San Luis Obispo City Council
September 5, 2023

05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
39 Construction
Support
Right-of-Way 3,350 3,350
Construction 57,750 6,000 63,750
Total 1,500 5,850 57,750 6,000 71,100
The support cost ratio is 5.96%.

Estimate
Preliminary project cost estimates for the preferred alternative is provided in Attachment E. Significant aspects of the construction estimate include items related to construction of the Prado Road and US 101 NB ramps structures, paving, and grading.

9. DELIVERY SCHEDULE
Project Milestones Milestone Date Milestone Designation (Target)
PROGRAM PROJECT M015 04/12/2018 04/12/2018
BEGIN ENVIRONMENTAL M020 05/11/2018 01/11/2022
CIRCULATE DPR & DED EXTERNALLY M120 01/04/2023 04/07/2023 PA & ED M200 10/10/2023 01/12/2024
PROJECT PS&E M380 06/20/2025 06/20/2025
RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION M410 06/20/2025 06/20/2025
READY TO LIST M460 08/15/2025 08/15/2025
AWARD M495 09/29/2025 09/29/2025
APPROVE CONTRACT M500 11/21/2025 11/21/2025
CONTRACT ACCEPTANCE M600 11/21/2027 11/21/2027
END PROJECT EXPENDITURES M800 06/30/2028 06/30/2028
FINAL PROJECT CLOSEOUT M900 06/30/2028 06/30/2028

10. RISKS
A Risk Register was completed and is included in Attachment H. Various risks affecting scope, schedule and cost have been identified.

There are several non-standard design risks that could affect the cost and schedule, including:
 Approval of non-standard interchange spacing between Prado Road and Madonna Road, and Prado Road and Los Osos Valley Road.
 Approval of the non-standard partial interchange at Prado Road,  Approval of non-standard minimum weave length on northbound US 101 between Prado Road and Madonna Road.
 Right of way impacts potentially affect operations of the City's Corporation Yard thereby adding delays and cost to the project.

05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
40  Utility relocation may take longer than expected causing delays and possible cost increases. Also, additional utilities not currently identified may need to be relocated causing delays and possible cost increases.
 Significant hazardous waste/material contamination is found causing delays and possible cost increases.

11. EXTERNAL AGENCY COORDINATION
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
This project is considered to be an Assigned Project in accordance with the current Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Joint Stewardship and Oversight Agreement.

The project requires the following coordination:

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement – City to acquire.

City of San Luis Obispo
Temporary Discharge Permit
Amendment to Existing Caltrans Recycled Water Service Application

12. PROJECT REVIEWS
Scoping team field review Date
Scoping team field review attendance roster attached.

District Program Advisor Enter Name Date
Headquarters SHOPP Program Advisor Enter Name Date
District Maintenance Enter Name Date
Headquarters Project Delivery Coordinator Enter Name Date Project Manager Enter Name Date
FHWA Enter Name Date
District Safety Review Date
Constructability Review Date
Other Date

13. PROJECT PERSONNEL
Paul Valadao (916) 764-9123
Caltrans Project Manager, District 5

05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
41 Kyle Birch (805) 556-5803
Caltrans Design Manager, District 5 Design II, Branch F Bing Yu (805) 549-3664
Caltrans Traffic Operations, District 5
Dianna Beck (805) 459-9406
Caltrans Environmental, District 5
Wyatt Banker-Hix (805) 783-7859
City of San Luis Obispo Project Manager
Jay Walter (805) 858-3141
GHD Project Manager (Consultant)
Jorge Vanegas-Moran (805) 858-3130
GHD Lead Designer (Consultant)
Chris Bersbach (805) 547-0900
Rincon Supervising Environmental Planner (Consultant)

14. ATTACHMENTS
Attachments are listed below:

A. Environmental Document
B. Location Map
C. Typical Sections and Layouts
D. Structures Advanced Planning Study (APS)
E. Preliminary Cost Estimates
F. Right of Way Data Sheets and Utility Plans
G. Storm Water Data Report
H. Risk Register

Final Value Analysis
Study Report
City of San Luis Obispo
Prado Interchange Project
EA 5-1H640; PN 0516000105
5-SLO-101 (26.5/27.3)
Task Order No. 3124
May 2023
Prepared by
Value Management Strategies, Inc.

CORPORATE OFFICE: 100 E San Marcos Blvd, Suite 340 | San Marcos, CA 92069 Tel: 760 741 5617 | www.vms-inc.com REMOTE OFFICE LOCATIONS: AZ | CA | CO | IL | KY | LA | NC | ND | NE | NH | NJ | NY | OR | PA | TX | WA Date:

To:

Subject:

May 3, 2023
Wyatt Banker-Hix
City of San Luis Obispo Project Manager
Final VA Study Report
Prado Interchange (T.O. 3124)
Dear Mr. Banker-Hix,
Value Management Strategies, Inc. is pleased to submit this Final VA Study Report for the referenced project. This report summarizes the results and events of the hybrid study conducted March 20-24, 2023, as well as the implementation meeting held April 24th.

It was a pleasure working with the City of San Luis Obispo, District 5 and GHD on this project, and I look forward to the next opportunity. If you have any questions or comments concerning this final report, please do not hesitate to contact me at (206) 679-8029 or email [email protected].

Sincerely,
Value Management Strategies, Inc.

Eric Trimble, CVS, PMP, MBA
VA Study Team Leader
Copy: (PDF) Addressee
(PDF) Paul Valadao, Caltrans, District 5 Project Manager (PDF) Jorge Vanegas-Moran, GHD, Design Manager
(PDF) Troy Tusup, HQ VA Program Manager
(PDF) Erika Barrick, HQ VA Program Administrator

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS FINAL
VA STUDY SUMMARY REPORT................. 1
Project Summary
VA Study Timing
Project Purpose and Need
VA Study Objectives
Key Project Issues
Evaluation of Baseline Concept
• Performance Attributes
Accepted VA Alternatives
VA Study Results
Rejected VA Alternative
VA Team
VA ALTERNATIVES .................................. 12
VA Alternative Summary Tables
• VA Alternatives
Other Considerations
Summary of Performance Improvements
• Proposed
• Accepted
VA Alternative Documentation
PROJECT INFORMATION......................... 59
Background
Project Description
Project Design Exceptions
Information Provided to the VA Team
Project Drawings
Project Cost Estimate
PROJECT ANALYSIS................................. 71
Summary of Analysis
Key Project Factors
• Project Issues
• Site Visit Observations
Cost Model
Function Analysis
• Random Function Determination
• FAST Diagram
PROJECT ANALYSIS (continued)
Value Metrics
• Define Performance Requirements
• Define Performance Attributes and Scales
• Prioritize Performance Attributes
• Measure Performance of Baseline Concept
• Measure Performance of VA Alternatives
• Define VA Strategies
• Compare Performance – Baseline Concept
and VA Strategies
• Rating Rationale for VA Strategies
• Compare Value
• Value Matrix – Baseline Concept and
VA Strategies
IDEA EVALUATION ............................... 112
Performance Attributes
Evaluation Process
Idea Summary
Idea Summary List
Detailed Idea Evaluation Summary
VA PROCESS......................................... 126 Pre-Study
VA Study
VA Report
Caltrans VA Study Activity Chart
VA Study Agenda
VA Study Meeting Attendees
Appendix: Implementation Documentation and
Comments........................................... 135

VA STUDY SUMMARY REPORT

FINAL RESULTS

VA Study Summary Report – Final Results
City of San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project
PN 05-16000105
EA 5-1H640
05-SLO-101
PM 26.5/27.3
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Study Summary Report A hybrid Value Analysis (VA) study, sponsored by the City of San Luis Obispo and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 5 and facilitated by Value Management Strategies, Inc. (VMS), was conducted for the Prado Interchange Project located in San Luis Obispo, California.

The workshop was facilitated March 20-24, 2023, in-person and online using the WebEx virtual meeting platform. This VA Study Summary Report – Final Results provides an overview of the project, key findings, the alternatives developed by the VA team, and the decisions of the project stakeholders from the implementation meeting held April 24, 2023.

PROJECT SUMMARY
The proposed project includes improvements to extend Prado Road over U.S Route 101 (US-101) to connect with Dalidio Drive, reconstruct the existing US-101 northbound (NB) on- and off-ramp connections with Prado Road, and construct an auxiliary lane on northbound US-101 between the Prado Road and Madonna Road interchanges in order to provide congestion relief, operational efficiency, and multi-modal connectivity. The interchange is located in the City of San Luis Obispo in the county of San Luis Obispo at PM 26.8, and improvements on northbound US-101 extend from PM

26.5 to PM 27.3.

In addition to the No-Build Alternative, three build alternatives have been identified by the PDT. Each of the build alternatives includes a partial interchange with the proposed Prado Road overcrossing (OC) constructed over US-101, a new US-101 northbound on-ramp from Prado Road, and a new northbound off-ramp to Prado Road. For the VA study, two viable build alternatives were studied:
• Design Alternative A1R – An elevated roundabout on the Prado Road overcrossing structure serving the traffic movements to and from US-101 northbound on- and off-ramps. • Design Alternative A3 – An elevated tight diamond intersection on the Prado Road overcrossing structure serving the traffic movements to and from US-101 northbound on- and off-ramps.

The existing Prado Road interchange with US-101 consists only of northbound off- and on-ramps. The diamond off-ramp and hook on-ramp configuration that currently exists provides limited access to and from US-101 from the local street system at this location. The Prado Road extension over US-101 that this project proposes is needed to provide better community connectivity between the existing 1

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Study Summary Report and planned neighborhoods and to support planned roadway improvements east and west of the US101 freeway. Improvements to US-101 in the study area and the extension of Prado Road over US101 are critical to the operations for all modes of travel, not only for regional traffic, but also for local traffic.

An escalated total capital outlay cost estimate was provided for each design alternative dated September 29, 2022. The project team provided a further rough order of magnitude (ROM) total project cost estimate amount for each project at the time of the study which totaled $80M for the A1R design alternative and $75M for the A3 design alternative.

VA STUDY TIMING
The VA study was conducted during the PA&ED phase of the project which is to be completed in October 2023. The project is scheduled for Ready to List (RTL) in November 2025 and Construction Completion is scheduled for November 2027.

PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of the project is to improve overall circulation and accessibility in the project area for all transportation modes.

There is a need to provide better community connectivity between the existing and planned neighborhoods east and west of the US-101 freeway and resolve forecasted operational deficiencies on state and city facilities. These connectivity needs extend to all transportation modes. Goals and objectives of the project include:
• Improving overall operations of US-101 and adjacent interchanges. • Improving mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians.
• Improving transit performance and enhancing transit opportunities. • Improving consistency with local, regional, and state planning.

VA STUDY OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the VA study were to:

1. Analyze the current project design, estimate, and schedule.

2. Provide possible cost and/or schedule saving recommendations.

3. Provide performance improvement recommendations.

KEY PROJECT ISSUES
The items listed below are the key drivers, constraints, or issues being addressed by the project and considered during this VA study to identify possible improvements.

Project Budget – The project is currently estimated in the $75-80M range which is far in excess of 2

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Study Summary Report what was originally anticipated when the project was first planned. Funding for the project will come from a variety of sources including federal; state; city; and private, but the need to keep design and construction costs to a minimum through the project delivery process while balancing project quality in all facets is essential.

Hydraulics – The project is being constructed in a known floodplain where every structural aspect will have significant repercussions on how the hydraulics of the surrounding terrain function— including existing stream and surrounding natural infiltration areas. The project must not exceed a 0.1’ impact to the flood level and must not significantly impede the free flow of future flood waters during large storm and flooding events.

Project Construction Staging – While a large portion of the project will be constructed on vacant farmland, significant aspects of the project’s structures will need to be integrated with the continued operation of US-101 and its northbound on- and off-ramps as well as local streets such as Elks Lane and Prado Road. In addition, there are several local property access points that will be affected by the construction effort— most notably the transit property, the drive-in theater, and the City’s corporation yard. The construction staging plan will need to be formulated to reduce the impacts to these elements as much as possible while also limiting overall project duration.

EVALUATION OF BASELINE CONCEPT
During the VA study, a number of analytical tools and techniques were applied to develop a better understanding of the baseline concept. A major component of this analysis was Value Metrics which seeks to assess the elements of cost, performance, time, and risk as they related to project value. These elements require a deeper level of analysis; the results of which are detailed in the Project Analysis section of this report. The key performance attributes identified for the project are listed in the table, “Performance Attributes.” A summary of the major observations and conclusions identified during the evaluation of the baseline concept, which led the VA team to develop the alternatives and recommendations presented in this report follows.

The stakeholders rated the five performance attributes identified as each having a major contribution to the success of the project. Through a paired comparison process, study participants determined that Maintainability was weighted the highest at 29% as the project is primarily about establishing a significant useful life for the structures and reliability in the face of challenging flood plain concerns.

Multi-Modal Connectivity and Long-Term Environmental Impacts were rated on the next tier of importance at 22% and 20%, respectively. Traffic Operations and Construction Impacts (Short-Term Environmental Impacts) were weighted the lowest at 19% and 13% but were still viewed as being important to the overall success of the project.

Performance Attributes
Maintainability
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Long-Term Environmental
Impacts
Construction Impacts
3

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Study Summary Report The initial evaluation of the current baseline concepts for the two design alternatives for the project by the stakeholders determined that they both represent effective and responsible approaches to improve Traffic Operations while fulfilling the purpose and need of the project in a very conventional and proven way. Although there are still several details that need to be further developed, the five performance attributes scored higher than typical projects of this nature and prove that a great deal of work and effort have been applied to the current design.

The two baseline concepts each provide acceptable solutions to providing a highly functioning eastwest connection for the community while also ensuring good access to and from NB US-101. The two designs have distinctly different scores regarding how they address Traffic Operations and MultiModal Connectivity— with the higher scores favoring the roundabout option (Design Alternative A1R) based on anticipated traffic flows of all forms of travel. The scores for Long-term Environmental Impacts and Maintainability; however, it favors the tight diamond option (Design Alternative A3) as it requires a smaller environmental footprint for the Prado Road OC structure and less overall structure to maintain in the future. A slight edge was also given to the intersection option for Construction Impacts— again, based on the amount of structure to construct and the amount of traffic handling anticipated.

