TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Report

SP 2706-226
August 10-13, 2010
HDR Engineering, Inc.

1001 SW 5th Avenue
Suite 1800
Portland, OR
(503) 423-3700
Disclaimer
The information contained in this report is the professional opinions of the team members during
the VE Study. These opinions were based on the information provided to the team at the time
of the study. As the project continues to develop, new information will become available, and
this information will need to be evaluated on how it may affect the recommendations and
findings in this report. All costs displayed in the report are based on best available information
at the time of the study and unless otherwise noted are in current year dollars.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary Idea Evaluation
Introduction Introduction
Project Overview Evaluation Process
Project Issues Deposition of Ideas
Project Analysis Idea Evaluation Form
VE Study Results Recommendations
Implementation Strategies Introduction
Implementation of Recommendations Summary of VE Recommendations
VE Team Members Implementation Strategies
Project Description VE Recommendation Approval
Proposed Project Design Considerations
Existing Conditions Individual Recommendations 1a-5b
Project Purpose and Need VE Validations 1-3
Scope of the Value Engineering Study Appendix
Constraints and Controlling Decisions Value Engineering
Information Provided to the VE Team Pre-VE Study
Project Analysis Value Engineering Job Plan
Project Issues Value Metrics
Cost Model Reporting
Functional Analysis Agenda
FAST Diagram Meeting Attendees
Performance Attributes VE Report Out
Performance Attribute Matrix VE Recommendation Approval Form
Value Matrix
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Table of Contents TOC.1

Value Engineering Study Report Date: August 10-13, 2010
This page left intentionally blank
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Table of Contents TOC.2

Executive Summary
Introduction
This Value Engineering (VE) Study Executive Summary provides an overview of the project, key
findings, and the recommendations developed by the VE Team. Detailed documentation and
exhibits of the studys analysis are provided in the VE Study Report.
A VE Study, sponsored by the City of Saint Louis Park, Minnesota and facilitated by HDR
Engineering, Inc., was conducted for the improvements to the TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue
Interchange project. The study was conducted during the planning phase, and the project has a
scheduled letting of November 2011. This VE Study was conducted from August 10-13, 2010.
Project Overview
The purpose of this project is to remove the existing at-grade intersection of TH 7 and Louisiana
Avenue in St. Louis Park and to replace it with a grade separated interchange. The
improvements will include pedestrian and bicycle paths along with reconfiguration of local
frontage roads to improve mobility to the TH 7 corridor and Louisiana Avenue. This project is
essential for meeting transportation and safety needs of the region and is anticipated to reduce
conflicts to the traveling public.
Louisiana Avenue serves as a vital north-south corridor through the City, carrying 10,000 to
15,000 vehicles per day at this location. TH 7 carries 35,000 to 40,000 vehicles per day through
this intersection. The current configuration of the frontage roads to TH 7 and the heavy traffic
generated by nearby businesses add to the congestion.
Traffic studies show that this project is necessary for future redevelopment activities including
overall mixed use development and higher density housing, a future light rail transit (LRT)
station, and expansion of the nearby hospital. In addition, transit riders, bicyclists and
pedestrians will benefit from improved mobility to jobs, housing, and other destinations.
Project Issues
The following are some of the issues, concerns, and possible constraints associated with this
project:
Avoid impacts to the Louisiana Oaks apartment complex and Sams Club
Pedestrian and bike traffic must be accommodated during construction
Right in Right out east of Louisiana Ave. will be closed as part of this project
March 2012 funding obligation date there is a potential for a 1-year extension with prior
approval by Met Council
Minimize excavation (high potential of contaminated soils)
Environmental Assessment (EA) process is just starting the draft document is scheduled
to be out by October 2010
Any impacts to the flood plain will need to be mitigated no net increase in 100-year flood
elevation
Avoid impact to 4f properties.
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Executive Summary ES.1

Project Analysis
The VE Team analyzed the project using the VE Job Plan and associated tools.
Using functional analysis and Functional Analysis System Technique (FAST) diagramming, the
team defined the basic function of this project as Reduce Conflict, Improve Mobility, and Create
Access. Key secondary functions include Remove Access and Stage Construction. Analysis of
the functions intended to be performed by the project helped the team focus on the purpose and
need of the project and, consequently, how to craft recommended concepts that would provide
the required functions.
Specific performance criteria were developed and agreed upon by the VE and Project Teams.
These criteria were weighted using a paired comparison technique, which was then used to
evaluate ideas.
VE Study Results
The VE Team generated 48 different ideas for this project. These concepts were compared
against the baseline that was developed by the Project Team. The concepts that performed the
best were further developed by the VE Team.
From these ideas the VE Team developed 8 recommendations resulting in a net cost savings of
$3.9 million to $5.1 million and an overall performance improvement of +7 to +11%.
The individual recommendations are summarized below:
1a. Ground Improvements $2.4 M 9%

Use ground improvement technologies such as deep soil mixing, stone columns or other
types instead of excavating muck from under TH 7.
1b. Lightweight Fill $2.2 M -2%
Use lightweight fill such as EPS Geofoam or shredded tires instead of excavating muck from
under TH 7.
1c. Pile Supported Fill $2.5 M 6%
Use pile supported embankment instead of excavating muck from under TH 7.
2. Reinforced Slopes $1.1 M 7%
Replace cantilever walls with Reinforced Steepened Slopes (RSS) where ROW permits.
3. Single Lane Roundabouts $0.5 M 11%
Construct both roundabouts on Louisiana Avenue as single lane roundabouts. The
Louisiana Avenue roadway connecting the roundabouts should be designed for a single
lane in each direction with the option to expand in the future when necessary.
4. Remove Median on Louisiana Avenue $0.1 M 6%
Eliminate the raised median on Louisiana Avenue in order to give the roadway more of an
urban character and to potentially provide some measure of traffic calming and less
impervious surface.

5a. Tight Urban Diamond Interchange $1.5 M 7%
Using the same plan and profile as the baseline idea for TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue,
construct a tight urban diamond interchange (TUDI).
5b. Single Point Roundabout Interchange $0.3 M 21%
Using the same plan and profile as the baseline
idea, construct a Single Point Roundabout
Interchange (SPRI). This would be done instead of
button hook ramps to roundabouts to accommodate
the ramp traffic to/from TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue.
See example to the right.
Implementation Strategies
Because of competing recommendations, three different implementation strategies or scenarios
are available. Recommendations 1a, 1b and 1c all offer different ways to construct
embankments. Recommendations 5a and 5b are both differing types of interchanges than the
baseline concept.
Scenario A includes Recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 4. These 4 recommendations all

improve the baseline concept. Collectively they have a net cost savings of $4.1 million and
an overall performance improvement of +8%.
Scenario B recommends a Tight Urban Diamond Interchange (5a). Combined with
Recommendations 1, 2 and 4 it has a net cost savings of $5.1 million and an overall
performance improvement of +7%.
Scenario C recommends a Single Point Roundabout Interchange (5b). This
recommendation combined with Recommendations 1, 2 and 4 has a net cost savings of
$3.9 million and an overall performance improvement of +11%.

Summary of Recommendations
TH 7 at Louisiana Ave. Interchange
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C

# Description
Cost Cost Cost
Savings Savings Savings
1a Ground Improvements $2.4 M $2.4 M $2.4 M
1b Lightweight Fill $2.2 M $2.2 M $2.2 M
1c Pile Supported Fill $2.5 M $2.5 M $2.5 M
2 Reinforced Slopes $1.1 M $1.1 M $1.1 M
3 Single Lane Roundabouts $0.5 M
4 Remove Median on Louisiana Avenue $0.1 M $0.1 M $0.1 M
5a Tight Urban Diamond Interchange $1.5 M
5b Single Point Roundabout Interchange $0.3 M
Total $4.1 M $5.1 M $3.9 M
Implementation of Recommendations
To facilitate implementation, a Value Engineering Recommendation Approval Form is included
in the Appendix of this report. If the Project Manager elects to reject or modify a
recommendation, please include a brief explanation of why.
VE Team Members
Don Owings HDR Team Leader/Facilitation
Blane Long HDR Co-Facilitation/Roadway
Minnie Milkert Mn/DOT State Value Engineer
Nick Haltvick Mn/DOT Bridge Engineer
Hossana Teklyes Mn/DOT Assistant Foundation Engineer
Mike Rardin City of Saint Louis Park Public Works Director
Brian Kelly Mn/DOT Water Resources
Jim Olson City of Saint Louis Park Project Manager
Diane Colton Mn/DOT Traffic
Ken Johnson Mn/DOT Traffic
April Crockett Mn/DOT West Area Engineer
Derrick Dasenbrock Mn/DOT Geometrics Engineer

The Project Manager for this project is Jim Olsen, City of Saint Louis Park.
The VE Team wishes to express its appreciation to the project design managers for the
excellent support they provided during the study. Hopefully, the recommendations and other
ideas provided will assist in the management decisions necessary to move the project forward
through the project delivery process.
Don Owings, PE, CVS

VE Team Leader

This page intentionally left blank

Project Description
This Value Engineering (VE) Report summarizes the events of the VE Study conducted by City
of Saint Louis Park, Minnesota and facilitated by HDR Engineering, Inc. The subject of the
study was the TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange project. The VE Study was conducted
August 10-13, 2010.
Proposed Project
The proposed project is to remove the existing at-grade signalized intersection of TH 7 and
Louisiana Avenue and replace it with a grade-separated interchange. The project is located in
the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, which is an urbanized first-tier suburb in the western Twin
Cities metropolitan area.
The intersection of TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue has consistently ranked high on Mn/DOT's Top
200 Highest Crash-Cost Intersections on Trunk Highways. Interim improvements to signal
timing in 2005 appear to have helped reduce rear end crashes moving the ranking from 23rd
from the top in 2005 to 144th in 2007.
As traffic volumes increase and intersection operations become more congested, the instances
of rear end crashes is expected to increase. Further, drivers who become frustrated with
waiting for long periods at a traffic signal, may engage in more risky behaviors such as running
yellow or red lights and speeding through the intersection.
Baseline concept for the proposed project
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Description 1.1

Existing Conditions
TH 7 is a principal arterial that connects a number of employment centers and commercial
nodes to residential developments within the cities of St. Louis Park, Minnetonka, Hopkins, and
Minneapolis. It serves an important role in connecting the western Twin Cities metropolitan
area to jobs in downtown Minneapolis and along the corridor. In the project area, TH 7 is a four
lane divided highway. Louisiana Avenue is currently a four-lane, undivided roadway that
intersects TH 7. The intersection is controlled by a traffic signal system.
The project area contains a mix of land uses, including low and high density residential,
commercial, corporate/office, manufacturing, and open space. Just east of the TH 7/Louisiana
Avenue intersection, a new grade separated interchange is being constructed at the intersection
of TH 7 and Wooddale Avenue. A future Southwest Light Rail Transit (LRT) station is planned
along the east side of Louisiana Avenue, which will be located just south of the project area. St.
Louis Park has several redevelopment plans along the transit corridor and surrounding the
future station.
Project Purpose and Need

The purpose of the proposed TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue Interchange project is to address
deteriorating safety and operational conditions. These deficient conditions are resulting in
numerous crashes and causing high levels of congestion. The project is also intended to
improve pedestrian and bicycle movements across TH 7 that are anticipated to increase with
the construction and operation of a future LRT Station along Louisiana Avenue. Lastly, the
transportation improvements will help foster economic development in the area.
The need for the project is driven by:
Improve vehicle safety

Maintain mobility/future traffic capacity
Improve pedestrian/bicycle movements
Foster economic development.

Scope of the Value Engineering Study
The mission of the VE Team was to verify or improve upon various concepts for the TH 7 at
Louisiana Avenue Interchange project. The VE Team applied the principles and practices of the
VE Job Plan. The primary objectives for this study include:
Conduct a thorough review and analysis of the key project issues and conceptual design
using a multidiscipline, cross-functional team
The focus of the Value Engineering Study is to assist in the identification of
o Alternatives that will improve the mobility and reduce the conflicts of vehicular and
non-vehicular traffic
o Alternatives that will minimize impacts to existing developments and enhance
opportunities for future development/redevelopment
o An environmentally sensitive transportation system improvement that solves the
identified purpose and needs
Constraints and Controlling Decisions

The VE Team identified the following constraints and controlling decisions during the
Investigation Phase of the study.
Must accommodate bicycles and pedestrians during construction and in the proposed
design
Avoid impacts to the Louisiana Oaks apartment complex
Avoid impacts to Sams Club
Avoid impacts to the railroad overcrossing over TH 7 at the east end of project
Desire to close right in-right out access to TH 7 at the east end of the project
Project letting is scheduled for November 2011 with a March 2012 funding obligation
date there is a potential for a 1-year extension with prior approval by Met Council
Minimize right-of-way impacts and acquisition
Minimize excavation (high potential of contaminated soils)
Environmental Assessment (EA) process is just starting the draft document is
scheduled to be out by October 2010
Any impacts to the flood plain will need to be mitigated no net increase in 100-year
flood elevation
Strong desire not to impact the pump station and medical offices along Lake Street
Strong desire not to impact medical offices along Walker Street
Avoid any impacts to 4f properties
Strong desire to minimize impacts in the SW quadrant of the proposed interchange.

