery area. For example, if we want to be environ-mentally sensitive, we might consider using 100 per-cent recycled materials on a highway constructionproject. But if we do that, the overall physical qualityof the pavement will suffer. So we have to determinehow much recycled material we can use, whilemaintaining an acceptable quality level. Now, multi-ply that by all those other areas—safety, noise, andcost reduction, just to name three—and pretty soonyou see how multilevel the tradeoffs become.”

How Important Is Spending Less Money?

Weighing the multiple factors, benefits, and costs of highway projects is important before moving forward with any action. Factors include safety,community involvement, materials, longevity, pro-jections, maintenance, and a score of other vari-ables. In this time of tight budgets and competingdemands for available resources, how can highwayowners deploy limited resources to achieve all ofthese goals?

Darrin Roth (ATA): “I would suggest spendingmoney more effectively. A greater upfront invest-ment in capacity, longer-lasting pavements, and bet-ter designed highways will prevent costly improve-ments later on. These costs are for both capitalimprovements and the larger economic costs associ-ated with poor ride quality, more crashes, and

73

Archive

d

greater congestion. Furthermore, States shouldreevaluate decisions to build or expand lesser trav-eled roads at the expense of interstates and othermajor arteries.”

Val Riva (ACPA): “We are very focused on spendingless money, but no discussion about investment inour highways would be complete without factoringin safety. One need only think of the costs associatedwith work zones, vehicle damage, and disruptions toimagine the magnitude of the savings.”

Kathleen Marvaso (AAA): “Transportation invest-ments require long-term, reliable, and sustainablefunding. Demands on the system continue to grow,and despite significant increases made possible byTEA-21 [the Transportation Equity Act for the 21stCentury], documented needs still outstrip availablefunding. Funding decisions made today will directlyinfluence the safety and efficiency of tomorrow’stransportation system.”

How Do Your Organization’s Members MeasureRoad Quality?

So then, when all is said and done, what is needed inorder to earn that label “quality” on a highway?

Darrin Roth (ATA): “Our main concern is with reli-ability, which can be affected by crashes andresponse time and levels of congestion. Almost asimportant is travel speed. A highway in good condi-tion will be largely free of ruts and potholes. Thehighway’s bridges and its geometric design shouldbe able to handle the types of vehicles that use theroad.”

Val Riva (ACPA): “The defining measure of qualityin highway or road construction is whether we metthe long-term performance expectations with min-imal maintenance and rehabilitation requirements.

Our goal is to construct pavements to the standardsset forth by the specifying agency . . . or better. Wemeasure material quality, as-constructed variability,thickness, smoothness, and other criteria to assurethat expectations have been met. Meeting theseexpectations means that we’ve placed a pavementthat returns the best value to our ultimate customers. . . the traveling public.”

From Parable to Drivable

Like beauty, quality is in the eye of the beholder.The more involvement in defining, evaluating, andverifying the quality of a highway project, the morelikely it is to be something universally recognizednot as a wall, snake, spear, or even an elephant, butas a highway that serves the needs of all road users.

At the close of one of the listening sessions,FHWA Administrator Mary E. Peters remembered adiscussion she once had with a project manager fora major construction contractor in Phoenix whowas concerned with being able to deliver pavementmaterials to a job site in a timely manner. His choicefor someone to talk to and compare notes with wasan employee at a national pizza delivery chain. If thedrivers could deliver pizzas within 30 minutes, heshould be able to learn something from the restau-rant chain about how to schedule drivers and planroutes. “Like that contractor,” said Peters, “we’ve gotto recognize that sometimes our best input comesfrom someone with a totally different perspectivethan ours.”

Kathleen A. Bergeron is a marketing specialist in FHWA’s Office ofInfrastructure. She has 27 years of experience in all aspects of mar-keting, including market research, public relations, and advertising.Her experience includes working for major consumer products cor-porations, a market research company, consulting engineering firms,and State and Federal transportation agencies.

Reprinted from Public Roads, May/June 2004.

74

Archive

d

75

National Partnership for

Highway Quality

Archive

d

Archive

d

Unique construction methods, mega projects thatare changing the face of transportation for theircommunities, and progressive new partnershipswere three of the many faces of highway quality ondisplay at the National Partnership for HighwayQuality’s (NPHQ) 2005 Quality Conference. NPHQbrings together State, Federal, and highway industryleaders to encourage the use of quality practices thatwill improve safety and service for highway users.Held December 13-14, 2005, in Orlando, Florida,the conference spotlighted groundbreaking practicesacross the country. “The conference provided anexcellent opportunity to learn from some notable,quality-managed programs,” said Bob Templeton,Executive Director of NPHQ. Conference attendeesincluded State department of transportation (DOT)officials and design, construction, and project engi-neers; officials, managers, and engineers from pri-vate industry; and Federal Highway Administration(FHWA) representatives.

“Quality as a mechanism allows us to deliver amotivating work environment for our employees,while at the same time delivering what our cus-tomers want,” noted conference keynote speakerPete Rahn, Director of the Missouri Department ofTransportation. Among the quality projects high-lighted at the conference was the Iowa DOT’s con-struction of the new U.S. 20 Iowa River Bridge inHardin County. Using an innovative constructionmethod known as incremental launching, thesuperstructure of the new bridge was assembled onone side of the river and then rolled some 496 m(1,630 ft) across the river valley into its final posi-tion. The incremental launched-girder techniqueeliminated the need for the temporary erection towers and in place erection of structural steelrequired by conventional construction methods.This allowed Iowa DOT to meet the stringent envi-ronmental requirements of constructing the bridgein the Iowa River Greenbelt, a rare, remaining piece

of old-growth woodland. The project’s innovationwas honored with NPHQ’s 2005 National Achieve-ment Award.

The Colorado Department of Transportation’sTransportation Expansion Project, or T-REX, alsoprovided a vivid example of quality practices. The$1.67 billion multimodal project is improving 27km (17 mi) of highway in the metropolitan Denverarea, along with adding 30 km (19 mi) of light railservice. Its $1.2 billion design-build contract is thelargest in the country and the first to encompassboth highway and transit elements. Groundbreakingfor the project began in September 2001, with com-pletion scheduled for the end of 2006. Acceleratedconstruction has been a hallmark of the project. “T-REX is sprinting into its final year 22 months aheadof the original estimated completion, thanks, inpart, to performance specifications that give thecontractor the latitude to innovate and improve,”

77

Conference Captures the Many Faces

of Highway Quality

The Iowa River Bridge in Hardin County, IA, was assembled on one side of the river and rolled496 m (1,630 ft) across the river valley into position.

Archive

d

said Dave Geiger, Director of the Office of AssetManagement at FHWA.

NPHQ’s new accreditation process for state qual-ity partnerships (SQPs) was also a featured topic atthe conference. SQPs comprised of transportationstakeholders who meet regularly and share commongoals for the continuous improvement of highwaysand bridges can provide numerous benefits toStates, including improved partnering on projects,cost savings, greater efficiency, and increased cus-tomer satisfaction. SQP members typically includerepresentatives from the State DOT, FHWA divisionoffice, industry associations, city and county offices,and other stakeholders. “An SQP advances service,safety, efficiency, and environmental stewardship,”said Templeton.“It sends a clear message that a StateDOT plans to capture every opportunity to servethe driving public and boost economic prosperity.While the SQP concept is still new to many people,I think we’re gaining some momentum.” NPHQ’sgoal is to have an SQP in every State by 2008.

Greg Mayo and Georgene Geary of the GeorgiaDepartment of Transportation (GDOT) told con-ference attendees how Georgia transformed its 12-

year-old Georgia Quality Initiative into the newintermodal Georgia Partnership for TransportationQuality (GPTQ), becoming the first SQP to receiveNPHQ accreditation. GPTQ includes originalmembers of the Georgia Quality Initiative, such asGDOT, the Georgia Highway Contractors Associa-tion, and FHWA’s Georgia division office, as well asnew partners ranging from the Georgia TransitAssociation to the Georgia Transportation Institute.GPTQ’s initiatives include workforce training forhighway personnel. To learn more about GPTQ,visit www.gptq.com. Guidelines for starting an SQPand applying for NPHQ accreditation are availablein NPHQ’s booklet, How to Grow an SQP. Thebooklet can be found online at www.nphq.org (clickon “State Quality Partnership Resources”).

For more information about NPHQ or the 2005Quality Conference, or to subscribe to NPHQ’snewsletter, contact Bob Templeton at NPHQ, 512-301-9899 (fax: 512-301-9897; email: btemplenphq@aol.com), or visit www.nphq.org.

Reprinted from Focus, April 2006.

78

The T-REX project in Denver, CO, includes the reconstruction of 11 bridges spanning I-25. The Colorado Boulevard Bridge over I-25 was one of three bridges rebuilt in phases, so that traffic could be maintained on the structure at all times.

Archive

d

Joining environmental sensitivity with innovation,the Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT)met the many challenges of constructing the newU.S. 20 Iowa River Bridge in Hardin County byusing a unique construction method known asincremental launching. This innovation has beenhonored with the National Partnership for HighwayQuality’s (NPHQ) 2005 National AchievementAward. NPHQ brings together state, federal andhighway industry leaders to encourage the use ofquality practices that will improve safety and servicefor highway users.

The new bridge is located on U.S. 20 in the IowaRiver Greenbelt, a rare remaining piece of old-growth woodland. The site is home to roosting baldeagles and endangered species of freshwater mus-sels, as well as historical Native American artifacts.While building the bridge was integral to the state’seffort to expand U.S. 20 to four lanes, the challengeswere considerable. Construction equipment wasprohibited from crossing or entering the river, andall construction activity had to be completed withina small footprint surrounding the bridge. Withthese stringent restrictions, IDOT and its projectpartners, HNTB Corp. and Jensen Construction,quickly ruled out using conventional erection meth-ods for the 1,630-ft bridge. Employing the incremen-tal launched-girder technique instead eliminatedthe need for the temporary erection towers andpiece-by-piece in-place erection of structural steelrequired by conventional methods.

Using the launched-girder method, the super-structure of the bridge was erected on one side ofthe waterway and then rolled across the river into itsfinal position. The technique has been used for yearsin Europe to erect concrete-box structures and also

had been used for a smaller steel-box girder railroadbridge in the U.S. However, it had never been usedto launch a long-span I-girder bridge made up ofnearly 10 million lb of structural steel.

Construction of the bridge began in August2000. The bridge’s 10 302-ft spans were launchedafter completion of steel erection in a specially exca-vated 15-ft-deep, 600-ft-long launching pit behindthe bridge’s east abutment. A temporary launchingnose was attached to the front of the first span, andlarge hydraulic rams pushed the structural steel intoplace on a system of guided roller bearings. Thissequence was repeated for the other spans. Theentire steel bridge system, including all diaphragms,lateral bracing and drain pipes, was successfullylaunched at a pace of approximately 1 ft per minute.

The bridge opened to traffic in August 2003,shaving 15 miles and more than 30 minutes off thecommute between I-35 and Waterloo, Iowa, whilestill preserving the natural resources of the area. Itsslender, low-profile structure was designed to blendin with the area’s natural surroundings. The use ofweathering steel, meanwhile, will reduce the needfor future painting and maintenance.

The innovative project’s success has led tolaunched steel girder bridge projects in other states,such as a bridge constructed near Moorefield, W.Va.The Federal Highway Administration’s AcceleratedConstruction Technology Transfer program also hasidentified incremental launching as an option forquick and safe bridge construction.

Bob Templeton is the executive director of the National Partnershipfor Highway Quality.

Reprinted from Road & Bridges, February 2006.

79

Iowa Launching

by Bob Templeton

Archive

d

For the New Jersey Department of Transportation(NJDOT), replacing a deteriorated drawbridge builtin 1922 resulted not only in a gleaming new struc-ture, but in a project distinguished by innovativedesign features and a commitment to quality. Thiscommitment was honored with the National Part-nership for Highway Quality’s (NPHQ) 2003 Nation-al Achievement Award. NPHQ brings together state,federal and highway industry leaders to encouragethe use of quality practices that will improve safetyand service for highway users. Members include theFederal Highway Administration, the AmericanAssociation of State Highway & TransportationOfficials, the American Public Works Association,the Foundation for Pavement Preservation, theNational Institute for Certification in EngineeringTechnologies and a number of roadway construc-tion trade associations.

NJDOT, J.H. Reid General Contractor and Par-sons Brinckerhoff-FG Inc. faced the challenge ofreplacing the 250-ft drawbridgewith a five-span, 500-ft bridge.The new U.S. Rte. 9 Bridge overNacote Creek in Atlantic County,N.J., has a 25-ft vertical clearanceand two new approach roadways.The new approaches were raisedand realigned to correct andupgrade the bridge’s verticalgeometry, improve sight distanceand eliminate an existing dip inthe roadway.

From the beginning, interac-tion with the community wasvital. During the early stages ofproject development, numerouscommunity meetings were held.NJDOT also took many steps to

alleviate community concerns about the initiative.For example, because traffic congestion was a majorconcern, a detour plan was designed that wouldhave the least disruption to the community. Thenew bridge also was designed with visual enhance-ments that would fit in with the historic aestheticsof the area.

NJDOT worked with the New Jersey Departmentof Environmental Protection to protect the environ-ment surrounding the project area, includingmarshes, wetlands and the Edwin B. ForsytheNational Wildlife Refuge, and to lessen or eliminatedetrimental effects from the construction. Wetlandmitigation activities, for example, included creatinghigh and low marsh tidal wetlands and establishinga turtle-nesting habitat for the diamondback terrapinturtles that inhabit the area.

To achieve a high-quality project, NJDOT alsoimplemented a number of innovative design fea-tures that were a first for the agency. These features

included using the Load andResistance Factor design methodand high-performance concretefor the bridge beams and the pre-stressed cylinder piles that sup-port the pier caps. Nontoxic com-posite materials were employedfor the bridge’s fender system,which protects the bridge fromcollisions. Unlike the traditionalchemically treated timber fendersystem, the new system will notleak toxins into the water. It alsohas a longer life expectancy. Otherinnovations used by the pro-ject were mechanically stabilizedearth (MSE) walls and vibro con-crete columns for the approach

80

A Commitment to Quality

by Dennis Merida

Throughout the construction process,

maintaining qualityand safety was thesubject of weekly

“Tool Box” meetingsheld by project staff,where work activities

planned for that week and work-zone

safety measures were discussed.

Archive

d

embankments. The MSE walls were more economi-cal and could be erected more quickly than cast-in-place walls. The use of MSE walls also reduced theamount of encroachment into wetlands in the areasaround the abutments.

Throughout the construction process, maintain-ing quality and safety was the subject of weekly“Tool Box” meetings held by project staff, wherework activities planned for that week and work-zone safety measures were discussed.