Overall, the stakeholders concluded that the two baseline design alternatives (Design Alternative A1R and Design Alternative A3) for the project were good and addressed many of the key concerns admirably; however, it was determined that there was still room for potential project value improvement, especially with regard to project staging and making the most of the limited funding available.

It should be noted that a value metrics comparison of all three the design alternatives conducted by the project stakeholders and VA team members during the VA study led to a shared opinion that Design Alternative A3 represented the “best value” to meet the project purpose and need when each was analyzed using the combined project aspects of estimated project cost, anticipated project delivery duration, and an assessment of what each design alternative can be expected to achieve in relation to each of the performance attributes identified above. 4

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Study Summary Report Comparison of Value — Design Alternatives

ACCEPTED VA ALTERNATIVES
The project decision stakeholders accepted five of the six VA alternatives developed by the VA team for improvement of the project’s two competing design alternatives (Design Alternative A1R and Design Alternative 3A). The following are the alternatives identified along with their associated potential initial cost savings, potential change in schedule, performance change, a brief discussion of each proposed concept, and the rationale for acceptance for implementation.

Alternative No. and Description Initial Cost
Savings
Change in
Schedule
Change in
Performance

1.0 Reduce the maximum speed on structure to 35
mph
$1,120,000
$1,023,000

1.5-month
reduction
+ 8.3 %
+ 8.0 %
The baseline concept for the structure utilizes a 45-mph design speed at the Elks Lane intersection and Froom Ranch Intersection. The alternative concept proposes to reduce the design speed to 35 mph. This will have a direct effect of eliminating the center bent of the structure but will also simplify the design of the structure profile, intersections (or roundabout), and pedestrian/bicycle facilities.

It was determined that the reduction in speed is acceptable from an operational standpoint and would follow the precedent of other nearby structures.
0%
9%
-37%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%

0.00 0.10

0.20 0.30

0.40 0.50

0.60 0.70

0.80 0.90

1.00 Design
Alternative
A1R
Design
Alternative
A3
Design
Alternative
A4R
Relative Scores
Change in Value
Performance Cost/Time Rating Change in Value
5

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Study Summary Report Alternative No. and Description Initial Cost
Savings
Change in
Schedule
Change in
Performance

2.0 Reduce lane and shoulder widths where practical $600,000 $531,000 No change + 0.9 %+ 0.9 %
The baseline concept meets or exceeds all lane width and shoulder width requirements per the Caltrans and City engineering standards for the Prado road OC structure as well as the NB on- and off-ramp structures. The alternative concept proposes to reduce the width of the inside travel lane from 12’ to 11’ and on the outside shoulder widths from 5’ to 4’ on the Prado road OC structure and, thereby, reduce the overall width of the Prado road OC structure by 4’.

It was determined that the reduction in lane and shoulder widths is acceptable from an operational standpoint and would follow the precedent of other nearby structures.

3.0 Use CIDH columns in lieu of driven piles and pile
caps
$5,014,000
$4,557,000
3-month
reduction
+ 1.1 %
+ 1.0 %
The baseline concept uses a short-span bridge configuration for the three structures included in the project (the Prado road OC structure, the NB off-ramp, and the NB on-ramp). The current design uses spans ranging between 70’ to 118’ in length. Each span is a multi-column bent. Each column rests on a sub-surface pile cap which requires excavation to construct. Each pile cap rests on several driven piles. The ground water level of 4’ below surface will require dewatering during the pile cap construction. The alternative concept proposes to use CIDH piles in lieu of the driven pile and pile cap configuration. This concept will require temporary casing, slurry displacement with Baker tanks, and the use of steel cages for reinforcement. This alternative will create additional spoils from the drilled holes that will need to be hauled off.

It was decided to investigate this alternative further with the intent to implement the alternative if the upcoming geotechnical investigation determines that the use of CIDH piles are a viable option for the project. The baseline approach of using driven piles would be the fallback solution if CIDH proves to be infeasible or too expensive as cautioned by the GDH review— see Appendix B. 6

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Study Summary Report

4.0 Use longer spans and fewer columns with precast
I-girders in lieu of CIP girders
$16,748,000
$15,093,000
6-month
reduction
+ 12.2 %
+ 11.6 %
The baseline concept uses a short-span bridge configuration for the three structures included in the project (the Prado road OC structure, the NB off-ramp, and the NB on-ramp). The current design uses spans ranging between 70’ to 118’ in length. Each span is a multi-column bent. Each column rests on a sub-surface pile cap which requires excavation to construct. Each pile cap rests on several driven piles. The alternative concept proposes to use precast I-girders in lieu of cast-inplace (CIP) girders to allow for longer structural spans and, therefore, require fewer bents and columns to support the structures.

As with Alternative 3.0 above, it was decided to pursue this alternative with the intent to implement if further investigation supports the concept. The baseline approach of using CIP girders would be an acceptable solution if the use of precast/pre-stressed girders is determined to be unworkable or too expensive as discussed by the GDH review— see Appendix B.

6.0 Utilize recycled and/or reclaimed materials in
project
$336,000
$344,000 No change + 0.5 %+ 0.5 %
The baseline concept for the project includes removal of pavement from the ramps and a section of the existing Prado Road and Elks Lane. It is assumed that this paving material will simply be hauled away as waste. The alternative concept proposes to recycle a portion of the asphalt material from the roadway excavation and use it for subbase, base, and HMA material in the project. It is assumed that the recycled material can be used in Class 2 Aggregate Base (up to 25%).

It was determined that this alternative concept should be implemented into the project as it represents a means to improve efficiencies, reduce cost for the project, and decrease material waste in a broader environmental context.

Note: The cost, schedule, and performance impacts are shown with data for Design Alternative A1R shown on top and data for Design Alternative A3 on the bottom for each VA alternative above.

VA STUDY RESULTS
The project stakeholders accepted five of six developed VA study alternatives for inclusion into the project design. The accepted alternatives will significantly modify the two leading design alternatives of the Prado road overcrossing structure by reducing the design speed to 35 mph while also reducing its overall width (VA Alternatives 1.0 & 2.0); it also greatly simplifies the construction of all three structures by utilizing CIDH piles and longer precast, pre-stressed spans (VA Alternatives 3.0 and 4.0).

Lastly, it will pursue the use of recycled materials in the roadway (VA Alternatives 6.0). 7

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Study Summary Report This combination of alternatives provides performance gains in all of the included performance attributes but have the greatest net impacts on Multi-Modal Connectivity by making the overcrossing structure safer for pedestrians and bicycles, Maintainability through reducing the overall size and structural elements to maintain in the future, and Construction Impacts by lowering the complexity of the structures for the contractor and reducing both the construction duration and traffic handling required on US-101. It should be noted that Long-term Environmental Impacts are also significantly reduced by limiting the number of columns needed, thereby minimizing flood management concerns.

The five VA alternatives accepted for each of the two design alternatives have the net effect of improving upon the baseline design alternatives A1R and A3 concept performances by 17% and 15%, respectively. Together, the anticipated cost impact is roughly $20M and $18M savings and a schedule reduction of 7.5 months. When these value elements are combined, they represent an overall value improvement over the baseline concept of 47% for Design Alternative A1R and 44% for Design Alternative A3.

A summary of the accepted VA alternatives are provided in the following table and chart. The chart illustrates the relative trade-offs between performance (shown by the blue columns) versus cost and schedule (shown by the green columns). The red value line indicates the net % change in total value relative to the baseline concept. Please refer to the Project Analysis section of the report for additional details on this analysis.

Summary of Accepted VA Alternatives
Strategy Description Initial Cost
Savings
Change in
Schedule
Change in
Performance
Value
Change
Accepted VA Alternatives
Design Alternative A1R
Alts 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 6.0
$20,047,000 7.5-month
reduction
+ 17 % + 47 %
Accepted VA Alternatives
Design Alternative A3
Alts 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 6.0
$18,143,000 7.5-month
reduction
+ 15 % + 44 %
Note: Net cost, schedule, and performance scores have been adjusted to eliminate double counting when present for combined VA alternatives.
8

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Study Summary Report Comparison of Value —
Design Alternative A1R Baseline & Accepted VA Alternatives Comparison of Value —
Design Alternative A3 Baseline & Accepted VA Alternatives 0%
47%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

0.00 0.10

0.20 0.30

0.40 0.50

0.60 0.70

0.80 0.90

1.00 Design Alternative A1R
Baseline
Design Alternative A1R
w/ Accepted VA Alternatives
Relative Scores
Change in Value
Performance Cost/Time Rating Change in Value
0%
45%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

0.00 0.10

0.20 0.30

0.40 0.50

0.60 0.70

0.80 0.90

1.00 Design Alternative A3
Baseline
Design Alternative A3
w/ Accepted VA Alternatives
Relative Scores
Change in Value
Performance Cost/Time Rating Change in Value
9

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Study Summary Report

REJECTED VA ALTERNATIVES AND RATIONALE
Alternative No. and Description Initial Cost
Savings
Change in
Schedule
Change in
Performance

5.0 Leave existing sewer main on current Elks Lane
alignment in lieu of relocation
$672,000
$671,000
1-week
reduction
+ 0.5 %
+ 0.5 %
The baseline concept relocates the existing sewer main from the existing Elks Lane alignment to the new Elks Lane alignment. The alternative concept proposes to leave the sewer main in its current alignment with only minor modifications to avoid conflicts with the new NB on-ramp and Prado road structural elements.

This alternative was rejected by the decision makers due to the existing sewer line alignment being potential conflict with the new Prado road overcrossing alignment and structural elements. It was determined that this would also pose challenges for future maintenance to the sewer line if needed. 10

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Study Summary Report

VA TEAM
VA Study Team
Name Organization Title
Eric Trimble VMS, Inc. VA Study Facilitator
Meaghan Rowland VMS, Inc. VA Study Assistant
David Romero Caltrans – District 5 Structures Design
Alex Martinez Caltrans – District 5 Structures Construction Adam Rianda Caltrans – District 5 Bridge Architecture
Phlora Barbash Caltrans – District 5 Landscape Architecture Luke Schwartz City of San Luis Obispo Transportation Manager John Rogers GHD Transportation Engineer
Jorge Aguilar Wallace Group Transportation Engineer
Key Project Contacts
Name Organization Title
Wyatt Banker-Hix City of San Luis Obispo Project Manager Paul Valadao Caltrans – District 5 Project Manager
Jorge Vanegas-Moran GHD Design Manager
11

VA ALTERNATIVES

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives

VA ALTERNATIVES FINAL
The results of this study are presented as individual alternatives to the baseline concept. Each alternative consists of a summary of the baseline concept, a description of the suggested change, a listing of its advantages and disadvantages, a cost comparison, change in performance and value, discussion of schedule and risk impacts (if applicable), and a brief narrative comparing the baseline concept with the alternative. (Please refer to the Project Analysis section of this report for an explanation of how the performance attributes and value are calculated.) Sketches, calculations, and performance attribute ratings are also presented where applicable. The cost comparisons reflect a similar level of detail as in the baseline estimate.

VA ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY TABLES
Summary of VA Alternatives
Alternative No. & Description Initial Cost
Savings
Change in
Schedule
Performance
Change
Value
Change

1.0 Reduce the maximum speed on structure to
35 mph
$1,120,000
$1,023,000

1.5-month
reduction
+ 8.3 %
+ 8.0 %
+ 10.4 %
+ 10.0 %

2.0 Reduce lane and shoulder widths where
practical
$600,000
$531,000 No change + 0.9 %+ 0.9 %
+ 1.4 %
+ 1.4 %

3.0 Use CIDH columns in lieu of driven piles and
pile caps
$5,014,000
$4,557,000
3-month
reduction
+ 1.1 %
+ 1.0 %
+ 7.4 %
+ 7.2 %

4.0 Use longer spans and fewer columns with
precast I-girders in lieu of CIP girders
$16,748,000
$15,093,000
6-month
reduction
+ 12.2 %
+ 11.6%
+ 35.4 %
+ 33.9 %

5.0 Leave existing sewer main on current Elks
Lane alignment in lieu of relocation
$672,000
$671,000
1-week
reduction
+ 0.5 %
+ 0.5 %
+ 1.2 %
+ 1.2 %

6.0 Utilize recycled and/or reclaimed materials
in project
$336,000
$344,000 No change + 0.5 %+ 0.5 %
+ 0.8 %
+ 0.8 %
13

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The VA team identified the following observations and design suggestions, relatively general in nature, for consideration by the Project Development Team (PDT). More detailed descriptions can be found in the Idea Evaluation portion of this report.

OC-1 Explore the possibility of securing additional funding sources This concept would explore the possibility of securing additional funding for the project from the following previously untapped sources:
• FEMA
• Local bond measures (or a new local tax)
• Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant from Caltrans It is also possible to rebrand the project as a "Community Connectivity" project to shift the public’s perception that this is purely a transportation project and focus more on the community connection aspect. In this way, the project can promote other important benefits of the project such as serving disadvantaged communities and/or providing support for multi-modal transportation options within the city. There are several Federal programs that provide funding for these types of projects.

OC-2 Update unit costs and schedule
This concept would ensure that additional progress is being made in keeping the project estimate as current as possible with ongoing project design refinements as well as with the continual evolving regional economic conditions, which may affect the project to provide an accurate cost picture. There are also several aspects of the project that will need to be included in the cost estimate that have not yet been integrated into the total project cost. This concept seeks to include the following items or updates in the project estimate:
• Construction Staging Plan
o Construction-related traffic handling on US-101
o Construction-related temporary detours for US-101 and ramps o Construction-related K-Rail on US-101
o Construction-related COZEEP for traffic handling and detours • Post construction BMPs
• Structure cost detail and refinements
OC-3 Support multi-modality
This concept would seek to further support and/or enhance the multi-modal aspects of the project.

The team identified several opportunities that the project may be able to integrate into the current design which would enhance overall community interaction in relation to pedestrians and bicycles:
• Integrate pedestrian scaled lighting on the Prado road overcrossing structure to increase nighttime visibility and increase user comfort while limiting light pollution to surrounding community.
14

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives • Include bicycle and pedestrian furnishings into the Prado road overcrossing structure. o Bulbouts
o Benches, bike racks, and waste bins
o Bike wayfinding and signage
• Separate bicycle/pedestrian signal phase vehicle movements at intersection including signal design modifications for the signalized intersection option.