Information Provided to the VE Team
The following project documents were provided to the VE Team for their use during the study:
Reports/Drawings/Maps Date
LWD cost estimate July 2010
Various aerial photos
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment August 2009
Preliminary Drainage Report July 2010
Purpose and Need Statement Draft August 2010
Profiles and typical sections
Technical Memorandum - Alternatives Screening April 2009
Technical Memorandum - Draft TH 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange -
June 2009
Option 4 Review
Options 1-10 preliminary design
Soil boring index map
Hydric soils map February 2009
Soils map February 2009
Other soil maps of specific areas 1985-2007
Utility maps

Project Analysis
Project Issues
The first day of the study included a project presentation (overview) by the design team and a
site visit. The following summarizes key project issues, site visit observations, and project
drivers identified during these sessions.
The proposed profile on TH 7 west of Louisiana Avenue will create a roller coaster effect
Several utilities at the intersection
Existing field conditions (roadway locations) differ from those shown on geotechnical data
from initial construction (30 years ago) additional investigation will be needed
Very tight conditions for staging construction and traffic
Louisiana Avenue traffic (ADT) can be handled by a single lane in the proposed design
Bus route along Walker Street, et al
The current signal cycle length is too long.
Cost Model
The VE Team Leader prepared a cost model from the cost estimate of the baseline, which was
provided by the Project Team. The models are organized to identify major construction
elements or trade categories, the designer's estimated costs, and the percent of total project
cost for significant cost items. The cost models clearly showed the cost drivers for the project
and were used to guide the VE Team during the study. The following conclusions were noted
by the VE Team regarding the project costs:
Roadway Items including bituminous account for 33% of this project

Contaminated soil and muck removal on TH 7 is 23% of the estimate
A new bridge over Louisiana Avenue is 13% of the estimate.
No cost estimate for right of way acquisition.
It was not clear what was included with the items Contaminated Soil Removal & Backfill or
Muck Excavation & Backfill. The team felt a large amount of sheet piling would be needed
during these operations but did not know if the cost was in the estimate.
It also was unknown where the Contaminated Soil would need to be disposed at. This could
be a very large dollar item.
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Analysis 2.1

Cost Model Baseline Concept
Items $$$ % of Total Cumulative %
Roadway $6,526,500 33% 33%
Engineering Total 20% of Construction $3,314,202 17% 49%
Contaminated Soil Removal & Backfill $3,083,548 16% 65%
Bridge $2,577,135 13% 78%
Retaining Wall $2,455,613 12% 90%
Muck Excavation & Backfill $1,398,917 7% 97%
Median Barrier $331,300 2% 99%
Dewatering $198,000 1% 100%
Total $19,885,215 100%

Functional Analysis
Functional analysis results in a unique view of the study project. It transforms project elements
into functions, which moves the VE Team mentally away from the original design and takes it
toward a functional concept of the project. Functions are defined in verb-noun statements to
reduce the needs of the project to their most elemental level. Identifying the functions of the
major design elements of the project allows a broader consideration of alternative ways to
accomplish the functions.
Items Verb Noun

Bridge Span Roadway
Support Load
HMA & Surfacing Add Lanes
Widen Roadway
Earthwork Move Earth
Retaining Walls Retain Earth
Maintain Access
Roundabout
Control Traffic
Curb & Sidewalk Create Pedestrian Path
Protect User/Worker
Traffic Control Convey Information
Maintain Traffic
Temporary Signal Systems Control Traffic

FAST Diagram
The FAST diagram arranges the functions in logical order so that when read from left to right; the functions answer the question How? If the
diagram is read from right to left, the functions answer the question Why? Functions connected with a vertical line are those that happen at the
same time as, or are caused by, the function at the top of the column.
The FAST Diagram for this project shows Reduce Conflicts, Improve Mobility, and Create Access as the basic functions of this project. Key
secondary functions include Construct Interchange and Stage Construction. This provided the VE Team with an understanding of the project
design rationale and which functions offer the best opportunity for cost or performance improvement.

Performance Attributes
Performance measures are an integral part of the VE Process. Project performance must be
properly defined and agreed upon by the Project Team, VE Team and stakeholders at the
beginning of the VE Study. The performance attributes and requirements developed are then
used throughout the study to identify, evaluate, and document alternatives.
The VE Team, along with the Project Team, identified and defined the performance attributes
for this project and then defined the baseline concept against these attributes. Performance
attributes represent those aspects of a projects scope and schedule that may possess a range
of potential values.
Baseline Concept
The baseline concept provides access to Highway 7 via button hook ramps located in the
northeast and southwest quadrants. All entering and exiting traffic is directed through
roundabouts at intersections with local streets that then connect to Louisiana Avenue. In this
concept, TH 7 goes over Louisiana Avenue.

The following are the key project performance attributes and their definition that were used in
this VE Study.
Evaluation of Baseline Project
Standard
Performance Description of Attribute Baseline Design Rating Rational Rating
Attribute
An assessment of traffic operations 50 mph design speed

and safety on TH 7. Operational 2 - 12' lanes in each direction
considerations include level of
service relative to the 20-year traffic 4' inside & 10' outside shoulders
Mainline projections as well as geometric Walls limit future expansion 5
Operations considerations such as design Acceleration lanes create 3rd
speed, sight distance, lane widths lane on structure
and shoulder widths.
right-in, right out closed to Lake
and south service road
Louisiana Avenue
An assessment of traffic operations
and safety on the local roadway 12' lanes, 2' shoulder and 2' curb
infrastructure. Operational and gutter, 6' median
considerations include level of 6' boulevard between curb and
service relative to the 20-year traffic path
projections; geometric
considerations such as design 6' sidewalk eastside, 10' shared
speed, sight distance, lane widths; use path on west
bicycle and pedestrian operations Lake - 10' sidewalk on south
Local and access. Walker - 6' sidewalk on north 5
Operations
4 Roundabouts
o TH 7 eastbound on and off
ramps to Lake
o Lake and Louisiana
o Walker and Louisiana
o TH 7 westbound on and off
ramps to Walker
Connection from Walker to
Republic is closed
An assessment of the long-term Bituminous pavement over
maintainability of the transportation crushed surfacing
facility(s). Maintenance Concrete pre-stressed girder
considerations include the overall bridge
durability, longevity, and
Maintainability
maintainability of pavements, Some cast-in-place retaining 5
structures and systems; ease of walls
maintenance; accessibility and Open stormwater ponds
safety considerations for
maintenance personnel.

Evaluation of Baseline Project
Standard
Performance Description of Attribute Baseline Design Rating Rational Rating
Attribute
An assessment of the temporary Access will need to be

impacts to the public during maintained to local businesses
construction related to traffic Louisiana Avenue and TH 7 will
disruptions, detours and delays; need one-lane each direction at
impacts to businesses and residents all times
relative to access, visual, noise,
vibration, dust and construction Noise ordinance 7 am to 10 pm
traffic; and environmental impacts. on weekdays and 9 am to 7 pm
on weekends
Construction Pedestrian access will be 5
Impacts maintained through Louisiana
Avenue
Dewatering is possible
The Reilly Super Fund site is
adjacent to project hazardous
material relocation may be
required with excavated material
Large quantity of embankment is
necessary for the raising of TH 7
An assessment of the permanent Environmental Assessment is in
impacts to the environment including the early phases of development
ecological (i.e., flora, fauna, air Noise walls anticipated but not
quality, water quality, visual, noise); defined in the NW and SW
Environmental
socioeconomic impacts (i.e., quadrants 5
Impacts
environmental justice, business,
residents); impacts to cultural, Flood plain impacts
recreational and historic resources. Water quality impacts
Right-of-way will be needed
An assessment of the total project November 2011 Letting
Project delivery from the time as measured (dependent on funding)
5
Schedule from the time of the VE Study to 2 season construction schedule is
completion of construction. anticipated
An assessment of the identified risks Reilly Super Fund Site adjacent

of the project. to project
Utility relocations
NPDES permitting if project
letting slides
Risks 5
Subsurface materials
Loss of federal funds if project is
not authorized by March 2012
All funds are not currently
available

Performance Attribute Matrix
The performance attribute matrix was used to determine the relative importance of the
performance attributes for the project. The project owner, design team, and stakeholders
evaluated the relative importance of the performance attributes that would be used to evaluate
the creative ideas.
These attributes were compared in pairs, asking the question: Which one is more important to
the project? The letter code (e.g., A) was entered into the matrix for each pair. After all pairs
were discussed, they were tallied (after normalizing the scores by adding a point to each
attribute), and the percentages calculated. The Performance Attribute Matrix is shown below.
Which attribute is more important to the project? TOTAL %
Mainline Operations A A/B A A A/E F A 5.0 18%
Local Operations B B B B/E F B 5.0 18%
Maintainability C C C/E F C 3.5 13%
Construction Impacts D E F G 1.0 4%
Environmental Impacts E F E 4.5 16%
Project Schedule F F 7.0 25%
Risks G 2.0 7%
28.0 100%
Value Matrix
As the VE Team develops alternatives, the performance of each is rated against the original
design concept. Changes in performance are always based upon the overall impact to the total
project. Once performance and cost data have been developed by the VE Team, the net
change in value of the VE alternatives can be compared to the original design concept. The
resulting Value Matrix provides a summary of these changes and allows a way for the Project
Team to assess the potential impact of the VE recommendations on total project value.
While the ratings for the individual VE recommendations are included with the documentation of
each recommendation, this section of the report includes the documentation of the performance
ratings for the concepts that were developed during the VE Study.
In order to compare and contrast the potential for value improvement, individual
recommendations are compared to the baseline project for the all attributes. For this exercise
the baseline is given a score of 5.

VALUE MATRIX
TH 7 at Louisiana Ave Interchange
Attribute Performance Rating Total
Attribute Concept Performance
Weight 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Baseline 5 89
1a 5 89
1b 5 89
1c 5 89
Mainline Operations 17.9 2 5 89
3 5 89
4 5 89
5a 7 125
5b 7 125
Baseline 5 89
1a 5 89
1b 5 89
1c 5 89
Local Operations 17.9 2 5 89
3 8 143
4 6 107
5a 4 71
5b 7 125
Baseline 5 63
1a 5 63
1b 5 63
1c 5 63
Maintainablity 12.5 2 5 63
3 5 63
4 6 75
5a 5 63
5b 5 63
Baseline 5 18
1a 7 25
1b 6 21
1c 7 25
Construction Impacts 3.6 2 6 21
3 5 18
4 5 18
5a 6 21
5b 6 21
Baseline 5 80
1a 6 96
1b 5 80
1c 5 80
Environmental Impacts 16.1 2 7 113
3 5 80
4 5 80
5a 6 96
5b 7 113

Baseline 5 125
1a 5 125
1b 5 125
1c 5 125
Project Schedule 25.0 2 5 125
3 5 125
4 5 125
5a 5 125
5b 5 125
Baseline 5 36
1a 8 57
1b 3 21
1c 8 57
Risks 7.1 2 5 36
3 5 36
4 5 36
5a 5 36
5b 5 36
The matrix is essential for understanding the relationship of cost, performance, and value of the
project baseline and VE proposals. Comparing the performance and cost suggests which
recommendations are potentially as good as or better than, the project baseline concept in
terms of overall value. Comparison at the value index level suggests which recommendations
have the best functionality per unit cost, or provides the project with the best value.
Performance % Change Cost % Change Value Index % Value

OVERALL PERFORMANCE (P) Performance (C) Cost (P/C) Improvement
Baseline 500 $16.5 30.30
1a Ground Improvements 545 9% $14.1 15% 38.63 27%
1b Lightweight Fill 489 -2% $14.3 13% 34.22 13%
1c Pile Supported Embankment 529 6% $14.0 15% 37.76 25%
2 Reinforced Slopes 536 7% $15.4 7% 34.79 15%
3 Single Lane Roundabouts 554 11% $16.0 3% 34.60 14%
4 No Median on Louisiana 530 6% $16.4 1% 32.34 7%
5a Tight Urban Diamond Interchange 538 7% $15.0 9% 35.83 18%
5b Single Point Roundabout Interchange 607 21% $16.2 2% 37.48 24%
Scenario 1 #1a, #2, #3, #4 541 8% $12.4 25% 43.63 44%
Scenario 2 #1a, #2, #4, #5a 537 7% $11.4 31% 47.11 55%
Scenario 3 #1a, #2, #4, #5b 554 11% $12.6 24% 44.01 45%

This page is left intentionally blank

Idea Evaluation
Introduction
The ideas generated by the VE Team are carefully evaluated, and project-specific attributes are
applied to each idea to assure an objective evaluation.
Evaluation Process
The VE Team, as a group, generated and evaluated ideas on how to perform the various
functions. The idea list was grouped by function or major project element. These ideas were
discussed fully and the advantages and disadvantages of each were listed.
The evaluation process considered seven attributes that considered key aspects of project
performance:
Mainline operations (MO)

Local operations (LO)
Maintainability (M)
Construction impacts (C)
Environmental impacts (E)
Project schedule (S)
Risk (R)
The VE Team compared each of the ideas with the baseline concept for each of the
performance attributes to determine whether it was better than (), equal to (), or worse than
() the original concept.
Deposition of Ideas
The VE Team reached a consensus on the overall rating of the idea (1 through 5). High-ranked
ideas (those ranked three or higher) were developed further; low-ranked ones (those less than
three) were dropped from further consideration. The ranking values are shown below:
5 = Significant Value Improvement
4 = Good Value Improvement
3 = Equivalent to the Baseline
2 = Minor Value Degradation
1 = Significant Value Degradation
0 = Fatal Flaw
Idea Evaluation Form

All of the ideas that were generated during the creative phase using brainstorming techniques
were recorded on the Idea Evaluation Form on the following pages.
Based on the available information along with the constraints and controlling decisions that were
given to the VE Team at the time of the study, many ideas were not advanced to
recommendations or design considerations. These ideas were either fatally flawed or the
baseline concept or other ideas proved to be a higher value improvement after discussion and
the initial evaluation was made. Please refer to the Idea Evaluation Forms for additional
information on those ideas.
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Idea Evaluation 3.1


IDEA EVALUATION
# Ideas Advantages Disadvantages Rating
MO LO M C E S R
Function: Move Earth
Reduces disposal of May be higher cost than

contaminated soils baseline
May have preservation effect May require specialty
(containing contamination contractor
movement) Performance
Use ground improvement Potential to reduce specifications
technologies (TH 7) rather than construction schedule Risk of soil wave
excavating muck Reduces borrow (no backfill outside embankment area
of muck excavation)
1 Deep soil mixing in lieu of reduced truck traffic in 4
excavation corridor
Stone columns Potential to eliminate
Vibro-compaction surcharge period
Densification Potential reduction in noise
levels bridge foundations
on spread footing w/ ground
improvements in lieu of piles
Eliminate or significantly
reduce settlement
Comments: Material on east side of Louisiana Avenue is not anticipated to settle, and excavation of muck is not expected.
Rating Scale: 5 = Significant Value Improvement 2 = Minor Value Degradation

4 = Good Value Improvement 1 = Significant Value Degradation or Doesnt Meet Project Purpose & Need
3 = Equivalent to Baseline 0 = Fatal Flaw
Performance Attributes: Significant Improvement Significant Degradation

IDEA EVALUATION
MO LO M C E S R
Bridges potential settlement May increase length of

area noise impacts pile
Reduced excavation supported columns
resulting in reduced truck Potential increase in cost
Land bridge where applicable to traffic Additional structure to
2 avoid muck/peat (potential Potential for reducing maintain 2
contaminated material) excavation retaining walls (cost) Potential increase in
Eliminates borrow in areas construction time
Eliminates risk of Potential increase in
contaminated material design effort/time
disposal
Comments: Land bridge is a beam supported structure 1 to 2 feet off of the ground surface. Pile supported columns with bent caps. May not be beneficial.
Reduced settlement Increased cost?