The bridge opened to traffic on Dec. 18, 2002,nearly two weeks early, and the final cost exceededthe contract amount by only 0.2%. Another hall-mark of quality is that only two change orders wereexecuted during construction. In addition, no acci-

dents were reported during the entire time the proj-ect detour route was in effect. NJDOT’s proactiveapproach to working with the local community alsohas paid off, as the new bridge has received a posi-tive reception from residents and business owners.

The new bridge offers users a safer, smoother andbetter ride, while the innovative technologiesemployed will mean a longer performance life forthe structure.

Merida is the division administrator in FHWA’s New Jersey DivisionOffice.

Reprinted from Roads & Bridges, January 2004.

81

Archive

d

Archive

d

83

Asset Management

Archive

d

Archive

d

Making asset management work in your organiza-tion: the theme of the recent Sixth National Confer-ence on Transportation Asset Management is alsothe continuing goal of the Federal Highway Admin-istration’s (FHWA) Office of Asset Management. Asdemonstrated at the November 2005 conference,asset management is working for an ever growingnumber of States, cities, and counties, both largeand small. For example, in Washington, DC, the firsttunnel management system designed for nation-wide use is providing the city with a valuable toolfor the future monitoring of the condition and per-formance of its highway tunnels (see May 2005Focus). In Hillsborough County, Florida, a compre-hensive asset management system for roadway andstormwater infrastructure has allowed the PublicWorks Department to target money more efficient-ly and better anticipate and respond to damagecaused by hurricanes. And in States such as Kentucky, New Mexico, and New Jersey, FHWA’snew Pavement Preservation Technical AssistanceProgram is partnering with their highway agenciesto develop, expand, or improve pavement preserva-tion programs to enhance the performance andextend the life of this critical asset.

Asset management is a strategic approach toallocating resources—dollars, people, and data—forthe preservation, operation, and management of theNation’s transportation infrastructure. Through theuse of management systems, engineering and eco-nomic analysis, and other tools, transportationagencies can more comprehensively view the bigpicture before making decisions as to how specificresources should be deployed. By strategically allo-cating resources, agencies can maximize the returnon their investment, improve system performance,and increase customer satisfaction.

With asset management techniques and strate-gies becoming more visible and accepted nation-wide, FHWA’s Office of Asset Management contin-

ues its strong commitment to providing the train-ing, tools, and deployment assistance needed tobuild on the progress made and continue advancingimplementation efforts. The substantial progress todate means that every day, agencies are realizingimprovements in safety, operations, system reliabil-ity, system condition, and financial performance.Over the past 2 years, for example, more than half ofStates have realized the benefits of accelerated high-way construction by participating in the AcceleratedConstruction Technology Transfer (ACTT) pro-gram. At 3-day ACTT workshops, participants iden-tify innovative approaches to reducing time, costs,

85

Asset ManagementWorking for You

by Dave Geiger

ACTT workshops have been held across the country, including one in Louisiana to accelerate the Monroe BridgeRehabilitation Project on I-20.

Archive

d

and congestion for a planned highway project whileimproving safety, quality, and roadway perform-ance. Most ACTT workshops have resulted in areduction of planned construction time by 30 per-cent or more, with millions of dollars and years ofdelays shaved off of highway projects.

To help all of our State and local partners realizethe benefits of asset management, we offer trainingand workshop opportunities that range from intro-ducing asset management to highlighting specificasset management tools. A 1-day course availablefrom FHWA’s National Highway Institute (NHI),Transportation Asset Management, covers the prin-ciples, techniques, and benefits of asset manage-ment. Meanwhile, maintaining and preserving theNation’s $1.75 trillion investment in existing high-way infrastructure assets is the focus of a series offour NHI courses on pavement preservation (seesidebar). When using asset management techniquesto identify and evaluate resource allocation options,preservation is one of the most important consider-ations. Following a preventive maintenance strategyrather than waiting for roads to deteriorate beforefixing them can extend the useful life of a pavementat a lower life-cycle cost than that of conventionalpavement rehabilitation or reconstruction. TheNHI workshops cover everything from selectingpavements for preventive maintenance to the differ-ent types of preventive maintenance treatmentsnow available.

Training opportunities also include FHWA work-shops on the Highway Economics RequirementsSystem-State Version (HERS-ST) software program,life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA), and a new Web-Based Benefit/Cost Analysis Tool. The HERS-STworkshop provides a hands-on demonstration ofthe software, which is an asset management tool thatcan be used to analyze highway needs for program-ming and planning purposes. In the LCCA work-shop, participants are introduced to LCCA conceptsand the software program RealCost. The Web-BasedBenefit/Cost Analysis Tool workshop introducesFHWA’s tool for the application of benefit/costanalysis to a variety of roadway and intersectionprojects. All of the workshops are offered at no cost.

The Office of Asset Management also has casestudies available that highlight highway agenciesthat are leading the way in implementing asset man-agement programs. Economics in Asset Managementdetails the experiences of Hillsborough County,Florida, in implementing a comprehensive assetmanagement program for its roadway and

stormwater infrastructure. The new approachincludes all of the forecasting elements necessary todo multiyear budgeting of maintenance, operations,and capital replacement of assets as needed. BridgeManagement, meanwhile, highlights how Califor-nia, Florida, and South Dakota are using the Pontis®bridge management system to more efficientlymanage and maintain their bridges and achievetheir agencies’ performance goals. Case studies onData Integration experiences in Arizona, Michigan,Pennsylvania, and Virginia are also available.

Looking at 2006 and beyond, FHWA will contin-ue to develop new tools, technologies, and deploy-ment strategies. As many State and local agencies arenow active in implementing asset management intheir day-to-day activities, FHWA will be promotingthe further development of management tools,analysis methods, and research topics, includingeconomic evaluation and trade off methodologies.It is important to consider strategies that emphasizecommunication and the sharing of informationwith policy and technical decisionmakers, as well aselected officials, on the benefits of applying assetmanagement principles and techniques from theplanning and initial goal setting process through theoperations, preservation, and maintenance stages.

One of the new tools being developed is therolling wheel deflectometer, which is a speciallydesigned tractor-trailer that can measure pavementdeflections while traveling at speeds up to 100km/hr (70 mi/hr).

Also under development is a new workshop ondata integration, which is designed to help highway

86

Archive

d

agencies consolidate their electronic data so thatthey can make better and more cost-effective deci-sions about managing their assets. Better managingdata is also the goal of an ongoing effort to updatethe Pontis software program, which can be used byhighway agencies to organize their bridge data andanalyze complex engineering and economic factors.

We will continue to work with State and highwayindustry leaders through the National Partnershipfor Highway Quality to encourage the use of quali-ty practices in highway planning, design, construc-tion, and management to achieve the best value forour customers.

While the tools of asset management includedata, software, and other state-of-the-art technolo-

gies, our ultimate focus is the driving public that weserve. Whether establishing bridge managementsystems to better analyze and use the data that wehave or using accelerated construction techniquesto complete needed highway projects faster andwith less inconvenience to motorists, asset manage-ment is about using our resources more effectivelyto improve the driving experience and quality of lifefor our customers and our communities. Makingasset management work in our organizations ulti-mately provides increased benefits to all of us.

Dave Geiger is the Director of FHWA’s Office of Asset Management.

Reprinted from Focus, December 2005.

87

OnlineTo learn more about the Office of Asset Management’s many resources and initiatives, visit www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/.

WorkshopsFor more information or to schedule the following FHWAasset management workshops, see the contacts listed below.

• Highway Economics Requirements System-State Version(HERS-ST)—Robert Mooney, FHWA, 202-366-4657(email: robert.mooney@fhwa.dot.gov)

• Life-Cycle Cost Analysis—Bernie Kuta, FHWA, 720-963-3204 (email: bernie.kuta@fhwa.dot.gov)

• Web-Based Benefit/Cost Analysis Tool and EconomicAnalysis for Highway Decisionmaking—Eric Gabler,FHWA, 202-366-4036 (email: eric.gabler@fhwa.dot.gov)

ACTTInformation on Accelerated Construction Technology Trans-fer (ACTT) is available at www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/accelerated/. To learn more about holding an ACTT work-shop in your State, to obtain a copy of ACTT: A “How To”Guide for State Highway Agencies (Publication No. FHWA-IF-05-038), or to obtain a copy of the 2005 status report on theACTT program, ACTT Now (Publication No. FHWA-IF-05-039), contact your local FHWA division office. Information is

Resources

also available from Jim Sorenson in FHWA’s Office of AssetManagement, 202-366-1333 (email: james.sorenson@fhwa.dot.gov), or Jerry Blanding in the FHWA Resource Center,410-962-2253 (email: jerry.blanding@fhwa.dot.gov).

NHI CoursesTo schedule the following NHI courses, contact SherronMonts at NHI, 703-235-0534 (email: sherron.monts@fhwa.dot.gov).

• Transportation Asset Management (No. 131106)

• The Preventive Maintenance Concept (No. 131054)

• Selecting Pavements for Preventive Maintenance (No.131058)

• Design and Construction of Quality Preventive MaintenanceTreatments (No. 131103)

• Pavement Preservation: Integrating Pavement PreservationPractices and Pavement Management (No. 131104)

Case StudiesEconomics in Asset Management (Publication No. FHWA-IF-05-024), Bridge Management (Publication No. FHWA-IF-05-040), case studies on data integration, and other previouslycompleted case studies are available online at www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/casestudies.cfm.

Archive

d

Today’s transportation agencies face significantpressures to handle more challenges with fewerresources. Traffic congestion is increasing, as is theneed to preserve and enhance an aging infrastruc-ture and address public frustration with traveldelays and work zones.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) ispursuing numerous avenues to improve theNation’s surface transportation system. State andlocal agencies have been traditional partners ofFHWA in these efforts, and the newly passed high-way legislation—Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Effi-cient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users(SAFETEA-LU)—institutes a number of newopportunities for partnerships with the private sector. By working together, solutions will be found,and public satisfaction with transportation pro-grams should increase.

Whenever public dollars are used, governmentsare responsible for more than just keeping theirconstituents satisfied. Governments also mustaccount for the use of the public’s money and theresources devoted to the projects and programsunder their direction. Agencies at every level of gov-ernment have a responsibility to be good stewardsof the transportation infrastructure and to maintainthe public’s trust and confidence that constituentsdo receive value for every tax dollar spent.

“Without public trust and confidence, theresources will not be made available to address theimmense challenges that face the transportationcommunity today and that we will continue to facein the future,” says Acting Federal Highway Admin-istrator J. Richard Capka.

FHWA plays a key role in protecting the Nation’stransportation investments and has an overarchingstewardship responsibility for managing federallyfunded programs efficiently and effectively. Thestewardship includes effective management of pub-lic funds entrusted to the organization. FHWA

accomplishes this stewardship by being a value-added leader, sharing innovations in technology,and providing sound technical advice and supportto its State partners and stakeholders.

“Financial stewardship and accountability areembedded in all aspects of the agency’s mission,both in headquarters and in field offices,” saysFHWA Executive Director Frederick G. Wright.“It isimperative that we ensure integrity in the expendi-ture of public funds through strong financialaccountability and oversight.”

Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Minetahas confirmed that financial accountability is one ofthe top priorities of the U.S. Department of Trans-portation (USDOT). The recently issued FinancialIntegrity Review and Evaluation (FIRE) programdocuments how FHWA will take action to improveits financial management role. As indicated byWright,“It is imperative that FHWA effectively eval-uate the systems, controls, and procedures that arein place to protect the funds entrusted to theagency.”

The FIRE program directs FHWA divisionoffices to perform a number of reviews in supportof the annual certification of financial controls tosupport the agency’s financial statements. FIREincludes a toolkit that provides detailed informationfor implementation and contains review guides forthe various processes to be reviewed. FIRE coversinternal controls as well as Federal-aid funds man-agement. Just as FHWA must meet the fiscal con-trols, it must ensure that the product being purchased with Federal dollars gives the expectedperformance. Looking at system performance andhighlighting areas for further reviews is vital forconstruction program management.

Oversight, a primary element of stewardship, iskey to meeting the public’s expectations of qualityin transportation projects. FHWA’s oversightresponsibility involves ensuring that the Federal-

88

Formula for Success

by Jim Sorenson

Asset management equals oversight plus accountability, sound engineering, and economic decisionmaking.

Archive

d

Aid Highway Program is delivered in accordancewith applicable laws, regulations, and policies. Thisresponsibility incorporates minimizing the poten-tial for waste, fraud, and abuse, as well as advocatingthe national values expressed in environmentallaws, public participation requirements, and safetydesign standards.

FHWA’s oversight methods have changed overthe years as the emphasis has shifted from buildingnew highways to preserving and enhancing theexisting infrastructure. During that time, FHWA hasdeveloped resources and tools that State and localgovernment partners can use to enhance their ownoversight efforts.

FHWA’s focus remains unchanged: working withits partners to ensure that Federal dollars achievedefined national goals and maintain the public’strust that its money is well spent.

“Our roles and responsibilities in the administra-tion of the Federal-Aid and the Federal Lands High-way Programs have evolved in past authorizing leg-islation; however, the expectation that we maintainan appropriate level of oversight and accountabilityin those programs has been constant,” Wright says.

Challenges for Today

Today’s transportation agencies work in an era ofincreasing demands on budgets and staff resources.The transportation professionals responsible foroversight face a number of challenges in their day-to-day operations. One of the greatest challenges ismeeting customers’ expectations. In addition, Fed-eral, State, and local departments of transportation(DOTs) all face similar staff reductions and budgetchallenges.

Contributing to the staffing challenge is the attri-tion of seasoned transportation and constructionpersonnel. Many field engineers who were on thefront lines during the major highway constructionprojects of the 1960s and early 1970s have retired,and many of today’s transportation professionalshave not had the opportunity to acquire as muchexperience in construction project managementand oversight. As in the past, these field engineersare the eyes and ears for transportation agencies.

Despite the staffing challenge, the level of high-way construction and hence oversight are notexpected to decline. More roads than ever are oper-ating near capacity, and an increasing percentage ofhighways have outlived their original design livesand now face needed rehabilitation or reconstruc-

tion. Yet there are fewer personnel to provide over-sight on existing infrastructure enhancements andoperational needs in addition to the oversight need-ed for development of new or reconstructed roads.

Requirements to preserve and enhance the aginginfrastructure within budget parameters make itnecessary for agencies to set priorities as to whichof many critical projects to undertake now andwhich to postpone until another budget cycle.Although construction and rehabilitation projectsare generally higher profile and, in the past, havereceived priority, today States are finding that aminimum (5 to 10 percent) investment in a dedi-cated preservation program is both improving thecondition of roads and bridges in their jurisdic-tions and freeing up their budgets for the capitalimprovements desired.

In addition, the public continues to raise the baron its expectations of the highway system. Althoughin the early days of highway construction, the prior-ity was simply to have paved roads to get from farmto market, today the public demands a safe, effi-cient, long-lasting national highway system. Manyindustries depend on just-in-time delivery to mini-mize overhead costs and move products throughoutthe Nation and overseas. Given the new global econ-omy, the ability of the United States to competeinternationally is directly related to its capacity tomove goods from the plains to the ports.

