Accelerating Major Freeway Reconstruction Projects: The Houston Experience

Abstract

Several steps in the planning, execution, and evaluation of the I-45 Pierce Elevated reconstruction in Houston provide a strong framework for preparing for projects that affect critical links in the nation’s transportation system. These elements include preconstruction traffic modeling, public information, and data collection before and during each phase of construction. Traffic modeling helped to prepare for construction by first developing delay numbers for the estimated user cost used in the A + B bidding. Second, preconstruction modeling identified bottlenecks that were temporarily remediated at strategic locations. Finally, modeling provided speed and travel time data used in mounting a public information campaign. Data collection and monitoring of traffic conditions immediately before, immediately after, and a few weeks after construction began provided an immediate picture of traffic conditions and identified problem locations that could be corrected during construction. A critical public information campaign was undertaken using television, radio, newspaper articles, billboards, fliers, and variable message signs. Each of these provided advance warning to motorists in the weeks before construction began and variable message signs, radio, and the Internet were used to provide real-time information during construction. Preparations for the Pierce Elevated reconstruction went beyond standard procedures and planning typically used for major construction projects. Although engineers have traditionally been designers as well as project managers, they will be called on more to become brokers of information that will allow the public to use the transportation network in the most time- and cost-effective manner under adverse construction conditions.

Dynamic Probabilistic Approach for Long-Term Pavement Restoration Program with Added User Cost

“…It is affected by time of day, traffic volume, diverted traffic, number of travel lanes, number of closed lanes, and lane closure duration. Benz et al used computer models to simulate the travel delay during and after construction with delay difference converted into user cost (15). Therefore, it is suggested that the average system delay difference (ΔD s ) in hours per vehicle be estimated for a particular lane closure arrangement.…”