Value Engineering Study Report

Florida Department of Transportation
District Six
Value Engineering Study Report
Krome Avenue
From SW 296th St. to SW 136th St.
Miami-Dade County
FPID: 249614-4-22-01
Study Dates
April 23-27, 2007
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.

3010 Briarpark, Suite 200
Houston TX 77042
713-474-0000
Fax 713-474-8686
3010 Briarpark Drive, Suite 200
Houston, Texas 77042 U.S.A.
1.713.474.4000 ext. 120
Fax 1.713.474.8686
June 6, 2007
Mr. John Dovel III, P.E., A.V.S.

Florida Department of Transportation
District Six
1000 NW 111th Ave
Miami, FL 33172
Reference: Value Engineering Study Report

Krome Avenue from SW 296th Street to SW 136th Street
Financial Project I.D. 249614-4-22-01
Dear Mr. Dovel:
Here is the final report on the value engineering study for Krome Avenue that was conducted
on April 23-27, 2007.
Thanks to you and the team for your participation and hospitality. I look forward to working with
you and the District Six staff again in the near future.
Sincerely,
R. MY E
RY
CE NS E
GA
RS
LI
NO. 64582
Gary R. Myers, P.E., C.V.S.
E ER
PRO
Florida P.E. License No. 64582 S TATE OF

FL
ORIDA
IN
CVS Certification No. 20030102

FE
SS
IONAL E NG
Edwards and Kelcey Inc.
The seal appearing on this
Certificate of Authorization No. 970
document was authorized by
Gary R. Myers, P.E. 64582
on June 6, 2007

Krome Avenue Value Engineering Report
Financial Project ID: 249614-4-22-01
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................. 1-1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................ 1-1
1.2 INITIAL COST ESTIMATES...................................... 1-5
1.3 SUMMARY OF VE STUDY RESULTS...................... 1-6
1.4 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 1-7
2.0 VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY .................................. 2-1
2.1 STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND CONTACT DATA ..... 2.3
2.2 STUDY AGENDA...................................................... 2.4
2.3 INITIAL COST ESTIMATE AND COST MODEL ....... 2.5
2.4 SITE VISIT ................................................................ 2.6
2.5 FUNCTION ANALYSIS ............................................. 2.7
2.6 IDEAS ..................................................................... 2.13
2.7 IDEA EVALUATION................................................ 2.17
2.8 ALTERNATIVES ..................................................... 2.19
2.9 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................... 2.20
2.10 PRESENTATION .................................................. 2.20
2.11 NOTES TO DESIGNER......................................... 2.20
APPENDIXES
A. INITIAL COST ESTIMATE
B. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATIONS
C. PRESENTATION SLIDES
i
1.0
Executive Summary
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report documents the results of a value engineering study for

Krome Avenue in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Key statistics for the
Table 1-1 study are shown in Table 1-1.
Study Statistics
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Original Project Cost:
Up to $226 million Krome Avenue in Miami-Dade County is on the Florida Intrastate
Highway System (FIHS) and the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS).
Number of The project is classified as an “urban principal arterial” from SW
Recommendations: 296th Street to SW 272nd Street, and as a “rural principal arterial”
13
from SW 272nd Street to SW 136th Street. It is also designated as
Access Classification 2.
Recommended Cost
Savings:
The project location and limits are shown on Figure 1-1.
$27 million
Recommended Value At the time of the value engineering study, the selection of a
Added: preferred alternative had not yet been made. Therefore, the study
$18 million considered all six design alternatives being evaluated in the Project
Development and Environment (PDE) Study. These included:
Total Number of Team
Members: • The “No build” alternative.
9
• The Transportation System Management (TSM) alternative. As
Federal Employees: described in the pre-draft, unreviewed PDE preliminary
0 engineering report, “This alternative involves selectively
upgrading deficient roadway areas and/or intersections with
FDOT Employees:
improved signing, pavement markings, exclusive turn lanes, and
7
traffic signal timings.”
Others:
2 • Alternative 1, Two-lane divided highway with depressed median.
Key features of Alternative 1 include:
Facilitator:
Consultant • Two 12-foot wide travel lanes.
• 40-foot wide depressed grass median with inside shoulders.
Two eight-foot wide inside shoulders (two-foot paved and six-
foot unpaved).
• Two 12-foot wide outside shoulders (five-foot paved and
seven-foot unpaved).
• 12-foot wide two-way shared use path on the southbound
direction.
1-1
Figure 1-1 Project Limits and

Location
End
Project
Begin
Project
1-2
• 10-foot wide roadside swale on the southbound direction.

• 22-foot wide roadside swale on the northbound direction.
• Eight-foot wide grass tie down area between the northbound
swale and the right of way line.
• Eight-foot wide grass horizontal clearance/tie down between the
shared use path and the right of way line.
• Design Speed is 65 mph.
• Recovery Terrain (Clear Zone) is 36 feet wide from the edge of
pavement.
• Border Width is 30 feet wide from the outside shoulder point.
• The total width of this typical section is 148 feet.
• Alternative 2, Two-lane divided highway with depressed median

w/limited passing zones. This alternative is identical to Alternative
1, except that it provides one passing zone segment area
throughout the length of the project between SW 168th Street and
SW 136th Street. Each passing zone segment will consists of one
passing lane per direction alternatively. The total width of this
typical section is 160 feet.
• Alternative 3, Four-Lane FIHS-compliant Divided Roadway with

Depressed Median. Key features of this alternative include:
• Four 12-foot travel lanes.

• Two eight-foot inside shoulders (four-foot paved and four-foot
unpaved).
• Two 12-foot outside shoulders (five-foot paved and seven-foot
unpaved).
• 12-foot wide two-way shared use path on the southbound
direction.
• 16-foot wide grass horizontal clearance/tie down between the
• 16-foot wide grass tie down area between the northbound swale
and the right of way line.
• Design Speed is 65 mph.
• Recovery Terrain (Clear Zone) is 36 feet wide from the edge of
pavement.
• Border Width is 40 feet wide from the outside shoulder point.
1-3
• Alternative 4, Four-Lane Plans Preparation Manual (PPM)

Compliant Divided Roadway with Depressed Median. This
alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except for the following
features.

• Eight-foot wide grass horizontal clearance/tie down between the
• Eight-foot wide grass tie down area between the northbound
swale and the right of way line.
• Border Width is 30 feet wide from the shoulder point.
In addition, the value engineering team considered two more design

alternatives that had resulted from earlier studies for less extensive
improvements. These alternatives were also discussed in the PE
report for the PDE Study, and had been partially implemented. These
alternatives are as follows:
• The “Action Plan” Alternative. This alternative featured the

following.
• Two 12-foot travel lanes

• A two-foot paved and painted buffer between the travel lanes
• Eight-foot wide shoulders, with five feet paved
• An 8-foot wide shared use path
• Border widths as allowed by existing rights of way, with some
less than the eight feet minimum required by the Plans
Preparation Manual
• The “Modified Action Plan” Alternative. This alternative is identical

to the “Action Plan” except for the following features.
• Eight-foot minimum border width

At the time of the workshop, the project was approaching the end of
the PDE phase. The design consultant is the URS Corporation in
Miami, Florida. Letting for construction is currently planned for 2017.
1-4
1.2 INITIAL COST ESTIMATES
The project designer and the District right-of-way section provided

right-of-way and construction cost estimates for the various
alternatives as shown in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1 Initial Cost Estimates
Design Total Construction and