Along with the public’s high expectations comesincreasing frustration with growing traffic conges-tion and highway construction delays. FHWA’s 2000traveler satisfaction surveys found that 43 percent ofrespondents expressed dissatisfaction with trafficflow on major highways, up from 23 percent 5 yearsearlier. Thirty-two percent expressed frustrationwith work zones.

Overall, the Nation’s highway program hasbecome increasingly complex, with environmentalcommitments, urban planning needs, operationalrequirements, and budget and political pressures allvying for the limited time of transportation agencypersonnel and tight financial resources. Jugglingconstruction, maintenance, public safety, andfinancing presents a definite challenge to everytransportation organization.

Moving Forward on Oversight

In this challenging environment, FHWA’s primaryfocus continues to be on stewardship and oversightto meet the public’s expectations for quality—

89

Archive

d

including safety characteristics, operational efficien-cy, and durability—and accountability as guardiansof the Nation’s transportation system.

The focus involves working in partnership withState and local transportation agencies, which havesimilar stewardship responsibilities to the public forthe transportation infrastructure under their man-agement and the Federal tax dollars entrusted tothem to operate their programs.

Today, FHWA’s emphasis is on initiatives thatconcentrate on broad program areas because thesefocuses are more likely to yield systemic improve-ments and result in higher payoffs for the effortinvested. FHWA conducts its oversight through awide range of mechanisms, including processreviews, program evaluations, program manage-ment activities, and project involvement activities.

In years past, when FHWA’s staffing level wasnearly twice that of the 2005 level, engineers wereactively involved in the oversight of numerous indi-vidual highway construction projects. Althoughthere has been a shift from project oversight to pro-gram oversight, FHWA’s responsibility to assure theproper use of Federal resources remains unchanged.

FHWA’s evaluation of State and local transporta-tion agencies’ construction programs, for example,involves an assessment of State procedures and con-trols for assuring that transportation improvementsare constructed in accordance with approved stan-dards and contracting methods.

“We will be far more efficient if we focus onensuring that the processes that produce projectdecisions are right, rather than trying to track each individual decision,” FHWA’s Director of Field Services-West Christine Johnson told attendees atthe FHWA 2005 Western Area Engineer’s Confer-ence. “However, to be good program managers, wemust not lose sight of the core skills needed tounderstand project decisions.” Every process reviewrequires a sampling of the projects to assure that theprocess is being followed and that it is effective atproducing the product or activity desired.

Effective evaluation of management and finan-cial issues is also key to oversight. An example thatJohnson cited was focusing on getting the rightmaterials for the roadway’s asphalt mix, but losingthe value of having the right materials because theconstruction project bid was off or the constructionschedule was delayed because the funding was esti-mated incorrectly. “Those tend to be managementissues rather than technical issues. Nevertheless,they are just as important,” she said.

FHWA provides technical assistance in solvingproblems, recommends improvements to ensurehigh-quality construction, and shares informationon innovations in materials, equipment, construc-tion practices, and contracting methods. The recentsuccess in carrying out the Accelerated Construc-tion Technology Transfer program is an example ofthe leadership and technical support that FHWAcan provide.

Inspections at the program level and on carefullyselected projects are the primary methods thatFHWA uses to fulfill its construction program over-sight responsibilities. FHWA’s objectives in con-ducting inspections include defining the progressand quality of work, identifying problem areas andinnovations, documenting resolution of those prob-lems, and sharing innovations and new technolo-gies. The number and type of reviews conductedannually are determined by the FHWA divisionadministrator’s periodic risk assessment. Thisassessment takes into account the staffing and skillsof the State DOT, program size and complexity,contractor and supplier availability, as well asFHWA division staffing and other factors.

FHWA conducts various types of inspections.Process reviews and product evaluations, for exam-ple, assure that State processes, procedures, and con-trols conform to Federal requirements. In depthinspections are detailed reviews to track the process-es necessary to correct problems or promoteprocesses that produce high-quality products on aproject, district, or statewide basis.

The FHWA reviews generally confirm that thework is in reasonably close conformity to the plansand specifications or that certain areas might needfuture attention.

Reviewing Processes and Programs

Each FHWA division office is responsible for devel-oping a construction management program thatdefines the types and frequencies of inspectionsneeded to maintain a reasonable level of confidencein the construction program it oversees.

To help carry out its oversight responsibilities, theFHWA Illinois Division developed guidelines forconducting annual process reviews. Under the guide-lines, available at www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/cpmi04c2.htm, FHWA and the Illinois Departmentof Transportation (IDOT) jointly select five or sixtopics a year for review, establish review teams, anddevelop a purpose and scope for each review.

90

Archive

d

Topics of reviews conducted in 2005 includedbridge expansion joints, construction program esti-mates, roadside safety assessments, environmentaldocumentation, and the Chicago Department ofTransportation’s authorization process and con-struction documentation. “Process reviews are partof our continuous improvement process,” says EricHarm, IDOT deputy director and assistant chiefengineer. “Working with FHWA on reviews gives usan extra set of eyes to take a look at our processes tosee where we can improve them.”

Joint coordinators from FHWA and IDOT headeach review team, which can include representativesfrom other State and local transportation agenciesaffected by the review topic. Each team interviewsstaff in each IDOT district and reviews constructionprojects related to the topic. After the team com-pletes the review, it holds a meeting with districtstaff to discuss what it observed and develops areport on its observations and recommendationsfor each district.

In addition, the team develops a statewide reportthat summarizes the results of the process review,documents observations that apply to the entireState, and outlines action items with specific dead-lines to resolve or improve any problems it observed.

“What the Illinois process shows is that you canestablish good partnerships with a State agency andmake mutually beneficial progress,” says Dean Mentjes, an FHWA Illinois Division mobility engi-neer who has participated on several review teams.

The Illinois reviews have resulted in a number ofprocess improvements and specification changesover the years. Using cost and performance datacollected during a review of bonded concretebridge deck overlays a few years ago, the team pro-duced guidelines and rewrote specifications onwhen to use different types of overlays and pre-overlay treatments.

As a result, IDOT adopted new policies and isnow obtaining better performance from bridgedecks. “Anytime we can improve performance onsomething like a bridge deck, we ultimately savemoney by not having to rehabilitate it as often,” saysHarm.

FHWA’s Washington Division develops annualperformance reports on its construction projectinspections, program evaluations, systematicreviews, and financial audits of the WashingtonState Department of Transportation (WSDOT).The reports describe the reviews conducted duringthe fiscal year and provide a synopsis of FHWA’s

findings. WSDOT, in turn, posts the FHWA reportson its “Accountability” Web site at www.wsdot.wa.gov/accountability/performance/default.htmand prepares media releases to demonstrate theaccountability of its construction program to thepublic.

In addition, WSDOT State Construction Engi-neer Kevin Dayton cites FHWA’s independentreviews of State projects as useful in providing feed-back to the Washington State Joint Legislative Auditand Review Committee, which conducts perform-ance audits of State programs. In one instance,when a committee member commented that shebelieved WSDOT did not have an adequate numberof field staff, WSDOT officials replied that FHWAinspection reports indicated that the agency wasdoing a satisfactory job.

FHWA’s California Division developed a pro-gram review/product evaluation (PR/PE) initiative,which it used during the 1990s and is now reviving.Program guidelines are available at www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/cpmi04c1.htm. The program callsfor annual evaluations of the adequacy of processes,procedures, and products used by the CaliforniaDepartment of Transportation (Caltrans) in projectdevelopment and construction activities.

These reviews can be broad in scope, covering amajor activity or program such as conceptual studiesor preliminary plan development for constructionprojects, or more specific, covering products or ele-ments such as pavement design, safety features,materials quality control, or construction manage-ment. Based on the reviews, FHWA can determinewhether a process is being implemented as intendedand is producing the desired result.

Under the guidelines, the PR/PE team developsan annual schedule of reviews based on input fromseveral sources, including the State DOT, FHWAheadquarters, and trends found in other divisionoffices. The effort is to identify national andstatewide policy concerns, and to obtain Caltransmanagement input on high-risk or problem areas.The team also looks at data from past designreviews, construction inspection reports, and relat-ed activities.

In addition, the team reviews a list of specialemphasis areas, which are potential major reviewelements for the PR/PE program. The list covers amultitude of phases in the development, design, andconstruction of Federal-aid projects—from seismicanalysis and bridge design to project staffing andsupervision.

91

Archive

d

The team uses a criteria assessment model toevaluate each potential topic to determine the needfor a PR/PE review. Topic selection criteria includethe level of Federal interest, technical complexity,the degree of concern, and the statutory require-ments related to it.

Guide to Better Inspections

The guidelines developed in Illinois and Californiafor process and program reviews and the positiveworking relationship found in Washington Stateand many of the FHWA division offices are justsome of the many tools available for local and Statetransportation personnel to adopt and use in carry-ing out oversight activities.

The guidelines are included in FHWA’s Construc-tion Program Management and Inspection Guide(FHWA-IF-04-013), available online at www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/cpmi04tc.htm. To help engi-neers improve their technical knowledge and selecta balanced program of construction managementtechniques, the guide highlights proven techniquesfor construction inspections.

“The guide can familiarize newer staff memberswith the construction management and oversightprocess, as well as serve as a refresher for veteranengineers,” says Jeffrey Lewis, field operations engi-neering team leader in the FHWA California Divi-sion and a member of the FHWA ConstructionQuality Improvement Team, which developed thepublication.

In addition to being a resource for FHWA staff,the guide is useful for State and local staffs as theyplan, construct, and monitor projects using Federal-aid funds, Lewis says. “They need to understand theFHWA philosophy and intent when they act onFHWA’s behalf,” he says. “The guide helps explainwhat that encompasses.”

The guide discusses the steps necessary to imple-ment an effective construction management pro-gram. The steps include defining the types and frequencies of inspections needed to assure a qualityconstruction program, performing inspections andreviews, preparing and distributing reports, and fol-lowing up on findings.

Among the tools in the guide is a checklist ofitems to consider when conducting an inspection,such as progress and quality of work, constructionoperations and features, project records, changes,and time extensions. The guide also contains an

outline of the contents that a construction manage-ment report should incorporate, including detailson observations, findings, resolutions, and qualitymanagement initiatives.

In addition, the guide has sample inspectionreport forms, such as bid review and design projectchecklists. Engineers can use the forms to stream-line the writing process for reports and make themeasy to follow.

The online version of the guide will be updatedas new products, processes, guidelines, and samplereports become available that would benefit engi-neers carrying out oversight responsibilities. “It’sdesigned to be an evolving document,” says Lewis.“This is just one of the tools we have made availableto assist our younger engineers and midcareeremployees.”

More Tools to Use

In addition to the Construction Program Manage-ment and Inspection Guide, FHWA has developedseveral workshops and maintains a number of Websites that provide valuable information and tools fortransportation professionals involved in construc-tion management and oversight.

A National Highway Institute (NHI) workshopbased on the Construction Program Managementand Inspection Guide provides engineers and trans-portation specialists with proven methods and toolsfor performing effective construction oversight. Theworkshop covers the changing roles of FHWA’s fieldstaff and provides participants with an understand-ing of construction stewardship with an emphasison construction inspection techniques. AnotherNHI workshop on Conducting Reviews That GetResults covers methods for planning constructionreviews, collecting and analyzing data, presentingreview results, and formulating recommendationsthat can be implemented successfully. Informationon scheduling these workshops can be found at thefollowing Web sites:

www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/072904.htm

www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/coursedesc.asp?coursenum=1146

“One of the beauties of these workshops is thatthe instructors are a blend of FHWA staff from theResource Center, division offices, and headquarters,so participants benefit from that interaction,” saysLewis, a workshop facilitator and Construction

92

Archive

d

Quality Improvement Team coleader. “By the timeparticipants walk out of the class, they’re ready to goto a project and be comfortable doing a review. Wecan’t make up for years of experience [that] we as anagency have been losing the past 10 years, but withthis workshop and the tools provided, we do addconfidence to our newer employees.”

Workshop facilitators encourage local, State, andFederal teams to attend sessions together and bringexamples from upcoming reviews to discuss. “If wecan include our State and local partners in a work-shop, then when we perform reviews with them onthe team we can all use the same tools and the sameterminology and get the most out of the processreview,” says the FHWA Illinois Division’s DeanMentjes, who helps deliver the workshop.

NHI offers several other courses related to con-struction program management, including DrilledShaft Foundation Inspection (13207A), Driven PileFoundation Inspection (132069A), Safety Inspectionof In-Service Bridges (130055A), Shallow Founda-tions (132037A), and Use of Critical Path Method(CPM) for Estimating, Scheduling, and TimelyCompletion (134049A). The NHI course catalog isavailable at www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/coursec.asp.

“What we get out of training workshops is thelatest available information on a specific topic andany developments going on nationwide or eveninternationally that can help us do things better inIllinois,” says IDOT’s Harm.

The “Construction and Maintenance” Web site,maintained by FHWA’s Office of Asset Managementat www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction, provides anoverview of resources and links, including highwayconstruction specifications, Federal-aid construc-tion program regulations, accelerated constructiontechnologies, the latest memoranda and publica-tions on construction and maintenance topics, andrelated research.

The “National Highway Specifications” Web siteat www.specs.fhwa.dot.gov consists of a searchablelibrary of highway specifications from across thecountry. This publicly available site is the result of apartnership between FHWA and the AmericanAssociation of State Highway and TransportationOfficials (AASHTO) Subcommittee on Construc-tion. The site also features discussion forums on thedevelopment and use of various types of construc-tion specifications.

The “Generic Construction Related ReviewGuidelines” site at www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/

reviews.htm provides engineers with examples ofreviews undertaken by FHWA field offices on topicssuch as asphalt pavements, bridge decks, right-of-way appraisal, and traffic control in work zones.These generic samples can be modified to meet spe-cific program needs.

The “Construction Program Guide” site atwww.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/cqit/index.htmfeatures a list of links on construction topics such asadvertising for bids, design-build contracting, qual-ity assurance, safety, and warranties. The links, inturn, provide information on laws, regulations,policies, guidelines, and training on each topic.

Public Trust and Confidence

Just as the transportation community of 50 yearsago faced the challenge of building a national inter-state system, today’s transportation community islooking at how to best use resources, protect theenvironment, reduce congestion, enhance safety,and increase the longevity of the infrastructure.

FHWA plays a major role in addressing theseissues by promoting innovative practices and work-ing with State agencies to find new solutions tohighway problems. In addition, FHWA conductsoversight activities that assure the best use of tax-payers’ dollars in meeting the needs of the travelingpublic. FHWA has an important role working withits State partners to manage public investment inthe Nation’s highway assets.