Reduced truck traffic Staging could be difficult
reduces excavation of muck interlocking blocks &
May reduce schedule time construction
Lightweight fill Geofoam blocks Reduces borrow material May complicate design
3
over concrete slab reduced construction traffic Potential risk associated
4
Easy to construct with foam/petroleum mix
(contaminated soils)
Would preclude utilities
from entering fill area
Comments:


IDEA EVALUATION
MO LO M C E S R
Potentially eliminates Increased cost over

excavation and fill on west embankment
side of Louisiana Increased maintenance
Reduces retaining walls Potentially increase
Viaduct use instead of Less risk with bridge construction schedule
4
embankment/walls on west side construction vs. excavation Traffic staging
2
(overruns ground water, etc.) More noise impacts
Adds to complexity of
construction with ramps
tying into bridge
Comments: Assumes baseline will design to minimize future settlement not eliminate all together.
Use deep soil mixing in lieu of

5
excavation
Comments: Included in Idea #1.
Potentially cheaper than CIP Relatively small area

wall may not get economy of
Can easily accommodate scale
settlement Mn/DOT does not build a
MSE Walls base assumed to be
6
cast-in-place Smaller footing required lot of these wall types 3
(leveling pad) potential design and
Potentially easier to construction issues
construct
Potential reduced cost


IDEA EVALUATION
MO LO M C E S R
Comments: Move to design consideration.
Eliminate excavation Potential increased cost -

reduced construction traffic need to evaluate
Reduces long term Increased noise pile
maintenance no long term driving may be offset by
settlement sheeting elimination
7 Pile supported embankment Temporary sheeting not
5
needed
Less risk with bridge
construction vs. excavation
(overruns ground water, etc.)
Comments:
Reduces staging complexity Increased embankment

lower of Louisiana (6 to 7 May require lengthening
feet) and raising of TH 7 of vertical curve tie-ins
(partial) will be very to existing TH 7
complicated Will increase grade on
Raise TH 7 higher and eliminate
8
excavation/lowering of Louisiana Reduces excavation loop ramps (on ramps) 4
Less risk vs. excavation Increases fill height in
(overruns ground water, front of apartment
contaminated soils, etc.) complex negative
May reduce construction impact
schedule


IDEA EVALUATION
MO LO M C E S R
Comments:
Can accommodate May have difficulty with

settlement without needing slope cover growing
adjustments (grass)
Reduced cost Increase maintenance
9 Reinforced slopes May increase footprint some landscape maintenance 4
(70 degree max slope)
May improve aesthetics
grass covered slope
Reduced construction time
Comments: Will need to investigate the right of way needs.
Alignment along TH 7 may Significant increase in

be lower excavation required
Will impact access to
businesses
Increases staging
Balance earthwork lower
complexity
10 Louisiana Avenue (assumes that 0
Lengthen project limits
excavation can be used as fill)
along Louisiana
Stock pile site required
Project area would need
to significantly increase to
obtain enough material


IDEA EVALUATION
MO LO M C E S R
Comments: Fatally flawed see disadvantages.
Improved vertical alignment May need to construct cut

along TH 7 retaining walls
Lower hill between Texas and Improves sight distance over Potential increase in
11 Louisiana to acquire material for existing along TH 7 design effort/time 3
embankment approaching Texas from the Increase in construction
east impacts to TH 7 outside of
Provides potential borrow the project limits
Comments: Moved to design consideration.
Span Roadway Baseline Prestressed concrete girder, vertical abutments - TH 7 over Louisiana

Similar construction to Maintainability
12 Steel Girder Bridge 3
concrete


IDEA EVALUATION
MO LO M C E S R
Potential construction Requires a lay down area

schedule savings for the pre-cast
May be an avenue to components
additional funding Relatively new technology
Accelerated Bridge Construction
13
(ABC) (components) in the area 4
Currently a lot of cracking
is occurring on the few
attempts in this area with
bridge decks
Comments: After evaluation this idea was moved to a design consideration.
May simplify staging Bridge barrier is added

14 Twin bridges in lieu of single bridge Added light under bridge last 3
Eliminates closure pour Increased footprint
Depth of deck is reduced Center pier needed to

Reduces borrow/retaining span over Louisiana
15 Slab span bridge wall height More intricate falsework 2
Aesthetically nicer looking
bridge
Comments: Need for impact attenuators or other protection scores this low.


IDEA EVALUATION
MO LO M C E S R
Steeper profile on
16 Have Louisiana Avenue span TH 7 0
Louisiana
Comments: Fatally flaw based on grades needed for approaches to bridge.
Less embankment Increases cost

Increases light under bridge Increased construction
More comfortable for schedule
Use three-span structure no
17
vertical abutments pedestrians 2 more bridge foundations 4
Easier to widen in the future to construct
than vertical abutment
Reduces muck excavation
Comments: After evaluation this idea validated the baseline.
18 Tied Arch Bridge 1
Comments: Beyond the funding of the project.
Signature Structure welcome to

19 3
Saint Louis Park (form vs. function)


IDEA EVALUATION
MO LO M C E S R
Reduced excavation of muck

20 Lengthen Bridge additional spans
Comments: Added to Ideas #4 & #17.
Construct Ramps
Smaller footprint Possible impacts to pump

Driver expectation is better station and medical
than with slip ramps to building in SE quadrant
roundabouts Increased conflicts over
Bike and ped friendly roundabouts
Evaluate Tight Urban Diamond Less impacts to current Business impacts to
Interchange use the same access to business to the Sams club (truck access)
21 4
horizontal and vertical alignments as north Bikes and peds may have
baseline Ramp design is better more conflicts
Reduces the size of the
city land
Increased bridge
May be opposed by
apartments proximity
Comments:


IDEA EVALUATION
MO LO M C E S R
Reduce overall project Requires a larger

footprint (no need for two structure because of
extra roundabouts) increase need sight
Single point diamond interchange
Increase driver expectation distance
with one roundabout use the same
22
horizontal and vertical alignments as Less impacts to current Possible impacts to pump 4
access to business to the station and medical office
baseline
north in SE quadrant
Ramp design is better Reduces the size of the
city land
Comments: Single lane roundabout will work but requires shift to the south for TH 7.
Removes one access point Neighbors may not

to roundabout which approve
Cul-de-sac the frontage road in the
23
SW quadrant improves the operation 4
Improved angle at which
ramps approach
Comments:
24 Diverging Diamond Interchange 0
Comments: Fatally Flawed because it has no advantages over the typical diamond which was rejected in the evaluation matrix (little known).
Super tight diamond with shift TH 7

25
to the south space from apartment


IDEA EVALUATION
MO LO M C E S R
Comments: Added to Idea #21
Impacts to pump station,

medical office, and
Offset single point (TH 36/Rice
26 parking lot 1
Street)
Access from lake street to
Louisiana Avenue is gone
Comments: Will work geometrically if combined with viaduct idea. Scored low because of no advantages over base.
Construct roundabouts first shift

TH 7 to roundabouts provide slip
27
ramps in SE and NW quads for TH 7
traffic use ABC
Comments: Combined with Idea #45.
Construct TH 7 from the air by

28 1
suspending TH 7 from balloons
Comments: Unproven technology

29
Lengthen RR bridge to
accommodate ramps
Working with railroad
1
Comments: Not enough time to work with railroad to design new bridge.


IDEA EVALUATION
MO LO M C E S R
All at-grade construction Buy-in by apartment

Eliminate all left turns by creating a Eliminates muck excavation complex
single large traffic circle - TH 7 and Reduces cost Driver expectancy
30
Louisiana Avenue would be Design speed on TH 7
1
removed in the middle would be reduced
Risk of Mn/DOT approval
Comments: Mn/DOT approval.
Use ovalabouts in NW and SE

31 1
quads instead of 2 roundabouts
Comments: operational doesnt work.
Use right in right out at W. Lake Truck access to Sams

32
Street and Louisiana Avenue Club
1
Comments: Operationally doesnt work.
Reconstruct City Streets
33 Accommodate transit 3
Comments: Include with design considerations.


IDEA EVALUATION
MO LO M C E S R
Grade separate eliminate access

34 1
at Louisiana
Comments: Doesnt meet the purpose and need of the project.
Rain gardens in center of

35
roundabouts
Comments: Include as a design consideration.
Reduces conflicts
Smaller footprint

Single lane roundabouts with one Easier to navigate from the
36 drivers perspective 4
lane between them Ability to expand in future
when necessary
Reduces impervious surface
Comments: Construct to full size but use as a single lane until traffic warrants.
Narrow Louisiana use three lane Reduces ability to expand

37 section with two way left turn lane in the future 1
(TWLTL)
Comments: No need for a TWLTL on Louisiana Ave (only two access and they are right in-right out.


IDEA EVALUATION
MO LO M C E S R
Narrow Louisiana remove raised Reduces impervious surface Public perception

38 median and replace with double Improve snow removal 4
yellow stripe Reduces bridge length
Comments:
Louisiana parking on outside in

39 each direction (one lane each 1
direction)
Comments: No need for parking in this stretch of Louisiana Avenue.
Louisiana wider boulevard section Aesthetics Maintenance

40 3
with rain gardens
Reduces footprint Loss of area for snow

Remove boulevard (strip between removal
41
curb and sidewalk) Moves pedestrians closer
2
to traffic
Comments:
Infiltration is good More costly

42 Use pervious pavement Reduction in stormwater Maintenance 2
system Breaks down quicker


IDEA EVALUATION
MO LO M C E S R
Comments: Unknown if we would get any credit for this type of pavement possibility to use on trails if not roadway.
Higher life cycle Pavement markings are

Less maintenance more difficult to see
43 Use concrete on roundabouts Staging becomes more
3
problematic
Ability to see pavement Risk of coloration

Concrete roundabouts use
44 markings differences within 3
pigmented concrete i.e., black
roundabouts
Comments: Move to design considerations.


IDEA EVALUATION
MO LO M C E S R
Stage Construction
1. Build roundabouts first

w/temporary slip ramps in SE &
NW quads
2. Build TH 7 at a time
3. Build twin (or half) structures to
S1 facilitate staging
4. Move the Louisiana Avenue
intersection with TH 7 to Lake
Street (east) (current right in-
right out location) during
construction
Comments:
Reduces staging complexity Reduced spacing

Can build as a single between signal Louisiana
Shift TH 7 traffic south (temporary structure and Lake
S2
road) and construct TH 7 all at once Potential reduction in cost
Reduced construction
schedule
Comments:


IDEA EVALUATION
MO LO M C E S R
Reduces staging complexity Lake may not be able to

Can build as a single handle the added traffic
structure May introduce additional
Shift TH 7 south using Lake Street
S3 Potential reduction in cost conflicts thru traffic on
for and TH 7 all at once
Reduced construction frontage road
schedule Utilizes existing
infrastructure
Comments:
Shift Louisiana Avenue to the

S4 east during the lowering of the
profile
Comments:



Recommendations
Introduction
The results of this study are presented as individual recommendations to the original concept.
The VE recommendation documents in this section are presented as written by the team during
the VE Study. While they have been edited from the draft VE Report to correct errors or better
clarify the recommendation, they represent the VE Teams findings during the study.
Summary of VE Recommendations
Each recommendation consists of a summary of the original concept, a description of the
suggested change, a listing of its advantages and disadvantages, a cost comparison, change in
performance*, and a brief narrative comparing the original design with the recommendation.
Sketches, calculations, and performance measure ratings are also presented. The cost
comparisons reflect a comparable level of detail as in the original estimate.
* Please refer to the Project Analysis section of this report for an explanation of how the
performance measures are calculated.
The VE Team generated 44 different ideas for this project. These concepts were compared
against the baseline that was developed by the project team. The concepts that performed the
best were further developed by the VE Team.
From these ideas the VE Team developed 8 recommendations resulting in a net cost savings of
$ 3.9 M to $5.1 M and an overall performance improvement of +7 to +11%.
Cost Performance
# Description Savings Improvement
1a Ground Improvements $2.4 M 9%

1b Lightweight Fill $2.2 M -2%
1c Pile Supported Fill $2.5 M 6%
2 Reinforced Slopes $1.1 M 7%
3 Single Lane Roundabouts $0.5 M 11%
4 Remove Median on Louisiana Avenue $0.1 M 6%
5a Tight Urban Diamond Interchange $1.5 M 7%
5b Single Point Roundabout Interchange $0.3 M 21%
Total $3.9 M to $5.1M +7% to +11%
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Recommendations 4.1

Because of competing recommendations, three different implementation strategies or scenarios
are available. Recommendations 1a, 1b and 1c all offer different ways to construct
embankments. Recommendations 5a and 5b are both differing types of interchanges than the
baseline concept.
Scenario A includes Recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 4. These 4 recommendations all

improve the baseline concept. Collectively they have a net cost savings of $4.1 million and
an overall performance improvement of +8%.
Scenario B recommends a Tight Urban Diamond Interchange (5a). Combined with
Recommendations 1, 2 and 4 it has a net cost savings of $5.1 million and an overall
performance improvement of +7%.
Scenario C recommends a Single Point Roundabout Interchange (5b). This
recommendation combined with Recommendations 1, 2 and 4 has a net cost savings of
$3.9 million and an overall performance improvement of +11%.