Alternative Construction Cost Right-of-way Cost ROW Cost
No-build $0 $0 $0
TSM Not available Not available Not available
Action Plan Not available $0 Not available
Modified Action Plan Not available Not available Not available
Alternative 1 Not available $83.4 M Not available
(Two-lane divided)
Alternative 2 Not available $83.8 M Not available
(Two-lane divided w/
passing zones)
Alternative 3 $90.1 M $136 M $226.1 M
(Four-lane FIHS
compliant)
Alternative 4 $90.1 M $98.6 M $188.7 M
(Four-lane PPM
compliant)
1-5
1.3 SUMMARY OF VE STUDY RESULTS
A summary of the results of the study is provided in Table 1-2. The

team developed recommendations for interim improvements, some of
which featured elements from the Action Plan and Modified Action
Plan alternatives, as well as for Alternatives 3 and 4. No
recommendations were provided for Alternatives 1 and 2 because the
team felt that these alternative do not provide enough of the required
functionality to justify the costs to acquire the ROW and construct the
improvements.
Table 1-2 Summary of Study Results
VE
Cost Value
Recommendation Description
Savings Added
No.
Interim Recommendations
A-1 Construct wider shoulders $991 K
A-3 Better lighting $87 K
A-4 Illuminate signs $38 K
Information
A-6 Use profile striping/rumble strips on center line not available
Maintenance
A-7 Remove sight distance obstruction expense
A-8 Low tech highway advisory (VMS) $50 K

Action Plan Recommendations
B-1 Construct 2’ buffer and shoulders $5 M
Alternative 3 Recommendations
E-1 Use hybrid cross section $27 M
E-3 Over design for future 6 lane $4 M

Pave 6 lane, stripe 4 lanes and use extra pavement on
E-4 $13 M
right for right turns
E-5 Realign 232nd Street and others $0.60 M
E-7 U-turn lanes for large trucks $0.45 M
Alternative 4 Recommendations
F-1 U-turn lanes for large trucks $0.60 M
1-6
1.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
Each recommendation is included in Table 1-3, including the

advantages and disadvantages of each.
Table 1-3 Recommendations
VE Alternative No. & Cost Value

Advantages Disadvantages
Description Savings Added
A-1 • Allow deceleration off • None $991 K
Construct wider of mainline
shoulders • Provide for slower
turning speed onto
driveways
• Reduce rear end
accidents
• Allows numerous areas
for maintenance to
utilize
• Helps identify locations
of driveways
A-3 • Reduce accidents due • None $87 K

Better lighting to improved visibility
(57% of fatalities at
night)
• Increase safety for
maintenance crews
• Reduced maintenance
cost due to less need
for temporary lighting
A-4 • Drivers can see signs • None $38 K

Illuminate signs at greater distance
• Drivers can slow more
gradually, preventing
some rear end
collisions
• Better accommodate
older drivers
A-6 • Reduce need for RPMs • Need to buy equipment Information

Use profile striping/ • Reduce accidents by and train maintenance not available
rumble strips on center better warning drivers crews to maintain if
line so they can recover necessary
before losing control or • Lack of experience,
striking a vehicle of knowledge of
fixed object maintenance, longevity,
etc.
1-7
Table 1-3 Recommendations (continued)

A-7 • Reduce left and right • None Maintenance
Remove sight distance turn crashes from side expense
obstruction streets and driveways
traffic by providing
better visibility of
approaching traffic
• Reduce rear end
accidents on Krome by
better identifying side
streets
A-8 • Law enforcement can • None $50 k

Low tech highway warn drivers who can
advisory (VMS) select alternate route
• Maintenance can also
use in similar manner
B- • Minor reduction in • None $5 M

Construct 2’ buffer and head-on collisions
shoulders • Shoulders allow some
avoidance of rear-end
and other collisions
• Improves safety of
maintenance
• Accommodates more
law enforcement
• Reduce edge raveling
• Better refuge for
disabled vehicles
E-1 • Substantial compliance • Not fully compliant with $27 M

Use hybrid cross section with FIHS at major FIHS
intersections • Reduce some flexibility
• Continues to allow for future expansion
effective designs at • More difficult to add
major intersections right turn lanes at other
• Continues to allow locations
expansion to 6 lanes
E-3 • Acquire at today’s • May not meet $4 M

Over design for future 6 prices “engineering need”
lane • Generate income from requirement that allows
lease purchase ahead of
• Preclude construction normal schedule (i.e.,
of new improvements proactive acquisition)
that we’ll have to buy • May be limited to willing
later sellers only
• Additional property
management costs
• Possible liability
1-8
Table 1-3 Recommendations (continued)

E-4 • Best meets currently • Likely considerable $13 M
Pave 6 lane, stripe 4 planned traffic growth political and public
lanes and use extra • Extra lanes can be opposition
pavement on right for used for evacuation
right turns • Extra pavement can be
used for right turns,
minimizing right turn
accidents
• Greater safety for
maintenance
• No disruption in future
for expansion
• Lower overall project
cost
E-5 • Improve sight distance • None $0.60 M

Realign 232nd Street for vehicles on 232nd
and others Street
• Improve visibility for left
turning vehicles
• No additional right-of-
way required
E-7 • Trucks can safely make • None $0.45 M

U-turn lanes for large u-turn maneuver
trucks • Fewer conflict points
• Less traffic delays as
trucks make “3-point”
turns
• Less shoulder damage/
erosion
• Could also be used by
law enforcement/
maintenance
F-1 • Trucks can safely make • None $0.6 M

U-turn lanes for large u-turn maneuver
trucks • Fewer conflict points
• Less traffic delays as
trucks make “3-point”
turns
• Less shoulder damage/
erosion
• Could also be used by
law enforcement/
maintenance
1-9
2.0
Value Engineering Study
2.0 VALUE ENGINERING STUDY
This report documents the results of a value engineering study for

Krome Avenue in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
The study followed a value engineering job plan conforming with

guidelines of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the American
Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
The value engineering job plan is summarized as follows.
• Pre-study. Prior to the study, the facilitator works with the client
to plan the event. This planning includes determining the scope
of the study, deciding where the study will be held, selecting
team members, and choosing the starting date and duration of
the study. The facilitator will also gather data and documents on
the project (or arrange for them to be present on the first day of
the study) and will complete a cost model. This model often
highlights “Pareto’s Law of Distribution:” the fact that 20% of the
work usually accounts for 80% of the cost. The facilitator uses
this model to focus the team’s attention on those parts of the
project that have the greatest potential for savings.
• Investigation Phase. Some of the individuals on the study team

may have an intimate knowledge of the project, others may
never have even heard of it, and the remainder fall somewhere
in between. Therefore, the primary goal of the Investigation
Phase is for the team to develop a detailed and shared
understanding of the project, its current design, and how that
design functions to meet the project’s purpose and need.
• Speculation Phase. During the Speculation Phase, the team

brainstorms each function to generate ideas for improvement.
No attempt is made during this phase to restrain the free flow of
ideas. Therefore, some ideas may be impractical, “far fetched,”
or even nonsensical. This lack of restraint is essential to creative
thought. Ideas that are not feasible are eliminated in the next
phase of the study.
• Evaluation Phase. During the evaluation phase, the team
2-1
assesses each idea and developed a consensus of which ideas

should be retained for further analysis.
• Development Phase. In this phase, the ideas retained from the