Example images of focused pedestrian/bicycle lighting on structure OC-4 Perform peer review of structure design and investigate similar facilities in flood-prone areas This concept would seek to include a separate peer review of the project— specifically, the structural element of the project. With such a high use of structures on this project, a peer review of the preliminary structure Advance Planning Studies (APSs) will provide an independent and “fresh set of eyes” to review initially proposed concepts with a greater level of technical focus on the details/costs.

This could result in additional concepts to consider how to expedite construction schedule/concepts.

Utility relocations and staging/traffic handling should also be peer reviewed as these are likely to be significant time and constructability considerations.

OC-5 Consider use of "tear-drop" roundabout
This concept would investigate the practicality of incorporating a “teardrop” roundabout into the A1R design alternative. The teardrop design lends itself to potentially narrowing the roundabout footprint as the western side of the roundabout and does not need to accommodate additional traffic movements (such as southbound US-101 on- and off-ramps). 15

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Example image of a “teardrop” roundabout design
OC-6 Determine best use for space below structures
This concept is intended to explore the best possible use for the area created beneath the new structures that will support the on- and off-ramps as well as the Prado road overcrossing. The current design is somewhat ambiguous as to how this land will be used, and how it will avoid becoming an ongoing concern for Caltrans and/or City maintenance personnel. The current assumption is that a large portion of the Prado road OC structure will be used for an auxiliary maintenance yard facility— presumably an adjacent parking area for the City of San Luis Obispo’s corporation yard for maintenance vehicles, which can be quickly relocated if a flooding event occurs. However, there is much more additional space available under the western portion of the Prado road OC structure as well as the two US-101 northbound on- and off-ramp structures. Possible uses include the following:
• Providing additional area for mitigation planting as needed. • Utilizing space below structures for stormwater treatment.

Additionally, to ensure that the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department has the jurisdiction and ability to enforce the area under the structures, the spaces should be transferred to City ownership for municipal use. This will help to protect the properties from unofficial use and allow the police to keep the property clear of trespassers.

OC-7 Determine Construction Staging Plan
The VA team developed a rough construction process of the work required in the project to better understand what construction staging elements would be required and to have a better picture of the overall project construction duration/critical path. Below is the rough outline of the major project construction components:

1. Perform public outreach effort

2. Establish local access, detours for local traffic, and work areas

3. Relocate sewer line (and other utilities), Elks Lane relocation, and Prado/Elks intersection (with signals).

4. Construct West Prado substructure – including US-101 abutment Construct West Prado superstructure and deck (see 6d and 6f). 16

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives

5. Construct East Prado substructure – including US-101 abutment a. Demo and clear existing Prado, Elks Lane, and sewer line. b. Construct East Prado superstructure and deck (see 6d and 6f).

6. US-101 work
a. HMA overlay to strengthen shoulder for handling traffic. b. Establish US-101 traffic control for median structure (close ramps and use shoulders for traffic) – assume a need for two lanes for US-101.
c. Construct median substructure (piles, pile caps, and columns). d. Construct US-101 superstructure (including bridge deck). e. Construct on- and off-ramp substructure.
f. Construct on- and off-ramp superstructure (including Prado road deck and intersection/roundabout).
g. Shift SB lanes back to normal alignment (reconnect guardrails and stripe). h. Shift traffic towards median for NB and construct aux lane and ramp gores/ connections – may need to close Madonna Rd while tying in aux lane. i. Shift NB lanes back to normal alignment (stripe).

7. Stripe pavement, install lighting, signage, landscaping

8. Establish permanent water pollution control measures and plant mitigation/establishment The main conclusion of the VA team was that the 520 workdays included in the project is somewhat aggressive and may need to be amended to better address the work being undertaken. Additional concepts regarding construction staging which may be worth considering include:
• The evaluation of a US-101 median crossover to assist in traffic management. • Aggressively pursue the use of nightwork – especially if the use of CIDH and the drilling of column foundations is determined to be feasible.
• Identify and establish construction staging areas early; use Prado road, drive-in, and corporation yard if practical.
• Use multiple crews for day/night shift work or for multiple locations/efforts. This is specifically dependent on the capacity and capability of the selected contractor. • Use construction duration incentives to maintain or improve upon the project construction schedule. This is reliant on the capacity/capability of the selected contractor and would also need to be defined in the contracting language.

OC-8 Review options to enhance the bridge aesthetics
This concept would explore several ways in which the structural elements of the Prado road overcrossing structure can be enhanced or softened to reduce its overall visual impact or potentially tie in more seamlessly with the existing community aesthetic. Such concepts include:
• Use of colored concrete in structures.
• Use of concrete form liner to add artistic embellishments to columns and spans. • Use of flared columns (non-structural).
• Use of arch facades between exterior columns (non-structural). • Use of rounding on exterior spans.
• Use of rounding at abutments.
17

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives • Use of public art embedded within bridge barrier railing/fence. • Incorporating artwork on columns.
• Incorporating similar design used with the LOVR structure.

Example images of the LOVR structure which incorporated the use of concrete form liners to provide aesthetic structural elements
Example image of the LOVR structure which also incorporated rounded structural elements 18

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Additional example images displaying the use of colored concrete form liners, non-structural fluted columns, and arches in lieu of columns for structure 19

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS
The Caltrans HQ VA Program requires the following information to enable reporting of performance to the FHWA. Only the six standard Caltrans performance attributes, shown in the table below, are to be documented. Caltrans does not require reporting of the performance of any other attributes utilized in this study.

Summary of Proposed VA Alternative Performance Improvements Alt. No. Multi-Modal
Connectivity
Long-Term
Environmental
Impacts
Construction
Impacts
Traffic
Operations Maintainability Project
Schedule

1.0 Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved

2.0 Improved Improved Improved

3.0 Improved Improved

4.0 Improved Improved Improved Improved

5.0 Improved Improved Improved

6.0 Improved Improved
Summary of Accepted VA Alternative Performance Improvements Alt. No. Multi-Modal
Connectivity
Long-Term
Environmental
Impacts
Construction
Impacts
Traffic
Operations Maintainability Project
Schedule

1.0 Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved

2.0 Improved Improved Improved

3.0 Improved Improved

4.0 Improved Improved Improved Improved

6.0 Improved Improved
20

VA ALTERNATIVE 1.0 (MT-2)
Reduce the maximum speed on structure to 35 mph
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Initial Cost Savings: $1,120,000/$1,023,000
Change in Schedule: 1.5-month reduction
Performance Change + 8.3 %/+ 8.0 %
Value Change + 10.4 %/+ 10.0 %
Description of Baseline Concept: The baseline concept for the structure utilizes a 45-mph design speed at the Elks Lane intersection and Froom Ranch intersection.

Description of Alternative Concept: The alternative concept proposes to reduce the design speed to 35 mph. This will have a direct effect on eliminating the center bent of the structure but will also simplify the design of the structure profile, intersections (or roundabout), and pedestrian/bicycle facilities.

Advantages:
• Multi-Modal Connectivity – Improves the operations of the pedestrian/bicycle facility by reducing the speed of the nearby vehicles on the structure. • Traffic Operations – Reduces the frequency and severity of potential traffic conflicts. It is not anticipated that traffic flow and volume would be affected by the reduction in speed. • Construction Impacts – Will provide more design flexibility and may simplify the overall structure design (potentially longer spans and completely spanning over the US-101 facility) and construction effort. Will allow for the possible elimination of the columns in the median of US-101. This will also translate to a reduction in traffic staging and traffic handling during construction. Assume a construction duration reduction of 1.5 months (30 workdays). Will lessen the noise impacts to surrounding community.
• Long-Term Environmental Impacts – May improve the overall aesthetic of the bridge by reducing the number of columns needed to support the structure. • Maintainability – Should improve maintenance by reducing the number of columns and structure which may be prone to vandalism or graffiti in the future. Will reduce maintenance effort in median.

Disadvantages:
• Multi-Modal Connectivity – If the physical barrier is removed from between the EOS and pedestrian/bicycle facility, there may be a higher incidence of traffic conflicts.

Discussion: The main benefit of this proposed alternative concept is to reduce the initial cost of construction while also integrating a safer and more sensible operating condition for the Prado road OC. The reduction in speed should provide more flexibility for the design to use a longer span in the overcrossing structure over US-101 specifically by removing the central bent from the design and greatly simplifying construction and traffic handling on US-101. This concept will require coordination with Caltrans leadership regarding acceptable design speeds for new facilities which tie into mainline facilities (in relation to HDM section 101.2). There is a precedence for lower prevailing speeds on nearby facilities such as Los Osos Valley Road, Madonna Road, Santa Rosa Street, etc. It should also 21

VA ALTERNATIVE 1.0 (MT-2)
Reduce the maximum speed on structure to 35 mph
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives be noted that there is no requirement for physical barrier between EOS and pedestrian/bicycle facility.

Discussion of Schedule Impacts: This alternative concept represents a significant impact to the project schedule’s critical path due to the elimination of the central structural bent, which is a challenging structural element that otherwise needs to be completed amidst the traffic on US-101.

The schedule impact is therefore assumed to be a reduction in 1.5 months (30 workdays).

Discussion of Risk Impacts: The alternative concept should reduce construction related risk by reducing the construction effort. The alternative should represent a reduction in future operational risk as the lower speeds should reduce the potential and severity of traffic conflicts (however, there still may be a potential for drivers to operate at above the posted speed which may cause traffic conflicts).
22

VA ALTERNATIVE 1.0 (MT-2)
Reduce the maximum speed on structure to 35 mph
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Comparison of Performance – Design Alternative A1R
Comparison of Performance – Design Alternative A3

7.4 7.0

6.3 5.1

5.7 7.7

7.7 7.3

5.6 6.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Construction Impacts
Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Maintainability
Baseline Concept Alternative Concept

5.8 6.2

7.1 7.2

6.6 6.1

6.9 8.1

7.7 6.9
0 2 4 6 8 10
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Construction Impacts
Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Maintainability
Baseline Concept Alternative Concept
23

VA ALTERNATIVE 1.0 (MT-2)
Reduce the maximum speed on structure to 35 mph
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Baseline Concept Images
Images of the Prado road OC structure for both design alternatives Image depicting the current design with central bent in US-101 median supporting the overcrossing structure
24

VA ALTERNATIVE 1.0 (MT-2)
Reduce the maximum speed on structure to 35 mph
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Alternative Concept Image
Image of existing overcrossing structure at Madonna Road with speed posted as 35 mph 25

VA ALTERNATIVE 1.0 (MT-2)
Reduce the maximum speed on structure to 35 mph
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Assumptions and Calculations:

The initial cost assumption of the alternative concept:
• Eliminates the center bent and the support columns in the median of US-101. Structure cost can therefore be reduced by 5% (piles, excavation, form work, reinforcement, and concrete).

Includes an increased superstructure cost but lower substructure cost for the Prado road OC structure.
• Reduction in traffic handling and construction staging (assume reduction by 50%) • Reduce workdays by 1.5 months (30 days)
Initial Cost Estimate – Design Alternative A1R
Description Unit Quantity Cost/Unit Total Quantity Cost/Unit Total $ - $ -
Traffic Handling LS 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 0.50 $ 250,000 $ 125,000 Detours LS 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 0.50 $ 50,000 $ 25,000
$ - $ -
$ - $ -
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL $ 300,000 $ 150,000
ROADWAY MARK-UP 66% $ 197,700 $ 98,850
ROADWAY TOTAL $ 497,700 $ 248,850
Time Related Overhead WD 520 $ 1,821 $ 946,920 490 $ 1,821 $ 892,290 TRO SUBTOTAL $ 946,920 $ 892,290
TRO MARK-UP (Contingency & Escalation only) 31% $ 295,439 $ 278,394 TRO TOTAL $ 1,242,359 $ 1,170,684
$ - $ -
Prado OC LS 1 $ 36,593,000 $ 36,593,000 0.98 36,593,000 $ $ 35,861,140 $ - $ -
STRUCTURES SUBTOTAL $ 36,593,000 $ 35,861,140
STRUCTURES MARK-UP (Escalation only) 9% $ 3,403,149 $ 3,335,086 STRUCTURES TOTAL $ 39,996,149 $ 39,196,226
Reengineering and Redesign $ - $ -
Project Engineering $ - $ -
TOTAL
TOTAL (Rounded)
SAVINGS $1,120,000
$41,736,000 $40,616,000

CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT ITEMS
$ 41,736,208 $ 40,615,761

STRUCTURES WORK

ROADWAY ITEMS

TIME RELATED OVERHEAD (TRO) ITEMS

CONSTRUCTION ELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT 26

VA ALTERNATIVE 1.0 (MT-2)
Reduce the maximum speed on structure to 35 mph
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Initial Cost Estimate – Design Alternative A3
Description Unit Quantity Cost/Unit Total Quantity Cost/Unit Total $ - $ -
Traffic Handling LS 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 0.50 $ 250,000 $ 125,000 Detours LS 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 0.50 $ 50,000 $ 25,000
$ - $ -
$ - $ -
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL $ 300,000 $ 150,000
ROADWAY MARK-UP 66% $ 197,700 $ 98,850
ROADWAY TOTAL $ 497,700 $ 248,850
Time Related Overhead WD 520 $ 1,693 $ 880,360 490 $ 1,693 $ 829,570 TRO SUBTOTAL $ 880,360 $ 829,570
TRO MARK-UP (Contingency & Escalation only) 31% $ 274,672 $ 258,826 TRO TOTAL $ 1,155,032 $ 1,088,396
$ - $ -
Prado OC LS 1 $ 32,391,200 $ 32,391,200 0.98 32,391,200 $ $ 31,743,376 $ - $ -
STRUCTURES SUBTOTAL $ 32,391,200 $ 31,743,376
STRUCTURES MARK-UP (Escalation only) 9% $ 3,012,382 $ 2,952,134 STRUCTURES TOTAL $ 35,403,582 $ 34,695,510
Reengineering and Redesign $ - $ -
Project Engineering $ - $ -
TOTAL
TOTAL (Rounded)
SAVINGS $1,023,000

CONSTRUCTION ELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT

STRUCTURES WORK

ROADWAY ITEMS

TIME RELATED OVERHEAD (TRO) ITEMS
$37,056,000 $36,033,000

CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT ITEMS
$ 37,056,314 $ 36,032,756
27

VA ALTERNATIVE 2.0 (AP-2)
Reduce lane and shoulder widths where practical
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Initial Cost Savings: $600,000/$531,000
Change in Schedule: No change
Performance Change + 0.9 %/+ 0.9 %
Value Change + 1.4 %/+ 1.4 %
Description of Baseline Concept: The baseline concept meets or exceeds all lane width and shoulder width requirements per the Caltrans and City engineering standards for the Prado road OC structure as well as the NB on- and off-ramp structures:
• 12’ lanes, 5’ shoulders on the Prado road OC structure • 12’ separation between east and westbound lanes for left turn lanes and/or raised median on the Prado road OC structure
• 4’ left shoulder and 8’ right shoulder, and 12’ lane for the NB on- and off-ramps • 6’ sidewalk, 6” buffer between bike path and sidewalk, 6’ bike path, and 2’ buffer between ES and bike path on the Prado road OC
Description of Alternative Concept: The alternative concept proposes to reduce the width of the inside travel lane from 12’ to 11’ and the on the outside shoulder widths from 5’ to 4’ on the Prado road OC structure and thereby reduce the overall width of the Prado road OC structure by 4’.