This renewed recognition of the need for con-struction oversight does not mean turning back theclock to more Federal oversight. Instead, today’semphasis is on working with State partners toensure that the processes that produce project deci-sions are effective, rather than trying to track eachindividual decision.

FHWA’s focus is on being proactive in meetingpublic expectations for quality and accountabilityand earning the public’s trust and confidence as theguardian of the national transportation system.

“Agencies are charged with ensuring that theprograms they oversee are conducted in a mannerthat best meets the public interest,” says ActingFHWA Administrator Capka. “The public expectsagencies to maintain the highest standards ofintegrity, demonstrate competence, make wise deci-sions, communicate openly and clearly, and meetcommitments. By meeting those expectations, theagency earns the public’s trust and confidence.”

93

Archive

d

94

The FHWA oversight role has changed over the years, but theagency’s responsibility as the guardian of the national trans-portation system remains the same.

“Much of our oversight and approval for eligibility hasbeen delegated to our State partners,” said Christine Johnson,FHWA’s director of field services-west, at the FHWA 2005Western Area Engineer’s Conference.“However, our account-ability has not been delegated. We have a responsibility toverify that the processes and safeguards that a State is sup-posed to have in place are in place and are being followed.”

From the early 1900s to the 1950s, FHWA’s predecessor, theBureau of Public Roads (BPR), used a partnership approachin which States administered Federal-aid highway projectsand BPR made the checks necessary to protect the Federalinterest. BPR was the main technical source for State and localagencies, and BPR field engineers stepped in frequently tosolve complicated design and construction problems.

In 1956, the Federal-aid program expanded to build thenational interstate system. From 1956 to 1974, authorizationsunder the Federal-Aid Highway Program increased morethan 900 percent, while FHWA staff increased to an agencymaximum of about 5,200 employees.

When a U.S. House of Representatives special investigativecommittee raised concerns in 1959 about a lack of construc-tion quality and waste, fraud, and abuse in highway con-struction, BPR changed its oversight role and stepped up thelevel of project inspections. The focus of the division officeschanged from providing advice to providing project-levelactions that included detailed reviews and approvals. As theinterstate construction program continued its rapid growth,and the State highway agencies gained experience and techni-cal expertise, BPR began delegating some oversight responsi-bilities to the States.

Evolution of FHWA Oversight

By the early 1970s, FHWA (created when the U.S. Depart-ment of Transportation was formed in 1967) faced the dilem-ma of not being able to maintain its previous level of projectreviews, despite its larger workforce. Meanwhile, FHWA wasgaining confidence in the States’ technical competence andability to manage their own construction projects.

In 1973, Congress reduced the scope of Federal monitor-ing of Federal-aid highway projects on all but the interstatesystem. A 1974 FHWA study recommended a transition fromproject reviews to process and program reviews. Then-FHWA Executive Director R.D. Morgan initiated a stepped-up program of training in core areas and renewed emphasison both program and project reviews, and division officeprogram reviews and annual reporting was required.

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of1991 (ISTEA) changed the Federal oversight role by givingStates more authority to ensure that projects are constructedto expected quality levels and shifting the Federal role prima-rily to program-level oversight.

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) further delegated authority to the States by releasingoversight functions under agreement between FHWA andStates. At the same time, TEA-21 increased Federal oversightfor megaprojects, major construction projects with budgetsthat total more than $1 billion each.

A 2001 FHWA policy statement reaffirmed that, regardlessof the project responsibilities delegated to States, FHWA isultimately responsible for Federal highway programs. Thepolicy emphasizes stewardship and oversight initiatives thatfocus on broad program and process reviews with project-specific verification.Archive

d

Jim Sorenson, senior construction and system preservation engi-neer in FHWA’s Office of Asset Management, is responsible fortechnical assistance, policy development, and research guidance inthe areas of construction and maintenance, operations, transporta-tion system preservation, asset management, and quality manage-ment. During his three-decade career, Sorenson has worked in avariety of assignments in FHWA field and headquarters offices andparticipated in a number of FHWA initiatives, including the Super-pave Technology Delivery Team, the Strategic Highway ResearchProgram’s Highway Operations Technical Working Group, and theIntegrated Mobility and Safety Team. He has a bachelor’s degree incivil engineering from Montana State University.

Reprinted from Public Roads, November/December 2005.

95

FHWA and AASHTO define asset manage-ment as “a strategic approach to managingtransportation infrastructure. It focuses on. . . business processes for resource alloca-tion and utilization with the objective ofbetter decisionmaking based on qualityinformation and well-defined objectives.”

Asset management involves combiningengineering principles with sound businesspractices and economic analysis to providetools that facilitate an organized and logicalapproach to informed decisionmaking.Asset management provides a frameworkfor both short- and long-term planning. Itis about having a systematic process formaintaining, upgrading, and operatingassets in a cost-effective way.

Implementation of asset managementprocesses helps an organization use itsavailable resources, human as well as finan-cial, to provide customers with the mostefficient and effective transportation systempossible. The principles of asset manage-ment apply to all aspects of the program,from planning through project develop-ment, construction, operation, preserva-tion, and maintenance.

What Is Asset Management?

Archive

d

Archive

d

97

Accelerated Construction

Archive

d

Archive

d

Join the accelerated construction bandwagon. Overthe past 2 years, more than half of States have real-ized the benefits of accelerated highway construc-tion by participating in the Accelerated Construc-tion Technology Transfer (ACTT) program. Startedby the Transportation Research Board, AmericanAssociation of State Highway and TransportationOfficials, and the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA), ACTT brings State highway agency stafftogether with national experts in a range of skill setsfor a 3-day workshop. At the workshop, participantsidentify innovative approaches to reducing time,costs, and congestion for a planned highway projectwhile improving safety, quality, and roadway per-formance.

Over the course of the workshops to date, mil-lions of dollars and years of delays have been shavedoff of highway projects, with projects ranging in sizefrom those with $1 million budgets to those pro-jected to cost more than $2.5 billion. Most ACTTworkshops have resulted in a reduction of plannedconstruction time by 30 percent or more.

All States can now join in thesuccess of ACTT by holding theirown accelerated constructionworkshops, with the assistance oftheir FHWA division offices andthe Accelerated ConstructionManagement Team (ACMT). Thisteam will help States plan, organ-ize, and carry out workshops,which are now eligible for Feder-al-aid funding. “The ACMT willhelp States incorporate ACTTinto select major reconstructionand rehabilitation projects, boost-ing the rapid transfer of freshtechnology solutions, minimizingrisk, and potentially saving con-struction time and dollars,”says

Jim Sorenson of FHWA’s Office ofAsset Management and a member ofthe ACMT. “Our goal is to sparemotorists and communities from anyavoidable construction-related trafficdisruption, while helping agenciesdeliver state-of-the-art roadways thatmeet the demands of our increasinglymobile society.”

Factors to consider in selecting anACTT project include:

• Does the project involve majorreconstruction and/or rehabilita-tion work that will begin over thenext 4–6 years?

• Is there an urgent need to accelerate construc-tion?

• Are the project limits or boundaries still fluid?

• Is the project team open to innovation and will-ing to consider and apply fresh concepts?

To assist States in planning anACTT workshop, a new publica-tion is available from FHWA,ACTT: A “How To” Guide for StateHighway Agencies (PublicationNo. FHWA-IF-05-038). The guideincludes background informationon the ACTT program and detailson how to plan and hold a work-shop. Also included are sampleworkshop agendas and lists of thevarious ACTT skill sets and theirteam leaders. Skills sets cover suchareas as design, contracting,financing, construction, right-of-way/utilities, and the environ-ment. The ACMT will maintain a

99

ACTT Now

Over the course of the workshops todate, millions of

dollars and years ofdelays have been

shaved off of highwayprojects, with projects

ranging in size fromthose with $1 million

budgets to those projected to cost

more than $2.5 billion.

Archive

d

national roster of skill set experts and assist States insetting up a skill set team for a workshop.

During the next few years, the ACMT will beworking with States who have held an ACTT work-shop and are now moving their ACTT project orcorridor into the construction phase. ACTT work-shop recommendations will be tracked to see whichones are actually implemented and how much isactually saved in time and costs. “We are committedto making the ACTT process a standard businesspractice for highway agencies on major reconstruc-tion or rehabilitation projects,” says King W. Gee,FHWA’s Associate Administrator for Infrastructure.“Demonstrating real-world results is essential forthe success of this effort.”

Additional information on ACTT, including arti-cles and reports on workshops held to date, is avail-able at www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/accelerated.To learn more about holding an ACTT workshop inyour State, to obtain a copy of the ACTT “How To”Guide, or to obtain a copy of the 2005 status report,ACTT Now (Publication No. FHWA-IF-05-039),contact your local FHWA Division Office. Informa-tion is also available from Jim Sorenson in FHWA’sOffice of Asset Management, 202-366-1333 (fax:202-366-9981; email: james.sorenson@fhwa.dot.gov), or Jerry Blanding in the FHWA Resource Cen-ter in Baltimore, Maryland, 410-962-2253 (fax: 410-962-4386; email: jerry.blanding@fhwa.dot.gov).

Reprinted from Focus, October 2005.

100

Archive

d

Washington State Route 520 (SR 520) is one of onlytwo major State highways running east-westbetween Seattle on the west side of Lake Washing-ton and the communities of Bellevue, Redmond,and Kirkland on the east side of the lake. Designedfor an average daily traffic of 65,000 vehicles, theroad now carries between 110,000 and 120,000vehicles daily and is often congested for 13 hourson weekdays. A March 2004 workshop in Seattlelooked at ways to accelerate the replacement of SR520’s 40-year-old Evergreen Point floating bridgeacross Lake Washington. The workshop was held bythe Washington State Department of Transporta-tion (WSDOT) and the Accelerated ConstructionTechnology Transfer (ACTT) team sponsored bythe Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) andthe American Association of State Highway andTransportation Officials.

One of the oldest floating bridges in the world,the Evergreen Point Bridge is reaching the end ofits useful life. Not only is its capacity inadequate,but it is vulnerable to storms and seismic events.The bridge’s pontoons are subject to cracking and leaking and its low position in the water makes itsusceptible to high, crashing waves during storms.With an estimated cost of between $1.5 and $3.4 bil-lion, depending on the number of lanes selected forthe new bridge, funding for the project is a chal-lenge. There has also been concern expressed bycommunities on both sides of the bridge about theproposed construction and its impact. Three projectalternatives—a four-lane, six-lane, and eight-lanebridge—are currently being evaluated by WSDOT.Also being evaluated are the use of tolls to help fundthe project.

The ACTT workshop brought together local andnational transportation experts from State highwayagencies, industry, academia, and FHWA. Theseexperts’ skill areas included design, construction,

structures, traffic/safety/intelligent transportationsystems, innovative contracting and financing, envi-ronment, and right-of-way. Dan Mathis, DivisionAdministrator for FHWA’s Washington State Divi-sion Office, noted that, “This workshop is aboutmeeting the customers’ needs during and after construction. It’s about being creative. Our role is‘To get in there, do the work and do it right, andthen get out of the way.’” Building on these con-cepts, the goals of the workshop included:

• Shorten construction time • Minimize construction impacts • Identify options for construction staging • Develop creative financing strategies • Maximize maintenance of traffic flow • Encourage contractor innovation and involve-

ment.

Rick Smith, WSDOT’s Innovative Project Deliv-ery Director, and other WSDOT staff introducedworkshop participants to the complicated urbanproject and gave them a tour of the project site.Participants met in smaller skill set groups to brain-storm ideas and develop recommendations formeeting the project goals. These recommendationsincluded using a design-build contract to shortenthe overall project delivery time by overlappingdesign with construction. Also suggested was seg-menting contracts, such as replacing the bridge infour separate segments. In addition, employing pre-fabricated bridge construction was recommendedas a means of accelerating the project, including theuse of precast substructures, deck panels, and super-structures. In the area of materials, it was suggestedthat self-consolidating concrete (SCC) be used, par-ticularly for the construction of the bridge’s pon-toons. Because of the large quantity of concrete necessary and the anticipated depths of the pon-toons, the use of conventional concrete would be

101

Teaming Up to Accelerate Lake Washington’s

Floating Bridge Project

Archive

d

very labor intensive. SCC flows easily and can com-pletely fill intricate and complex forms under itsown weight, eliminating the need for vibration.

Other workshop recommendations includedbreaking the pontoon fabrication into separate con-tracts, depending on the type of work; designing thebridge’s simple pontoons first so that they can beconstructed while the more complex pontoons arestill being designed; and building “lids” over theroadway first and then using them for constructionaccess and traffic staging. Also stressed was theimportance of coordinating with other regionalprojects, as there are several other mega projectsbeing proposed in the area. Among the financingoptions, participants recommended looking at thebenefits of starting toll collection on SR 520 earlierthan originally planned to raise additional funds.

“Participants were fully engaged and creative andbrought new information and ideas to the table,”noted Maureen Sullivan, Project Director inWSDOT’s Urban Corridors Office.“The recommen-

dations present a great opportunity for saving 1–2years in construction time.” Depending on the avail-ability of funding, WSDOT tentatively plans tobegin construction on the new bridge in 2008.

To learn more about the SR 520 Bridge Replace-ment Project, visit www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/SR520Bridge, or contact Maureen Sullivan atWSDOT, 206-381-6436 (email: SullivM@wsdot.wa.gov), or Julie Meredith at WSDOT, 206-381-6406(email: MeredJL@wsdot.wa.gov). For more infor-mation on ACTT, contact Dan Sanayi at FHWA,202-493-0551 (email: dan.sanayi@fhwa.dot.gov).Information is also available online at www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/accelerated or through yourlocal FHWA Division Office. An ACTT workshopwill be held this month in Oklahoma, with work-shops also scheduled in Minnesota (June),Wyoming (September), Rhode Island (October),New Jersey (November), and Nevada (March 2005).

Reprinted from Focus, May 2004.

102

Archive

d

With the population of Dallas, Texas, expected todouble over the next 20 years, the Texas Departmentof Transportation (TxDOT) faces the challenge ofproviding the transportation infrastructure that willsupport that growth. Their answer? Project Pegasus.This initiative aims to transform the two majorInterstate freeways that serve downtown Dallas,redesigning portions of IH 30 and IH 35E.

As part of an American Association of StateHighway and Transportation Officials and FederalHighway Administration (FHWA) initiative knownas Accelerated Construction Technology Transfer(ACTT), a workshop was held in Mesquite, Texas,from September 9–11, 2003, to focus on strategiesfor accelerating the 19.3-km (12-mi) Project Pega-sus. The workshop brought together local andnational transportation experts from State highwayagencies, industry, academia, and FHWA. Theseexperts’ skill areas included design, construction,innovative financing, right-of-way, utilities, innova-tive contracting, the environment, work zone trafficcontrol, and worker safety.