Evaluation Phase are reorganized into prospects for further
investigation and development by the team. In some cases,
related ideas are combined into a single prospect. During the
Development Phase, the team gathers information and prepares
a written summary for each of the prospects. The team prepares
sketches, performs calculations, and develops cost estimates to
support its analysis of each prospect.
• Presentation Phase. The study concludes with a presentation to

key members of the client’s staff.
• After the study, a draft report is prepared to summarize the

study and its recommendations. This report is provided to the
client for review and editing, after which the final report is
prepared. Once the final report is received, it is usually
distributed within the client’s organization for review and
comment. Copies will also normally be provided to the designer
of the project (which could be either personnel on the client’s
staff or an outside consultant). After these people have had a
chance to review the recommendations, and, in some cases,
conduct further analysis and design, the client will convene a
meeting to discuss the recommendations and hear any input the
designers may have. After that meeting, the client will make a
decision to implement, modify, or reject each of the value
engineering recommendations.
2-2
2.1 STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND CONTACT DATA
Name/Representing Address Phone/Fax/Cell email
Study Team
John Dovel III, PE, AVS PLEMO 305-470-5342 john.dovel@dot.state.fl.us

FDOT D6 VE 1000 NW 111th Ave Fax 305-470-5205
Miami, FL 33172
Nathaniel Pulido, PE 1000 NW 111th Ave 305-470-5494 Nathaniel.pulido@dot.state.fl.

FDOT D6 Roadway Miami, FL 33172 us
Adriana Manzanares 1000 NW 111th Ave 305-470-5547 Adriana.manzanares@dot.

FDOT D6 Miami, FL 33172 Fax 305-470-5238 state.fl.us
Consultant Management
Amy Wang, EI 1000 NW 111th Ave 305-470-5722 Amy.wang@dot.state.fl.us

FDOT D6 Traffic Operations Miami, FL 33172
Hector Rodriguez, EI 1000 NW 111th Ave 305-216-4960 Hector.rodriguez@dot.state.fl.

FDOT D6 Construction Miami, FL 33172 us
Eddie Taylor 14655 SW 122nd Ave 305-256-6398 Eddie.taylor@dot.state.fl.us

FDOT D6 Miami, FL 33186 Cell 786-229-5115
South Dade Maintenance
Randy Farwell 245 Riverside Avenue 904-636-5432 rfarwell@ekmail.com

Jacobs Edwards and Kelcey Suite 300 Fax 904-636-5433
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Gary Myers, PE, CVS 3200 Briarpark, Suite 200 713-474-4000 gmyers@ekmail.com
Jacobs Edwards and Kelcey Houston, TX 77042 Fax 713-474-8686
Cell 713-444-2809
Resources
Susanne Travis 1000 NW 111th Ave 305-470-5568 Susanne.travis@dot.state.fl.us

FDOT D6 Environmental Miami, FL 33172 Fax 305-499-2308
Vilma Croft 1000 NW 111th Ave 305-470-5240 Vilma.croft@dot.state.fl.us

FDOT D6 Environmental Miami, FL 33172
Julio Boucle, PE 7650 Corporate Center Drive 305-514-2419 Julio_Boucle@URSCorp.com

Suite 400 Fax 305-261-4017
Miami, Florida 33126
Mary Tery Vilches, PE 7650 Corporate Center Drive 305-516-2416 Maria_Vilches@urscorp.com
URS Corporation Suite 400
Miami, Florida 33126
Ryan Solis-Rios, PE 5200 NW 33rd Street 954-777-0044 Rsolis-rios@corradino.com

The Corradino Group Suite 203 Cell 352-281-4367
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33317
2-3
2.2 STUDY AGENDA
Phase Date Activity
INVESTIGATION April 23, 2007 Introduction to Value Engineering

Project Orientation
Site Visit
April 24, 2007 Function Analysis

Analysis of Function Cost and Worth
SPECULATION April 24, 2007 Brainstorming
EVALUATION April 25, 2007 Screening of the Ideas

Selection of Ideas for Further Development
DEVELOPMENT April 26, 2007 Analysis, Justification, and Refinement of

Alternatives
April 27, 2007 Analysis, etc. Continued

Selection of Team Recommendations
PRESENTATION April 27, 2007 Presentation of Study Results
2-4
2.3 INTIAL COST ESTIMATE AND COST MODEL
The project designer provided an FDOT Long Range Estimating

(LRE) System construction cost estimate for the project. This
estimate reflects a total construction cost of $90.0 M for either
Alternative 3 or 4. In addition, right-of-way costs were estimated at
between $83 M and $136 M. See Table 1-2 on page 1-5 for a
summary of the information available for each design alternative.
The facilitator prepared the cost model from the LRE estimate This
model provided the team with an early indication of the distribution
of costs for the project. The team added ROW costs to the cost of
each system by determining each system’s pro rata share of the
required additional right-of-way. The cost model reflecting both
construction and right-of-way costs for Alternative 4 is shown in
Figure 2-1.
Figure 2-1 Initial Cost Model
Shoulders
Roadway
Median
Earthwork
Border
Drainage
Multi-use Lane
MOT
Signage
Bridges
Total
Signals
ROW
Lighting
Construction
$- $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0 $35.0 $40.0 $45.0
Controllable Costs (Million $)
2-5
2.4 SITE VISIT
The team visited the project site to observe project conditions first
hand. The following photographs are representative of what the
team observed.
2-6
2.5 FUNCTION ANALYSIS
The value engineering team began function analysis by reviewing

the work of team that had participated in a separate workshop
conducted on April 12, 2007. The April 12 analysis was conducted
by a team of lawyers, environmental specialists, and engineers.
This team reviewed several aspects of project decision making that
are often targets of criticism. The team did not evaluate legal
sufficiency in detail, nor did it review detailed technical information
of an environmental or engineering nature. There are established
processes for these functions that the team didn’t intend to duplicate
and couldn’t have completed in a one-day workshop.
Instead, on April 12 the team conducted a general review of some

core elements of the project - the purpose and need statement, the
selection and screening of alternatives, its segmentation and logical
termini, and how the project development was updated if new
information became available. It looked at the project and its
development as portrayed in selected documents to ask the
question, “Will a reviewer have confidence that a thoughtful,
deliberative and fair process was followed?”
During the week of April 23-27, 2007, the value engineering team
reviewed the purpose and need matrix developed during the April
12 workshop. This matrix is shown in Table 2-1. The value
engineering team evaluated each of the design alternatives to
determine how each fulfilled each function indicated in the “design
features” column of the matrix. This evaluation is shown in Table 2-
2.
Finally, the value engineering team considered the best and worst
ways that each function was fulfilled by the various design
alternatives. The team scored this range on a scale of 1 (least
important difference) to 10 (most important difference) and ranked
the functions based on the average of the team member scores.
The results of this final functional analysis is shown in Table 2-3.
This ranking gave the team an indication of the functions that it
would be most important to improve for each design alternative.
2-7
Table 2-1 Purpose and Need Evaluation
Policies &
Need Goals Project Purpose Typical Project Features
Address 2004 Metro- Improve safety 1. Facilitate recovery by providing median,
observed Dade Long wider shoulders, and wider/flatter borders
safety Range
problems Transportation 2. Prevent head-on collisions by separating
Plan – Krome traffic in different directions
Avenue project
included with 3. Afford storage by providing wider
goal of shoulders
improving safety 4. Accommodate law enforcement by
providing wider shoulders
5. Alert driver by providing rumble strips
6. Separate pedestrians and cyclists from

vehicles by providing multi-use paths
7. Make access & egress easier and safer,

reduce rear end collisions, and facilitate
access management by adding auxiliary
lanes
8. Reduce side swipe and rear end collisions
by providing adequate storage for turn lanes
9. Accommodate passing maneuvers