# Description
Cost Cost Cost

4 Remove Median on Louisiana Avenue $0.1 M $0.1 M $0.1 M
5b Single Point Roundabout Interchange $0.3 M
Total $4.1 M $5.1 M $3.9 M

VE Recommendation Approval
The Project Manager shall review and evaluate the VE Teams recommendation(s) that are
included in the Final Report. The Project Manager shall complete the VE Recommendation
Approval form that is included in this report.
For each recommendation that is not approved or is modified by the Project Manager,
justification needs to be provided. This justification shall include a summary statement
containing the Project Managers decision not to use the recommendation in the project.
The completed VE Recommendation Approval form including justification for any

recommendations not approved or modified shall be sent to the State Value Engineer by
October 1 of each year so the results can be included in the annual Value Engineering Report to
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Design Considerations
The VE Team generated several ideas for consideration by the Project Team. These items
represent ideas that are relatively general in nature, and are listed below. Please refer to the
Idea Evaluation Forms for more detail.
Use MSE Walls

Lower the hill (profile) on TH 7 between Texas Avenue and Louisiana Avenue to acquire
material for embankment
With the current low prices for steel, consider a steel girder bridge
Use two bridges instead of one
Create a signature bridge
Include transit in final design
Consider the use of rain gardens in the roundabouts and boulevards
Use concrete instead of bituminous for the driving surface of the roundabouts
Use Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC), see write up on following pages.
Construction Staging
The VE Team also looked at how this project might be staged during construction. The team
felt it would be challenging to keep one lane of traffic open both directions on TH 7 at all times
because of the major excavation needed for muck removal.
Louisiana Avenue also needs to be maintained with one lane open at all times too. But the
profile of Louisiana is being lowered 6-7 feet again making traffic management during
construction a challenge.

During the study the team came up with a few suggestions to how traffic might be staged during
the construction of the baseline concept as offered to the VE Team:
Idea #S1
1. Construct roundabouts first w/temporary slip ramps in SE & NW quads

2. Move intersection of Louisiana Ave and TH 7 to the intersection of Lake St. and TH 7
3. Construct TH 7 one half at a time (Construct a twin (or half) structure to facilitate staging)
Idea #S2 - Shift TH 7 traffic to the south (temporary road) and construct TH 7 all at once
Idea #S3 - Shift TH 7 south using Lake Street and construct TH 7 all at once
Idea #S4 Shift Louisiana Avenue to the east during the lowering of the profile

VE DESIGN CONSIDERATION
IDEA NO(s).
Function: Span Roadway 13
Original Concept:
The baseline concept (button hook ramps with roundabouts) calls for a single-span bridge with
precast concrete girders supporting a cast-in-place deck. The structure will bear on cast-in-place
vertical abutments, which will be supported by driven H-piles.
Design Consideration:
This design consideration is to provide a design (contractor flexibility) that will accommodate ABC
technology. In essence provide design details that will give contractors the option to use precast
substructure (pile caps, bent caps, etc.), superstructure components (i.e., partial depth structural
precast concrete panels), and retaining walls (MSE wall with precast panels) in the construction of
the bridges for the project. Coordination of these elements in conjunction with each other could
result in construction time savings.
Advantages: Disadvantages
Potential construction schedule savings Relatively new technology in the area
o Superstructure could occur simultaneously with Some bridge decks are experiencing premature
embankment fill deck cracking when using precast components
Maybe an avenue to additional funding from FHWA If the road project is staged, two separate bridges
for using accelerated bridge concepts would most likely would be required due to lack of
For this project, there appears to sufficient area for a cold-joint
lay down areas to construct precast components on-
site
Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Recommendations 4.5

Discussion/Justification:
It is important to minimize traffic disruption during the construction. There are several businesses
and a hospital to the south of TH 7 which use this intersection as a primary access point. The VE
Team has considered Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) to help achieve minimal impacts to the
traveling public as well minimize the impacts to local businesses.
Using prefabricated (precast) concrete elements as listed below will reduce the field forming and
curing time required. Because prefabrication of these elements could be accomplished in a
controlled, offsite environment without jobsite limitations; constructability will be improved, quality
increased, costs lowered and the schedule shortened. Construction schedule may be affected by
this method. Cost differentials are not presented because schedule costs cannot be quantified with
available data.
Some of the bridge components to be considered as a part of this recommendation include the
following:
Footings: Precast footings could be placed immediately following either pile driving or ground
improvements.
Vertical walls abutments: Precast walls could be placed directly on footings.
Specialty Girders: Inverted T or full-depth deck beams could be used to eliminate temporary
falsework required for casting of the deck.
Deck: Prestressed deck panels could be placed on top of in-place girders. This eliminates
the need to remove falsework after the deck has been casted.
Full Superstructure: The entire superstructure could be constructed in the existing parking lot
in the southwest quadrant of the intersection. Upon completion of the substructure
components, the entire superstructure could be moved into place and set up the
substructure. This allows for the construction of the substructure and superstructure to occur
simultaneously.
Connections between CIP and precast components would be done placing concrete in/through small
pockets cast into the precast elements. On-site forming, rebar installation, concrete placement and
curing, and form removal are eliminated from the critical construction path
In order to enhance the benefits of ABC, other portions of the project should also be accelerated. In
the baseline concept, the retaining walls are assumed to be cast-in-place walls. The recommended
concept would need to include a plan which accelerates the construction of the retaining wall and
embankment fill to ensure that the walls are ready at the same time as necessary bridge
components.
Assumptions:
A major assumption for the project is that TH 7 traffic will remain within the current7 right-of-
way corridor during the construction. Due to this, the bridge could be constructed in stages.
Half of the bridge could be constructed first to maintain traffic within the existing right of way.
Once this half is constructed, TH 7 traffic could be moved to this new portion while the
second half of the bridge is being constructed. As a result of building the bridge in two
stages, a cold-joint would most likely occur in both the substructure and superstructure
components.
It is assumed that there will be no traffic on Louisiana Avenue at the bridge. The intersection
of TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue will be temporarily relocated.
Sketches/Photos:
Precast components used for abutment construction.
Precast deck component used as falsework.
Moving entire superstructure into place.


VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 1a
Ground Improvements
IDEA NO(s).
Function: Move Earth 1
Original Concept:
Remove contaminated soil and muck and replace with borrow. It is assumed to require temporary
sheeting and shoring to maintain a stable excavation; depths are expected to be up to 35 feet for
removal in west bridge area. Another assumption is that the mineral soils and organic materials
that are encountered will be contaminated with coal tar, or other creosote-type products and by-
products.
Recommended Concept:
Use ground improvement technologies rather than excavating muck.

Deep soil mixing in lieu of excavation
Stone columns
Vibro-compaction
Densification
Reduces disposal of contaminated soils May require specialty contractor
May have preservation effect (containing Performance specifications
contamination movement) Risk of soil wave outside embankment area
Potential to reduce construction schedule
Reduces borrow (no backfill of muck excavation)
reduced truck traffic in corridor
Potential to eliminate surcharge period
Potential reduction in noise levels bridge
foundations on spread footing w/ground
improvements in lieu of piles
Eliminate or significantly reduce settlement
COST SUMMARY ESTIMATE
Original Concept $4.4 M
Recommended Concept $2.0 M for deep soil mixing
Estimated Savings $2.4 M
FHWA Functional Benefit
Safety Operations Environment Construction Other

Ground Improvements
Baseline Design
All assumptions, including the base design, will require additional subsurface investigation to
determine the appropriate soil remedial mythology that should be used on this project. Listed below
are some alternatives that could be considered.
The base design raises TH 7 over Louisiana Ave. The current plan is to build up very large
embankments on the east and west to support approaches to bridge overpass.
There is a superfund site adjacent to the project limits on the North side. It is known that some of the
contaminated materials have migrated south into the project limits and are therefore under the
existing TH 7 and Louisiana Ave. roadways. There is a desire to limit removal quantities and
anticipated large hazmat waste costs.
Risk factors with unknown soils, settlement and slope stability is unpredictable. The best option to
minimize settlement is also the most comprehensive option: an expensive muck removal and
replacement with borrow. However, this option is not necessarily the preferred option due to some
constraints:
Sheet pile construction will probably be needed and slope stability might be an issue due to
tight ROW
Too many unknowns
extent of muck removal
extent of contamination soils and disposal
muck removal would require extensive borrow
lots of trucks moving in and out of the project site
Where would the borrow come from?
All ground improvement methods will be employed to control settlement/improve strength for the
construction of the west bridge approach embankment.
Methods of Ground Improvements
Deep soil mixing
Deep soil mixing has potential performance risks in peat soils,

particularly if pH is low.
Deep soil mixing may be able to bind up contaminants in place
(+), but tooling and drill slurry may require specialty
decontamination and disposal depending on actual
environmental contaminants.
(wet) Deep soil mixing requires specialty rig, specialty
contractors, and large mobilization charges; probably impractical
for a small job of this size. (Dry) soil mixing may be appropriate
(lime injection/stabilization), but QA is more difficult and results
are generally more variable.
Probably less noisy and vibratory than pile driving; may be more desirable than pile supported
embankment option.
If remediation is also used under bridge footings, shallow foundations may be used,
eliminating the need for piling on the project.
Ground Improvements
Stone columns
Local contractors may be only able to install to

depths of 35 feet.
Settlements are likely to be reduced to levels
tolerable for roadways and minor structures; may be
more than desired for bridge footings, depending on
technique. (Rammed aggregate piers may have
deflections suitable for bridge footings on spread
footings).
Vibro-compaction
Could be used in sandy areas to densify granular materials; not

appropriate for peat areas; probably not appropriate as a solution
for ground improvements at the entire site. Possibly useful on the
east side if bridge footings to be shallow foundations.
Blast Densification
Usually used to improve density in loose sands and decrease liquefaction potential in seismic
zones. Probably not appropriate here due to proximity of
business and residences. Would not address principal problem
of western peat soils.
Very unlikely to be used on this project. Rarely used in urban
areas at Mn/DOT due to potential damage to adjacent structures.
Dynamic [Deep] Compaction
Usually used in loose or low density mineral soils. Probably not

appropriate in organic soils and peats.
May have limited applicability to improve density in east and west
areas.
Uses a large drop weight. Depending on soils, the stress wave
created by the drop may disturb surrounding infrastructure
(utilities) in the immediate area (or create that perception) -
precondition surveys of nearby structures or residences are
probably necessary to protect against claims.
Design Assumptions:
Borings and mechanical cone soundings from 1975/1980 used for preliminary assessment.
Designs assumes that:
Soils may be contaminated

Ground Improvements
Embankments will be constructed, raising the grade, and requiring settlement mitigation
Rock is at a depth of 65 feet or greater
Peat/organic soils are present
ROW is a constraint, limiting viability of remove and replace options without sheeting.
Ground improvement is only needed west of Louisiana Ave. on TH 7 and ramps
Calculations:
Deep Soil Mixing $120/CY installed Use 3 diameter soil mixing 65 deep
7.07 SF x 65 = 459 CF / 27 = 17 CY per boring
110 (width of roadway) x 880 (length) =88,000 SF / 100 SF = 880 borings
880 x 17 = 14,960 CY x $120/CY = $1.795 M
Because the true extent of the muck is currently unknown, use a cost of approximately $2.0 M

Ground Improvements
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Performance Original Alternative
Criteria and Rating Rationale for Recommendation
Mainline Operations Rating 5 5
No change from baseline Weight 17.9
Contribution 89 89
Local Operations Rating 5 5
Contribution 89 89
Maintainability Rating 5 5
Anticipated settlement will be less Weight 12.5
Contribution 63 63
Construction Impacts Rating 5 7
Reduced excavation and construction traffic Weight 3.6

Eliminates the need for sheet pile walls
Contribution 18 25
Environmental Impacts Rating 5 6
Deep Soil mixing may encapsulate contaminated material that is Weight 16.1
present
Contribution 80 97
Project Schedule Rating 5 5
Contribution 125 125
Risk Rating 5 8
Eliminates risk of contaminated material & muck disposal Weight 7.1
Contribution 36 57
Total Performance: 500 545
Net Change in Performance: 9%


VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 1b
Lightweight Fill
IDEA NO(s).
Original Concept:
products.
Lightweight Fill: EPS Geofoam or Shredded Tires

Bridge over compressible materials with a lightweight fill embankment.
Reduced settlement May complicate design of other items (need for
Reduced borrow/fill truck traffic during construction drainage details, guardrail/moment slab.
Reduces excavation of muck Potential risk associated with foam/petroleum mix
May reduce construction schedule (contaminated soils). Robust cover requirements
Easy to construct will be necessary.
Would preclude utilities from entering fill area.
Original Concept S4.4 M
Recommended Concept $2.2 M for EPS blocks

Lightweight Fill
Additional soils borings will be necessary to determine the proper remedial methodologies to use on
this project.
Organic decay may result in long term settlement that is not adequately mitigated with lightweight fill
options. These options may/should be combined with soil surcharge (pre-load) for improved
performance over organic deposits that are not removed.
Some excavation will be required to provide earth pressure balance which will provide the greatest
reduction in future settlement potential.
This solution needs only to be applied in areas with increased fill (assumed on the west side
approach embankment).
High water table will require that weight of soil cover is adequate to compensate for buoyant forces if
EPS Geofoam is installed below 100 yr flood elevation. Three borings from 1985 show that water is
approximately 2 feet below existing ground.
May wish to combine this option with cellular concrete below the water table to provide a more inert
inclusion where there is increased risk of damage to EPS geofoam. May also be used with shredded
tires.
Petroleum contamination may be a drawback to this design {EPS}, or require a more robust
geomembrane liner for protection with more intense inspection at plastic joint welds.
Mn/DOT practice has been to only use shredded tires above the water table, so this option is not
considered for use at this location. Another system would need to be used below water table- or risk
continued deformation due to organics.
Design Assumptions:
Ground improvement is only needed on the west side of Louisiana Ave.