The portions of the IH 30/IH 35E freeways beingrebuilt as Project Pegasus are critically congested,with bumper-to-bumper traffic occurring for morethan 6 hours a day and traffic speed averaging only32 km/h (20 mi/h). The traffic problems are exacer-bated by the outdated layout of the freeways, whichwere primarily designed in the 1950s to take travel-ers to downtown Dallas. Travel patterns havechanged over the decades, however, and today fourout of every fivedrivers remain onthe freeways andbypass downtownDallas. Design stan-dards have alsochanged over theyears: In many loca-tions on the free-

ways, ramps lack adequate acceleration or decelera-tion lengths, interchanges and ramps are too closetogether, and bridges have limited vertical and horizontal clearances, among other problems.

The reconstruction project will add capacity,with plans calling for five to six lanes in each direc-tion and one or two reversible high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes in the median. Operations andsafety will also be improved by upgrading to meettoday’s design standards for freeways, as well as byeliminating left hand merges and diverges.

The goal of the $760 million Project Pegasus is tocomplete the reconstruction work in 4 years, versusthe original estimate of 7 years. Other goals are to:

• Maintain traffic with minimal disruption.• Accommodate special events in the region.• Provide access to emergency facilities.• Maintain a safe work zone.• Minimize construction delays due to right-of-

way, utilities, and railroad issues.• Incorporate a context-sensitive design

into project plans.

103

Project PegasusTxDOT Accelerates the Reconstruction of Dallas Interstate

Project Pegasus will transform the two major Interstate freeways that serve downtown Dallas, IH 30 and IH 35E.

Archive

d

Don Lucas of the Heritage Group and chair ofthe Transportation Research Board (TRB) Commit-tee A5T60, the Task Force on Accelerating Innova-tion in the Highway Industry, noted that customersare demanding a response to their travel needs.“Themomentum is building for change. We need to shareinnovative practices and processes with each otherto create a new picture of how we can perform high-speed construction while maintaining the quality.”

“Acceleration is a priority topic for DOTs,” addedHal Kassoff of Parsons Brinckerhoff and also amember of the TRB task force.

Tim Nesbitt, project manager for TxDOT, notedthat challenges faced by TxDOT in accelerating theproject include having to weave constructionaround railroad tracks, major employment sites,four city parks, the Dealey Plaza historic district,American Airlines Center, and a new proposed sta-dium site for the Dallas Cowboys.

Workshop participants met in smaller skill setgroups to brainstorm issues and ideas and developrecommendations for meeting the project goals andworking through the challenges. Recommendationsfor accelerating the project included using design-build contracting to optimize innovation, coordi-nating with utility companies early in the projectplanning process, and using long-life pavementswith a 50-year design life. Other recommendationsincluded employing construction techniques forstructures that minimize the traffic impact, such asincremental launching, lateral slide, and heavy liftmethods; improving general materials specifica-tions to only allow use of premium materials; usingcontractor incentives to minimize traffic disruption;and setting up a dedicated incident managementsystem at the project site.

Additional traffic management suggestionsincluded constructing the planned Trinity Parkwaywest of I-35E prior to this project, so that mainlinetraffic can be detoured onto the Parkway. This willenable such traffic strategies as total or partial roadclosure, weekend closures, or restricting road use toHOV vehicles only, to be used. The importance ofproviding information to the public was empha-sized, as workshop participants noted that real-timetraveler information should be provided and thatproject work should be supported by intensivemedia efforts to let residents and the communityknow about the changes taking place.

The AASHTO/FHWA ACTT team is developinga report on the workshop and will then compile 6-month and 1-year follow-up reports detailing whichof the workshop recommendations were imple-mented and to what extent.

Support for the ACTT initiative is steadily gain-ing momentum. The next workshop will be hostedby the California Department of Transportation inDecember. Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma, andWashington State have all indicated that they areinterested in hosting workshops in 2004, whileStates such as Georgia, Idaho, Maryland, Massachu-setts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Wisconsin havealso expressed interest in the ACTT program.

To learn more about Project Pegasus, contactBrian Barth at TxDOT, 214-320-6189, or visit theproject Web site at www.projectpegasus.org. Formore information on ACTT or to learn more abouthosting a workshop in your State, contact your localFHWA Division Office or Dan Sanayi at FHWA,202-493-0551 (email: dan.sanayi@fhwa.dot.gov).

Reprinted from Focus, October 2003.

104

Archive

d

105

Asphalt

Archive

d

Archive

d

Now well into the 21st century, the asphalt pavingindustry is light years from what it was just a gener-ation ago.

But if a generation is defined as the intervalbetween the birth of parents and the birth of theirchildren, those light years actually are only about 20years.

In those two decades the industry has been trans-formed from being a producer of a dependable, butplain-vanilla product for overlays and low-volumeroads, to a producer of an environmentally friendly,high-tech paving medium adaptable to different climates, traffic loads, end-use applications, andsuitable for recycling and reclamation.

And it’s all happened on our watch.Consider these near-tectonic shifts in hot-mix

asphalt that have occurred in just two decades:

• The industry has shifted from conventional Mar-shall mix designs, based on a binder’s viscosity orresistance to penetration, to performance-related,more durable Superpave binder mix designs.

• That shift has spawned a new generation of laband field mix-testing equipment and new full-scale accelerated pavement testing facilities, andit has supported a new class of technicallytrained lab technicians. One result of this is atremendous, growing body of data that is beingused every day to make mix design decisions andimprove long-term asphalt performance.

• Complementing Superpave, new, extremelyrugged mix designs like stone matrix asphalt(SMA) have been imported from Europe andelsewhere to benefit highway agencies and theirmotorist patrons.

• The chemistry of liquid asphalt has beenenhanced by a new generation of asphalt modi-fiers, boosting the performance of Superpavemixes (Superpave Plus), open-graded frictioncourses, and thin-lift overlays.

• Abetted by innovative new equipment andresearch, recycling of reclaimed asphalt pave-ment and other industrial or waste materials intopavements now has spread through the asphaltpaving establishment, benefiting the environmentand reducing costs.

• The industry has adapted to most of its workbeing done on existing rights-of-way and accom-modating ever-growing traffic loads by embrac-ing night work as a standard way of doing busi-ness.

• Major changes in state department of trans-portation staffing and philosophy have put moreresponsibility with the contractor for qualityassurance and quality control. These changeshave also compelled contractors to offer long-term warranties for their work, and have forcedthem to develop new equipment and new waysof providing the super-smooth pavements thattaxpaying motorists want.

• While infrared and electronic technologyimprove quality and placement of mix, newasphalt paver designs permit faster, safer, andmore versatile paving.

“In my time, hot-mix asphalt has changed dra-matically,” said National Asphalt Pavement Associa-tion 2003 chairman Peter A. Wilson, senior vicepresident of Barriere Construction LLC, in his inau-guration address. “We have had our own evolutionand revolutions. Today, we know so much moreabout our product and its characteristics than wedid 25 years ago.”

In 2003, the industry knows how to design apavement that will not rut, and one that holds up tothe heaviest traffic, the Louisiana contractor said,adding today’s asphalt pavements are smoother,quieter, more cost-effective to maintain, and longer-lasting than ever before.

107

Asphalt’s Generation of Change

by Tom Kuennen

Perhaps nothing in the road industry has changed more in the past two decades than asphalt pavement technology.

Archive

d

“We have all these things going for our industrybecause we have a new and improved product, aproduct much different and much better than wehave ever had,” Wilson says.

Durable Mixes

The number-one change over the last 20 years hasbeen the rise of more durable asphalt mixes and theadvent of performance-related binder specificationsunder the Superpave system of asphalt mix design.

No other development in HMA in the past gen-eration has had so much impact in so many areas ofthe asphalt industry as the advent of Superpave.

Superpave—a registered trademark of the Trans-portation Research Board—was a product of theStrategic Highway Research Program, authorized byCongress in 1987.

And while Superpave launched the modern eraof asphalt paving, Superpave itself was launchedwith the 1984 Transportation Research Board Spe-cial Report 202, America’s Highways: Accelerating theSearch for Innovation, also known as the StrategicTransportation Research Study or the STRS(“Stars”) report. This report laid the foundation ofthe Strategic Highway Research Program, whichgave birth to Superpave.

Under the guidance of an expert steering com-mittee, STRS settled on six areas of study in whichfocused, accelerated, results-oriented researchpromised significant benefits.

Foremost was asphalt, with an objective ofimproving “pavement performance through aresearch program that will provide increased under-standing of the chemical and physical properties ofasphalt cements and asphalt concretes,” STRS said.

The other research topics were long-term pave-ment performance, the cost-effectiveness of mainte-nance, protection of concrete bridge components[from chlorides], cement and concrete in highwaypavements and structures, and chemical control ofsnow and ice on highways.

STRS recommended a radical increase inresearch funds—to the tune of $150 million overfive years—funded by 0.25% of federal-aid highwayfunds. The American Association of State Highway& Transportation Officials, representing all statedepartments of transportation, agreed to a 0.25%“take-down” from the federal-aid highway funds,and the Strategic Highway Research Program wasborn.

Superpave is Performance-Based

Superpave is a performance-based system of speci-fications for designing asphalt pavements to hold upto the traffic loading and weathering stresses of thenew century.

The three major elements in the Superpave sys-tem are an asphalt binder specification geared topavement loading and local climate, a volumetricmix design and analysis system, and mix analysistests and a performance prediction system thatinclude computer software, weather database, andenvironmental and performance models.

Superpave’s volumetric properties include thepercentage of air voids, voids in the mineral aggre-gate, and voids filled with asphalt. Superpave allowscivil engineers to fine-tune asphalt mixes to specifictraffic loads and climates, thus producing pave-ments that are more durable and less likely to rut inextremely hot weather or to crack in extremely coldweather.

Switch to Superpave

The Marshall system of mix designs served wellfrom World War II, but under the crushing loads ofmodern traffic, had to be reconsidered.

“If there was a single problem with asphalt in the1980s, it was rutting,” said Gerry Huber, P.E.,research engineer, Heritage Research Group, at theSuperpave 2003 conference, held March 17-19 inNashville. “Rutting became a national epidemic inthe 1980s. If you look in the trade press, in the tech-nical journals you will see there was a huge amountof emphasis placed on rutting of asphalt pave-ments.”

The rutting of the 1980s was different than muchof the rutting of the past, he said. “This rutting wasoccurring within the mixture itself, not structuralrutting,” Huber said. “Rutting had tended to be astructural process, in which the subgrade or granu-lar layers underneath the pavement were givingaway, with a gentle settlement in the pavement caus-ing the rut in the wheel path. Here, a shallow ruttingwas taking place, in which the upper 3 or 4 inches ofHMA were rutting, with sideways displacement ofthe mix in the asphalt layer itself.”

To fix required a new approach toward rutting.The existing penetration grading of asphalt bindersdated to the 1890s, and derived from the forcerequired for a physical push of the thumb, and later,No. 10 sewing machine needle, to make a displace-ment at the top of a barrel of asphalt.

108

Archive

d

“In the 1970s we decided we should get a lotmore sophisticated than the penetration test, andwe began to look at viscosity penetration,” Hubersaid. “We began to develop devices to measure theviscosity of asphalt instead of penetration.”

But both specification methods had a commondrawback: They only measured how stiff theasphalt was at a certain temperature. “They didn’ttell anything about the properties of the asphalt at other temperatures,” Huber said. “Asphalt’s stiff-ness properties are affected by temperature andtime of loading. SHRP was tasked with coming up with performance-based specifications forasphalt binder, mix design, and aggregates. SHRPaddressed rutting, fatigue cracking, and low tem-perature cracking.”

At the start of 2003, 47 states included Superpavespecifications as a standard specification, if not theonly spec allowed, for state DOT paving. The Uni-versity of Texas at El Paso found that for the 2002construction season, the most recent reliable dataavailable, 4,726 scheduled projects were designedusing Superpave procedures.

That’s triple the number of Superpave projectsbuilt in 1998 and about 60% of the state asphaltpaving projects scheduled for letting in 2002. Super-pave has become the national standard.

Asphalt Modifiers Boost Performance

While additives to asphalt have been promotedsince the days of the asphalt “patent mixes” of the19th century (for this purpose, 1871–1918), the spe-cialized asphalt modifiers of the last two decadeshave improved asphalt performance, and made pos-sible designs such as open-graded friction coursesand thin-lift overlays.

And today modifiers make it possible to improvelower-performing performance-graded asphaltbinders to the point where they can meet stringentPG specifications for Superpave mixes. The per-formance properties of asphalt modifiers for Superpave work now are being studied and publi-cized by the Federal Highway Administration underits Superpave Plus program.

“Modified asphalt binders are typically used in high stress applications,” says FHWA’s JohnD’Angelo, P.E.“They have been used in intersectionswith stop-and-go traffic, high-volume truck routes,and high-volume interstates. Modifiers have alsobeen used in extreme climate conditions to reduce

aging in desert climates and to help produce bindersfor extreme low-temperature applications.”

OGFCs were abandoned in the 1970s and 1980sbecause the liquid asphalt was not stiff enough, cre-ating drain-down of asphalt into dense “fat” spots,while encouraging raveling of the top layer of aggre-gate. Today’s polymer-modified asphalt mixes aremixed at higher temperatures, thus more efficientlydrying the aggregate in the drum and improvingadhesion.

Modifiers developed over the last 20 yearsinclude:

• Styrene butadiene rubber, “latex.” SBR stiffensthe binder and can improve adhesion and crack-ing resistance. It is usually added at a minimumrate of 3% by weight of binder.

• Styrene-butadiene-styrene. SBS polymer increas-es stiffness, crack resistance, and adhesion of thebinder, and is added at a rate of 3 to 5% by weightof binder.

• Ethyl vinyl acetate. EVA polymer boosts stiffnessand cracking resistance at temperatures abovefreezing, but doesn’t provide good low-tempera-ture cracking resistance.

• Crumb rubber modifiers. CRM, added at lessthan 20% by weight of binder, are used withgreat success. The crumb rubber is blended withasphalt cements at elevated temperatures (“wet”process) and improves resistance to cracking. A“dry process” adds the crumb rubber as an aggre-gate in the drum.

RAP Becomes Part of Industry

The energy crisis of the late 1970s led to anothertremendous change in the way asphalt is manufac-tured and placed—the adoption of reclaimedasphalt pavement specifications.

When the Arab Oil Embargo and subsequentenergy crisis triggered skyrocketing oil prices andpetroleum conservation programs, aged asphaltpavement changed from a waste material destinedfor landfills to a valued product to be stockpiled andreused in many ways.

But it would not have been possible without therefinement of the cold milling machine.

“By the mid- to late-1970s, high-horsepowercold milling machines took over and became anintegral part of the rehabilitation process,” said

109

Archive

d

NAPA president Mike Acott in late 2001. “The oper-ation was seamless, and best of all it could be doneunder traffic. It restored the [road] profile and traf-fic could ride on the milled surface.”