(including passing slow moving vehicles) by
adding lanes
10. Make maintenance safer by providing
wider shoulders
11. Increases travel speeds by providing
depressed median and wider shoulders.
Address lack 2004 Miami- Increase capacity to 1. Increase mainline capacity by adding
of capacity Dade County accommodate lanes
Comprehensive currently planned 2. Increase intersection capacity by adding
Development growth turn lanes, signalizing intersections, and
Management other improvements
Plan – Forecasts
need for Krome 3. Increase system efficiency by
Avenue to be at implementing TSM measures including
least three lanes intersection improvements, pavement
markings, lighting, shoulders
4. Manage access by moving turning and

speed changes off the mainline, limiting
intersections, limiting median crossings,
controlling new driveways, and consolidating
existing driveways
2-8
Table 2-1 Purpose and Need Evaluation (continued)
Policies &
Need Goals Project Purpose Typical Project Features
Eliminate Strategic Develop link to form 1. Make similar to adjoining facilities by
gaps in Intermodal continuous adding capacity and changing configuration
transportatio System/Florida transportation
n system of Intrastate system
statewide Highway System
importance –
Improve Krome
Avenue as link
in system
Address 2004 Miami- Increase capacity to 1. Increase northbound capacity (see overall
inadequate Dade County evacuate people capacity improvements above)
emergency Comprehensive
evacuation Development
capacity Management
Plan – Improve
Krome Avenue
as emergency
evacuation route
Improve 2004 Miami- Accommodate 1. Facilitate pedestrian/bicycle movement by

pedestrian/ Dade County pedestrians and providing multi-use paths
bicycle Comprehensive cyclists along
system Development Krome Avenue
Management
Plan – Improve
pedestrian/ 2. Increase safety for pedestrians and
bicycle cyclists by separating them from vehicles by
movements providing multi-use paths
along Krome
Avenue
Manage 2004 Miami- Implement access 1. See access management above under
access Dade County management safety and capacity
Comprehensive measures
Development
Management
Plan –
Implement
access
management
along Krome
Avenue
2-9
Table 2-2 Function Inventory
Design Alternative
Function Alternative 2
Action Plan (Two- Action Plan (Two- Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
No-build TSM (Two-Lane w/Passing
Lane) Lane Modified) (Two-Lane) (Four-Lane FIHS) (Four-Lane PPM)
Zone)
Facilitate
recovery No median, outside No median, outside 2’median, outside only 2’median, outside only 40’ median, PPM 40’ median, PPM 54’ median, FIHS 40’ median, PPM
only 15’ border only 15’ border 14’ border 14’ border compliant borders compliant borders compliant borders compliant borders
Reduce (head-on) collisions –
2%, but more likely to be Minimal separation at
No separation 2’ median (striped) 2’ median (striped) 40’ median, depressed 40’ median, depressed 54’ median, depressed 40’ median, depressed
serious intersections
Afford (disabled vehicle) 5’ paved, 7’ unpaved,
5’ paved, 7’ unpaved, 5’ paved, 7’ unpaved, 5’ paved, 7’ unpaved,
storage 5’ paved, 5’ 5’ paved, 5’ unpaved, outside;
5’ paved, 3’ unpaved 5’ paved, 3’ unpaved outside; 2’ paved, 6’ outside; 4’ paved, 4’ outside; 4’ paved, 4’
unpaved, irregular irregular 2’ paved, 6’ unpaved,
unpaved, inside unpaved, inside unpaved, inside
inside
Accommodate
law enforcement None None None None Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate
Alert
driver RPM median and RPM median and RPM inside and outside RPM inside and outside RPM inside and outside RPM inside and outside
None None
outside EOP (??) outside EOP (??) shoulder shoulder shoulder shoulder
Separate
Modes Pedestrian & Pedestrian &
None None Shared path Shared path Shared path Shared path
equestrian paths equestrian paths
Provide safe Turn lanes and median, Turn lanes and median, Turn lanes and median, Turn lanes and median,
access/egress None None None None access control access control access control access control
measures measures measures measures
Reduce (angle, RT?) collisions Access management Access management Access management Access management
Access management Access management
– 23% (driveway control, right (driveway control, right (driveway control, right (driveway control, right
None None (limited driveway (limited driveway
turn lanes), better turn lanes), better turn lanes), better turn lanes), better
control only) control only)
driveway design driveway design driveway design driveway design
Reduce (left turn) collisions – Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection
12% improvements, minimal, improvements, minimal, improvements, access improvements, access improvements, access improvements, access
Intersection
None access management access management management management management management
improvements, minimal
(limited driveway (limited driveway (controlled median (controlled median (controlled median (controlled median
control only) control only) access) access) access) access)
Reduce (rear end) collisions – Deceleration and Deceleration and Deceleration and Deceleration and
35% Intersection Intersection storage lanes for storage lanes for storage lanes for storage lanes for
improvements only, improvements only, turning movements, turning movements, turning movements, turning movements,
Intersection
None access management access management access management access management access management access management
improvements only
(limited driveway (limited driveway (driveway control), (driveway control), (driveway control), (driveway control),
control only) control only) wider border areas for wider border areas for wider border areas for wider border areas for
avoidance avoidance avoidance avoidance
Reduce (sideswipe) collisions – Possible increase due
7% Possible increase due Possible increase due
None None None None None to transitions and lane
to lane changes to lane changes
changes
Accommodate passing Passing with care in Passing with care in
Passing with care in Passing with care in opposing lane, opposing lane, Limited to 2 one-mile Unlimited without using Unlimited without using
No opportunity
opposing lane opposing lane discouraged by 2’ discouraged by 2’ sections opposing lanes opposing lanes
median median
2-10
Table 2-2 Function Inventory (continued)
Design Alternative
Function Alternative 2
Action Plan (Two- Action Plan (Two- Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
No-build TSM (Two-Lane w/Passing
Lane) Lane Modified) (Two-Lane) (Four-Lane FIHS) (Four-Lane PPM)
Zone)
Protect (maintenance) Two way MOT possible
workers Requires one lane in passing zones,
Requires one lane Requires one lane Requires one lane operation for Remainder requires
Requires one lane operation for operation for operation for maintenance, need one lane operation for Two way MOT or 1 lane Two way MOT or 1 lane
operation for maintenance, need maintenance, need maintenance, need more MOT at maintenance, need operation possible operation possible
maintenance more MOT at more MOT at more MOT at intersections, but more MOT at throughout throughout
intersections intersections intersections greater separation from intersections, but
workers greater separation from
workers
Increase (mainline) capacity
Improved in passing Increased by additional
Reduced by Reduced by Reduced by eliminating zones, but reduced lane in each direction, Increased by additional
None None
discouraging passing discouraging passing passing elsewhere by possible expansion to 6 lane in each direction
eliminating passing lanes
Increase (intersection) capacity