Advantages:
• Multi-Modal Connectivity – The narrower shoulder and narrower inside lane will function as additional traffic calming elements and should reduce the potential for traffic conflict between the modes of travel.
• Traffic Operations – The narrower shoulder and narrower inside lane will function as additional traffic calming elements and should reduce the potential for traffic conflict. No measurable impact on traffic volumes.
• Construction Impacts – Will reduce the overall materials needed for structure construction. • Long-Term Environmental Impacts – Reduces overall footprint of the Prado riad OC structure which also reduces stormwater volumes. Less disturbed soil and land. • Maintainability – Reduces overall square footage and structure to maintain.

Disadvantages:
• Multi-Modal Connectivity – Reduces the shoulder width buffer area between the edge of travel way and bike path.

Discussion: The main benefit of this proposed alternative concept is to reduce the initial cost of the Prado road OC structure. The use of 11’ lanes for the innermost travel lanes on the structure will not require a design exception per HDM Section 308.1. It is important to note that anticipated truck volumes may require the use of 12’ interior lanes.
28

VA ALTERNATIVE 2.0 (AP-2)
Reduce lane and shoulder widths where practical
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives There is a precedence for using 11’ lanes elsewhere in San Luis Obispo:
• Prado Road south of the Elks Lane
• Dalidio Drive west of Froom Ranch Way
• Madonna Road over US-101
The use of 4’ minimum shoulders is allowable per HDM Section 308.1 unless a barrier is present in which case the shoulder width would need to be maintained at 5’.

Discussion of Schedule Impacts: This alternative concept represents no significant impact to the project schedule’s critical path as the reduction in the overcrossing structure width is considered negligible within the structure construction effort. The schedule impact is therefore assumed to be zero.

Discussion of Risk Impacts: The alternative concept will have a slight reduction in the construction related work as it represents less structure to construct and fewer materials to handle. The slight reduction in lanes and shoulder widths may contribute to a slight increase in future operational risk, but the design would still remain within established standards. 29

VA ALTERNATIVE 2.0 (AP-2)
Reduce lane and shoulder widths where practical
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Comparison of Performance – Design Alternative A1R
Comparison of Performance – Design Alternative A3

7.4 7.0

6.3 5.1

5.7 7.4

7.0 6.4

5.2 5.8
0 2 4 6 8 10
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Construction Impacts
Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Maintainability
Baseline Concept Alternative Concept

5.8 6.2

7.1 7.2

6.6 5.8

6.2 7.2

7.3 6.7
0 2 4 6 8 10
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Construction Impacts
Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Maintainability
Baseline Concept Alternative Concept
30

VA ALTERNATIVE 2.0 (AP-2)
Reduce lane and shoulder widths where practical
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Alternative Concept Image
Image showing the Prado road overcrossing structure and identified locations of lane and shoulder widths which can be reduced by 1’ each
31

VA ALTERNATIVE 2.0 (AP-2)
Reduce lane and shoulder widths where practical
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Assumptions and Calculations:

The initial cost assumption of the alternative concept:
• Reduce Prado OC structure by 4’ of width which roughly equates to a 1.5% reduction in overall structure cost
• Assume no significant impact to traffic handling and construction staging • Assume no significant change in project duration (no change in workdays) Initial Cost Estimate – Design Alternative A1R
Description Unit Quantity Cost/Unit Total Quantity Cost/Unit Total $ - $ -
$ - $ -
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL $ - $ -
ROADWAY MARK-UP 66% $ - $ -
ROADWAY TOTAL $ - $ -
Time Related Overhead WD $ - $ -
TRO SUBTOTAL $ - $ -
TRO MARK-UP (Contingency & Escalation only) 31% $ - $ - TRO TOTAL $ - $ -
Prado OC LS 1 $ 36,593,000 $ 36,593,000 0.99 36,593,000 $ $ 36,044,105 NB Off-Ramp LS 1 $ 2,993,000 $ 2,993,000 1.00 2,993,000 $ $ 2,993,000 NB On-Ramp LS 1 $ 2,794,000 $ 2,794,000 1.00 2,794,000 $ $ 2,794,000 STRUCTURES SUBTOTAL $ 42,380,000 $ 41,831,105
STRUCTURES MARK-UP (Escalation only) 9% $ 3,941,340 $ 3,890,293 STRUCTURES TOTAL $ 46,321,340 $ 45,721,398
Reengineering and Redesign $ - $ -
Project Engineering $ - $ -
TOTAL
TOTAL (Rounded)
SAVINGS $600,000

CONSTRUCTION ELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT

STRUCTURES WORK

ROADWAY ITEMS

TIME RELATED OVERHEAD (TRO) ITEMS
$46,321,000 $45,721,000

CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT ITEMS
$ 46,321,340 $ 45,721,398
32

VA ALTERNATIVE 2.0 (AP-2)
Reduce lane and shoulder widths where practical
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Initial Cost Estimate – Design Alternative A3
Description Unit Quantity Cost/Unit Total Quantity Cost/Unit Total $ - $ -
$ - $ -
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL $ - $ -
ROADWAY MARK-UP 66% $ - $ -
ROADWAY TOTAL $ - $ -
Time Related Overhead WD $ - $ -
TRO SUBTOTAL $ - $ -
TRO MARK-UP (Contingency & Escalation only) 31% $ - $ - TRO TOTAL $ - $ -
Prado OC LS 1 $ 32,391,200 $ 32,391,200 0.99 32,391,200 $ $ 31,905,332 NB Off-Ramp LS 1 $ 3,128,400 $ 3,128,400 1.00 3,128,400 $ $ 3,128,400 NB On-Ramp LS 1 $ 2,587,800 $ 2,587,800 1.00 2,587,800 $ $ 2,587,800 STRUCTURES SUBTOTAL $ 38,107,400 $ 37,621,532
STRUCTURES MARK-UP (Escalation only) 9% $ 3,543,988 $ 3,498,802 STRUCTURES TOTAL $ 41,651,388 $ 41,120,334
Reengineering and Redesign $ - $ -
Project Engineering $ - $ -
TOTAL
TOTAL (Rounded)
SAVINGS $531,000
$41,651,000 $41,120,000

CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT ITEMS
$ 41,651,388 $ 41,120,334

STRUCTURES WORK

ROADWAY ITEMS

TIME RELATED OVERHEAD (TRO) ITEMS

CONSTRUCTION ELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT 33

VA ALTERNATIVE 3.0 (SL-2)
Use CIDH columns in lieu of driven piles and pile caps
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Initial Cost Savings: $5,014,000/$4,557,000
Change in Schedule: 3-month reduction
Performance Change + 1.1 %/+ 1.0 %
Value Change + 7.4 %/+ 7.2 %
Description of Baseline Concept: The baseline concept uses a short-span bridge configuration for the three structures included in the project (the Prado road OC structure, the NB off-ramp, and the NB on-ramp). The current design uses spans ranging between 70’ to 118’ in length. Each span is a multi-column bent. Each column rests on a sub-surface pile cap which requires excavation to construct. Each pile cap rests on several driven piles. The ground water level of 4’ below surface will require dewatering during the pile cap construction.

Description of Alternative Concept: The alternative concept proposes to use CIDH piles in lieu of the driven pile and pile cap configuration. This concept will require temporary casing, slurry displacement with Baker tanks, and the use of steel cages for reinforcement. This alternative will create additional spoils from the drilled holes that will need to be hauled off.

Advantages:
• Construction Impacts – Requires fewer holes to drill compared to numerous piles to drive at each column location. Will have less impact on local community from a noise standpoint. Will reduce the amount of material stockpile (driven piles) to be located near construction site.

The rate of production can be considered to be improved as the pile cap work (excavation, forming, and backfill) can be eliminated. Assume a reduction of the project duration of 3 months (60 workdays).

Disadvantages:
• Construction Impacts – Will require the use of Baker tank. Anomalies can be encountered when pouring concrete.

Discussion: The main benefit of this proposed alternative concept is to significantly reduce the cost and time needed to construct each of the project structures. An important consideration with the CIDH concept is that the existing soil conditions may vary greatly on this site. This can create challenges to the process and efforts to avoid anomalies in the concrete pour for the CIDH pile will need to be undertaken. This may require on-site analysis of the CIDH pile and may lead to additional mitigation to address any abnormalities encountered in the field to ensure that the CIDH pile is structurally adequate for the design. Of course, the pile driving process also has production risks to consider as well; therefore, the schedule and cost risk per each method can be considered to be similar.

Each column can be constructed as an extension of the CIDH pile, but this would increase the complexity of the process as the reinforcement cage would need to extend above ground. 34

VA ALTERNATIVE 3.0 (SL-2)
Use CIDH columns in lieu of driven piles and pile caps
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Discussion of Schedule Impacts: This alternative concept represents a significant impact to the project schedule’s critical path as the CIDH piles allow for the column construction to be completed at a much more accelerated pace. The schedule impact is therefore assumed to be a reduction of three months (60 workdays).

Discussion of Risk Impacts: The alternative concept will have a significant impact on reducing the construction risk due to the shortening of the project’s duration by three months. The future operational risk of the facility will be unaffected.
35

VA ALTERNATIVE 3.0 (SL-2)
Use CIDH columns in lieu of driven piles and pile caps
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Comparison of Performance – Design Alternative A1R
Comparison of Performance – Design Alternative A3

7.4 7.0

6.3 5.1

5.7 7.4

7.0 6.8

5.1 5.7
0 2 4 6 8 10
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Construction Impacts
Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Maintainability
Baseline Concept Alternative Concept

5.8 6.2

7.1 7.2

6.6 5.8

6.2 7.6

7.2 6.6
0 2 4 6 8 10
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Construction Impacts
Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Maintainability
Baseline Concept Alternative Concept
36

VA ALTERNATIVE 3.0 (SL-2)
Use CIDH columns in lieu of driven piles and pile caps
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Baseline Concept Image
Example image of typical pile driving and pile cap forming process Alternative Concept Image
Diagram of typical CIDH process with casings
37

VA ALTERNATIVE 3.0 (SL-2)
Use CIDH columns in lieu of driven piles and pile caps
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Assumptions and Calculations:

The initial cost assumption of the alternative concept:
• Structure construction work reduction of 10% for each structure o Eliminate pile driving
o Eliminate pile cap construction
o Include CIDH construction
• Traffic handling reduction by 50% (US-101 center median location only) • Reduce workdays by 4 months (80 workdays)
o Time savings is from avoiding driving piles and excavation/forming of pile cap o Assume 1 week of time savings per pier x 28 / 2 crews = 14 weeks / 4.5 = 3 months Initial Cost Estimate – Design Alternative A1R
Description Unit Quantity Cost/Unit Total Quantity Cost/Unit Total $ - $ -
Traffic Handling LS 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 0.50 $ 250,000 $ 125,000 Detours LS 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 0.50 $ 50,000 $ 25,000
$ - $ -
$ - $ -
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL $ 300,000 $ 150,000
ROADWAY MARK-UP 66% $ 197,700 $ 98,850
ROADWAY TOTAL $ 497,700 $ 248,850
Time Related Overhead WD 520 $ 1,693 $ 880,360 460 $ 1,693 $ 778,780 TRO SUBTOTAL $ 880,360 $ 778,780
TRO MARK-UP (Contingency & Escalation only) 31% $ 274,672 $ 242,979 TRO TOTAL $ 1,155,032 $ 1,021,759
Prado OC LS 1 $ 36,593,000 $ 36,593,000 0.90 36,593,000 $ $ 32,933,700 NB Off-Ramp LS 1 $ 2,993,000 $ 2,993,000 0.90 2,993,000 $ $ 2,693,700 NB On-Ramp LS 1 $ 2,794,000 $ 2,794,000 0.90 2,794,000 $ $ 2,514,600 STRUCTURES SUBTOTAL $ 42,380,000 $ 38,142,000
STRUCTURES MARK-UP (Escalation only) 9% $ 3,941,340 $ 3,547,206 STRUCTURES TOTAL $ 46,321,340 $ 41,689,206
Reengineering and Redesign $ - $ -
Project Engineering $ - $ -
TOTAL
TOTAL (Rounded)
SAVINGS $5,014,000
$47,974,000 $42,960,000

CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT ITEMS
$ 47,974,072 $ 42,959,815

STRUCTURES WORK

ROADWAY ITEMS

TIME RELATED OVERHEAD (TRO) ITEMS

CONSTRUCTION ELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT 38

VA ALTERNATIVE 3.0 (SL-2)
Use CIDH columns in lieu of driven piles and pile caps
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Initial Cost Estimate – Design Alternative A3
Description Unit Quantity Cost/Unit Total Quantity Cost/Unit Total $ - $ -
Traffic Handling LS 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 0.50 $ 250,000 $ 125,000 Detours LS 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 0.50 $ 50,000 $ 25,000
$ - $ -
$ - $ -
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL $ 300,000 $ 150,000
ROADWAY MARK-UP 66% $ 197,700 $ 98,850
ROADWAY TOTAL $ 497,700 $ 248,850
Time Related Overhead WD 520 $ 1,821 $ 946,920 460 $ 1,821 $ 837,660 TRO SUBTOTAL $ 946,920 $ 837,660
TRO MARK-UP (Contingency & Escalation only) 31% $ 295,439 $ 261,350 TRO TOTAL $ 1,242,359 $ 1,099,010
Prado OC LS 1 $ 32,391,200 $ 32,391,200 0.90 32,391,200 $ $ 29,152,080 NB Off-Ramp LS 1 $ 3,128,400 $ 3,128,400 0.90 3,128,400 $ $ 2,815,560 NB On-Ramp LS 1 $ 2,587,800 $ 2,587,800 0.90 2,587,800 $ $ 2,329,020 STRUCTURES SUBTOTAL $ 38,107,400 $ 34,296,660
STRUCTURES MARK-UP (Escalation only) 9% $ 3,543,988 $ 3,189,589 STRUCTURES TOTAL $ 41,651,388 $ 37,486,249
Reengineering and Redesign $ - $ -
Project Engineering $ - $ -
TOTAL
TOTAL (Rounded)
SAVINGS $4,557,000

CONSTRUCTION ELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT

STRUCTURES WORK

ROADWAY ITEMS

TIME RELATED OVERHEAD (TRO) ITEMS
$43,391,000 $38,834,000

CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT ITEMS
$ 43,391,447 $ 38,834,109
39

VA ALTERNATIVE 4.0 (SL-1)
Use longer spans and fewer columns with precast I-girders in lieu of CIP girders San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Initial Cost Savings: $16,748,000/$15,093,000
Change in Schedule: 6-month reduction
Performance Change + 12.2 %/+ 11.6 %
Value Change + 35.4 %/+ 33.9 %
Description of Baseline Concept: The baseline concept uses a short-span bridge configuration for the three structures included in the project (the Prado road OC structure, the NB off-ramp, and the NB on-ramp). The current design uses spans ranging between 70’ to 118’ in length. Each span is a multi-column bent. Each column rests on a sub-surface pile cap which requires excavation to construct. Each pile cap rests on several driven piles.