In 2003, RAP is commonplace; it is reused asinexpensive road base, added to virgin hot-mixasphalt as a tested material, used for driveways, bikepaths, recreational trails, and much more.

Asphalt pavement is unquestionably the nation’smost widely recycled product. A 1993 study by theFHWA and EPA says about 73 million of the 91 mil-lion tons of asphalt pavement that are removed eachyear during resurfacing and widening projects arereused as part of new roads, roadbeds, shoulders,and embankments. That’s a recycling rate of 80%.

The 73 million-ton volume of recycled asphaltpavement is about one-third higher than the totalvolume of 60.7 million tons of post-consumer recy-cling. And it’s double the volume of paper, glass,plastic, and aluminum combined, the FHWA/EPAreports.

Use of RAP also saves valuable aggregateresources. While there are plenty of constructionaggregates in place in the ground, there are fewerand fewer aggregate sites that are permitted forextraction.

Existing quarries or gravel pits once outside of acity now are being surrounded by new suburbs—and neighbors who don’t like living near quarriesand will fight any kind of expansion.

But RAP contains aggregates that have alreadybeen acquired, permitted, shot, loaded, crushed,screened, stockpiled, reloaded, and hauled, savingtime, money and resources.

And reclaimed asphalt pavement isn’t the onlyproduct recycled in asphalt pavements or belowthem. Others include reclaimed demolition port-land cement concrete as base material; crumb rub-ber from old tires, added to asphalt pavement orreused as bases for temporary traffic signs, trafficcones, or in rubber railroad crossing pads; crushed,rounded broken glass as a mineral aggregate inasphalt; waste sand from metal-casting foundries;reclaimed asphalt roofing shingles; and in Califor-nia, crushed toilets in road base.

Full-Scale Testing

The performance of Superpave, SMA, RAP, and different types of aggregates are being tested yearafter year under real-world conditions at a variety offull-scale, accelerated testing facilities.

These facilities have included MnRoad in Minnesota, WesTrack in Nevada, and most recently,the Pavement Test Track of the National Center forAsphalt Technology.

MnROAD. The Minnesota Road Research Pro-ject is the world’s largest and most comprehensiveoutdoor pavement laboratory, distinctive for itselectronic sensor network embedded within 6 milesof test pavements. Located 40 miles northwest ofMinneapolis/St. Paul, its design incorporates 4,572electronic sensors. The sensor network and exten-sive data-collection system provide opportunities tostudy how heavy, commercial truck traffic and theannual freeze/thaw cycle affect pavement materialsand designs. Unlike WesTrack and NCAT, MnROADis not exclusively devoted to HMA research.

WesTrack. As Superpave unfolded, the FederalHighway Administration became involved in devel-oping performance-related specifications for HMA.Its first major step was the construction and loadingof a test track in Nevada, WesTrack, near Reno. TheWesTrack Road Test was conducted from 1996 to1999. Its purpose was to evaluate the direct effects ofdeviations of materials and construction propertieson pavement performance. WesTrack was a 1.8-mileoval track divided into 34 test sections. The trackwas loaded over a two-year period using driverlessvehicle technology. Test results provided usefulinformation in areas such as quality control/qualityassurance, construction methods, pavement rehabil-itation, and materials specifications. But WesTrackhad its critics. Some experts felt the driverless vehi-cles did not provide a real-world effect of wear onthe pavement surface. The computer-controlledtrucks continuously traveled in the same wheel pathcausing extreme wear in that path.

NCAT. Today, NCAT’s Pavement Test Track isattempting to answer some of the questions raisedat WesTrack.

In 1986, members of NAPA endowed theNational Center for Asphalt Technology at AuburnUniversity, providing a centralized, systematicapproach to asphalt research. In 2000 NCAT openeda new research center and 1.7-mile test track and isnow the world’s leading institution for asphalt pave-ment research.

The first phase of testing at NCAT’s track incor-porated 46 sections, averaging 200-feet long, each ofa different permutation of asphalt mix or lift design,as specified by one of the co-sponsoring state DOTs,or by the Federal Highway Administration.

110

Archive

d

In mid-December 2002 the NCAT Test Trackended a two-year cycle in which 10 million equiva-lent single axle loads—equal to 1.6-million miles—were logged on the track using professional drivers.

Among the findings after two years: Negligiblerutting of the performance-based binder sectionstook place in test sections, and that occurred mainlyduring the first summer. Rutting decreased in thesecond summer, and stopped after the seven-dayaverage high air temperature was below 82 degreesF. The small amount of rutting observed probablywas related to “densification,” or long-term com-paction of mix under traffic.

In October 2003, following reconstruction work,the NCAT track was to resume its experimentation.Reconstruction in summer 2003 included millingand inlaying 14 sections with new rutting studymixes, and deep removal of eight sections to facili-tate a small, instrumented structural experiment.Truck traffic will continue on the remaining sec-tions to extend the original 2000 experiment over asecond application of design traffic (for example,another 10 million ESALs).

Demands Won’t Stop

As asphalt has gotten bigger, better, and more com-plex, and the work environment more complicated,the state DOTs and taxpaying motorists have bene-fited. From the point of view of the contractor andasphalt supplier, though, the challenges have gottenharder and more costly. Unfortunately, that’s a cyclethat’s not going to stop. Fortunately, America’sasphalt contractors have pledged themselves to set-ting the pace and not stopping the improvement.

“The asphalt pavement industry has demonstrat-ed an ongoing commitment to quality improvementand product innovation,” says NAPA’s Acott.“It’s theversatile pavement that meets every customer’s spe-cific needs.”

Reprinted from Better Roads, November 2003. Better Roads canbe visited online at www.BetterRoads.com.

111

Perpetual Pavements are designed withthick layers of asphalt of different mixtypes, with a sacrificial driving course ontop. This driving or friction course isintended to be periodically cold-milled andoverlaid to restore the ride quality and sur-face friction.

Perpetual Pavements are designed andbuilt from the bottom up, with a lower layerdesigned to resist bottom-up fatigue crack-ing. The middle layer uses an asphalt mixdesigned to support anticipated trafficloads, and the top layer may be customizedto local conditions and requirements, fromSMA for high-volume urban interstates, toOGFC for noise reduction and safety, toSuperpave for other applications.

“We now have the capability of designingthe most cost-effective mix using local mate-rials, selecting the appropriate mix type forthe traffic conditions and environment,”says NAPA’s president Mike Acott.“Throughan understanding of the interrelationshipsbetween material characterization, pave-ment thickness, fatigue, and rut resistance,we are able to develop Perpetual Pavementstructural designs that result in the lowestlife cycle cost.”

Promotion of Perpetual Pavementdesigns continues, and each year theAsphalt Pavement Alliance recognizes long-performing, existing pavements which meetPerpetual Pavement design criteria with thePerpetual Pavement Award.

Perpetual Pavement Launches a New Chapter in Asphalt Design

Archive

d

Competition demands product improvementthrough innovation to achieve an advantage interms of quality, cost, and convenience. The hot-mixasphalt industry has answered the call of competi-tion with innovations that better match materialsand mixtures to their applications, and with manu-facturing techniques and technology that producethese products in the most environmentally friendlymanner possible.

And these innovations have been cost effective.The cost of the product must be the lowest it can bewhile ensuring that performance expectationsremain at their highest. Likewise, the long-termcosts of maintenance and rehabilitation need to beminimized in order to justify the selection of theproduct.

At one time, contractors were essentially toldwhat to do and how to do it. The expertise in deal-ing with hot-mix asphalt resided primarily in thevarious agencies that specified asphalt, and the con-tractor provided the equipment and personnel tobuild the project.

But, beginning in the 1970s, the industry beganto change its way of doing business by recyclingasphalt. The oil crisis of that period made recyclingvery advantageous. Not only was it saving asphaltcement, it was saving aggregate, energy, landfillspace, and just as importantly, it was saving money.Agencies wrote specifications allowing the contrac-tor to retain ownership of the material and decidehow much recycled material, within reason, to putinto the new mix. This innovation has become ahallmark of the industry and asphalt is America’smost recycled material as a result.

As the 1970s started to give way to the 1980s,agency concern over asphalt pavement performanceled to intensive efforts to improve specificationsand mix design processes, and to tailor mixes tospecific circumstances. The introduction of quality

control/quality assurance and end-result specifica-tions in this period began the shift of responsibilityto the contractor. As a result, contractors increasedtheir knowledge of the product and saw the genuineeconomic benefits of reduced reliance on methodspecifications.

New Mix Designs

Late in the 1980s, the Strategic Highway ResearchProgram started as an initiative by the state highwayagencies through the American Association of StateHighway and Transportation Officials. By 1993, anew asphalt binder specification and a new mixdesign procedure had been put in place by means ofthe Superpave system. In the 10 years since, manyrefinements have been made and continue to bemade to simplify the procedure, to remove redun-dant requirements, and to improve performance.These refinements were the direct result of theasphalt industry working with AASHTO and indi-vidual agencies through the Binder and MixtureExpert Task Groups. The major missing piece of theSuperpave system, a suite of performance tests, isabout to be completed through National Coopera-tive Highway Research Program Project 9-19.

About the same time that Superpave was beingdeveloped, a joint industry-agency scan tour ofEurope was made under the auspices of the FederalHighway Administration to investigate technologythat might be of benefit to the U.S. That trip intro-duced the industry to a new type of hot-mix asphalt—Stone Matrix Asphalt. As a surface mixture, SMAhad a proven record of rutting and cracking resist-ance under heavy traffic. The combination of astrong aggregate structure with a binder-rich matrixproved to be a winning recipe for high volume road-ways. States such as Georgia, Maryland, Wisconsin,Illinois, Louisiana, Texas, and others now specify

112

Innovations in Hot-Mix Asphalt

by David Newcomb

The era of innovation started with recycling, moved to Superpave and SMA, and might just get us to roll-your-own roads.

Archive

d

SMA as their premium surface mixture. Illinoisplans to further this innovation by developing anSMA for low-volume roads.

Experimentation with open-graded frictioncourses began in the 1960s as a way of improvingthe skid resistance of pavements. Implementationtook place in areas where they were successful, andfurther refinements to the mix design process weremade. In the last couple of years, the new generationof open-graded friction-course materials and mixdesign were brought over from Europe and stan-dardized at the National Center for Asphalt Tech-nology. These mixes are more porous and moredurable than their predecessors. These improve-ments are taking place just as greater benefits andmore uses are being identified for the new genera-tion OGFC.

Another benefit of OGFC-surfaced pavements isthey vastly improve visibility in rainstorms byreducing the amount of splash and spray generatedby traffic. Furthermore, OGFC surfaces greatlyreduce the amount of pavement-tire traffic noise,an increasingly important benefit to landownersadjacent to highways.

The National Center for Asphalt Technology atAuburn University has been an important part ofthe change in the way asphalt mixtures are tested.They developed the NCAT oven, which allowed forthe determination of mix asphalt content whileeliminating the need to dispose of solvents. NCAThas played a central role in the refinements of theSuperpave system, and provided the industry andagencies with guidance on mix design proceduresfor SMA and OGFC. The test track has answeredquestions regarding the rutting performance of sur-face mixtures and it will be key in the evaluation ofnew structural pavement design procedures.

Equipment Advances

Construction equipment and practices have alsochanged in an effort to improve the quality of theproduct, speed of construction, and productionrates.

The invention of the milling machine ranks highin this category because it allows resurfacing to bedone accurately and quickly. Additionally, it servesto reduce the number of steps in recycling the mate-rial by essentially sizing it before it goes to the plant.

Remixers and material transfer devices improvethe smoothness of the roadway and minimize mixsegregation.

Improvements in paver screeds, automatic screedcontrols, and rollers have also raised the bar on thequality of the HMA placed in the field, and engi-neering controls have been placed on pavingmachines to reduce fumes in the work environment.

In the future, contractors will have access torollers that show the quality of compaction as theyproceed down the pavement, and this will betracked using global positioning technology.

HMA plants have also advanced, especially interms of environmental friendliness. New plantsincorporate innovations that make them run quietly,efficiently, and with fewer emissions.

The notched wedge joint was developed inMichigan over a concern for safety. This innovationallows contractors to place an overlay in one laneand not have to pull the other lane even beforeopening the road to traffic. This reduces construc-tion time, costs, and improves smoothness.

Other innovations in longitudinal joints includejoint tape and sealers which are applied to uncon-fined joints to improve joint performance.

Innovative Methods

Not all innovation is the result of broad sweepingchanges in mix design, pavement design, or con-struction. Some of it is just people doing their jobsto meet the demands of the situation or thedemands of specific requirements.

For instance, sometimes a road must get builtwhen it’s rainy or cold, and contractors have shownthey can deal with it. On the New Mexico Highway44 project, for example, contractors FNF and E.L.Yeager both used pavement heaters in the fall inorder to keep the operation going. The constructionmanagement group of Koch Performance Roadsnoted that the heaters were an effective means ofmaintaining good paving conditions during coolweather and were crucial to the early delivery of theproject.

Lakeside Paving in Seattle uses a trailer-mountedjet engine with the exhaust directed at the pavementto dry wet surfaces before paving. This improves thebond between the old and new layers and keeps thenew mix hot, which gives them more opportunity toobtain density.

When confronted with a functional requirementof meeting a light reflectivity specification in a tunnelin France, Colas used waste from a mirror produc-tion plant in the surface of the roadway to providethe needed result.

113

Archive

d

Future Innovation

There are further innovations in HMA technologyoccurring now and on the horizon which willrespond to the needs of the future transportationsystem.

For instance, Perpetual Pavements, which arealready gaining acceptance, will provide agencieswith the means to reduce the life-cycle cost of own-ing a pavement and minimize user delay by havinga long-lasting structure that only requires periodicresurfacing.

Porous asphalt pavements will present developersand land owners an alternative to current stormwa-ter management practices by reducing runoff andproviding groundwater recharge underneath park-ing lots meeting the proper criteria. Facilities usingporous asphalt have been in use for up to 25 years ofservice, and they’re still performing. NAPA has justreleased IS-131, Design, Construction and Mainte-nance Guide for Porous Asphalt Pavements to helpdesigners and contractors who are interested inbuilding porous pavements.

New methods of producing HMA will actuallyreduce the heat required by using warm-mix tech-nology. Processes are being developed in Europe toreduce the mixing and compaction temperatures ofHMA in order to reduce fumes and the energyrequired to make the mix. This technology will beshowcased at the 2004 World of Asphalt Show andConference, March 16 -18, in Nashville.

What’s next? Asphalt you roll out like a carpet?Don’t laugh, it’s been done in the Netherlands as apart of their “Roads to the Future” project!

We are in a transition where responsibility forthe final product is shifting from agencies to con-tractors. In the pursuit of providing a quality prod-uct that is economical and environmentally friendly,the industry is coming forward with numerousideas and approaches to coping with the realities ofconstruction and delivering the best possible per-formance.