Improved with added Improved with added
Improved with multiple Improved with multiple
Improved, minor with Improved, minor with Improved, minor with thru lanes, multiple turn thru lanes, multiple turn
None turn lanes, due to turn lanes, due to
turn lanes turn lanes turn lanes lanes, due to increased lanes, due to increased
increased ROW increased ROW
ROW ROW
Connect System (SIS, FIHS)

Compliant with FIHS,
Fully compliant with
None None None None None Minimal except for median and
FIHS
border widths
Manage
access Compliant access Compliant access Compliant access Compliant access
Non-compliant with Non-compliant with Limited access control, Limited access control,
management plan management plan management plan management plan
access standards access standards substandard substandard
(CDMP) (CDMP) (CDMP) (CDMP)
Speed
evacuation Reduced due to
Double capacity plus Double capacity plus
None None None None None transitions along
use of shoulders use of shoulders
passing lanes
Facilitate (pedestrian/bicycle)
movement
Pedestrian & Pedestrian &
None None Shared path Shared path Shared path Shared path
equestrian paths equestrian paths
2-11
Table 2.3 Ranking of Functional Differences between the Design Alternatives
Worst Fulfillment Best Fulfillment

Function Expected Expected Rating
Speed evacuation No improvement Double capacity plus use of 8.3
shoulders
Reduce (rear end) collisions – 35% No improvement Deceleration and storage 8.0
lanes for turning movements,
access management
(driveway control), wider
border areas for avoidance
Reduce (head-on) collisions – 2%, but No separation 54’ median, depressed 8.0
more likely to be serious
Accommodate passing Passing with care in opposing Unlimited without using 7.7
lane, discouraged by 2’ opposing lanes
median
Increase (intersection) capacity No Improvement Improved with added thru 7.6

lanes, multiple turn lanes,
due to increased ROW
Alert driver None RPM inside and outside 7.6

shoulder
Reduce (left turn) collisions – 12% No Improvement Intersection improvements, 7.3
access management
(controlled median access)
Provide safe access/egress No improvement Turn lanes and median, 7.3

access control measures
Manage access Non-compliant Compliant access 7.3
management plan (CDMP)
Increase (mainline) capacity No improvement Increased by additional lane 7.3
in each direction, possible
expansion to 6 lanes
Facilitate recovery No improvement 54’ median, FIHS compliant 7.1

border
Afford (disabled vehicle) storage No improvement 5’ paved, 7’ unpaved, 6.9
outside; 4’ paved, 4’
unpaved, inside
Reduce (angle, RT?) collisions – 23% No improvement Access management 6.6

(driveway control, right turn
lanes), better driveway
design
Connect System (SIS, FIHS) None Fully compliant with FIHS 6.3
Accommodate law enforcement None Adequate 5.1
Facilitate (pedestrian/bicycle) No improvement Pedestrian & equestrian 3.3
movement paths
Reduce (sideswipe) collisions – 7% Possible increase due to No change from existing 3.1
transitions and lane changes
Separate Modes None Pedestrian & equestrian 3.1
paths
2-12
2.6 IDEAS
The team brainstormed each function in Table 2-3 to generate the

following ideas to improve the project and/or reduce its cost.
1. Add 1 lane to NB roadway
2. Widen shoulder NB
3. Increase paved portion of NB shoulder
4. Use bike path as lane during evacuation
5. Use bike path as SB during evacuation
6. Straddle 2’ median during evacuation
7. Use barrier to separate traffic
8. Use guardrail to separate traffic
9. Increase paved median to 12’
10. Post law enforcement along route
11. Use curbed median to separate traffic
12. Increase safety inspection of heavy trucks along route
13. Buy ROW only in areas with history of head-on collisions
14. Use profile striping along the roadway centerline
15. Add “Burma Save” type signs to increase driver attentiveness
16. Build moat in median
17. Make Krome Avenue a one-way pair with US 1
18. Use invisible fence concept along centerline to discourage

crossovers
2-13
19. Identify driveways better
20. Restrict left turn lanes with median barrier
21. Provide full shoulder width at driveways to accommodate right

turns
22. Use dynamic message signs to warn of accidents/backups
23. Better law enforcement of tailgating
24. Reinstate vehicle inspection program
25. Provide oversized street name signs
26. Increase lighting levels
27. Use distinctive logos on street signs to increase visibility
28. Assure consistent signage
29. Use illuminated signs
30. Use PVC pipe with highly reflective tape on signs
31. Provide more passing lanes in Alternative 2
32. Provide passing lanes on undivided sections
33. Provide four-lane sections at each signalized intersection
34. Provide three through lanes, double lefts, and bus lanes at
each intersection
35. Build four-lane highway with flush median and guardrail
36. Build four-lane section with no median
37. Allow passing on shoulders
38. Allow slow traffic passing on shoulders
2-14
39. Stiffen up mixed use path pavement design so it can be used

for maintenance access
40. Have more law enforcement presence during construction
41. Provide for MOT for maintenance in intersection design
42. Develop technology to repair shoulders without leaving vehicles
43. Consider robotics for shoulder maintenance
44. Increase lighting levels during maintenance
45. Use fake police car with dummy driver during maintenance
46. Build construction zone impact attenuator designed to look like

police car
47. Develop driveway management plan
48. Build six-lane facility
49. Construct directional median openings
50. Provide u-turn lanes that will accommodate large trucks
51. Make intersecting roadways right-turn only
52. Align turn lanes to improve sight distances
53. Align cross streets to eliminate offsets
54. Add rumble strips/profile striping between lanes
55. Add guardrail in lieu of acquiring right of way for borders
56. Add guardrail in lieu of acquiring right of way for borders as an

interim measure to speed project delivery
57. Improve sight distance for right turns by removing obstructions
2-15
58. Use traffic cameras at intersections to catch motorists running

red lights
59. Provide guard rail between shoulder and
60. Prohibit cell phone use while driving
2-16
2.7 IDEA EVALUATION
The team began its evaluation of the brainstorming ideas by

discarding impractical ideas, combining like ideas, and designating
some ideas for inclusion in the report as “notes to the designer.”
The team chose the best ideas from which to develop its final
alternatives. The ideas are listed below, roughly arranged from
those which might be interim measures to those applicable only to
Alternatives 3 or 4..
21. Provide full shoulder width at driveways to accommodate right

turns
3. Increase paved portion of NB shoulder
19. Identify driveways better
22. Use dynamic message signs to warn of accidents/backups
25. Provide oversized street name signs
26. Increase lighting levels
27. Use distinctive logos on street signs to increase visibility
29. Use illuminated signs
71. Add mile markers
41. Provide for MOT for maintenance and future construction in

intersection design
11. Use curbed median to separate traffic
9. Increase paved median to 12’
14. Use profile striping along the roadway centerline
54. Add rumble strips/profile striping between lanes
57. Improve sight distance for right turns by removing obstructions
2-17
72. Identify location to build law enforcement pullouts
32. Provide passing lanes on undivided sections
33. Provide four-lane sections at each signalized intersection
39. Stiffen up mixed use path pavement design so it can be used for
maintenance access
31. Provide more passing lanes in Alternative 2
1. Add 1 lane to NB roadway
50. Provide u-turn lanes that will accommodate large trucks
53. Align cross streets to eliminate offsets (232nd Street)
62. Use inlets to collect stormwater between mulituse path and

pavement and drain to median
66. Overdesign drainage at intersections to aid future construction
67. Buy land and lease back to property owners
34. Provide three through lanes, double lefts, and bus lanes at each
intersection
65. Design consideration should assume 6 lanes in future - high

speed suburban section
48. Build six-lane facility
69. Design roadway with provisions for widening to 6 lanes
70. Design roadway to provide for additional lane in future - pave

and stripe 4 lane now and then 6 lane in future
2-18
2.8 ALTERNATIVES
From the remaining ideas, the team selected the final alternatives
for further evaluation. This list is shown in Table 2-4.
Table 2-4Alternatives
Alternative No. Description
Interim Improvement Measures