Description of Alternative Concept: The alternative concept proposes to use precast I-girders in lieu of cast-in-place (CIP) girders to allow for longer structural spans and therefore require fewer bents and columns to support the structures.

Advantages:
• Construction Impacts – Will simplify the construction effort by the reducing the number of bents to be placed – which will in turn reduce the number of columns and piles needed. Will also significantly reduce the amount of structure falsework and concrete pouring needed for CIP elements. Will have less impact on local community from a noise standpoint (amount of columns needed and piles driven). The overall construction duration can be expected to be reduced by up to 6 months (120 workdays). This will reduce the amount of traffic handling and lane closures required for the mainline. Impacts to the local community – noise from pile driving and hauling on local roads can also be expected to be reduced. • Long-Term Environmental Impacts – Will reduce the number of columns needed to support the spans which will have a significant impact on the lasting structure aesthetics. The reduction in columns should also reduce the permanent flood zone impacts and provide more flexibility in terms of staying below the 0.1’ rise maximum set for the project by FEMA. • Maintainability – Represents a lower maintenance burden in terms of structural elements to inspect and maintain the structures – including maintaining the spaces below the structures, which will now be more open and easier to access. The potential for graffiti and/or vandalism will also be reduced.

Disadvantages:
• Construction Impacts – Will require space for crane operation and hauling of large structural elements.
• Maintainability – Would require utility conduit to be hung along the Prado road OC structure where the utility lines would be more exposed to vandalism unless casing is provided. 40

VA ALTERNATIVE 4.0 (SL-1)
Use longer spans and fewer columns with precast I-girders in lieu of CIP girders San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Discussion: The main benefit of this proposed alternative concept is to reduce the initial cost of construction, structure design, and simplify the construction effort as whole. The reduction in columns represents a significant aesthetic improvement for the structures. It should be noted that there are several structural options in addition to the use of precast I-girders that can be considered in lieu of the CIP baseline design. These would include:
• Steel plate girder – may require additional maintenance and inspection due to the use of steel which can be expected to oxidize. This oxidation can however be mitigated by incorporating a sacrificial layer that would provide a distinct rust-colored aesthetic. • Precast box girder – slightly more expensive, however provides a cleaner form or aesthetic to the bridge than the I-girder option. Also, allows for placement of utility conduit inside the cells.
• Precast T-beams – a slight variation to the I-girder option • Precast inverted U-section – a slight variation to the I-girder option All of these options have potential benefits in lieu of the proposed CIP box that is currently in the baseline design. The proposal in this alternative for the precast I-girder simply represents the most likely option identified by the VA team.

An important aspect of precast structural construction is the potential for the structural elements to not fit together as designed in the field which can lead to construction delays and additional cost.

However, there can be design or construction actions taken to provide for additional flexibility in the field to mitigate this risk.

This alternative would work well with several other proposed VA alternatives. Additionally, the precast elements can be manufactured with integral color to match any desired aesthetic. It would be of further value to the construction and design to ensure that the spans are pre-stressed during their manufacture.

Discussion of Schedule Impacts: This alternative concept represents a significant impact to the project schedule’s critical path as the structure construction effort is considered a major critical path element. The schedule impact is assumed to be a 6-month reduction in project duration (120 workdays).

Discussion of Risk Impacts: The alternative concept will have a significant impact on reducing construction related risks due to the shortening of the project duration by 6 months and also the reduction in pile driving and CIP work that requires more effort by the contractor and more traffic handling and lane closures/lane shifting on US-101. The future operational risk is unchanged. 41

VA ALTERNATIVE 4.0 (SL-1)
Use longer spans and fewer columns with precast I-girders in lieu of CIP girders San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Comparison of Performance – Design Alternative A1R
Comparison of Performance – Design Alternative A3

7.4 7.0

6.3 5.1

5.7 7.4

7.0 7.8

6.6 6.7
0 2 4 6 8 10
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Construction Impacts
Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Maintainability
Baseline Concept Alternative Concept

5.8 6.2

7.1 7.2

6.6 5.8

6.2 8.6

8.7 7.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Construction Impacts
Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Maintainability
Baseline Concept Alternative Concept
42

VA ALTERNATIVE 4.0 (SL-1)
Use longer spans and fewer columns with precast I-girders in lieu of CIP girders San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Baseline Concept Image
Image of Prado road overcrossing design elevation with 125’ spans Alternative Concept Image
Image of Prado road overcrossing design elevation depicting which columns can be eliminated by using longer precast and prestressed structural spans
43

VA ALTERNATIVE 4.0 (SL-1)
Use longer spans and fewer columns with precast I-girders in lieu of CIP girders San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Alternative Concept Images (cont.)
Example images of precast and pre-stressed spans being manufactured, transported, and placed in structure construction effort
44

VA ALTERNATIVE 4.0 (SL-1)
Use longer spans and fewer columns with precast I-girders in lieu of CIP girders San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Assumptions and Calculations:

The initial cost assumption of the alternative concept:
• Eliminates the center bent and the support columns in the median of US-101. Structure cost can therefore be reduced by 40% (piles, excavation, falsework, reinforcement, and concrete).

Includes an increased superstructure cost, but lower substructure cost for the Prado road OC structure. Assume that this alternative can reduce the number of spans and columns needed for each structure by up to 50%. However, the additional costs need to include the use of cranes, off-site manufacture, hauling and handling of precast elements. • Reduction in traffic handling and construction staging (assume reduction by 50%) • Reduce workdays by 6 months (120 days)
Initial Cost Estimate – Design Alternative A1R
Description Unit Quantity Cost/Unit Total Quantity Cost/Unit Total $ - $ -
Traffic Handling LS 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 0.50 $ 250,000 $ 125,000 Detours LS 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 0.50 $ 50,000 $ 25,000
$ - $ -
$ - $ -
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL $ 300,000 $ 150,000
ROADWAY MARK-UP 66% $ 197,700 $ 98,850
ROADWAY TOTAL $ 497,700 $ 248,850
Time Related Overhead WD 520 $ 1,821 $ 946,920 400 $ 1,821 $ 728,400 TRO SUBTOTAL $ 946,920 $ 728,400
TRO MARK-UP (Contingency & Escalation only) 31% $ 295,439 $ 227,261 TRO TOTAL $ 1,242,359 $ 955,661
Prado OC LS 1 $ 36,593,000 $ 36,593,000 0.65 36,593,000 $ $ 23,785,450 NB Off-Ramp LS 1 $ 2,993,000 $ 2,993,000 0.65 2,993,000 $ $ 1,945,450 NB On-Ramp LS 1 $ 2,794,000 $ 2,794,000 0.65 2,794,000 $ $ 1,816,100 STRUCTURES SUBTOTAL $ 42,380,000 $ 27,547,000
STRUCTURES MARK-UP (Escalation only) 9% $ 3,941,340 $ 2,561,871 STRUCTURES TOTAL $ 46,321,340 $ 30,108,871
Reengineering and Redesign $ - $ -
Project Engineering $ - $ -
TOTAL
TOTAL (Rounded)
SAVINGS $16,748,000
$48,061,000 $31,313,000

CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT ITEMS
$ 48,061,399 $ 31,313,382

STRUCTURES WORK

ROADWAY ITEMS

TIME RELATED OVERHEAD (TRO) ITEMS

CONSTRUCTION ELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT 45

VA ALTERNATIVE 4.0 (SL-1)
Use longer spans and fewer columns with precast I-girders in lieu of CIP girders San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Initial Cost Estimate – Design Alternative A3
Description Unit Quantity Cost/Unit Total Quantity Cost/Unit Total $ - $ -
Traffic Handling LS 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 0.50 $ 250,000 $ 125,000 Detours LS 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 0.50 $ 50,000 $ 25,000
$ - $ -
$ - $ -
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL $ 300,000 $ 150,000
ROADWAY MARK-UP 66% $ 197,700 $ 98,850
ROADWAY TOTAL $ 497,700 $ 248,850
Time Related Overhead WD 520 $ 1,693 $ 880,360 400 $ 1,693 $ 677,200 TRO SUBTOTAL $ 880,360 $ 677,200
TRO MARK-UP (Contingency & Escalation only) 31% $ 274,672 $ 211,286 TRO TOTAL $ 1,155,032 $ 888,486
Prado OC LS 1 $ 32,391,200 $ 32,391,200 0.65 32,391,200 $ $ 21,054,280 NB Off-Ramp LS 1 $ 3,128,400 $ 3,128,400 0.65 3,128,400 $ $ 2,033,460 NB On-Ramp LS 1 $ 2,587,800 $ 2,587,800 0.65 2,587,800 $ $ 1,682,070 STRUCTURES SUBTOTAL $ 38,107,400 $ 24,769,810
STRUCTURES MARK-UP (Escalation only) 9% $ 3,543,988 $ 2,303,592 STRUCTURES TOTAL $ 41,651,388 $ 27,073,402
Reengineering and Redesign $ - $ -
Project Engineering $ - $ -
TOTAL
TOTAL (Rounded)
SAVINGS $15,093,000

CONSTRUCTION ELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT

STRUCTURES WORK

ROADWAY ITEMS

TIME RELATED OVERHEAD (TRO) ITEMS
$43,304,000 $28,211,000

CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT ITEMS
$ 43,304,121 $ 28,210,739
46

VA ALTERNATIVE 5.0 (CU-3)
Leave existing sewer main on current Elks Lane alignment in lieu of relocation San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Initial Cost Savings: $672,000/$671,000
Change in Schedule: 1-week reduction
Performance Change + 0.5 %/+ 0.5 %
Value Change + 1.2 %/+ 1.2 %
Description of Baseline Concept: The baseline concept relocates the existing sewer main from the existing Elks Lane alignment to the new Elks Lane alignment.

Description of Alternative Concept: The alternative concept proposes to leave the sewer main in its current alignment with only minor modifications to avoid conflicts with the new NB on-ramp and Prado road structural elements.

Advantages:
• Construction Impacts – Simplifies the construction effort by eliminating relocation of the sewer line. Should reduce the construction duration for the work being performed with the Elks Lane Relocation – assume a 1-week reduction (5 workdays). • Long-Term Environmental Impacts – Avoids additional excavation and soil disturbance for new alignment. Reduces the loss of the residual value of the existing sewer main. • Maintainability – Future maintenance access should be improved as it is located farther from an active roadway and within the City’s R/W.

Disadvantages:
• Construction Impacts – Will require careful consideration when placing structural elements for the NB on-ramp and the Prado road OC structures to avoid conflicts between the existing alignment and placement of piles and pile caps.
• Maintainability – Will not be installing a new sewer main; will be forgoing an extension of the sewer main’s anticipated useful life.

Discussion: The main benefit of this proposed alternative concept is to reduce the initial cost of construction and to simplify the construction and utility relocation effort. Additional coordination will be required between the design team and the city with regards to the final alignment and implications to future sewer maintenance.
47

VA ALTERNATIVE 5.0 (CU-3)
Leave existing sewer main on current Elks Lane alignment in lieu of relocation San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Discussion of Schedule Impacts: This alternative concept represents a negligible impact to the project schedule’s critical path as the sewer main relocation is a small component of the project’s critical path; however, it is part of the Elks Lane realignment. The schedule impact is therefore assumed to be a 1-week reduction (5 workdays).