Lightweight Fill
Sketches/Photos:
EPS Geofoam blocks being assembled
Styrofoam blocks being assembled behind retaining walls for a bridge embankment

Lightweight Fill
Because of the possibility of contamination of the Styrofoam blocks from petroleum within the
ground a concrete slab or other barrier should be placed between the blocks and the natural
ground.
Calculations:
EPS Geofoam $60/CY installed
(880 x 110 x 10 average height) / 27 = 35,852 CY
35,852 CY x $60/CY = $2.15 M
Use $2.2 M

Lightweight Fill
Contribution 89 89
Contribution 89 89
Contribution 63 63
Less/lighter truck traffic Weight 3.6
Contribution 18 22
Contribution 80 80
Risk Rating 5 3
Risk of petro chemical contamination Weight 7.1
Contribution 36 21
Net Change in Performance: -2%


VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 1c
Pile Supported Fill
IDEA NO(s).
Original Concept:
products.
Pile Supported Fill - Drive or install (concrete or steel) piling or could use auger cast piles, or stone
columns as well - in the area where compressible soils are present to span over the problem
materials. Construct a reinforced soil mat above the piles to support the roadway or bridge
approach embankment.
Eliminate excavation reduced construction truck Noise? Pile driving vs. sheet pile driving
traffic for hauling earth away and borrow to the site May need to be coordinated with the sheet piling
Reduces long term maintenance, by eliminating long that will be needed for bridge construction
term settlement
Temporary sheeting not needed for muck excavation
Less risk with bridge construction vs. excavation
(cost overruns, ground water, etc.)
Lower cost over base
Much more predictable over the base do not know
extent of contamination and muck removal
Recommended Concept $1.9 M

Pile Supported Fill
Additional soils borings will be necessary to determine the proper remedial methodologies to use on
this project.
Pile supported embankment can be installed without traffic moving significantly out of the way.
Embankment will require a forest of piling, and pile driving noise may have perceived negative
noise impacts on residences depending on the size of the footprint. Noise and vibration caused by
pile driving may be mitigated by using auger cast piles or stone columns, although auger-cast
pile/rammed aggregate/stone column rigs may have contamination/cleaning issues as the
auger/installer extends down into the ground.
Piles are expected to extend to rock at 65 feet; this is a reasonable pile length (<100).
Probably the least risk and largest benefit (in terms of settlement control in organic soils areas) while
not completely excavating the organic soils. Mn/DOT has built this type of embankment before.
Expected to be more certain a solution than lightweight fill alternatives. No problems with
groundwater anticipated. Problems with contamination are expected to be reduced as compared to
other alternatives.
Specialty design for load transfer platform is required, but construction is relatively easy with
standard materials.
In order to achieve the benefits from this system; other elements of the project, such as retaining
walls, will need to complement one another.
Column supported embankment with a geosynthetic reinforced load transfer platform

Pile Supported Fill
SP 8612-11 column supported embankment (with piles installed and cut off during construction)
Embankment and roadway over the same pile supported embankment 1 year later

Pile Supported Fill
Design Assumptions:
Ground improvement is only needed on the west side of Louisiana Ave.
Calculations:
Piles $30/ft installed. Load Transfer Platform/Mat is similar to embankment construction cost +
geogrid reinforcement.
10 center to center grid for pile installation
880 piles that are 65 to bedrock at $30 per foot
800 LF x 110 wide = 88,000 SF
88,000 SF/100 = 880 piles x 65 x $30/LF = $1.72 M
Load transfer platform is approximately $140 K
Use $1.9 Million

Pile Supported Fill
Contribution 89 89
Contribution 89 89
Slight reduction in settlement possible Weight 12.5
Contribution 63 63
Noise increase from pile driving Weight 3.6

No excavation of muck and contaminated material
Less truck traffic Contribution 18 25
Contribution 80 80
Risk Rating 5 8
Eliminates risk of contaminated material & muck disposal Weight 7.1
Contribution 36 57


VE RECOMMENDATION NO. 2
Reinforced Slopes
IDEA NO(s).
Original Concept:
Cast-in-Place (CIP) Concrete Cantilever Walls where needed.
Replace CIP walls with reinforced steepened slopes (RSS) where right of way (ROW) permits.
Footprint will be wider if either 70 degree or 45 degree slopes are used.
Can accommodate settlement without needing Increase maintenance landscape maintenance
adjustments
Reduced cost
May increase footprint a little (70 degree max slope)
May improve aesthetics grass covered slope
Reduced construction time
Eliminates the needed for a structural foundation

Reinforced Slopes
Reinforced steepened slopes (RSS) can accommodate settlement so if minimal settlements are
anticipated these slopes can be installed and allowed to remain in place during any initial settlements
(e.g. surcharge fills can be constructed permanently- perhaps applicable on the east side).
RSS are green and only need seeding/watering, but no retaining wall type of maintenance.
Generally, aesthetically pleasing. May be a good alternative for facing businesses and residences.
May be beneficial in gore areas or areas where geometry is tight and walls may be difficult to
maintain.
Requires reinforcement elements into backfill, but easy to install in fill sections. Desirable in locations
where aesthetics may rule-out MSE panel walls.
Drainage can be installed normally. Usually moment-slabs are used for traffic barriers on the top of
the wall similar to MSE wall designs.
Guardrail or concrete barrier will be required, as slopes are steep and not recoverable. Inspection
during guardrail installation is important so as not to hurt the fabric.
Calculations:
Anticipated costs are less than wall costs due to elimination of fascia elements, could be about 50%
savings (+/-) 10%, over cantilever costs. Will use 50% for this estimate.
Base cost from LWD was $2.2 M, therefore cost of RSS (and savings) is $1.1 M.
Reinforced Slope during construction

Reinforced Slopes
RSS at Bailey Road in SE corner, shortly after construction and turf establishment

Reinforced Slopes
Sketches/Photos:

Reinforced Slopes
Contribution 89 89
Contribution 89 89
Slopes are naturally vegetated Weight 12.5
Contribution 63 63
Minimal improvements Weight 3.6
Contribution 18 21
Slopes are naturally vegetated Weight 16.1
Contribution 80 113
Risk Rating 5 5
Contribution 36 36


Single Lane Roundabout
IDEA NO(s).
Function: Reconstruct City Streets 36
Original Concept:
Original Concept
The base plan currently has 2 lanes in each direction on
Louisiana Avenue under the TH 7 bridge connecting the north
roundabout (Walker Street) to the south roundabout (W. Lake
St.). Both roundabouts are 2 lanes.
Louisiana Avenue and the roundabouts be constructed with just
one lane each direction. They can be expanded in the future
when level of service drops.
Reduces conflicts Single lane roundabouts will not handle 2031
Smaller footprint projected volumes
Easier to navigate from the drivers perspective Stormwater will need to be moved in the future
Ability to expand in future when necessary
Reduces impervious surface
Single lane roundabouts are easier to navigate and
have fewer conflicts
Original Concept N/A
Recommended Concept N/A

Existing and projected volumes were run through the Excel Visual Basic Program, Conversion of Turning
Movements into Roundabout Volumes, (Ken Johnson, Mn/DOT). In this method, the entry capacity of each
leg is dependent on the circulatory volume just prior to that leg entrance. The results of the program provide
analysis on whether to consider a single lane vs. a double lane roundabout. Generally, if the v/c ratio for each
individual leg is below 85% a single lane roundabout can work. If the v/c ratio is above 85% a double lane
roundabout should be considered.
Louisiana Ave & Walker Street

Existing PM Volumes
A single lane roundabout works well using 2010 PM
volume numbers. All legs fall below the v/c ratio of
85%.

2031 Volumes Single Lane Roundabout
Results of the model using 2031 PM volumes show
that three legs of the roundabout are over the v/c ratio
of 85%. This indicates that a double lane roundabout
is necessary to handle 2031 projected volumes.

2031 Volumes Double Lane Roundabout
A double lane roundabout works well using 2031 PM
85%.
.

Discussion/Justification, continued:
Louisiana Ave & W. Lake Street

Existing PM Volumes
A single lane roundabout works well using 2010 PM
85%.

2031 Volumes Single Lane Roundabout
Results of the model using 2031 PM volumes show
that three legs of the roundabout are over the v/c
ratio of 85%. This indicates that a double lane
roundabout is necessary to handle 2031 projected
volumes.

2031 Volumes Double Lane Roundabout
A double lane roundabout works well using 2031 PM
85%.

Because the roundabouts are the intersections where you will have delay, and the roundabouts can
handle the initial volumes, you can assume that the roadway between them can handle the initial
volumes as well.
To be easily expandable in the future care should be taken to design the stormwater system so the
catch basins and pipes are in the final location.
Calculations:
2000 LF of lane removed
$1,360,000/LF of lane per the LWD Estimate
2000/5280 x $1.36 M = $0.5 M

No change to baseline Weight 17.9
Contribution 89 89
Slightly better because the single lane roundabouts are more easily Weight 17.9
understood by the traveling public and have a lower overall crash rate
Contribution 89 143
Less pavement markings on a single lane roundabout Weight 12.5
Contribution 63 63
Slightly worse because multi-lane roundabouts are more easily staged Weight 3.6
for 2-way traffic when not constructed under detour
Contribution 18 18
Reduced impermeable surface Weight 16.1
Contribution 80 80
Risk Rating 5 5
Slightly greater risk because increases in traffic might occur sooner Weight 7.1
than expected
Contribution 36 36


Remove Median on Louisiana Avenue
IDEA NO(s).
Function: Reconstruct City Streets 38
Original Concept:
The baseline option shows raised median on Louisiana Avenue. Currently there is raised median
throughout the project area.
It is recommended that the raised median be eliminated from the design in order to give the
roadway more of a neighborhood feel and to potentially provide some measure of traffic calming
and less impervious surface.
Reduces impervious surface Public perception
Improve snow removal
Reduces bridge length
Traffic calming
Urban character

Eliminating the raised median will provide for a more urban feel to the roadway. Raised median
provides some measure of safety on a 4-lane roadway with turn lanes. The stretch of roadway
between the north roundabout at Louisiana Ave and Walker Street and the south roundabout at
Louisiana Ave and W. Lake Street has no access points and no turn lanes thus reducing the
benefit.
Eliminating the raised median may provide for traffic calming and slower speeds leading up to the
roundabout areas. Splitter islands should still be used at the roundabouts to channel traffic.
Proposed Typical Section - Louisiana Avenue

With the median removed the inside lanes would be sloped to the outside removing the need for
catch basins in the middle of the roadway.
Calculations:
1000 LF of median removed
2000 LF of median stormwater removed
Use $0.1 M as cost savings

Contribution 89 89
Removal of median may serve as a traffic calming device Weight 17.9

More urban feel
Contribution 89 107
No curb to deal with during snow removal Weight 12.5
Contribution 63 75
Contribution 18 18
Contribution 80 80
Risk Rating 5 5
Contribution 36 36


Tight Urban Diamond Interchange
IDEA NO(s).
Function: Construct Ramps 22
Original Concept:
The baseline idea provides access to TH 7 via button hook ramps located in the northeast and
southwest quadrants. All entering and exiting traffic is directed through intersections with local
streets (Lake Street & Walker Street) that then connect to Louisiana Avenue via roundabouts.
Using the same plan and profile as the baseline idea for TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue construct a
tight urban diamond interchange (TUDI).
Smaller overall project footprint Increased conflicts over roundabouts
Less impacts to current access to business to the May be opposed by apartments
north
Ramp design is improved
Traffic operations should be improved
The driver expectancy is improved
Would fit within the existing TH 7 right-of-way
$1.5 M construction right of way savings are substantial but not

Estimated Savings
quantifiable at this time

Tight urban diamond interchanges (TUDI) are found in most large cities in the United States. Ramp
spacing of a TUDI usually range from 250 to 350 but they can work with as little as 125 of spacing
depending on the turning movements needed at the intersections. A TUDI desirably has one
continuous left-turn lane per direction on the cross street between the signals.
Tight urban diamonds can operate better than normal diamond interchanges. To achieve this, the
spacing between ramp intersections must be kept to below 350 and a single traffic-actuated signal
controller should be used and it must be designed and timed properly to best satisfy the traffic
conditions. Special signal phasing allows queuing of vehicles outside the ramp intersections and
minimizes queuing of vehicles between the ramp intersections.
For this project the spacing between the ramp termini would be 150.
C/L
100 100
ROW
ROW
19 40 40 19
5 36 TH 7 36 5
80totalroadwaywidthincludingwalls
4 12lanes
2 4insideshoulders
2 10outsideshoulders
Ramps
2medianbarrier
55oftotalrampwidth
1foreachretainingwall
2 12lanes
1 4insideshoulders
1 8outsideshoulders
19ofslope(nearintersection)
Typical Section of TH 7 and the ramps at the ramp terminus with Louisiana Ave.
Louisiana Avenue would consist of:

Outside lanes 14
Inside lanes 12
Left turn lanes 14
Median 6
West side of roadway is a 6 sidewalk with a 6 boulevard
East side of roadway is a 10 path with a 6 boulevard
Total width = 114
The baseline estimate and plan view has a 150 long bridge which would be more than adequate for
this roadway section. The typical section for Louisiana Ave. shows a 120 long span, this too would
work.