A-1 Identify driveways better
A-2 Larger street signs with logo
A-3 Better lighting
A-4 Provide full shoulders to accommodate right turns
A-5 Illuminate signs
A-6 Provide mile markers
A-7 Use profile striping/rumble strips on center line
A-8 Provide police pullouts
A-9 Sight distance obstruction
A-10 Low tech highway advisory (VMS)
Action Plan Improvement Measures
Implement as interim measure (2’ median and tactile shoulders) where no ROW is
B-1
required – verify locations of fatality accidents.
Alternative 1
N/A Doesn’t meet enough of functionality to justify ROW and construction costs
Alternative 2
N/A Doesn’t meet enough of functionality to justify ROW and construction costs
Alternative 3
E-1 Use hybrid: Alt3 (section line intersections), Alt4 elsewhere.
E-2 Buy ROW in advance and lease back until construction
E-3 Over design drainage; design earthwork, profile, etc. for 6 lanes
E-4 Pave 6 lane, stripe 4 lanes and use extra pavement on right for right turns
E-5 Align 232nd Street and others to eliminate offset
E-6 Include DMS at section line intersections
E-7 Provide for large truck u-turns
Alternative 4
F-1 Provide for large truck u-turns
F-2 Provide modified ultimate 6 lane suburban section (FIHS)
2-19
2.9 RECOMMENDATIONS
A summary of the team’s recommendations can be found in the

Executive Summary. Analyses of each alternative are provided in
Appendix B.
2.10 PRESENTATION
The team’s presentation at the conclusion of the study is provided in

Appendix C.
2.11 NOTES TO DESIGNER
The following items were noticed by the team, which wanted to

provide them to the designer for consideration in completing the
project.
1. Look at start of turn lane N. of 232nd Street in vicinity of

Seaboard Coast Line RR.
2. No need for 2L transition at south end; will now be 4L.
3. Access control issues for turn lanes and u-turns; need more
data.
4. FIHS – must be a system of limited and/or controlled access

facilities.
5. Will the conditions be the same in 4 years?
6. Is this federally funded?
7. Can FDOT procure early?
2-20
Appendix A
Initial Cost Estimate
Appendix B
Alternative Evaluations
Appendix C
Presentation Slides
Krome Avenue South
Value Engineering Workshop

Recommendations
April 23-27, 2007
JACOBS
Krome Avenue South
Participants
John Dovel, PE Resources
n FDOT D6 VE
Adriana Manzanares Suzanne Travis
n FDOT D6 Consultant Management n FDOT D6 Environmental
Gary Cotroneo Julio Boucle, PE
n FDOT D6 ROW n URS Corporation
Amy Wang, EI Mary Tery Vilches, PE
n FDOT D6 Traffic Operations n URS Corporation
Eddie Taylor Ryan Sohs-Rioj, PE
n FDOT D6 Maintenance n The Corradino Group
Nathaniel Pulido, PE
n FDOT D6 Roadway Design
Hector Rodriguez, EI
n FDOT D6 Construction
Randy Farwell
n Jacobs Edwards and Kelcey
Gary Myers, PE, CVS (Facilitator)
n Jacobs Edwards and Kelcey
JACOBS
2
1
Krome Avenue South
Project Summary
10-mile long 2-lane highway
SIS/FIHS
SW 296th Street to SW 136th Street
High accident rate, > 2x average
PD&E Stage
Current estimates for alternatives reflect construction
up to $99 M; ROW up to $136 M
Construction estimated to begin 2017
JACOBS
3
Krome Avenue South
JACOBS
4
2
Krome Avenue South
Current Project Alternatives

No build
Transportation System Management (TSM)
Action Plan – 2L, 2’ buffer, 5’ shoulders, ped/equestrian paths
Action Plan Modified – Same, with wider borders
Alternative 1 – 2L with depressed median
Alternative 2 – Alternative 1 w/limited passing zones
Alternative 3 – 4L with depressed median (FIHS compliant)
Alternative 4 – 4L with depressed median (PPM compliant)
JACOBS
5
Krome Avenue South
Cost model – Alternative 4

Krom e South - Alternative 4
Shoulders
Roadway
Median
Earthwork
Border
Drainage
Multi-use Lane
MOT
Signage
Total
Bridges
ROW
Signals
Construction
Lighting
$- $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0 $35.0 $40.0 $45.0

Controllable Costs (Million $)
JACOBS
6
3
Krome Avenue South
VE Job Plan
Investigation Phase Development Phase
n Learn about conditions n Validate & refine
n Learn about current design alternatives
n Cost model n Select alternatives to

recommend
n Function Analysis
Presentation Phase
Speculation Phase
n Make case for
n Brainstorm Ideas recommendations
Evaluation Phase
n Screen ideas
n Select best ideas for further
evaluation
JACOBS
7
Krome Avenue South
Ranking of Key Functions

1. Speed evacuation 11. Facilitate recovery
2. Reduce (head-on) 12. Afford (disabled vehicle)
Reduce (rear end) collisions storage
4. Accommodate passing 13. Reduce (angle/right turn)
5. Alert driver accidents
Increase (intersection) 14. Connect system
capacity 15. Accommodate law
7. Manage access enforcement
Increase (mainline) capacity 16. Facilitate
(pedestrian/bicycle)
Provide safe access/egress movements
Reduce (left turn) lane
17. Separate modes and reduce
(sideswipe) accidents
JACOBS
8
4
Krome Avenue South
VE Alternatives and Recommendations
JACOBS
Krome Avenue South
VE Alternatives
A. Interim Improvement Measures
1. Construct wider shoulders
2. Larger street signs with distinctive logos
3. Better lighting
4. Illuminate signs
5. Provide mile markers
6. Use profile striping/rumble strips on center line
7. Remove sight distance obstruction
8. Low tech highway advisory (VMS)
JACOBS
10
5
Krome Avenue South
VE Alternatives
B. Action Plan Improvement Measures
1. Implement as interim measure (2’ median and wider
shoulders) where no ROW is required, prioritize at locations
of fatality accidents
C. Alternative 1
VE team felt that this alternative doesn’t meet enough of
functionality to justify ROW and construction costs
D. Alternative 2
VE team felt that this alternative doesn’t meet enough of
functionality to justify ROW and construction costs
JACOBS
11
Krome Avenue South
VE Alternatives
E. Alternative 3
1. Use hybrid design: Alt 3 (major intersections), Alt 4
elsewhere
2. Buy ROW in advance and lease back until construction
3. Over design drainage, earthwork, profile, etc. for future 6
lanes
4. Pave 6 lane, but stripe 4 lanes and use extra pavement on
right for right turns
5. Align 232nd Street and others to eliminate offset
6. Include DMS at major intersections
7. Provide for large truck u-turns
JACOBS
12
6
Krome Avenue South
VE Alternatives
F. Alternative 4
1. Provide for large truck u-turns
JACOBS
13
Krome Avenue South
A1. Widen shoulders
Construct wider shoulders throughout to

provide right turn lanes, police pullouts, to
provide for better MOT during maintenance,
and to better identify driveways. Do only
where existing ROW is adequate.
JACOBS
7
Krome Avenue South
A1. Widen shoulders
Advantages of Alternative Disadvantages of Alternative