Discussion of Risk Impacts: The alternative concept will not have a significant impact on reducing overall project risk or future operational risk.
48

VA ALTERNATIVE 5.0 (CU-3)
Leave existing sewer main on current Elks Lane alignment in lieu of relocation San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Comparison of Performance – Design Alternative A1R
Comparison of Performance – Design Alternative A3

7.4 7.0

6.3 5.1

5.7 7.4

7.0 6.4

5.2 5.7
0 2 4 6 8 10
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Construction Impacts
Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Maintainability
Baseline Concept Alternative Concept

5.8 6.2

7.1 7.2

6.6 5.8

6.2 7.2

7.3 6.6
0 2 4 6 8 10
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Construction Impacts
Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Maintainability
Baseline Concept Alternative Concept
49

VA ALTERNATIVE 5.0 (CU-3)
Leave existing sewer main on current Elks Lane alignment in lieu of relocation San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Baseline Concept Image
Image depicting baseline design location of relocated sewer line (brown line) along new Elks Lane alignment
Alternative Concept Image
Image showing existing sewer line (red line) along US-101 northbound on-ramp and along/under new Prado road OC structure alignment
50

VA ALTERNATIVE 5.0 (CU-3)
Leave existing sewer main on current Elks Lane alignment in lieu of relocation San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Assumptions and Calculations:

The initial cost assumption of the alternative concept:
• Eliminate relocation of sewer main (removal of existing line, trenching, placement, testing, and backfill) assume $500/LF – using a 30”/48” diameter PVC for 1300 LF. • Include some modification of existing line where needed $500/LF for 200 LF. • Reduce workdays by 1 week (5 workdays)
Initial Cost Estimate – Design Alternative A1R
Description Unit Quantity Cost/Unit Total Quantity Cost/Unit Total $ - $ -
$ - $ -
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL $ - $ -
ROADWAY MARK-UP 66% $ - $ -
ROADWAY TOTAL $ - $ -
Time Related Overhead WD 520 $ 1,821 $ 946,920 515 $ 1,821 $ 937,815 TRO SUBTOTAL $ 946,920 $ 937,815
TRO MARK-UP (Contingency & Escalation only) 31% $ 295,439 $ 292,598 TRO TOTAL $ 1,242,359 $ 1,230,413
$ - $ -
30" to 48" PVS Sewer Main LF 1,300 $ 500 $ 650,000 200 $ 500 $ 100,000 $ - $ -
R/W or OTHER SUBTOTAL $ 650,000 $ 100,000
R/W or OTHER MARK-UP (Escalation only) 20% $ 130,000 $ 20,000 R/W or OTHER TOTAL $ 780,000 $ 120,000
Reengineering and Redesign $ - $ -
Project Engineering $ - $ -
TOTAL
TOTAL (Rounded)
SAVINGS $672,000
$2,022,000 $1,350,000

CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT ITEMS
$ 2,022,359 $ 1,350,413

ROADWAY ITEMS

TIME RELATED OVERHEAD (TRO) ITEMS
R/W or OTHER MATERIALS and EXPENSES

CONSTRUCTION ELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT 51

VA ALTERNATIVE 5.0 (CU-3)
Leave existing sewer main on current Elks Lane alignment in lieu of relocation San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Initial Cost Estimate – Design Alternative A3
Description Unit Quantity Cost/Unit Total Quantity Cost/Unit Total $ - $ -
$ - $ -
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL $ - $ -
ROADWAY MARK-UP 66% $ - $ -
ROADWAY TOTAL $ - $ -
Time Related Overhead WD 520 $ 1,693 $ 880,360 515 $ 1,693 $ 871,895 TRO SUBTOTAL $ 880,360 $ 871,895
TRO MARK-UP (Contingency & Escalation only) 31% $ 274,672 $ 272,031 TRO TOTAL $ 1,155,032 $ 1,143,926
$ - $ -
30" to 48" PVS Sewer Main LF 1,300 $ 500 $ 650,000 200 $ 500 $ 100,000 $ - $ -
R/W or OTHER SUBTOTAL $ 650,000 $ 100,000
R/W or OTHER MARK-UP (Escalation only) 20% $ 130,000 $ 20,000 R/W or OTHER TOTAL $ 780,000 $ 120,000
Reengineering and Redesign $ - $ -
Project Engineering $ - $ -
TOTAL
TOTAL (Rounded)
SAVINGS $671,000

CONSTRUCTION ELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT

ROADWAY ITEMS

TIME RELATED OVERHEAD (TRO) ITEMS
R/W or OTHER MATERIALS and EXPENSES
$1,935,000 $1,264,000

CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT ITEMS
$ 1,935,032 $ 1,263,926
52

VA ALTERNATIVE 6.0 (RE-1)
Utilize recycled and/or reclaimed materials in project
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Initial Cost Savings: $336,000/$344,000
Change in Schedule: No change
Performance Change + 0.5 %/+ 0.5 %
Value Change + 0.8 %/+ 0.8 %
Description of Baseline Concept: The baseline concept for the project includes removal of pavement from the ramps and a section of the existing Prado Road and Elks Lane. It is assumed that this paving material will simply be hauled away as waste.

Description of Alternative Concept: The alternative concept proposes to recycle a portion of the asphalt material from the roadway excavation and use it for subbase, base, and HMA material in the project. It is assumed that the recycled material can be used in Class 2 Aggregate Base (up to 25%).

Advantages:
• Construction Impacts – May reduce the amount of haul for borrow and export. The recycling of materials can be completed on-site, which may reduce project duration slightly. • Long-Term Environmental Impacts – Aligns with Caltrans sustainability objectives.

Disadvantages:
• Construction Impacts – Will require additional effort by contractor to stockpile and combine into HMA mixes on-site or off-site before the material can be used on the project. This may require the contractor to have a mobile recycler/grinder on-site which may require additional space for staging and stockpiling (which may reduce hauling).

Discussion: The main benefit of this proposed alternative concept is to align with Caltrans and City sustainability initiatives that seek to enhance sustainability concepts throughout state-funded capital projects in California by using recycled or repurposed materials. This concept will require coordination with Design, Materials, and Construction to determine the feasibility of this approach.

The effective use of this concept is reliant on the capacity and capabilities of the contractor to work with and store asphalt materials. It is possible that the contractor could also use any existing appropriate asphalt stockpiles that they have on hand for use with this alternative – assuming that it meets Caltrans project standards (per Section 25-1.02A General - Caltrans Standard Specifications - circa 2022).

Discussion of Schedule Impacts: This alternative concept represents a negligible impact to the project schedule’s critical path as the recycling of the pavement material is not a critical path element. The schedule impact is therefore assumed to be zero.

Discussion of Risk Impacts: The alternative concept does not have a significant impact on either construction related risk or future operational risk.
53

VA ALTERNATIVE 6.0 (RE-1)
Utilize recycled and/or reclaimed materials in project
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Comparison of Performance – Design Alternative A1R
Comparison of Performance – Design Alternative A3

7.4 7.0

6.3 5.1

5.7 7.4

7.0 6.4

5.2 5.7
0 2 4 6 8 10
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Construction Impacts
Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Maintainability
Baseline Concept Alternative Concept

5.8 6.2

7.1 7.2

6.6 5.8

6.2 7.2

7.3 6.6
0 2 4 6 8 10
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Construction Impacts
Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Maintainability
Baseline Concept Alternative Concept
54

VA ALTERNATIVE 6.0 (RE-1)
Utilize recycled and/or reclaimed materials in project
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Alternative Concept Images
Image of an onsite RAP portable plant
55

VA ALTERNATIVE 6.0 (RE-1)
Utilize recycled and/or reclaimed materials in project
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Assumptions and Calculations:

The initial cost assumption of the alternative concept:
• Reduce Class 2 Aggregate Base (assume a 25% reduction to obtain an R-value of 78) • Assume no change in working days
Initial Cost Estimate – Design Alternative A1R
Description Unit Quantity Cost/Unit Total Quantity Cost/Unit Total $ - $ -
Class 2 Aggregate Base CY 8,092 $ 100 $ 809,200 6,069 $ 100 $ 606,900 $ - $ -
$ - $ -
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL $ 809,200 $ 606,900
ROADWAY MARK-UP 66% $ 533,263 $ 399,947
ROADWAY TOTAL $ 1,342,463 $ 1,006,847
Time Related Overhead WD 520 $ 1,821 $ 946,920 520 $ 1,821 $ 946,920 TRO SUBTOTAL $ 946,920 $ 946,920
TRO MARK-UP (Contingency & Escalation only) 31% $ 295,439 $ 295,439 TRO TOTAL $ 1,242,359 $ 1,242,359
Reengineering and Redesign $ - $ -
Project Engineering $ - $ -
TOTAL
TOTAL (Rounded)
SAVINGS $336,000

CONSTRUCTION ELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT

ROADWAY ITEMS

TIME RELATED OVERHEAD (TRO) ITEMS
$2,585,000 $2,249,000

CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT ITEMS
$ 2,584,822 $ 2,249,206
56

VA ALTERNATIVE 6.0 (RE-1)
Utilize recycled and/or reclaimed materials in project
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives Initial Cost Estimate – Design Alternative A3
Description Unit Quantity Cost/Unit Total Quantity Cost/Unit Total $ - $ -
Class 2 Aggregate Base CY 8,296 $ 100 $ 829,600 6,222 $ 100 $ 622,200 $ - $ -
$ - $ -
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL $ 829,600 $ 622,200
ROADWAY MARK-UP 66% $ 546,706 $ 410,030
ROADWAY TOTAL $ 1,376,306 $ 1,032,230
Time Related Overhead WD $ - $ -
TRO SUBTOTAL $ - $ -
TRO MARK-UP (Contingency & Escalation only) 31% $ - $ - TRO TOTAL $ - $ -
Reengineering and Redesign $ - $ -
Project Engineering $ - $ -
TOTAL
TOTAL (Rounded)
SAVINGS $344,000

CONSTRUCTION ELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT

ROADWAY ITEMS

TIME RELATED OVERHEAD (TRO) ITEMS
$1,376,000 $1,032,000

CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT ITEMS
$ 1,376,306 $ 1,032,230
57

PROJECT INFORMATION

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Information

PROJECT INFORMATION

BACKGROUND
US-101 is the principal north/south freeway/expressway on the Central Coast traversing the counties of Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, and San Benito within District 5. It serves local, regional, and interregional travel needs including business, recreation, tourism, journey-to-work, freight and goods movement, and national defense transport. The Pacific Coast Bicycle Route runs parallel to US101 in this area along South Higuera Street.

Within the project limits, US-101 is a four-lane freeway, with 12-foot-wide travel lanes, 5-foot-wide left shoulders, 10-foot-wide right shoulders, and a 27-foot-wide median with a thrie beam median barrier. The R/W width varies but is generally 177 feet. The area along US-101 is generally flat with San Luis Obispo Creek running parallel to the freeway. The project area is located within the FEMA 100-year floodplain, and as such, the alternatives presented in the baseline concept design reflect the need to not impact the floodplain with additional embankments. US-101 is designated on the National Network as a Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) truck route, with a posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour.

The US-101 interchange with Prado Road is located between 0.3 miles south of Prado Road and 0.2 mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing. The interchange is a partial interchange with access between US-101 and Prado Road currently provided only by a compact diamond northbound offramp and a hook northbound on-ramp. This configuration provides limited access to and from US-101 from the local street system at this location. All way stop control is provided at the northbound ramps’ intersection with Prado Road/Elks Lane.

Prado Road is a two-lane minor arterial roadway that extends in a northwest direction and has a speed limit of 40 mph within the project vicinity. Prado Road provides two 12-foot-wide travel lanes and Class II bike lanes and is designated as an STAA truck route. Prado Road currently terminates at the US-101 northbound ramps/Prado Road/Elks Lane intersection.

Elks Lane is a two-lane, 30-foot-wide local road that extends in a northeast direction between Prado Road and South Higuera Street. Elks Lane currently terminates at the US-101 northbound ramps/Prado Road/Elks Lane intersection.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project includes improvements to extend Prado Road over US-101 to connect with Dalidio Drive, reconstruct the existing US-101 northbound on- and off-ramp connections with Prado Road, and construct an auxiliary lane on northbound US-101 between the Prado Road and Madonna Road interchanges in order to provide congestion relief, operational efficiency, and multimodal connectivity. The interchange is located in the City of San Luis Obispo in the county of San Luis Obispo at PM 26.8 and improvements on northbound US-101 extend from PM 26.5 to PM 27.3.

In addition to the No-Build Alternative, three build alternatives have been identified by the PDT. Each of the build alternatives includes a partial interchange with the proposed Prado Road overcrossing 59

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Information constructed over US-101, a new US-101 northbound on-ramp from Prado Road, and a new northbound off-ramp to Prado Road. For the VA study, two viable build alternatives were studied:
• Design Alternative A1R – an elevated roundabout on the Prado Road overcrossing structure serving the traffic movements to and from US-101 northbound on- and off-ramps. • Design Alternative A3 – an elevated tight diamond intersection on the Prado Road overcrossing structure serving the traffic movements to and from US-101 northbound on- and off-ramps.

The existing Prado Road interchange with US-101 consists only of northbound off- and on-ramps. The diamond off-ramp and hook on-ramp configuration that currently exists provides limited access to and from US-101 from the local street system at this location. The Prado Road extension over US-101 that this project proposes is needed to provide better community connectivity between the existing and planned neighborhoods and to support planned roadway improvements east and west of the US101 freeway. Improvements to US-101 in the study area and the extension of Prado Road over US101 are critical to the operations for all modes of travel; not only for regional traffic, but also for local traffic.

The purpose of the project is to improve overall circulation and accessibility in the project area for all transportation modes.

There is a need to provide better community connectivity between the existing and planned neighborhoods east and west of the US-101 freeway and resolve forecasted operational deficiencies on state and city facilities. These connectivity needs extend to all transportation modes. Goals and objectives of the project include:
• Improve overall operations of US-101 and adjacent interchanges • Improve mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians
• Improve transit performance and enhance transit opportunities • Improve consistency with local, regional, and state planning

PROJECT DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
At the time of the study, no mandatory or advisory design exceptions were noted.

INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE VA TEAM
The following project documents were provided to the VA team for their use during the study:
• Draft Project Report – Caltrans, District 5 – December 1, 2022 • Structures Advanced Planning Studies – Caltrans, District 5 – November 2, 2022 • Typical Sections and Layouts – Caltrans, District 5 – March 20, 2023 • Primary Cost Estimates – Caltrans, District 5 – September 29, 2002 60

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Information • Collision Cost Analysis and Benefit/Cost – City of San Luis Obispo – May 2019 • Preliminary Foundation Report – City of San Luis Obispo – January 4, 2022 • 2-Dimensional Hydraulic Model Update Final Report – City of San Luis Obispo – October 22, 2019

PROJECT DRAWINGS
The project team provided preliminary project layouts and cross-sections for the VA team during the VA study. The project location and the typical cross-section drawings are included in the project report when applicable and are available from the PDT upon request.