Stage Construction
1. Move TH 7 traffic to the north half of the existing intersection and reduce down to one lane
each direction
2. Construct the south half of TH 7 including the new ramps
3. Move intersection of TH 7 & Louisiana east to current right-in/right-out location
4. Move TH 7 to new south half of alignment
5. Lower Louisiana Ave.
6. Move TH 7 to new south ramp once Louisiana is ready and remove temp intersection to east
7. Construct north half of TH 7 including new ramps
While the highway is much larger than TH 7 the example TUDI above does show the ramps
hugging the retaining walls of the highway.

Sketches/Photos:
Sketch of a tight urban diamond interchange at the TH 7 & Louisiana Ave. intersection

Design & Estimate Assumptions:
The baseline profile of TH 7 and Louisiana Ave. would be used. (no change in cost)
The baseline bridge length of 150 can be used. (no change in cost)
Length ramps and tapers is similar (no change in cost)
Retaining walls square footage is less - Base = 30,000 SF #6a = 25000 SF (savings of
$0.38 M)
No work needs to be done to Walker or Lake streets (savings of $1.1 M)
Right of way cost savings are anticipated to be substantial but cant be quantified at this
time.
It was initially felt that the proposed design would have greater impacts to land available for
development; however, a sketch design indicates that the overall right of way impacts are
significantly less. In the northeast quadrant, the proposed design reduces right of way impacts
significantly as the buttonhook connection to Walker would no longer be necessary, private
parcels would not need to be acquired. In the southwest quadrant, the right of way impacts are
reduced to a lesser degree the buttonhook requires a total take versus a more limited taking with
the proposed design. Local business acceptance is anticipated to be greater due to having fewer
impacts to access on the local road system.

The access to/from TH 7 is more familiar to drivers Weight 17.9
Contribution 89 125
The existing local roads system is maintained Weight 17.9

No impacts to businesses/resident access
Roundabouts have less conflicts Contribution 89 72
Added pedestrian conflict point
3 signals vs. 4 roundabouts Weight 12.5

Less illumination
Contribution 63 63
Less disruption to Lake Street and Walker Street Weight 3.6
Contribution 18 21
Right of way cost savings are anticipated to be substantial but cant be Weight 16.1
quantified at this time.
Roundabouts have a more neighborly feel than signals Contribution 80 97
Risk Rating 5 5
Ramp in NW quadrant is within right of way but apartment owners may Weight 7.1
object
Contribution 36 36

Single Point Roundabout Interchange
IDEA NO(s).
Original Concept:
Four roundabouts constructed to get TH 7 traffic to/from Louisiana Avenue using a buttonhook
interchange. Two roundabouts are the buttonhook intersections accepting the ramp traffic to/from
TH 7 with frontage roads (Lake Street and Walker Street). Two roundabouts constructed on
Louisiana with said frontage roads.
Construct a single point roundabout interchange with a convertible single-lane roundabout

accommodating the ramp traffic to/from TH 7. The single point roundabout will be on Louisiana
and will be spanned by TH 7. Convertible single-lane roundabouts will still be constructed at the
intersections of Louisiana/Lake and Louisiana/Walker.
Increase driver familiarity Requires a longer bridge structure to fit over the
Reduced right of way impacts roundabout
Ramp design is improved
Smaller overall project footprint
Less impacts to current access to business to the
north
Traffic operations should be improved
The driver expectancy is improved
Estimated Savings $0.30 M construction right of way savings is substantial

The recommendation of a Single Point Roundabout Interchange (SPRI) will be more in line with
driver expectation as the exits/entrances to TH 7 connect directly to Louisiana Ave. The current
design requires drivers to navigate an additional intersection before getting to/from the minor arterial
of Louisiana. In addition, the ramps will allow a longer distance to reduce speed prior to the
roundabout intersection. The baseline design has, in comparison, tighter radii for drivers to
navigate prior to reaching the buttonhook intersections.
The proposed design will also eliminate access changes to the businesses in the northeast
quadrant of the interchange. These businesses currently have access to Walker Street via
Republic Avenue and the baseline design cuts off the connection of Republic to Walker. The
proposed design will require no changes to the intersection of Walker and Republic.
While the proposed design will require the TH 7 bridge span over Louisiana to be lengthened by
about 80 (from 150 to about 230), it will reduce the width of the bridge by 24 (from 104 to about
80) as the acceleration lanes of the baseline design are not needed. Thus the bridge will be 4
lanes wide vs. 6. The net increase in bridge square footage is estimated to be 2,800. The
estimated cost per square foot used in the original estimate is $150. The estimated additional cost
for the extended bridge is $420,000.
It was initially felt that the proposed design would have greater impacts to land available for
development; however, a sketch design indicates that the overall right of way impacts are
significantly less. In the northeast quadrant, the proposed design reduces right of way impacts
significantly as the buttonhook connection to Walker would no longer be necessary, private
parcels would not need to be acquired. In the southwest quadrant, the right of way impacts are
reduced to a lesser degree the buttonhook requires a total take versus a more limited taking with
the proposed design. Local business acceptance is anticipated to be greater due to having fewer
impacts to access on the local road system.
An additional recommendation is to initially construct single-lane roundabouts that are convertible to
multi-lane roundabouts at all three locations. Planning level analysis indicates that the current
volumes could be accommodated by single-lane roundabouts (with the possibility of necessary
right-turn bypass lanes); however, the forecast volumes would need multi-lane roundabouts. This
would allow the drivers to get used to navigating roundabouts in general and would increase safety
while multi-lane roundabouts typically have similar overall crash rates to that of a signal and 75%
less injury crashes, single lane roundabouts would be anticipated to have 40% less overall crashes
As mentioned previously, the buttonhook roundabout intersections would no longer be necessary,
thus the number of roundabouts to be constructed would be reduced by one, resulting in an
estimated cost reduction of approximately $750,000.
Construction cost savings is anticipated to be just over $300,000 compared to the baseline concept.
Right of way cost savings are anticipated to be substantial but cant be quantified at this time.

Sketches/Photos:
I-135 in Newton, Kansas similar design to proposed
This interchange is bigger than what would be necessary at TH 7 and Louisiana there is a larger
distance between the bridges on the Interstate.
Below is a sketch drawing of the 200 diameter of the proposed footprint:

Design Assumptions:
The roundabout intersection is estimated to have a footprint diameter of 200 feet. This footprint
includes a multi-lane roundabout with shared use paths outside the circulatory roadway. It is
assumed that the trail location will be set outside the ultimate multi-lane design needed for the
forecast traffic; however, it is anticipated that the current volumes can be accommodated with single-
lane roundabouts.
The cross-section of TH 7 through the bridge area is very similar to that shown in VE
Recommendation No. 5a Tight Urban Diamond Interchange.

Slightly better: Weight 17.9

The ramps dont have a tight radius to navigate
The access to/from TH 7 is more familiar to drivers Contribution 89 125

Less changes for the local drivers.
Added roundabout to Louisiana Ave. Contribution 89 125
No access changes for businesses in the NE quadrant.

1 less roundabout intersection to maintain.
Increased bridge length Contribution 63 63

Less disruption to Lake Street and Walker Street
Contribution 18 21

Right of way acquisition will be substantially reduced
Contribution 80 113
Risk Rating 5 5
Contribution 36 36


VE VALIDATION NO. 1
3-Span Structure
IDEA NO(s).
Function: Span Roadway 17, 20
Original Concept:
The baseline concept (button hook ramps with roundabouts) calls for a single-span with precast
concrete girder supporting a cast-in-place deck. The structure will bear on cast-in-place vertical
abutments and supported by driven H-piles.
Replace the vertical walls and a single span bridge with concrete slope paving and the three-span
bridge.
After evaluation and discussion the baseline concept of a single span bridge over
Louisiana Ave. was validated.
Less embankment Possibly increases cost
Increases light under bridge Increased construction schedule
More comfortable for pedestrians 2 additional bridge foundations to construct
Easier to widen in the future than vertical abutment
Reduces muck excavation
Potential to decrease span length and depth of
structure
Estimated Savings N/A

VE VALIDATION NO. 1
3-Span Structure
Discussion/Justification: The idea of increasing the number of spans was developed from the
thought that this would be a visual enhancement to the area. The existing intersection serves as an
important north-south connect for the city. Some of the potential advantages that were anticipated
from a three-span bridge, including increased light beneath the bridge and more comfort for
pedestrians, can still be achieved by the one-span bridge from the baseline concept. Other
advantages listed have been speculated, which could impact the effectiveness of adding additional
spans.
Given the baseline concept (as shown below) already has many of the anticipated advantages,
there appears to be no need to increase the number of spans. It should be noted however that the
typical section shows approximately a 120 foot span where the plan view shows approximately a
150 foot span. These details need to be evaluated for future design considerations.
Sketches/Photos:
Typical baseline concept section.

VE VALIDATION NO. 2
Cul-de-sac SW Frontage Road
IDEA NO(s).
Original Concept:
The original concept is a roundabout in the southwest quadrant of the project area. The
roundabout includes:
1. TH 7 eastbound button hook exit ramp
2. Kilmer Lane (frontage road just south of TH 7)
3. W. Lake Street
4. Louisiana Avenue
The recommended concept is to close Kilmer Lane (frontage road) by creating a cul-de-sac.
After evaluation and discussion there was no need to cul-de-sac the frontage road. The
baseline concept was validated.
Removes one access point to roundabout which Neighbors may not approve
may improve operation May drive truck traffic into the neighborhood
May improve the angle at which the EB TH 7 exit Possible new angle from EB TH could introduce
ramp enters the roundabout (although the baseline higher speeds into the roundabout
angle slows traffic before entering the roundabout
which is a plus)
Would reduce conflict points at the roundabout

VE VALIDATION NO. 2
In order to determine whether or not the cul-de-sac would be a worthwhile option, volume projections were
run through the Excel Visual Basic Program, Conversion of Turning Movements into Roundabout Volumes,
(Ken Johnson, Mn/DOT). In this method, the entry capacity of each leg is dependent on the circulatory
volume just prior to that leg entrance. If the volume/capacity ratio for any leg is above 85% further analysis is
recommended.
The results shown below (using PM projected volumes) show that all legs of the roundabout are well within the
range of a single lane roundabout (less than 85%). The results also show that the projected volumes on
Kilmer Lane (frontage road) are so low that it shouldnt affect operations. Inputs to note: 97% car traffic, 3%
truck with trailer traffic (percentages used were determined using Mn/DOTs Interactive Basemap), peak hour
factor of .9.

VE VALIDATION NO. 2
Sketches/Photos:


VE VALIDATION NO. 3
Dont Lower Louisiana Ave.
IDEA NO(s).
Original Concept:
The original concept (base) has Louisiana being lowered by approximately 6 7 feet at the center
of TH 7. The roundabouts at Walker and Lake Street will remain essentially at their current
elevations and the grade of Louisiana Ave. will drop 0.5% as it approaches TH 7 thereby creating
a low point beneath the new bridge.
Maintain existing profile of Louisiana Avenue.
After evaluation and discussion the baseline concept to lower the profile of Louisiana
Avenue was validated.
Reduces staging complexity lower of Louisiana (6 Increased embankment
to 7 feet) and raising of TH 7 (partial) will be very May require lengthening of vertical curve tie ins
complicated. to existing TH 7.
Reduces excavation Will increase grade on loop ramps (on ramps)
Less risk vs. excavation (overruns ground water, Increases fill height in front of apartment complex
contaminated soils, etc.) negative impact.
May reduce construction schedule.

VE VALIDATION NO. 3
Reduces staging complexity It was initially thought that the complexity would be reduced. A
detour would reduce staging complexity in both the base and proposed option.
Reduces excavation It is thought that the excavated material will be suitable for fill.
Less risk vs. excavation (overruns ground water, contaminated soils, etc.) Proximity of new
roadbed to ground water may require dewatering to construct lowered Louisiana which may
increase risk.
It is thought that the advantages of raising Louisiana are less than expected. Staging complexities
are probably better handled by removing traffic from Louisiana Ave at the bridge crossing thru use
of detours and temporary bypasses.
There are no construction cost advantages to raising Louisiana Ave. Raising Louisiana creates
additional costs in retaining walls and embankment material which are greater than the associated
costs of lowering Louisiana.
Sketches/Photos:
Design Assumptions:
Raise retaining walls by an average of 3.5 feet and lengthen an average of 100 feet.
It is thought that the road bed material beneath Louisianan Avenue will be suitable for use as fill
elsewhere on the project.