David Newcomb is vice-president, Research and Technology, at theNational Asphalt Pavement Association.

Reprinted from Better Roads, November 2003. Better Roads canbe visited online at www.BetterRoads.com.

114

Archive

d

115

Concrete

Archive

d

Archive

d

After 5 years of research into improved technologiesand methodologies for concrete pavement con-struction, the Federal Highway Administration’s(FHWA) Concrete Pavement Technology Program(CPTP) continues to provide valuable new tools fortransportation engineers and planners.

More than 30 research projects centered around6 focus areas have been initiated under CPTP.These focus areas are: advanced pavement design,improved concrete materials, improved construc-tion processes, repair and rehabilitation, workforcetraining, and enhanced user satisfaction.

One of the new products resulting from theCPTP research is the Guide for Curing of PortlandCement Concrete Pavements (Publication No.FHWA-RD-02-099). The guide was developed tohelp pavement engineers anticipate and correctpotential curing problems associated with specificconcrete materials properties, mixture proportions,and job site conditions. It looks at the many vari-ables that influence the curing process and recom-mends steps to evaluate and control concrete mois-ture and temperature under different conditions.The guide is available from the National TechnicalInformation Service at 800-553-6847 or 703-605-6000 (email: info@ntis.gov; Web: www.ntis.gov).The publication will also soon be available online atwww.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/pub_listing.cfm.

Also being developed are test protocols to aidhighway agencies in identifying potential problemscaused by material incompatibility before concreteis placed. These difficulties can include early stiffen-ing, air entrainment problems, loss of workability,lower than expected strength and durability, andunexpected cracking at early ages. “In recent years,some cases of early-age problems and prematuredeterioration have resulted from use of incompatibleconcrete materials,” says Shiraz Tayabji of Construc-tion Technology Laboratories, Inc. (CTLGroup),

and a member of the CPTP Implementation Team.“As concrete mixture proportions become morecomplex, the likelihood of incompatibility amongmaterials increases with the number of ingredientsadded to the mix. The problem is compoundedbecause not much has been known about the factorsthat lead to incompatibility, and tests have beenlacking to determine the susceptibility of materialscombinations to distress mechanisms,” notes Tayabji.The new test protocols and compatibility guidelineswill be available later this year. They will enablematerial suppliers, concrete producers, and users to:

• Identify combinations that adversely affect theearly-age properties of concrete,

• Evaluate the uniformity of individual materialsfrom the same source, and

• Optimize combinations for improved early-ageperformance.

Looking at the future, CPTP has developed aLong-Term Plan for Concrete Pavement Research andTechnology (Publication No. FHWA-HRT-05-047).This 7- to 10-year Concrete Pavement Road Mapincorporates input from more than 100 stakehold-ers across the country. It combines 250 researchproblem statements into 12 research tracks, includ-ing “Long-Life Concrete Pavements,” “High-SpeedRehabilitation and Construction,” and “Perfor-mance-Based Mix Design System.” According toTayabji, the Road Map will set the direction andagenda for concrete pavement technology improve-ments over the next decade. “The Road Map isgrand in vision, but very practical in the mannerthat it addresses the technological gaps that needsolutions. The implementation of the plan, based onstrong partnering between public agencies andindustry, will revolutionize the way we do pavementresearch in the United States,” he says. The plan is

117

Advancing the Future of

Concrete Pavement Technology

Archive

d

available online at www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/pccp/pubs/05047/index.cfm. A two-volume reportwith details on the plan will be published shortlyand will be posted online at www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/pub_listing.cfm.

Highway agencies and Local/Tribal TechnicalAssistance Programs can call upon CPTP for state-of-the-practice presentations and workshops onadvanced concrete pavement technologies. Presen-tations can be arranged upon request for State,regional, and industry-sponsored workshops; onsitetraining sessions; and conferences (see sidebar). Thespecific topics to be featured and the format andlength of the workshops can be tailored to meet theneeds of each State or local area. Many of the prod-ucts developed through CPTP are also available forfield demonstration and CPTP-developed and vali-dated test equipment is available to highway agen-cies on a loan basis from FHWA.

For more information on CPTP products andimplementation activities, or to schedule a work-shop/presentation or field demonstration in yourState or region, contact Sam Tyson at FHWA,202-366-1326 (email: sam.tyson@fhwa.dot.gov), or Shiraz Tayabji at CTLGroup, 410-997-0400 (email:stayabji@ctlgroup.com). CPTP information is alsoavailable online at www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/ concrete.

CPTP Presentation Topics

• Long-Life Portland Cement Concrete (PCC)Design Features

• Rapid Repair and Rehabilitation• Best Practices for Concrete Pavement

Construction• Design, Construction, and Repair

of Whitetopping• High-Performance Concrete Mixtures

for Pavements

• Pavement Texturing Recommendations for PCC Pavements

• Measuring Pavement Smoothness for Acceptance on Concrete Pavements

• Construction Management Tools• Concrete Durability Issues• Optimizing Pavement Joint Details• The CPTP Program

CPTP Workshops

• Concrete Pavement Best Practices• Optimizing Paving Materials and Mix Design• Best Practices for Concrete Pavement

Construction• Best Practices for Thin and Ultrathin

Whitetopping

Reprinted from Focus, August 2005.

118

Pore water is extracted from a mortarsample as part of CPTP's researchinto incompatible concrete materials.

Archive

d

For most of the 20th century, engineers used thesame tried-and-true materials in designing concretepavements—portland cement, high-quality aggre-gate, and water—with only minor refinements.“Designers used a fairly forgiving formula thatallowed minor variations in subgrade quality, con-struction practices, and other variables, withoutsacrificing pavement performance,” says DirectorTommy Beatty of the Office of Pavement Technolo-gy at the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

During much of that time, the industry enjoyedthe luxury of keeping traffic off the new pavementsfor several days, even weeks, while the concretedeveloped its internal strength. Over the last 15years, however, the industry has experienced morechanges than in the previous 80 years, turning theprocess of building concrete pavements on end,Beatty says.

Today’s concrete mix designs, for example, needto integrate a multitude of new materials—includ-ing fly ashes and chemical admixtures like waterreducers, retarders, and accelerators—which cancause challenges in compatibility and reduce the tol-erance for variations in aggregate moisture content,materials temperatures, weather conditions, andother variables.

In addition, motorists are more demanding, tol-erating only minimal closures and delays due toroadwork and increasing the need for new pavingmethods that enable crews to get in, get out, andstay out. And motorists want smoother and quieterpavements, which is pushing the paving industry toexercise greater control on the characteristics of theroad surface.

Increasingly, highway agencies are shifting theirfocus from building new pavements to rehabilitatingand maintaining existing ones, which requires dif-ferent designs, systems, materials, and equipment.Environmental pressures, as well, affect mix designs

and construction practices, as crews work to reducetraffic congestion and manage drainage and runoff.

Further, highway budgets are being squeezed atevery level, and the pavement community simplymust do more with less. “In this environment, theold system for constructing concrete pavementssimply does not work anymore,” says Beatty. “Toachieve concrete pavement’s full potential in thischanging world, the industry cannot continue busi-ness as usual.”

To help the industry grow and meet the chal-lenges of the 21st century, FHWA, Iowa State Uni-versity, and many other partners collaborated tocreate the Long-Term Plan for Concrete PavementResearch and Technology. Dubbed the CP RoadMap, the plan represents a comprehensive andstrategic approach to research that will guide invest-ment over the next several years and spawn a newgeneration of concrete pavements.

What Is the CP Road Map?

“The CP Road Map gives the concrete pavementcommunity an opportunity to proactively reinventitself through research,” says Peter A. Kopac,research highway engineer at FHWA.

By combining more than 250 research problemstatements into 12 fully integrated, sequential, andcohesive tracks of research, the project team expectsthat the CP Road Map will lead to specific productsthat will dramatically affect the way that concretepavements are designed and constructed. The inno-vative track structure and cross-track integrationwill at once help the research teams focus on theirdesignated tasks and effectively share informationwhere tasks overlap.

A project team led by Iowa State University pre-pared the CP Road Map on behalf of FHWA, withbacking and participation from stakeholders in the

119

Achieving Concrete’s Full Potential

by Theodore R. (Ted) Ferragut, Dale Harrington, and Marcia Brink

The CP Road Map represents a long-term plan for research and technology development for PCC pavements.

Archive

d

concrete pavement industry, State departments oftransportation (DOTs), and academia.

“In a very real sense, the authors of the CP RoadMap include hundreds of stakeholders from StateDOTs, materials supply companies, constructioncontractors, research and technology transfer uni-versities, and other organizations,” Kopac says. “Forthe men and women who face the daily realities andchallenges of constructing and maintaining con-crete pavements, this is their CP Road Map.”

The project stakeholders will pool their resourcesto jointly conduct and coordinate the research, andan innovative implementation strategy will helpmove useful new products and systems into the fieldquickly.

Drawing a New Map

The Iowa State University-led project team facilitateddevelopment of the CP Road Map through a delib-erate and inclusive process. First, the team created a“living” database of existing research, catalogingrecently completed and inprogress projects andtheir products. Regularly updated and maintained,the database will serve as a valuable resource formany years.

Next the team gathered face-to-face input fromthe highway community, identifying research gapsthat would become the basis for problem state-ments. The Iowa team hosted five brainstormingand feedback sessions at major industry events: theOctober 2003 meeting of the Midwest ConcreteConsortium in Ames, IA; a special November 2003regional workshop for eastern and southern stake-holders in Syracuse, NY; the May 2004 meeting ofthe American Concrete Pavement Association inKansas City, MO; a special January 2004 regionalteleconference for western stakeholders; and, inOctober 2004, a final meeting of national stakehold-ers hosted by FHWA at the Turner-Fairbank High-way Research Center in McLean, VA.

Through these events, plus presentations at morethan 20 professional conferences and workshopsacross the country, more than 400 engineers andmanagers provided direct input into the CP RoadMap. In addition to the organizations noted earlier,other participants included representatives fromFHWA, State and local DOTs, the Portland CementAssociation, the American Association of StateHighway and Transportation Officials, the NationalReady Mixed Concrete Association, TransportationResearch Board and National Cooperative Highway

Research Program committees, the American PublicWorks Association, the National Association ofCounty Engineers, contractors, materials suppliers,universities with departments conducting appliedresearch, and private concrete-testing laboratories.

The project team asked the participants to pro-vide their insights in four broad categories: mixturesand materials, design, construction, and pavementmanagement and business systems. Again andagain, the stakeholders reported that they needimproved analysis tools for measuring performanceat every stage of the pavement system. They need tounderstand how and why pavements fail or succeed.Because variables in each stage affect the others, themethods and tools need to be integrated acrossstages, from mix and materials to design and con-struction, and with pavement management andbusiness systems.

Based on these concepts of pavement perform-ance and systems integration, the team proposedthe following overall goal for the CP Road Map: By2015, the highway community will have a compre-hensive, integrated, and fully functional system ofconcrete pavement technologies that provides inno-vative solutions for customer-driven performancerequirements.

Research Tracks

With abundant input from industry stakeholdersand a strategic goal in hand, the project team iden-tified dozens of specific research objectives and fil-tered them through the database of existing researchto identify where gaps exist. The gaps became thebasis for the 250 problem statements, which wereadded to the research database as work to beaccomplished.

Team members organized the problem state-ments into 12 product-focused research tracks,which together form the long-term research plan.This structure captures the integrated, cross-category nature of the research and encouragesstakeholder groups to step forward as championsfor specific tracks. Research in one track oftenaffects or is affected by research in another track, soteam leaders for each track are responsible forensuring that research is coordinated and integratedappropriately.

In addition to the defined tracks, the team lead-ers can sort information in the research database toisolate problem statements on a variety of subjects.Several problem statements, for example, are cross-

120

Archive

d

referenced in multiple tracks, including those relatedto foundations and drainage systems, maintenanceand rehabilitation, and advancements in environ-mental strategies.

Each of the 12 tracks is a complete research pro-gram in itself, with its own budget, two to sevensubtracks, and as many as 20 problem statements.Tracks 1 through 9 consist of timed sequences ofresearch leading to particular products that areessential to reaching overall research goals. Tracks10, 11, and 12 are not phased because timing is notas critical.

One subtrack in every phased track is devoted totraining tools and methods of technology transferto ensure that innovative research products moveinto practice quickly and efficiently. The teamdefined the primary research tracks as follows:

1. Performance-Based Mix Design System. Thefinal product of this track will be a practical yetinnovative procedure for concrete mix designwith new equipment, consensus target values,common laboratory procedures, and full inte-gration with both structural design and fieldquality control—a lab of the future. This trackalso lays the groundwork for the concretepaving industry to assume greater responsibilityfor mix designs as State highway agencies movefrom method specifications to more advancedacceptance tools. For this move to be successful,the concrete paving industry and owner-agen-cies need a single document for the state of theart in mix design.

2. Performance-Based Design Guide for New andRehabilitated Concrete Pavements. Under thistrack, the research community will expand themechanistic approach to restoration and preser-vation strategies for concrete pavements, whichinvolves using a structural response model tocalculate pavement responses due to appliedtraffic and environmental loads. The trackbuilds on and continues to develop the modelscreated under the comprehensive NationalCooperative Highway Research Program(NCHRP) Project 1-37A: Development of the2002 Guide for the Design of New and Rehabil-itated Pavement Structures. The work in thistrack will be closely integrated with track 1.

3. High-Speed Nondestructive Testing and Intelli-gent Construction Systems. This track will devel-op high-speed, nondestructive quality-controlsystems to monitor pavement properties con-

tinuously during construction. As a result,workers will be able to make on-the-fly adjust-ments to ensure the highest quality finishedproduct that meets given performance specifi-cations. Many problem statements in this trackrelate to both tracks 1 and 2.

4. Optimized Surface Characteristics for Safe,Quiet, and Smooth Concrete Pavements. Thistrack will result in improved understanding ofthe surface characteristics of concrete pave-ments. The research will provide tools to helpengineers meet or exceed predeterminedrequirements for friction, safety, tire noise onpavements, smoothness, splash and spray,wheel path wear (hydroplaning), light reflec-tion, rolling resistance, and durability (longevi-ty). Each of these functional elements is critical.The challenge is to improve one characteristicwithout compromising another, while continu-ing to protect the safety of the public.

5. Equipment Automation and Advancements. Thistrack will result in process improvements andthe development of high-speed, high-qualityconcrete paving equipment to meet the con-crete paving industry’s projected needs and thetraveling public’s expectations for highway per-formance in the future. Examples include thenext generation of concrete batching and place-ment equipment; behind-the-paver equipmentto improve curing, surface treatment, andjointing; mechanized ways to place and controlsubdrains and other foundation elements;equipment to remove and replace the slab in one-pass construction; improved repairprocesses that decrease the time of operationsand provide the workforce and traveling public with less exposure; and methods forevaluating new equipment on actual construc-tion projects.