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
The VA study used the most current escalated capital cost outlay estimate for the two project design alternatives dated September 29, 2002. The project team provided a further ROM total project cost estimate amount for each project at the time of the study which totaled $80M for the A1R design alternative and $75M for the A3 design alternative. The two September 29, 2022 cost estimates are provided on the following pages.
61

EA: 05-1H640 05-SLO-101
PID: 516000105 26.5-27.3

SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Current Year Cost
Escalated Cost
(3%/YR - 2025)
$ 8,125,300 $ 8,878,735
$ 42,380,000 $ 46,309,770
$ 50,505,300 $ 55,188,505
$ 4,497,234 $ 5,396,681
$ 60,590,000 55,010,000 $
DATE: 9/29/2002
On Route 101 in San Luis Obispo County between 0.3-mile South of Prado Road and 0.2-mile South of Madonna Road
Partial Interchange Reconstruction
Construct New Prado Road crossing over Route 101, Route 101 off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, and NB auxiliary lane between the Prado Road and Madonna Road Project Description:

Scope :

TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE

TOTAL STRUCTURES COST

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
Draft Project Report
PM:

District-County-Route:

Alternative : Alternative A1R (Roundabout) - Structure Option

TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY / UTILITY COST

TOTAL ROADWAY COST
Type of Estimate :

Project Limits :
1 62

PRELIMINARY

COST ESTIMATE
I. ROADWAY ITEMS SUMMARY
Cost
1 $ 1,072,700
2 $ 1,819,600
3 $ 300,000
4 $ 182,400
5 $ 409,500
6 $ 727,600
7 $ 50,000
8 $ 451,200
9 $ 496,300
10 $ 323,200
11 $ -
12 $ 1,345,900
13 $ 946,900
$ 8,125,300
Overhead

TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS
Contingencies
Section
Detours
Earthwork
Environmental
Roadway Mobilization
State Furnished
Supplemental Work
Pavement Structural Section
Traffic Items
Specialty Items
Drainage
Minor Items
2 63

PRELIMINARY

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
SECTION 1: EARTHWORK
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
160101 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 x 30,000.00 = 30,000 $
170101 Develop Water Supply LS x = $ -
190101 Roadway Excavation CY 14,323 x 55.00 = 787,765 $ 190103 Roadway Excavation (Type Y) ADL (Assumed) LS x = $ - 190105 Roadway Excavation (Type Z-2) ADL CY x = $ -
192037 Structure Excavation (Retaining Wall) CY x = $ - 193013 Structure Backfill (Retaining Wall) CY 209 x 65.00 = 13,585 $ 193031 Pervious Backfill Material (Retaining Wall) CY x = $ - 194001 Ditch Excavation CY x = $ -
198010 Imported Borrow CY 12,064 x 20.00 = 241,280 $
198007 Imported Material (Shoulder Backing) TON x = $ - 198050 Embankment CY x = $ -
$ 1,072,700
SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
150771 Remove Asphalt Concrete Dike LF x = - $
150860 Remove Base and Surfacing LS x = - $
153103 Cold Plane Asphalt Concrete Pavement SQYD x = - $ 1532XX Remove Concrete (type) CY x = - $
250401 Class 4 Aggregate Subbase CY x = - $
260203 Class 2 Aggregate Base CY 8,092 x 100.00 = 809,200 $ 290201 Asphalt Treated Permeable Base CY x = - $
365001 Sand Cover TON x = - $
374002 Asphaltic Emulsion (Fog Seal Coat) TON x = - $
374492 Asphaltic Emulsion (Polymer Modified) TON x = - $ 3750XX Screenings (Type XX) TON x = - $
377501 Slurry Seal TON x = - $
390095 Replace Asphalt Concrete Surfacing CY x = - $
390132 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON 5,148 x 160.00 = 823,680 $ 390136 Minor Hot Mix Asphalt TON x = - $
390137 Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt (Gap Graded) TON x = - $ 393003 Geosynthetic Pavement Interlayer SQYD x = - $
39405X Shoulder Rumber Strip (HMA, Type XX Indenta STA x = $ - 394071 Place Hot Mix Asphalt Dike LF x = $ -
394090 Place Hot Mix Asphalt (Misc. Area) SQYD x = $ -
397005 Tack Coat TON x = $ -
401000 Concrete Pavement CY x = $ -
401108 Replace Concrete Pavement (Rapid Strength C CY x = $ - 404092 Seal Pavement Joint LF x = $ -
404094 Seal Longitudinal Isolation Joint LF x = $ -
413112A Repair Spalled Joints (Polyester Grout) SQYD x = $ - 413115 Seal Existing Concrete Pavement Joint LF x = $ - 420102 Groove Existing Concrete Pavement SQYD x = $ -
420201 Grind Existing Concrete Pavement SQYD x = $ -
721431 Minor Concrete (Stamped Concrete -Truck
Apron) CY x $ -
721431 Minor Concrete (Stamped Concrete Medians) CY x $ - 730020 Minor Concrete (Curb) CY x $ -
730020 Minor Concrete(Curb-Truck Apron) CY x $ -
730070 Detectable Warning Surface SQFT 331 x 75.00 $ 24,825 731504 Minor Concrete (Curb and Gutter) CY 101 x 800.00 $ 80,800 731521 Minor Concrete (Sidewalk) CY 81 x 1,000.00 = 81,000 $ XXXXXX Some Item x = $ -
TOTAL STRUCTURAL SECTION ITEMS $ 1,819,600

TOTAL EARTHWORK SECTION ITEMS
3 64

PRELIMINARY

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
SECTION 3: DRAINAGE
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
150206 Abandon Culvert LF x = - $
150805 Remove Culvert LF x = - $
150820 Modify Inlet EA x = - $
152430 Adjust Inlet LF x = - $
155003 Cap Inlet EA x = - $
193114 Sand Backfill CY x = - $
510502 Minor Concrete (Minor Structure) CY x = - $
510512 Minor Concrete (Box Culvert) CY x = - $
62XXXX XXX" APC Pipe LF x = - $
64XXXX XXX" Plastic Pipe LF x = - $
65XXXX XXX" RCP Pipe LF x = - $
66XXXX XXX" CSP Pipe LF x = - $
68XXXX Edge Drain LF x = - $
69XXXX XXX" Pipe Downdrain LF x = - $
70XXXX XXX" Pipe Inlet LF x = - $
70XXXX XXX" Pipe Riser LF x = - $
70XXXX XXX" Flared End Section EA x = - $
703233 Grated Line Drain LF x = - $
72XXXX Rock Slope Protection (Type and Method) CY x = - $ 721420 Concrete (Ditch Lining) CY x = - $
721430 Concrete (Channel Lining) CY x = - $
729010 Rock Slope Protection Fabric SQYD x = - $
750001 Miscellaneous Iron and Steel LB x = - $
XXXXXX Storm Drain System LS 1 x 300,000.00 = 300,000 $ XXXXXX Some Item x = - $
$ 300,000
SECTION 4: SPECIALTY ITEMS
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
070012 Progress Schedule (Critical Path Method) LS 1 x 10,000.00 = 10,000 $ 150662 Remove Metal Beam Guard Railing LF x = $ -
150668 Remove Terminal Systems EA x = $ -
1532XX Remove Barrier (Insert Type) LF x = $ -
153250 Remove Sound Wall SQFT x = $ -
190110 Lead Compliance Plan LS 1 x 5,000.00 = 5,000 $
475xxx Retaining Wall & Aesthetic Treatment SQFT 2,260 x 50.00 = 113,000 $ 510060 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) CY x = $ -
510133 Class 2 Concrete (Retaining Wall) CY x = $ -
510524 Minor Concrete (Sound Wall) CY x = $ -
511048 Apply Anti-Graffiti Coating SQFT x = $ -
5136XX Reinforced Concrete Crib Wall (Insert Type) SQFT x = $ - 518002 Sound Wall (Masonry Block) SQFT x = $ -
520103 Bar Reinf. Steel (Retaining Wall) LB x = $ -
80XXXX Fence (Insert Type )LF x = $ -
832005 Midwest Guardrail System LF 800 x 68.00 = 54,400 $ 839310 Double Thrie Beam Barrier LF x = $ -
839521 Cable Railing LF x = $ -
83954X Transition Railing (Insert Type) EA x = $ -
8395XX Terminal System (Type CAT) EA x = $ -
8395XX Alternative Flared Terminal System EA x = $ -
8395XX End Anchor Assembly (Insert Type ) EA x = $ -
839561 Rail Tensioning Assembly EA x = $ -
839XXX Crash Cushion (Insert Type) EA x = $ -
83XXXX Concrete Barrier (Insert Type) LF x = $ -
$ 182,400

TOTAL DRAINAGE ITEMS

TOTAL SPECIALTY ITEMS
4 65

PRELIMINARY

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
SECTION 5: ENVIRONMENTAL
5A - ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
Biological Mitigation LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000 $
071325 TEMPORARY REINFORCED SILT FENCE LF x = - $
Tree Removal and Mitigation LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000 $ $ 100,000
5B - LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
20xxxx Planting and Irrigation SQFT 3,978 x 25.00 = 99,450 $ 20XXXX XXX" (Insert Type ) Conduit (Use for LF x = - $
20XXXX Extend XXX" (Insert Type) Conduit LF x = - $
201700 Imported Topsoil CY x = - $
2030XX Erosion Control (Type __) SQYD x = - $
203021 Fiber Rolls LF x = - $
203026 Move In/ Move Out (Erosion Control) EA x = - $
204099 Plant Establishment Work LS x = - $
204101 Extend Plant Establishment (X Years) LS x = - $
208000 Irrigation System LS x = - $
208304 Water Meter EA x = - $
209801 Maintenance Vehicle Pullout EA x = - $
210210 Erosion Control LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000 $
$ 149,450
5C - NPDES
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
074016 Construction Site Management LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000 $ 074017 Prepare WPCP LS x = - $
074019 Prepare SWPPP LS 1 x 10,000.00 = 10,000 $
074023 Temporary Erosion Control SQYD x = - $
074027 Temporary Erosion Control Blanket SQYD x = - $
074028 Temporary Fiber Roll LF x = - $
074032 Temporary Concrete Washout Facility EA x = - $
074033 Temporary Construction Entrance EA x = - $
074035 Temporary Check Dam LF x = - $
074037 Move In/ Move Out (Temporary Erosion Con EA x = $ - 074038 Temp. Drainage Inlet Protection EA x = $ -
074041 Street Sweeping LS x = $ -
074042 Temporary Concrete Washout (Portable) LS x = $ - XXXXXX Temporary Facilities & SWPPP Compliance LS 1 x 100,000.00 = 100,000 $ Supplemental Work for NPDES
(These costs are not accounted in total here but under Supplemental Work on sheet 7 of 11). 066595 Water Pollution Control Maintenance Sharing LS x = $ - 066596 Additional Water Pollution Control** LS x = $ -
066597 Storm Water Sampling and Analysis*** LS x = $ -
XXXXXX Some Item
$ 160,000
*** Applies only to project with SWPPPs.

TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL 409,500 $
**Applies to both SWPPPs and WPCP projects.
*Applies to all SWPPPs and those WPCPs with sediment control or soil stabilization BMPs.

Subtotal NPDES (Without Supplemental Work)
Subtotal Environmental
Subtotal Landscape and Irrigation
5 66

PRELIMINARY

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS
6A - Traffic Electrical
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
150760 Remove Sign Structure EA x = - $
151581 Reconstruct Sign Structure EA x = - $
152641 Modify Sign Structure EA x = - $
5602XX Furnish Sign Structure LB x = - $
5602XX Install Sign Structure LB x = - $
56XXXX XXX" CIDHC Pile (Sign Foundation) LF x = - $
860090 Maintain Existing Traffic Management LS x = - $
860810 Inductive Loop Detectors EA x = - $
86055X Lighting & Sign Illumination LS 1 x 400,000.00 = 400,000 $ 8607XX Interconnection Facilities LS x = - $
8609XX Traffic Monitoring Stations LS x = - $
860XXX Signals & Lighting LS x = - $
8611XX Ramp Metering System (Location X) LS x = - $
8611XX Ramp Metering System (Location X) LS x = - $
86XXXX Fiber Optic Conduit System LS x = - $
XXXXX Service Point LS x - $
$ 400,000
6B - Traffic Signing and Striping
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
120090 Construction Area Signs LS 1 x 30,000.00 = 30,000 $ 150701 Remove Yellow Painted Traffic Stripe LF x = - $
150710 Remove Traffic Stripe LF x = - $
150713 Remove Pavement Marking SQFT x = - $
150742 Remove Roadside Sign EA x = - $
152320 Reset Roadside Sign EA x = - $
152390 Relocate Roadside Sign EA x = - $
566011 Roadside Sign (One Post) EA 40 x 350.00 = 14,000 $ 566012 Roadside Sign (Two Post) EA 4 x 650.00 = 2,600 $ 560XXX Furnish Sign Panels SQFT x = - $
560XXX Install Sign Panels SQFT x = - $
82010X Delineator (Class X) EA x = - $
84XXXX Permanent Pavement Delineation LS 1 x 31,000.00 = 31,000 $ $ 77,600
6C - Stage Construction and Traffic Handling
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
120100 Traffic Control System LS 1 x 250,000.00 = 250,000 $ 120120 Type III Barricade EA x = - $
120143 Temporary Pavement Delineation LF x = - $
12016X Channelizer EA x = - $
128650 Portable Changeable Message Signs EA x = - $
129000 Temporary Railing (Type K) LF x = - $
129100 Temp. Crash Cushion Module EA x = - $
129099A Traffic Plastic Drum EA x = - $
839603A Temporary Crash Cushion (ADIEM) EA x = - $
XXXXXX Some Item
$ 250,000
$ 727,600
Subtotal Traffic Electrical
Subtotal Traffic Signing and Striping
Subtotal Stage Construction and Traffic Handling