VE VALIDATION NO. 3
Estimate:
Original Concept Recommended Concept
Item Description Unit Qty Unit Cost Total Qty Unit Cost Total
Retaining Walls (west) SF 940*17 $75 $1,318,350 1040*20.5 $75 $1,599,000
Retaining Walls (east) SF 885*15 $75 $1,095,188 985*18.5 $75 $1,366,687
Excav & Embank (Louisiana) CY 120*6*400 $5 $54,000 $0
Excav & Embank (TH 7 west) CY $0 700*3.5*100 $5 $45,370
Excav & Embank (TH7 east) CY $0 600*3.5*100 $5 $38,888
Temp Signal LS $100,000
Temp Bypass (connect TH 7 to

LS $150,000
Lake)
Sheet Pile (During construction) ft 80*200 $9 $200,000
Original
Total Cost $2,717,538 Recommended Concept $3,249,945
Concept
Estimated Savings -$532,407


Appendix
Value Engineering
Value Engineering (VE) is a systematic process using a multi-disciplinary team to improve the
value of a project through the analysis of its functions. The VE process incorporates, to the
extent possible, the values of design; construction; maintenance; contractor; state, local and
federal approval agencies; other stakeholders; and the public.
The primary objective of a Value Engineering study is value improvement. The value
improvements might relate to scope definition, functional design, constructability, coordination
(both internal and external), or the schedule for project development. Other possible value
improvements are reduced environmental impacts, reduced public (traffic) inconvenience, or
reduced project cost.
Pre-VE Study
Prior to the start of a VE Study, the Project Manager, VE Team Leader and the Statewide Value
Engineer carry out the following three activities:
Initiate Study Identify study project; define study goals; prepare VE Study Request.
Organize Study Conduct pre-VE Study meeting; select team members.
Prepare Data Collect and distribute data; prepare cost models.
All of the information gathered prior to the VE Study is given to the team members for their use.
Value Engineering Job Plan

The VE Team employed the six-phase VE job plan in analyzing the project. This process is
recommended by SAVE International and is composed of the following phases:
Investigation/Information - The objective of this phase was to obtain a thorough

understanding of the projects design criteria and objectives by reviewing the projects
documents and drawings, cost estimates, and schedules.
Function Analysis - The purpose of this phase was to identify and define the primary and
secondary functions of the project. A Functional Analysis System Technique (FAST) was
used to quickly define the functions of the project.
Speculation/Creative - During this phase the team employed creative techniques such as
team brainstorming to develop a number of alternative concepts that satisfy the projects
primary functions.
Evaluation - The purpose of this phase was to evaluate the alternative concepts developed
by the VE Team during the brainstorming sessions. The team used a number of tools to
determine the qualitative and quantitative merits of each concept.
TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Appendix 5.1

Development - Those concepts that ranked highest in the evaluation were further
developed into VE recommendations. Narratives, drawings, calculations, and cost
estimates were prepared for each recommendation.
Presentation - The VE Team presented their finding in the form of a written report. In
addition, an oral presentation was made to the owner and the design team to discuss the VE
recommendations.
Value Metrics
The Value Metrics process is an integral part of the Value Engineering Process. This process
provides the cornerstone of the VE process by providing a systematic and structured means of
considering the relationship of a projects performance and cost as they relate to value. Project
performance must be properly defined and agreed upon by the stakeholders at the beginning of
the VE Study. The performance attributes and requirements developed are then used
throughout the study to identify, evaluate, and document alternatives.
Introduction
The methodology described herein measures project value by correlating the performance of
project scope and schedule to the project costs. This process is known as Value Metrics. The
objective of this methodology is to prescribe a systematic, structured approach to study and
optimize a projects scope, schedule, and cost.
Value Engineering has traditionally been perceived as an effective means for reducing project
costs. This paradigm only addresses one part of the value equation, oftentimes at the expense
of overlooking the role that VE can play with regard to improving project performance. Project
costs are fairly easy to quantify and compare through traditional estimating techniques.
Performance is not so easily quantifiable.
The VE Team Leader will lead the team and external stakeholders through the methodology,
using the power of the process to distill subjective thought into an objective language that
everyone can relate to and understand. The dialog that develops forms the basis for the VE
Teams understanding of the performance requirements of the project and to what degree the
current design concept is meeting those requirements. From this baseline, the VE Team can
focus on developing alternative concepts that will quantify both performance and cost and
contribute to overall project value.
Value Metrics yields the following benefits:
Builds consensus among project stakeholders (especially those holding conflicting

views)
Develops a better understanding of a projects goals and objectives
Develops a baseline understanding of how the project is meeting performance goals and
objectives
Identifies areas where project performance can be improved through the VE process
Develops a better understanding of a VE alternatives effect on project performance

Develops an understanding of the relationship between performance and cost in
determining value
Uses value as the true measurement for the basis of selecting the right project or design
concept
Provides decision makers with a means of comparing costs and performance (i.e., costs
vs. benefits) in a way that can assist them in making better decisions.
Methodology
The application of Value Metrics consists of the following steps:
1. Identify key project (scope and delivery) performance attributes and requirements for the
project
2. Establish the hierarchy and impact of these attributes upon the project
3. Establish the baseline of the current project performance by evaluating and rating the
effectiveness of the current design concepts
4. Identify the change in performance of alternative project concepts generated by the
study
5. Measure the aggregate effect of alternative concepts relative to the baseline projects
performance as a measure of overall value improvement
The primary goal of Value Engineering is to improve project value. A simple way to think of
value in terms of an equation is as follows:
Performance
Value
Cost
Assumptions
Before embarking on the details of this methodology some assumptions need to be identified:
The methodology described in the following steps assumes the project functions are well
established. Project functions are the what the project delivers to its users and
stakeholders; a good reference for the project functions can be found in the
environmental documents purpose and need statement. Project functions are generally
well defined prior to the start of the VE Study. In the event that project functions have
been substantially modified, the methodology must begin a new from the beginning
(Step 1).
Step 1 Determine the Major Performance Attributes
Performance attributes can generally be divided between Project Scope components (Highway
Operations, Environmental Impacts, and System Preservation) and Project Delivery
components. It is important to make a distinction between performance attributes and
performance requirements. Performance requirements are mandatory and are binary in nature.
All performance requirements MUST be met by any VE alternative concept being considered.

Performance attributes possess a range of acceptable levels of performance. For example, if
the project was the design and construction of a new bridge, a performance requirement might
be that the bridge must meet all current seismic design criteria. In contrast, a performance
attribute might be Project Schedule which means that a wide range of alternatives could be
acceptable that had different durations.
The VE Team Leader will initially request that representatives from project team and external
stakeholders identify performance attributes that they feel are essential to meeting the overall
need and purpose of the project. Usually four to eight attributes are selected. It is important
that all potential attributes be thoroughly discussed. The information that comes out of this
discussion will be valuable to both the VE Team and the project owner. It is important that the
attribute be discretely defined, and they must be quantifiable in some form. By quantifiable, it is
meant that a useable scale must be delineated with values given on a scale of 0 to 10. A 0
indicates unacceptable performance, while a 10 indicates optimal or ideal performance. The
vast majority of performance attributes that typically appear in transportation VE studies have
been standardized. This standardized list can be used as is or adopted with minor
adjustments as required. Every effort should be made to make the ratings as objective as
possible.
Step 2 Determine the Relative Importance of the Attributes
Once the group has agreed upon the projects performance attributes, the next step is to
determine their relative importance in relation to each other. This is accomplished through the
use of an evaluative tool termed in this report as the Performance Attribute Matrix. This matrix
compares the performance attributes in pairs, asking the question: An improvement in which
attribute will provide the greatest benefit to the project relative to purpose and need? A letter
code (e.g., a) is entered into the matrix for each pair, identifying which of the two is more
important. If a pair of attributes is considered to be of essentially equal importance, both letters
(e.g., a/b) are entered into the appropriate box. This, however, should be discouraged, as it
has been found that in practice a tie usually indicates that the pairs have not been adequately
discussed. When all pairs have been discussed, the number of votes for each is tallied and
percentages (which will be used as weighted multipliers later in the process) are calculated. It is
not uncommon for one attribute to not receive any votes. If this occurs, the attribute is given a
token vote, as it made the list in the first place and should be given some degree of
importance.
Step 3 Establish the Performance Baseline for the Original Design
The next step in the process is to evaluate how well the original design is addressing the
projects performance attributes. This step establishes a baseline against which the VE
alternative concepts can be compared. The Performance Rating Matrix is used to assist the VE
Team in determining the performance ratings for the original design concept. Representatives
from the design team and external stakeholders next begin assigning a 0 to 10 rating for each
attribute, using the definitions and scales developed in Step 1.
Once the 0 to 10 ratings for the various attributes have been established, their total performance
should be calculated by multiplying the attributes weight (which was developed in Step 2) by its
rating. Once the total performance for each attribute has been determined, the original designs
total performance can be calculated by adding all of the scores for the attributes. The concepts
total performance will be somewhere between 0 and 1,000 points. A concept scoring 1,000

would represent a hypothetically optimal design concept, with all performance attributes being
addressed to their theoretical maximum. This numerical expression of the original designs
performance forms the baseline against which all alternative concepts will be compared.
Step 4 Evaluate the Performance of the VE Alternative Concepts
Once the performance baseline has been established for the original design concept, it can be
used to help the VE Team develop performance ratings for individual VE alternative concepts as
they are developed during the course of the VE Study. The Performance Measures form is
used to capture this information. This form allows a side-by-side comparison of the original
design and VE alternative concepts to be performed.
It is important to consider the alternative concepts impact on the entire project, rather than on
discrete components, when developing performance ratings for the alternative concept
Step 5 Compare the Performance Ratings of Alternative Concepts to the

Baseline Project
The last step in the process completes the Value Matrix that was initially begun to develop the
performance ratings for the original design concept. The VE Team groups the VE alternatives
into a strategy (or strategies) to provide the decision makers a clear picture of how the
alternatives fit together into possible solutions. At least one strategy is developed to present the
VE Teams consensus of what should be implemented. Additional strategies are developed as
necessary to present other combinations to the decision makers that should be considered.
The strategy(s) of VE alternatives are rated and compared against the original concept. The
performance ratings developed for the VE Strategies are entered into the matrix, and the
summary portion of the Value Matrix is completed. The summary provides details on net
changes to cost, performance, and value, using the following calculations.
% Performance Improvement = Performance VE Strategy / Total Performance

Original Concept
Value Index = Total Performance / Total Cost (in Millions)
% Value Improvement = Value Index VE Strategy / Value Index Original Concept
Reporting
Following the VE Study, the Team Leader assembles all study documentation into the final
report.
Publish Results Prepare a Draft and Final VE Study Report; distribute printed and
electronic copies.
Close Out VE Study - Provide final deliverables to the State VE Coordinator/Manager.
The VE Study is complete when the report is issued as a record of the VE Teams analysis and
development work, as well as the project development teams implementation dispositions for
the recommendations.

This page is intentionally left blank

SP 2706-226 - TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Value Engineering Study Agenda
Tuesday August 10th Friday August 13th, 2010
Municipal Service Center (MSC)

nd
2 floor multi-purpose room (by the lunchroom)
7305 Oxford Street
St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2216
Tuesday, August 10
8:30 am Team Meet and Greet
9:00 am Project Team presentation of the project
Constraints and controlling decisions
Potential Risks
10:00 am Site visit
Noon Lunch
1:00 pm Continue Investigation Phase
3:00 pm Functional Analysis Define functions
Define & weight performance attributes
4:00 pm Begin Speculation
5:00 pm Adjourn for the day
Wednesday, August 11
8:00 am Continue Speculation Phase
Noon Lunch
1:00 pm Evaluation Phase
Thursday, August 12
8:00 am Development Phase
Noon Lunch
1:00 pm Complete Development Phase
Friday, August 13
8:00 am Review Recommendations
9:00 am Team revise and rehearse presentation
10:00 am Presentation of Findings
Noon Adjourn
Value Engineering Study Phases
The Value Engineering (VE) team documents the VE study as it goes through the
phases described below. The team members will provide interim review of the
report throughout the study and final review before the report is printed.
Investigation Phase
The VE team begins the study by investigating the project. Several pages are
provided in the report to document what is known about the project and what
documents are available upon which the team will base the development of their
recommendations. Often, teams want to rush right into speculating solutions
before they have taken the time to acquaint themselves with the information that
is already available. The Investigation Phase pages of the report force the team
to delve into the available information. The project office provides some of this
information, but team members may also contact other offices and state and
local agencies for additional information that will apply to the project. Good
groundwork in the Investigation Phase is important to providing viable
recommendations at the end of the study. The investigation process encourages
team building and allows the team members get to know each other and identify
areas of expertise.
In addition to a project briefing by the design team and management and a field
review, the VE team reviews and documents available project information. They
develop lists of authorizing persons, personal contacts for the study, and
available references. The team spends an adequate amount of time to acquaint
themselves with all of the documents, photos, and other information provided.
During this process, the team develops a list of available documents, including
when they were prepared. This provides a record of the document versions the
team used as the basis for the VE recommendations.
Once the team is familiar with the project and the available documentation, they
need to agree upon and document the objective of the study and any constraints
or controlling decisions that will affect the recommendations they develop.
Based on the study objective, the team will determine the primary and secondary
functions of the project in verb/noun format. A functional analysis is performed,
using a FAST diagram, to determine the critical path necessary to accomplish
each primary function of the project.
The Investigation Phase provides the VE team with a thorough understanding of