6. Innovative Joint Design, Materials, and Construc-tion. Potential products for this track include a new joint design, high-speed computer analy-sis techniques for joint performance, a moreaccurate installation scheme, and faster rehabil-itation strategies. The problem statementsaddress the basics—joint design, materials,construction, and maintenance activities. Thetrack also specifies research that will help devel-op breakthrough technologies and techniquesfor extremely high-speed joint repair. The teamdesigned track 6 as a crosscutting track to

121

Archive

d

ensure that all topics related to innovativejoints are addressed. Much of the proposedresearch will develop important incrementalimprovements.

7. High-Speed Rehabilitation and Construction. Tohelp develop faster techniques and higher qual-ity for tomorrow’s pavements, this trackaddresses a number of activities: the planningand simulation of high-speed construction andrehabilitation, precast and modular options,and fast-track construction and rehabilitationtechniques for concrete pavement. The trackalso covers the evaluation and technologytransfer of products and processes for high-speed construction and rehabilitation devel-oped through research. Tracks 1 and 3 will likely involve the investigation of high-speedconstruction issues, so the CP Road Map proj-ect team will closely coordinate those effortswith track 7.

8. Long-Life Concrete Pavements. The need forlonger lasting pavements that maximize thetime between maintenance, restoration, orrehabilitation activities underlies all of thetracks in the CP Road Map. Track 8, however,draws attention to specific research that maylead to pavement life that approaches 60 yearsor more.

9. Accelerated and Long-Term Data Collection.This track provides the infrastructure—includ-ing data collection and reporting tools and testing methods—for a future national pro-gram that will plan accelerated loading andlong-term data needs, construct test sections,and collect and share data. The problem state-ments in this track will identify the most usefuldata and determine the amount of time neededto collect that data.

10. Performance of Concrete Pavements. This trackaddresses key elements of pavement and assetmanagement systems to determine whetherpavements meet the performance characteristicsthat highway agencies and users desire.Research will determine and address the func-tional aspects of performance, particularly factors such as tire noise on pavements, fric-tion, and smoothness. Research also will exam-ine ways to schedule improvements to surfacecharacteristics and conditions. Developing

feedback loops in highway agencies’ pavementmanagement systems will be crucial to monitorperformance quickly and effectively.

11. Business Systems and Economics. Roles andresponsibilities are changing within the high-way industry, affecting the way paving projectsare designed, bid, built, and maintained.Increasingly State DOTs are asking contractorsto assume greater control of the operation andquality-control inspections. By including war-ranty provisions in project contracts, owneragencies are asking for additional assurancethat contractors are building pavements thatwill perform as expected. Many Europeancountries like Spain and Great Britain havemade dramatic changes in project fundingmethods and in the roles of contractors andsuppliers. Track 11 captures important researchthat the industry needs to consider as thisprocess of transformation continues in theUnited States. Problem statements cover con-tracting options, new technology transfer systems, public-private partnerships, and eco-nomic models.

12. Advanced Concrete Pavement Materials. Theproblem statements in this track address thedevelopment of new materials and refine orreintroduce existing advanced materials toenhance performance, improve construction,and reduce waste. Many of the existing materi-als studied in this track have been used only ona small scale or in laboratory evaluations. Manyof them have not been used in the United Statesbut show promise based on work completed inother countries. Track 12 will experiment withsuch materials on a larger scale and developstandards and recommendations for their use.The research will foster innovation in the devel-opment of additional new and innovativematerials for constructing concrete pavements.

Reaching the Destination

Finally, the CP Road Map project team developed amanagement plan that outlines a progressive, coop-erative approach to managing and conducting theresearch in the long-term plan. Under the manage-ment plan, participating organizations identifycommon interests, partner with one another toleverage funds and human resources, and executespecific contracts.

122

Archive

d

The research management plan is based on sev-eral assumptions. First, the CP Road Map is anational research plan for FHWA, State agencies,and industry, and it is not restricted to any singlefunding source.“Publicly financed highway researchis decentralized and will probably remain so,” saysDirector Dennis Judycki of the Office of Research,Development, and Technology at FHWA. “In adecentralized arena like research, it is critical forstakeholder groups to come together voluntarily.Federal, State, and industry research staff and engi-neers around the country are looking for moreopportunities to pool their funds and otherresources in win-win situations.”

Under the management plan, communication,technology transfer, and outreach activities willavoid the all-too-common disconnect betweenresearch results and implementation. “Technologyimplementation must be elevated to the same levelof importance as research itself,” Judycki adds.

Finally, managing the CP Road Map effectivelyand judiciously will require full-time, dedicatedpersonnel with adequate resources. The CP RoadMap project team, therefore, developed a governingstructure in the research management plan that out-lines a four-tiered system of participation andresponsibility.

A three-party executive advisory committee, rep-resenting FHWA, State DOTs, and industry organi-zations, will provide broad oversight. The executiveadvisory committee will serve as a decision- andpolicymaking entity and will have the followingresponsibilities:

• Assembling team leaders for each research track

• Promoting partnering arrangements

• Ensuring adequate integration of research acrosstracks

• Developing and implementing a strategy toensure that software products developed throughvarious research tracks will be compatible witheach other

• Identifying new program areas for research

• Overseeing updates to and maintenance of theresearch database

• Developing a comprehensive program for tech-nology transfer and training for products createdthrough the CP Road Map

• Developing a communications effort to keep theCP Road Map and its products in front of stake-holders and the public

• Conducting self-evaluation studies

• Keeping the momentum focused on outcomes,not just output

An administrative support group will provideprofessional management services for the executiveadvisory committee. The administrative group willcoordinate and support activities like maintainingthe research database.

Team leaders for the research tracks will coordi-nate and oversee all activities within specificresearch tracks, such as validating and updating thetrack, developing broad problem statements intospecific research projects, identifying organizationsto conduct or partner in the research, and ensuringproper integration of work within the track andacross track lines.

Finally, sustaining organizations, which includehighway agencies, consultants, universities, profes-sional associations, and other organizations thathave specialized interests and skills and are interestedin pooling dedicated funds, will assume responsibil-ity for conducting research through cooperation,partnerships, and funding agreements. Sustainingorganizations may retain full fiscal and technicalcontrol of the work under their jurisdictions.

Future Steps

FHWA intends to implement the roadmap in coop-eration with all partners and stakeholders. The CPRoad Map project team likens a long-term researchprogram to turning an oceanliner around. Theprocess involves a long, slow sweep. In this case, theteam has turned the rudder—the CP Road Map—in the right direction. The next step is to fire theengines, full speed ahead.

“We see the CP Road Map as a living documentthat will help all of us—FHWA, the States, the con-crete paving industry, and other stakeholders—work together to make the most of our investmentsin concrete pavement research,” says Cheryl AllenRichter, technical director of pavement research anddevelopment in the FHWA Office of InfrastructureResearch and Development. “We look forward toworking with stakeholders throughout the concretepaving industry to maintain the Road Map and—more importantly—fire up those engines to get theresearch underway.”

123

Archive

d

Reprinted from Public Roads, July/August 2005.

124

1. Performance-Based Mix Design System($29.8M–$67.8M) Subtracks:

• PCC Mix Design System Developmentand Integration

• PCC Mix Design Laboratory Testing andEquipment

• PCC Mix Design Modeling• PCC Mix Design Evaluation and Imple-

mentation

2. Performance-Based Design Guide for Newand Rehabilitated Concrete Pavements($40.5M–$59.6M) Subtracks:

• Design Guide Structural Models• Design Guide Inputs, Performance Mod-

els, and Reliability• Special Design and Rehabilitation Issues• Improved Mechanistic Design Proce-

dures• Design Guide Implementation

3. High-Speed Nondestructive Testing andIntelligent Construction Systems ($19.6M–$41.1M) Subtracks:

• Field Control• Nondestructive Testing Methods• Nondestructive Testing and Intelligent

Control System Evaluation and Imple-mentation

Research Tracks, Subtracks, and Estimated Budgets*

4. Optimized Surface Characteristics for Safe,Quiet, and Smooth Concrete Pavements($25.4M–$54.25M) Subtracks:

• Concrete Pavement Texture and Friction• Concrete Pavement Smoothness• Tire-Pavement Noise• Integration of Concrete Pavement Sur-

face Characteristics• Evaluation of Products for Concrete

Pavement Surface Characteristics• Implementation of Concrete Pavement

Surface Characteristics• Other Concrete Pavement Surface Char-

acteristics

5. Equipment Automation and Advancements($25.65M–$56.15M) Subtracks:

• Concrete Batching and Mixing Equip-ment

• Concrete Placement Equipment• Concrete Pavement Curing, Texturing,

and Jointing Equipment• Concrete Pavement Foundation Equip-

ment• Concrete Pavement Reconstruction

Equipment• Concrete Pavement Restoration Equip-

ment• Advanced Equipment Evaluation and

Implementation

6. Innovative Joint Design, Materials, andConstruction ($10M–$15.3M) Subtracks:

• Joint Design Innovations• Joint Materials, Construction, Evalua-

tion, and Rehabilitation Innovations• Innovative Joints Implementation

Archive

d

125

7. High-Speed Rehabilitation and Construc-tion ($10.3M–$20.3M) Subtracks:

• Rehabilitation and Construction Plan-ning and Simulation

• Precast and Modular Concrete Pave-ments

• Fast-Track Concrete Pavements• Rehabilitation and Construction Evalua-

tion and Implementation

8. Long-Life Concrete Pavements ($10.5M–$16.6M) Subtracks:

• Pavement Strategy for Long-Life Con-crete Pavements

• Construction and Materials for Long-Life Concrete Pavements and Overlays

• Long-Life Concrete Pavement Imple-mentation

9. Accelerated and Long-Term Data Collection($9.75M–$15.5M) Subtracks:

• Planning and Designing AcceleratedLoading and Long-Term Data Collection

• Preparation of Data Collection/TestingProcedures and Construction of TestRoad

• Implementation of Accelerated Loadingand Long-Term Data Collection

10. Performance of Concrete Pavements($2.7M–$4.15M) Subtracks:

• Technologies for Determining ConcretePavement Performance

• Guidelines and Protocols for ConcretePavement Performance

11. Business Systems and Economics ($21.15M–$31.2M) Subtracks:

• Concrete Pavement Research and Tech-nology Management and Implementa-tion

• Concrete Pavement Economics and LifeCycle Costs

• Contracting and Incentives for ConcretePavement Work

• Technology Transfer and Publications forConcrete Pavement Best Practices

• Concrete Pavement Decisions with Envi-ronmental Impact

12. Advanced Concrete Pavement Materials($11.45M–$23.25M) Subtracks:

• Performance-Enhancing Concrete Pave-ment Materials

• Construction-Enhancing Concrete Pave-ment Materials

• Environment-Enhancing Concrete Pave-ment Materials

$216.8M-$405.2M total (estimated)

*All numbers are rounded.

Source: Long-Term Plan for Concrete Pavement Research andTechnology: The CP Road Map, An Executive Summary (draft),www.pcccenter.iastate.edu/publications/task15/pc_road_map_execsumm.pdf. Arch

ived

Since 1999, the Federal Highway Administration’s(FHWA) Concrete Pavement Technology Program(CPTP) has conducted research on improved meth-ods of using concrete pavement in the construction,reconstruction, and repair of Federal-aid highways.More than 30 research projects centering aroundthe following six focus areas have been initiatedunder CPTP: advanced pavement design, improvedconcrete materials, improved construction process-es, repair and rehabilitation, workforce training, andenhanced user satisfaction. Products resulting fromthis research that are now available or soon to bereleased include software, concrete materials guide-lines, and construction management tools.

The Total Environmental Management forPaving (TEMP) software system, for example, canbe used to monitor temperatures in newly placedpavements to determine the appropriate times toopen the pavement to traffic. TEMP combines tem-perature, maturity, and strength predictions into asingle measurement system that can be accessed ona project site or remotely with a handheld or laptopcomputer, providing instant feedback on pavementtemperature and concrete strength development.“The strength prediction system is mature andimplementable now for pavement applications,”says Shiraz Tayabji of Construction TechnologyLaboratories, Inc. (CTL), which has been overseeingCPTP product implementation for FHWA. Thesoftware is expected to be released in 2005.

The new concrete materials guidelines resultingfrom the CPTP cover rapid repair and rehabilitationtechniques. One example is a set of techniques forusing precast concrete pavement to perform full-

depth repairs of existing concrete pavements and torehabilitate or reconstruct existing pavements. Thegoal is to minimize user delays by reducing the timeneeded for project repairs or rehabilitation, whileensuring a quality product. The full-depth precastrepair technique has been demonstrated in severalStates to date, including Colorado, Michigan, andVirginia. The precast pavement system developedfor use in rehabilitation or reconstruction incorpo-rates prestressed panels and has been demonstratedin Texas and California. Several other States, includ-ing Indiana and Missouri, are looking at holdingdemonstration projects for precast paving.

Construction management tools researchedunder CPTP include a variety of products, fromprocedures to actual hardware. One promising pieceof technology recently reviewed is known as MITScan-2. This new device is based on principles ofmagnetic pulse induction. The CPTP research proj-ect tested its usefulness in evaluating dowel barplacement in concrete pavements and found it to bereliable, efficient, and accurate. The device rides ontracks as it is pulled across fresh or hardened con-crete and can be used to determine the position andorientation (vertical and horizontal alignment) ofall dowels in a joint in a single pass. Preliminaryresults are available almost immediately. Developedin Germany, the scanner’s algorithms and userinterface have been adapted for U.S. conditions. Thedevice is available commercially and is already inuse in Europe.

CPTP has also developed 2-day workshops onhigh-performance, long-life concrete pavements.Workshops available are:

126

Concrete Pavement Technology Program

Introduces New and Improved Tools

for Pavements

Archive

d

• Long-Life Portland Cement Concrete PavementDesign and Construction Features and Cost-Benefit Analysis of These Features

• Concrete Paving Materials and Optimization ofConcrete Mix Design

• Best Practices for Concrete Pavement Design,Materials, Construction, and Rehabilitation.

Each workshop incorporates innovative concretepavement technologies and research findings thathave resulted from CPTP projects. To schedule aworkshop in your State or region, or to have a con-

densed version of the workshop presented in con-junction with a conference or meeting, contact SamTyson at FHWA, 202-366-1326 (email: sam.tyson@fhwa.dot.gov).

CPTP’s current technology transfer effort isscheduled to run through 2005. FHWA is develop-ing a long-term plan to continue existing researchand expand the program, with funding potentiallycoming from a consortium of Federal, State, andindustry sources.

Reprinted from Focus, December 2004.

127

The MIT Scan-2 can be used to evaluate dowel bar placement in concretepavements. The device rides on tracks as it is pulled across fresh or hardened concrete.

Archive

d

Publication No. FHWA-IF-07-012

Archive

d