Allow deceleration off of None
mainline
Provide for slower turning
speed onto driveways
Reduce rear end accidents
Allows numerous areas for
maintenance to utilize
Helps identify locations of
driveways
Cost Implication: $991 k Additional Cost

Recommendation: Implement as interim measure
JACOBS
15
Krome Avenue South
A2. Larger street signs with logos
Install larger street signs with distinctive

logos to help drivers identify side streets
JACOBS
8
Krome Avenue South
A2. Larger street signs with logos

Drivers can see signs at Consensus needed on any
greater distance logos (i.e., the Redlands?)
Drivers can slow more County already using very
gradually, preventing some visible signage, transitioning
rear end collisions to highest grade material
Better accommodate older available
drivers
Cost Implication: Minimal difference in material costs

Recommendation: Defer to county program, educate
FDOT personnel about higher
reflectivity materials
JACOBS
17
Krome Avenue South
A3. Better lighting
Expand lighting from 9 current/proposed

improved intersections to all 16 major
intersections; add 2 lights per intersection
JACOBS
9
Krome Avenue South
A3. Better lighting

Reduce accidents due to None
improved visibility (57% of
fatalities at night)
Increase safety for
maintenance crews
Reduced maintenance cost
due to less need for
temporary lighting
Cost Implication: $86,800

Recommendation: Implement
JACOBS
19
Krome Avenue South
A4. Illuminate signs
Install internally-lighted mast arm street signs

at major intersections
JACOBS
10
Krome Avenue South
A4. Illuminate signs

Drivers can see signs at None
greater distance
Drivers can slow more
gradually, preventing some
rear end collisions
Better accommodate older
drivers

JACOBS
21
Krome Avenue South
A5. Provide mile markers
Install mile markers at 1/10 mile interval
JACOBS
11
Krome Avenue South
A5. Provide mile markers

Helps drivers identify Relatively frequent
locations of breakdowns, maintenance and
incidents replacement needed
Increases need for hand
weeding

Recommendation: Do not implement
JACOBS
23
Krome Avenue South
A6. Use profile striping/rumble

strips on center line
Install striping that will provide tactile/audible

warning to driver deviating from lane
JACOBS
12
Krome Avenue South
A6. Use profile striping/rumble strips on

center line
JACOBS
25
Krome Avenue South
A6. Use profile striping/rumble strips on

center line

Reduce need for RPMs Need to buy equipment and
Reduce accidents by better train maintenance crews to
warning drivers so they can maintain if necessary
recover before losing control Lack of experience,
or striking a vehicle of fixed knowledge of maintenance,
object longevity, etc.
Cost Implication: 2x normal striping/RPM cost?

JACOBS
26
13
Krome Avenue South
A7. Remove sight distance

obstructions
Remove obstructions within the right-of-way:

fences, trees, etc.
JACOBS
Krome Avenue South
A7. Remove sight distance obstructions

Reduce left and right turn None
crashes from side streets
and driveways traffic by
providing better visibility of
approaching traffic
Reduce rear end accidents
on Krome by better
identifying side streets
Cost Implication: Maintenance cost per hour

JACOBS
28
14
Krome Avenue South
A8. Low tech highway advisory

(VMS)
Install “next signal ahead” signs with fold-

down “alternate route sign”
JACOBS
Krome Avenue South
SW 200TH QUAIL ROOST RD.

NEXT SIGNAL AHEAD
SW 200 TH QUAIL ROOST RD.

DELAY AHEAD
NEXT SIGNAL AHEAD
DELAY AHEAD
ALTERNATE ROUTE
JACOBS
30
15
Krome Avenue South
A8. Low tech highway advisory (VMS)

Law enforcement can warn None
drivers who can select
alternate route
Maintenance can also use in
similar manner
Cost Implication: $2500/sign (est.)

JACOBS
31
Krome Avenue South
B1. Implement elements of Action

Plan as interim measure
Widen pavement to allow striping for 2’ buffer

and to provide minimum 5’ shoulders in areas
where no ROW required (assumed 80%+)
JACOBS
16
Krome Avenue South
B1. Implement elements of Action Plan

as interim measure
2007
2010
2011
2012
2016
2017
2008
2009
2013
2014
2015
Assumed Mill &
Overlay
$5.2 M
Reconstruction
NPV*
Alternative B1
$5.0 M
*Assumes:
3% real interest rate
2% general inflation rate Alternative B1
4% highway cost inflation rate
JACOBS
$10.3 M
33
Krome Avenue South
B1. Implement elements of Action Plan

as interim measure

Minor reduction in head-on None
collisions
Shoulders allow some avoidance
of rear-end and other collisions
Improves safety of maintenance
Accommodates more law
enforcement
Reduce edge raveling
Better refuge for disabled
vehicles
Cost Implication: $5.0 M NPV

JACOBS Recommendation: Implement
34
17
Krome Avenue South
C. Alternative 1: Divided 2-lane Roadway
No recommendations – in the opinion of the VE team,

this alternative does not provide enough of the
required functionality to justify the costs to acquire the
ROW and construct the improvements
JACOBS
Krome Avenue South
D. Alternative 2: Divided 2-lane

Roadway w/limited Passing Lanes
No recommendations – in the opinion of the VE team,

this alternative does not provide enough of the
required functionality to justify the costs to acquire the
ROW and construct the improvements
JACOBS
18
Krome Avenue South
E1. Use hybrid cross section
Use Alt 3 typical section at major

intersections; use Alt 4 typical section
elsewhere
JACOBS
Krome Avenue South
E1. Use hybrid cross section

Substantial compliance with Not fully compliant with FIHS
FIHS at major intersections Reduce some flexibility for
Continues to allow effective future expansion
designs at major More difficult to add right
intersections turn lanes at other locations
Continues to allow expansion
to 6 lanes
Cost Implication: $27 M ROW Savings