the project and what the VE study is expected to accomplish.
Speculation Phase
During the Speculation Phase, the VE team brainstorms ideas that satisfy the
project functions. A team member can explain an idea to the rest of the team,
but no evaluation is allowed at this point. Off-the-wall, out-of-the-box ideas
should be encouraged, as they often lead to innovative, workable solutions. The
team should list all of the brainstorm ideas, even the most improbable.
Evaluation Phase
The Evaluation Phase begins by going back through the ideas brainstormed
during speculation to determine those that have fatal flaws. Ideas that are not
viable will be dropped.
The team lists the advantages and disadvantages of each idea that warrants
further consideration. If the disadvantages of an idea outweigh the advantages,
in number or importance, that idea should not be considered further.
When all the ideas have been evaluated, the most promising may be put through
an evaluation matrix. The evaluation matrix is used to determine which idea
ranks highest against desired criteria.
The evaluation matrix is the final step in determining which ideas will be
developed into recommendations.
Development Phase
The team leader will assign a subgroup to develop the appropriate

documentation and descriptions for each recommendation.
The VE team needs to include cost estimates when developing

recommendations. Although the goal of the Value Engineering is to add value,
due to the nature of projects and funding we must also consider and document
cost savings and cost added.
Presentation Phase
The team develops a presentation to be given after the final day of the study to
the project team and other project stakeholders, such as Project owners and
managers, and other agencies.
VE Study Attendees
TELEPHONE
2010
Office Cell
August NAME ORGANIZATION POSITION/DISCIPLINE
E-MAIL
10 11 12 13
(503) 423-3856 (360) 601-3061
Don Owings HDR Team Leader/Facilitation
donald.owings@hdrinc.com
(360) 570-4411 (360) 742-7682
Blane Long HDR Co-Facilitator/Geometrics
blane.long@hdrinc.com
(651) 366-4648
Minnie Milkert Mn/DOT State Value Engineer
minnie.milkert@state.mn.us
(651) 765-2953 (612) 819-1871
Mark Dierling SEH Principal/Project Manager
mdierling@sehinc.com
(651) 366-4512
Nick Haltvick Mn/DOT Bridge Engineer
nick.haltvick@state.mn.us
(651) 366-5497
Hossana Teklyes Mn/DOT Assistant Foundation Engineer
hosanna.teklyes@state.mn.us
(952) 924-2551 (612) 708-7278
Mike Rardin City of Saint Louis Park Public Works Director
mrardin@stlouispark.org
(651) 234-7536
Brian Kelly Mn/DOT Water Resources
brian.kelly@state.mn.us
(952) 924-2552 (612) 750-0404
Jim Olson City of Saint Louis Park Project Manager
jolson@stlouispark.org
VE Study Attendees
TELEPHONE
2010
Office Cell
E-MAIL
10 11 12 13
(651) 367-2328 (952) 412-8066
Bill Gregg AECOM Environmental Consulting
bill.gregg@aecom.com
Diane Colton Mn/DOT Traffic

diane.colton@state.mn.us
(651) 234-7386
Ken Johnson Mn/DOT Traffic
ken.johnson@state.mn.us
(651) 234-7727
April Crockett Mn/DOT West Area Engineer
april.crockett@state.mn.us
GV Construction Resident (651) 234-5132

Steve Barrett Mn/DOT
Engineer steve.barrett@state.mn.us
(651) 366-5597 (651)338-6881
Derrick Dasenbrock Mn/DOT Geometrics Engineer
derrick.dasenbrock@state.mn.us
Program Operations Team (651) 291-6114

Brian Hogge FHWA
Leader brian.hogge@dot.gov
(651) 234-7841
Ryan Coddington Mn/DOT West Area Traffic Engineer
ryan.coddington@state.mn.us
(952) 924-2687
Scott Brunk City of St. Louis Park City Engineer
sbrink@stlouispark.org
VE Study Attendees
TELEPHONE
2010
Office Cell
E-MAIL
10 11 12 13
Director - Design Services (851) 366-4703
Nancy Yoo Mn/DOT
Section nancy.yoo@state.mn.us
Value Engineering Study
TH 7
Louisiana Avenue Interchange
SP 2706-226
August 10th thru August 13th, 2010
Value Engineering Team

Steve Barrett, Mn/DOT Mike Rardin, City of Saint Louis
Diane Colton, Mn/DOT Park
April Crockett, Mn/DOT Hossana Teklyes, Mn/DOT
Derrick Dasenbrock,
Dasenbrock Mn/DOT
Nick Haltvick, Mn/DOT
Ken Johnson, Mn/DOT
Brian Kelly, Mn/DOT
Blane Long, HDR
Minnie Milkert, Mn/DOT
Jim Olson,, Cityy of Saint Louis
Park
Don Owings, HDR
1
Project Description
The purpose of the proposed TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue Interchange
project is to address deteriorating safety and operational conditions at the
TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue intersection. The proposed project removes
the existing at
at-grade
grade signalized intersection and replaces it with a grade
grade-
separated interchange.
Project Description
2
Team Objective
The primary objectives for this study include:
Conduct a thorough review and analysis of the key project issues
using a multidiscipline, cross-functional team
Review and improve the proposed design by focusing on:
Improving mobility and reducing the conflicts of vehicular and
non-vehicular traffic.
Minimizing impacts to existing developments and enhancing
opportunities for future development/redevelopment.
Apply the principles and practices of the VE Job Plan.
Constraints/Controlling Decisions
Must accommodate pedestrians and bike traffic both

temporary & permanent
Avoid Louisiana Oaks apartment complex
Avoid Sams club
Must close RIRO access at/near RR bridge upon project
completion
Mar 2012 funding obligation date.
Nov 2011 Letting date.
Minimize ROW impact/acquisition
Minimize excavation (high potential of contaminated
soils)
3
Constraints/Controlling Decisions
Minimize excavation (high potential of contaminated
soils)
EA process just starting draft document out by Oct 2010
Must mitigate impacts to flood plain no net increase in
100 yr flood elevation.
Strong desire to not impact pump station and medical
offices along Lake Street
Strong desire to not impact medical offices along Walker
Street
Avoid impact to 4f.
Desire to minimize impacts in SW quadrant of IC
Value Engineering has traditionally been perceived as an effective

means for reducing project costs. This paradigm only addresses one
part of the value equation, often times at the expense of overlooking
the
h role
l that
h VE can play
l withi h regardd to improving
i i project
j
performance.
Mainline Operations
Local Operations
Maintainability
Construction Impacts
Environmental Impacts
Project Schedule (VE To Letting)
Risk
4
PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTE MATRIX
Which attribute is more important to the project? TOTAL %
Mainline Operations A A/B A A A/E F A 5.0 18%
Local Operations B B B B/E F B 5.0 18%
Maintainability C C C/E F C 3.5 13%
Construction Impacts D E F G 1.0 4%
Environmental Impacts E F E 4.5 16%
Project
j Schedule F F 7.0 25%
A More Important Risks G 2.0 7%
A/B Equally Important 28.0 100%
Recommendation # 1a Ground Improvements
5
Recommendation # 1b Lightweight Fill
Recommendation # 1c Pile Supported

Embankment
6
Recommendation # 2 Reinforced Slopes
Recommendation # 3 Single Lane Roundabouts
7
Recommendation # 4 Remove Median on
Louisiana Ave.
Eliminate curbed median and use

stripe
Recommendation # 5a Tight Urban Diamond I/C
8
Recommendation # 5b Single Point Roundabout I/C
Validation # 1 3-Span Structure
9
Validation # 2 Cul-de-sac Frontage Road
Validation # 3 Raise Profile of Louisiana & TH 7
10
Other Items Construction Staging
Design Considerations
Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC)
MSE Walls
Lower hill between Texas and Louisiana to acquire
material for embankment
Twin Bridges in lieu of single bridge
Bridge Type
Use concrete on roundabouts
11
Recommendation Summary
Cost Performance
# Description Savings Improvement
1a Ground Improvements $2.4 M 9%

1b Lightweight Fill $2.2 M -2%
1c Pile Supported Fill $2.5 M 6%
2 Reinforced Slopes $1.1 M 7%
3 Single Lane Roundabouts $0.5 M 11%
4 Remove median on Louisiana Ave. $0.1 M 6%
5a Tight Urban Diamond Interchange $1.5 M 7%
5b Single Point Roundabout Interchange (SPRI) $0.3 M 21%
Total $3.9 M to $5.1M +7% to +11%

# Description
Cost Cost Cost

4 R
Remove median
di on L
Louisiana
i i A
Ave. $0 1 M
$0.1 $0 1 M
$0.1 $0 1 M
$0.1
5b (SPRI)
$0.3 M
Total $4.1 M $5.1 M $3.9 M
12
Questions
13
Value Engineering Recommendation Approval Form
Project: Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange
VE Study Date: August 10-13, 2010

Construction
Environment
Operations
VE Team Estimated Actual Estimated
Recommendation Cost Avoidance Cost Avoidance
Safety
Approved
Other
or Cost Added or Cost Added
Y/N
1a Ground Improvements $2.4 M $
1b Lightweight Fill $2.2 M $
1c Pile Supported Fill $2.5 M $
2 Reinforced Slopes $1.1 M $
3 Single Lane Roundabouts $0.5 M $
4 Remove Median on Louisiana Avenue $0.1 M $
5a Tight Urban Diamond Interchange $1.5 M $
5b Single Point Roundabout Interchange $0.3 M $
Totals $ 3.9 M to $5.1 M $M
Please provide justification if the value engineering study recommendations are not approved or are implemented in a modified
form.
Mn/DOT is required to report Value Engineering results annually to FHWA. To facilitate this reporting requirement, a Value
Engineering Recommendation Approval Form is included in the Appendix of this report. If the region elects to reject or modify a
recommendation, please include a brief explanation of why. Please complete the form and return it to Minnie Milkert, Mn/DOT
State Value Engineer, MS 696
_____________________________________ __________________
Signature Project Manager Date
_____________________________________
Name (please print)
FHWA Functional Benefit Criteria

Each year, State DOTs are required to report on VE recommendations to FHWA. In addition to cost implications, FHWA
requires the DOTs to evaluate each approved recommendation in terms of the project feature or features that recommendation
benefits. If a specific recommendation can be shown to provide benefit to more than one feature described below, count the
recommendation in each category that is applicable
Safety: Recommendations that mitigate or reduce hazards on the facility

Operations: Recommendations that improve real-time service and/or local, corridor, or regional levels of service of the facility.
Environment: Recommendations that successfully avoid or mitigate impacts to natural and or cultural resources.
Construction: Recommendations that improve work zone conditions, or expedite the project delivery.
Other: Recommendations not readily categorized by the above performance indicators.

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange

Value Engineering Study Report

HDR Engineering, Inc.

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Table of Contents TOC.1

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Table of Contents TOC.2

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Executive Summary ES.1

The individual recommendations are summarized below:

1a. Ground Improvements $2.4 M 9%

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Executive Summary ES.2

Scenario A includes Recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 4. These 4 recommendations all

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Executive Summary ES.3

Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Executive Summary ES.4

Don Owings, PE, CVS

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Executive Summary ES.5

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Executive Summary ES.6

Baseline concept for the proposed project

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Description 1.1

Project Purpose and Need

The need for the project is driven by:

Improve vehicle safety

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Description 1.2

Constraints and Controlling Decisions

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Description 1.3

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Description 1.4

Roadway Items including bituminous account for 33% of this project

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Analysis 2.1

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Analysis 2.2

Items Verb Noun

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Analysis 2.3

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Analysis 2.4

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Analysis 2.6

Evaluation of Baseline Project

An assessment of traffic operations 50 mph design speed

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Analysis 2.7

An assessment of the temporary Access will need to be

An assessment of the identified risks Reilly Super Fund Site adjacent

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Analysis 2.8

Which attribute is more important to the project? TOTAL %

Mainline Operations A A/B A A A/E F A 5.0 18%

Local Operations B B B B/E F B 5.0 18%

Maintainability C C C/E F C 3.5 13%

Construction Impacts D E F G 1.0 4%

Environmental Impacts E F E 4.5 16%

Project Schedule F F 7.0 25%

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Analysis 2.9

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Analysis 2.10

Performance % Change Cost % Change Value Index % Value

Baseline 500 $16.5 30.30

1a Ground Improvements 545 9% $14.1 15% 38.63 27%

1b Lightweight Fill 489 -2% $14.3 13% 34.22 13%

1c Pile Supported Embankment 529 6% $14.0 15% 37.76 25%

2 Reinforced Slopes 536 7% $15.4 7% 34.79 15%

3 Single Lane Roundabouts 554 11% $16.0 3% 34.60 14%

4 No Median on Louisiana 530 6% $16.4 1% 32.34 7%

5a Tight Urban Diamond Interchange 538 7% $15.0 9% 35.83 18%

5b Single Point Roundabout Interchange 607 21% $16.2 2% 37.48 24%

Scenario 1 #1a, #2, #3, #4 541 8% $12.4 25% 43.63 44%

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Analysis 2.11

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Analysis 2.12

Mainline operations (MO)

Idea Evaluation Form

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Idea Evaluation 3.1

TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue Interchange Idea Evaluation 3.2