Reduce Parcels from 216 to 174
Recommendation: Team split on recommendation
JACOBS
38
19
Krome Avenue South
E2. Buy ROW in advance and

lease back until construction
Buy right-of-way for ultimate (206’) project

after record of decision is received and lease
back to landowners until needed
JACOBS
Krome Avenue South
JACOBS
40
20
Krome Avenue South
E2. Buy ROW in advance and lease back

until construction

Acquire at today’s prices May not meet “engineering
Generate income from lease need” requirement that
Preclude construction of new allows purchase ahead of
improvements that we’ll normal schedule (i.e.,
have to buy later proactive acquisition)
May be limited to willing
sellers only
Additional property
management costs
Possible liability
Cost Implication: Could be substantial, but could
not be quantified at this time
JACOBS
41
Recommendation: Defer for further consideration
Krome Avenue South
E3. Over design drainage & design

earthwork, profile, etc. for 6 lanes
Plan for future expansion to 6 lane suburban

section by over sizing French drain,
constructing wider bridge and embankment
JACOBS
21
Krome Avenue South
E3. Over design drainage; design

earthwork, profile, etc. for 6 lanes

Drainage will be in place, Possible opposition to
resulting in less disruption in suburban section
the future
Minimal future MOT
Faster future construction
Advance construction at
today’s prices
Wider clear zones on bridges
Accommodates currently
planned traffic growth
Cost Implication: $4 M
JACOBS
Recommendation: Implement 43
Krome Avenue South
E4. Pave 6 lane, stripe 4 lanes and use

extra pavement on right for right
turns
Build for currently planned traffic growth
JACOBS
22
Krome Avenue South
E4. Pave 6 lane, stripe 4 lanes and use extra

pavement on right for right turns

Best meets currently planned Likely considerable political and
traffic growth public opposition
Extra lanes can be used for
evacuation
Extra pavement can be used for
right turns, minimizing right
Could be
turn accidents combined with
Greater safety for maintenance hybrid design
No disruption in future for
expansion
Lower overall project cost
Cost Implication: $13M Additional Cost

JACOBS
Recommendation: Recommend 45
Krome Avenue South
E5. Align 232nd Street and

others to eliminate offset
Correct offset alignment of roadways at 232nd

Street, and others as appropriate
JACOBS
23
Krome Avenue South
E5. Align 232nd Street and others to

eliminate offset

Improve sight distance for None
vehicles on 232nd Street
Improve visibility for left
turning vehicles
No additional right-of-way
required
Cost Implication: $64 k

JACOBS
47
Krome Avenue South
E6. Include DMS at major

intersections
Install dynamic message signs at 4 locations
JACOBS
24
Krome Avenue South
E6. Include DMS at major intersections

Inform drivers of incidents, Additional large structures in
maintenance, or other delays right-of-way
so they can choose alternate Possible driver distraction
routes
Provide other information
during other times
Cost Implication: $1.5 M

Recommendation: Not recommended
JACOBS
49
Krome Avenue South
E7. Provide for large truck u-

turns (Alternative 3)
Provide for U-turns at turning points in

median using wider shoulders to allow for the
movement
JACOBS
25
Krome Avenue South
E7. Provide for large truck u-turns

Trucks can safely make u- None
turn maneuver
Fewer conflict points
Less traffic delays as trucks
make “3-point” turns
Less shoulder damage/
erosion
Could also be used by law
enforcement/maintenance
Cost Implication: $450 k (15 locations)

JACOBS Recommendation: Implement
51
Krome Avenue South
F1. Provide for large truck u-

turns (Alternative 4)
Same E7, but for Alternative 4
JACOBS
26
Krome Avenue South
F1. Provide for large truck u-turns

Trucks can safely make u- None
turn maneuver
Fewer conflict points
Less traffic delays as trucks
make “3-point” turns
Less shoulder damage/
erosion
Could also be used by law
enforcement/maintenance
Cost Implication: $600 k (15 locations)

JACOBS
Recommendation: Implement 53
Krome Avenue South
Interim Recommendations Cost Savings Value Added

Construct wider shoulders $991 K
Better lighting $87 K
Illuminate signs $38 K
Use profile striping/rumble strips on $
center line
Remove sight distance obstruction maintenance
Low tech highway advisory (VMS) $50 K
Totals $
JACOBS
54
27
Krome Avenue South
Action Plan Recommendations Cost Savings Value Added

Construct 2’ buffer and shoulders $5 M
Totals $5 M
JACOBS
55
Krome Avenue South
Alternative 3 Recommendations Cost Savings Value Added

Use hybrid cross section $27 M
Over design for future 6 lane $4 M *
Build 6 lane suburban section $13 M
Realign 232nd Street and others $0.60 M
U-turn lanes for large trucks $0.45 M **
Totals $27 M $14.05 M

* Not included in total
** $0.60 M if implemented with Alt. 4
JACOBS
56
28
Krome Avenue South
Alternative 4 Recommendations Cost Savings Value Added

U-turn lanes for large trucks $0.60 M
Totals - $0.60 M
* Not included in total.
JACOBS
57
Krome Avenue South
Questions?
JACOBS
58
29

Value Engineering Study Report

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

Value Engineering Study Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Florida Department of Transportation

Value Engineering Study Report

April 23-27, 2007

Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.

Mr. John Dovel III, P.E., A.V.S.

Reference: Value Engineering Study Report

Dear Mr. Dovel:

Florida P.E. License No. 64582 S TATE OF

CVS Certification No. 20030102

Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................. 1-1

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................ 1-1

1.2 INITIAL COST ESTIMATES...................................... 1-5

1.3 SUMMARY OF VE STUDY RESULTS...................... 1-6

1.4 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 1-7

2.0 VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY .................................. 2-1

2.1 STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND CONTACT DATA ..... 2.3

2.2 STUDY AGENDA...................................................... 2.4

2.3 INITIAL COST ESTIMATE AND COST MODEL ....... 2.5

2.4 SITE VISIT ................................................................ 2.6

2.5 FUNCTION ANALYSIS ............................................. 2.7

2.6 IDEAS ..................................................................... 2.13

2.7 IDEA EVALUATION................................................ 2.17

2.8 ALTERNATIVES ..................................................... 2.19

2.9 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................... 2.20

2.10 PRESENTATION .................................................. 2.20

2.11 NOTES TO DESIGNER......................................... 2.20

A. INITIAL COST ESTIMATE

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report documents the results of a value engineering study for

Figure 1-1 Project Limits and

• 10-foot wide roadside swale on the southbound direction.

• Alternative 2, Two-lane divided highway with depressed median

• Alternative 3, Four-Lane FIHS-compliant Divided Roadway with

• Four 12-foot travel lanes.

• Alternative 4, Four-Lane Plans Preparation Manual (PPM)

• 40-foot wide depressed grass median with inside shoulders.

In addition, the value engineering team considered two more design

• The “Action Plan” Alternative. This alternative featured the

• Two 12-foot travel lanes

• The “Modified Action Plan” Alternative. This alternative is identical

• Eight-foot minimum border width

1.2 INITIAL COST ESTIMATES

The project designer and the District right-of-way section provided

Table 1-1 Initial Cost Estimates

Design Total Construction and

1.3 SUMMARY OF VE STUDY RESULTS

A summary of the results of the study is provided in Table 1-2. The

Table 1-2 Summary of Study Results

A-8 Low tech highway advisory (VMS) $50 K

B-1 Construct 2’ buffer and shoulders $5 M

E-1 Use hybrid cross section $27 M

E-3 Over design for future 6 lane $4 M

E-7 U-turn lanes for large trucks $0.45 M

F-1 U-turn lanes for large trucks $0.60 M

Each recommendation is included in Table 1-3, including the

Table 1-3 Recommendations

VE Alternative No. & Cost Value

A-3 • Reduce accidents due • None $87 K

A-4 • Drivers can see signs • None $38 K

A-6 • Reduce need for RPMs • Need to buy equipment Information

Table 1-3 Recommendations (continued)

VE Alternative No. & Cost Value

A-8 • Law enforcement can • None $50 k