TOTAL TRAFFIC ITEMS
6 67

PRELIMINARY

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
SECTION 7: DETOURS
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
0713XX Temporary Fence (Type X) LF x = - $
07XXXX Temporary Drainage LS x = - $
120143 Temporary Pavement Delineation LF x = - $
1286XX Temporary Signals EA x = - $
129000 Temporary Railing (Type K) LF x = - $
190101 Roadway Excavation CY x = - $
198001 Imported Borrow CY x = - $
198050 Embankment CY x = - $
250401 Class 4 Aggregate Subbase CY x = - $
260201 Class 2 Aggregate Base CY x = - $
390132 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON x = - $
XXXXXX DETOUR/MISC TEMP FACILITES LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000 $ $ 50,000
SUBTOTAL SECTIONS 1-7 4,511,800 $
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS
8A - Americans with Disabilities Act Items
ADA Items 0.0% - $
8B - Bike Path Items
Bike Path Items 0.0% - $
8C - Other Minor Items
Other Minor Items 10.0% 451,180 $
Total of Section 1-7 $ 4,511,800 x 10.0% = 451,180 $
$ 451,200
SECTIONS 9: MOBILIZATION
Item
code
999990 Total Section 1-8 $ 4,963,000 x 10% = 496,300 $
$ 496,300
SECTION 10: SUPPLEMENTAL WORK
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
066015 Federal Trainee Program LS x = - $
066063 Traffic Management Plan - Public Informatio LS 1 x 25,000.00 = 25,000 $ 066090 Maintain Traffic LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000 $
066094 Value Analysis LS x = - $
066204 Remove Rock & Debris LS x = - $
066222 Locate Existing Cross-Over LS x = - $
066670 Payment Adjustments For Price Index Fluctu LS x = $ - 066700 Partnering LS x = $ -
066866 Operation of Existing Traffic Management S LS x = $ - 066920 Dispute Review Board LS x = $ -
XXXXXX Some Item x =- $
= $ -
Total Section 1-8 $ 4,963,000 5% = 248,150 $
TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL WORK 323,200 $
Cost of NPDES Supplemental Work specified in Section 5C

TOTAL MINOR ITEMS

TOTAL DETOURS

TOTAL MOBILIZATION
Include constructing, maintaining, and removal
68 7

PRELIMINARY

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
SECTION 11: STATE FURNISHED MATERIALS AND EXPENSES
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
066063 Public Information LS x = $0
066105 RE Office LS x = $0
066803 Padlocks LS x = $0
066838 Reflective Numbers and Edge Sealer LS x = $0
066901 Water Expenses LS x = $0
066062A COZEEP Expenses LS x = $0
06684X Ramp Meter Controller Assembly LS x = $0
06684X TMS Controller Assembly LS x = $0
06684X Traffic Signal Controller Assembly LS x = $0
XXXXXX Some Item
Total Section 1-8 $ 4,963,000 0% = $ -
$0
SECTION 12: TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD
Estiamted Time-Releated Overhead (TRO) Percentage (0% to 10%) = 2% Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
070018 Time-Related Overhead WD 520 X $1,820.96 = $946,900 TOTAL TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD $946,900
SECTION 13: CONTINGENCY
(Pre-PSR 30%-50%, PSR 25%, Draft PR 20%, PR 15%, after PR approval 10%, Final PS&E 5%) Total Section 1-11 $ 6,729,400 x 20% = $1,345,880
TOTAL CONTINGENCY $1,345,900

TOTAL STATE FURNISHED
69 8

PRELIMINARY

COST ESTIMATE
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
119 LF 32 LF 28 LF
1538 LF 468 LF 498 LF
182965 SQFT 14965 SQFT 13970 SQFT
$42,380,000.00
$36,593,000.00
Prado OC NB OFF-RAMP NB ON-RAMP
Bridge Name Prado Road/US 101 Overcrossing NB Off-Ramp NB On-Ramp Width (Feet) [out to out]
Total Bridge Length (Feet)
Total Area (Square Feet)
Structure Type CIP/PS CIP/PS CIP/PS
Cost Per Square Foot $200.00 $200.00 $200.00

COST OF EACH
STRUCTURE $2,993,000.00 $2,794,000.00
TOTAL COST OF STRUCTURES $42,380,000.00

TOTAL COST OF BRIDGES
70 9

EA: 05-1H640 05-SLO-101
PID: 516000105 26.5-27.3

SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Current Year Cost
Escalated Cost
(3%/YR - 2025)
$ 10,183,669 9,319,500 $
$ 41,640,985 38,107,400 $
$ 51,824,654 47,426,900 $
$ 5,438,096 4,531,747 $
$ 57,270,000 51,960,000 $
DATE: 9/29/2022
On Route 101 in San Luis Obispo County between 0.3-mile South of Prado Road and 0.2-mile South of Madonna Road
Partial Interchange Reconstruction
Construct New Prado Road crossing over Route 101, Route 101 off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, and NB auxiliary lane between the Prado Road and Madonna Road Project Description:

Scope :

TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE

TOTAL STRUCTURES COST

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
Draft Project Report
PM:

DistrictͲCountyͲRoute:

Alternative : Alternative A3 - Structure Option

TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY / UTILITY COST

TOTAL ROADWAY COST
Type of Estimate :

Project Limits :
1 71

PRELIMINARY

COST ESTIMATE
I. ROADWAY ITEMS SUMMARY
Cost
1 $ 1,353,900
2 $ 1,830,800
3 $ 300,000
4 $ 469,600
5 $ 377,500
6 $ 978,600
7 $ 50,000
8 $ 536,100
9 $ 589,700
10 $ 369,900
11 $ 30,000
12 $ 1,553,300
13 $ 880,100
$ 9,319,500
Overhead

TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS
Contingencies
Section
Detours
Earthwork
Environmental
Roadway Mobilization
State Furnished
Supplemental Work
Pavement Structural Section
Traffic Items
Specialty Items
Drainage
Minor Items
2 72

PRELIMINARY

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
SECTION 1: EARTHWORK
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
160101 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 x 30,000.00 = 30,000 $
170101 Develop Water Supply LS x = $ -
190101 Roadway Excavation CY 14,334 x 55.00 = 788,370 $ 190103 Roadway Excavation (Type Y) ADL (Assumed) LS x = $ - 190105 Roadway Excavation (Type Z-2) ADL CY x = $ -
192037 Structure Excavation (Retaining Wall) CY x = $ - 193013 Structure Backfill (Retaining Wall) CY 741 x 65.00 = 48,165 $ 193031 Pervious Backfill Material (Retaining Wall) CY x = $ - 194001 Ditch Excavation CY x = $ -
198010 Imported Borrow CY 24,368 x 20.00 = 487,360 $
198007 Imported Material (Shoulder Backing) TON x = $ - 198050 Embankment CY x = $ -
$ 1,353,900
SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
150771 Remove Asphalt Concrete Dike LF x = - $
150860 Remove Base and Surfacing LS x = - $
153103 Cold Plane Asphalt Concrete Pavement SQYD x = - $ 1532XX Remove Concrete (type) CY x = - $
250401 Class 4 Aggregate Subbase CY x = - $
260203 Class 2 Aggregate Base CY 8,296 x 100.00 = 829,600 $ 290201 Asphalt Treated Permeable Base CY x = - $
365001 Sand Cover TON x = - $
374002 Asphaltic Emulsion (Fog Seal Coat) TON x = - $
374492 Asphaltic Emulsion (Polymer Modified) TON x = - $ 3750XX Screenings (Type XX) TON x = - $
377501 Slurry Seal TON x = - $
390095 Replace Asphalt Concrete Surfacing CY x = - $
390132 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON 5,277 x 160.00 = 844,320 $ 390136 Minor Hot Mix Asphalt TON x = - $
390137 Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt (Gap Graded) TON x = - $ 393003 Geosynthetic Pavement Interlayer SQYD x = - $
39405X Shoulder Rumber Strip (HMA, Type XX Indenta STA x = $ - 394071 Place Hot Mix Asphalt Dike LF x = $ -
394090 Place Hot Mix Asphalt (Misc. Area) SQYD x = $ -
397005 Tack Coat TON x = $ -
401000 Concrete Pavement CY x = $ -
401108 Replace Concrete Pavement (Rapid Strength C CY x = $ - 404092 Seal Pavement Joint LF x = $ -
404094 Seal Longitudinal Isolation Joint LF x = $ -
413112A Repair Spalled Joints (Polyester Grout) SQYD x = $ - 413115 Seal Existing Concrete Pavement Joint LF x = $ - 420102 Groove Existing Concrete Pavement SQYD x = $ -
420201 Grind Existing Concrete Pavement SQYD x = $ -
721431 Minor Concrete (Stamped Concrete -Truck
Apron) CY $ -
721431 Minor Concrete (Stamped Concrete Medians) CY $ - 730020 Minor Concrete (Curb) CY $ -
730020 Minor Concrete(Curb-Truck Apron) CY $ -
730070 Detectable Warning Surface SQFT 416 x 75.00 $ 31,200 731504 Minor Concrete (Curb and Gutter) CY 57 x 800.00 $ 45,600 731521 Minor Concrete (Sidewalk) CY 80 x 1,000.00 = 80,000 $ XXXXXX Some Item x = $ -
TOTAL STRUCTURAL SECTION ITEMS $ 1,830,800

TOTAL EARTHWORK SECTION ITEMS
3 73

PRELIMINARY

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
SECTION 3: DRAINAGE
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
150206 Abandon Culvert LF x = - $
150805 Remove Culvert LF x = - $
150820 Modify Inlet EA x = - $
152430 Adjust Inlet LF x = - $
155003 Cap Inlet EA x = - $
193114 Sand Backfill CY x = - $
510502 Minor Concrete (Minor Structure) CY x = - $
510512 Minor Concrete (Box Culvert) CY x = - $
62XXXX XXX" APC Pipe LF x = - $
64XXXX XXX" Plastic Pipe LF x = - $
65XXXX XXX" RCP Pipe LF x = - $
66XXXX XXX" CSP Pipe LF x = - $
68XXXX Edge Drain LF x = - $
69XXXX XXX" Pipe Downdrain LF x = - $
70XXXX XXX" Pipe Inlet LF x = - $
70XXXX XXX" Pipe Riser LF x = - $
70XXXX XXX" Flared End Section EA x = - $
703233 Grated Line Drain LF x = - $
72XXXX Rock Slope Protection (Type and Method) CY x = - $ 721420 Concrete (Ditch Lining) CY x = - $
721430 Concrete (Channel Lining) CY x = - $
729010 Rock Slope Protection Fabric SQYD x = - $
750001 Miscellaneous Iron and Steel LB x = - $
XXXXXX Storm Drain System LS 1 x 300,000.00 = 300,000 $ XXXXXX Some Item x = - $
$ 300,000
SECTION 4: SPECIALTY ITEMS
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
070012 Progress Schedule (Critical Path Method) LS 1 x 10,000.00 = 10,000 $ 150662 Remove Metal Beam Guard Railing LF x = $ -
150668 Remove Terminal Systems EA x = $ -
1532XX Remove Barrier (Insert Type) LF x = $ -
153250 Remove Sound Wall SQFT x = $ -
190110 Lead Compliance Plan LS 1 x 5,000.00 = 5,000 $
475xxx Retaining Wall & Aesthetic Treatment SQFT 8,003 x 50.00 = 400,150 $ 510060 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) CY x = $ -
510133 Class 2 Concrete (Retaining Wall) CY x = $ -
510524 Minor Concrete (Sound Wall) CY x = $ -
511048 Apply Anti-Graffiti Coating SQFT x = $ -
5136XX Reinforced Concrete Crib Wall (Insert Type) SQFT x = $ - 518002 Sound Wall (Masonry Block) SQFT x = $ -
520103 Bar Reinf. Steel (Retaining Wall) LB x = $ -
80XXXX Fence (Insert Type )LF x = $ -
832005 Midwest Guardrail System LF 800 x 68.00 = 54,400 $ 839310 Double Thrie Beam Barrier LF x = $ -
839521 Cable Railing LF x = $ -
83954X Transition Railing (Insert Type) EA x = $ -
8395XX Terminal System (Type CAT) EA x = $ -
8395XX Alternative Flared Terminal System EA x = $ -
8395XX End Anchor Assembly (Insert Type ) EA x = $ -
839561 Rail Tensioning Assembly EA x = $ -
839XXX Crash Cushion (Insert Type) EA x = $ -
83XXXX Concrete Barrier (Insert Type) LF x = $ -
$ 469,600

TOTAL DRAINAGE ITEMS

TOTAL SPECIALTY ITEMS
4 74

PRELIMINARY

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
SECTION 5: ENVIRONMENTAL
5A - ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
Biological Mitigation LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000 $
071325 TEMPORARY REINFORCED SILT FENCE LF x = - $
Tree Removal and Mitigation LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000 $ $ 100,000
5B - LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
20xxxx Planting and Irrigation SQFT 2,700 x 25.00 = 67,500 $ 20XXXX XXX" (Insert Type ) Conduit (Use for LF x = - $
20XXXX Extend XXX" (Insert Type) Conduit LF x = - $
201700 Imported Topsoil CY x = - $
2030XX Erosion Control (Type __) SQYD x = - $
203021 Fiber Rolls LF x = - $
203026 Move In/ Move Out (Erosion Control) EA x = - $
204099 Plant Establishment Work LS x = - $
204101 Extend Plant Establishment (X Years) LS x = - $
208000 Irrigation System LS x = - $
208304 Water Meter EA x = - $
209801 Maintenance Vehicle Pullout EA x = - $
210210 Erosion Control LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000 $
$ 117,500
5C - NPDES
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
074016 Construction Site Management LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000 $ 074017 Prepare WPCP LS x = - $
074019 Prepare SWPPP LS 1 x 10,000.00 = 10,000 $
074023 Temporary Erosion Control SQYD x = - $
074027 Temporary Erosion Control Blanket SQYD x = - $
074028 Temporary Fiber Roll LF x = - $
074032 Temporary Concrete Washout Facility EA x = - $
074033 Temporary Construction Entrance EA x = - $
074035 Temporary Check Dam LF x = - $
074037 Move In/ Move Out (Temporary Erosion Con EA x = $ - 074038 Temp. Drainage Inlet Protection EA x = $ -
074041 Street Sweeping LS x = $ -
074042 Temporary Concrete Washout (Portable) LS x = $ - XXXXXX Temporary Facilities & SWPPP Compliance LS 1 x 100,000.00 = 100,000 $ Supplemental Work for NPDES
(These costs are not accounted in total here but under Supplemental Work on sheet 7 of 11). 066595 Water Pollution Control Maintenance Sharing LS x = $ - 066596 Additional Water Pollution Control** LS x = $ -
066597 Storm Water Sampling and Analysis*** LS x = $ -
XXXXXX Some Item
$ 160,000
*** Applies only to project with SWPPPs.

TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL 377,500 $
**Applies to both SWPPPs and WPCP projects.
*Applies to all SWPPPs and those WPCPs with sediment control or soil stabilization BMPs.

Subtotal NPDES (Without Supplemental Work)
Subtotal Environmental
Subtotal Landscape and Irrigation
5 75

PRELIMINARY

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS
6A - Traffic Electrical
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
150760 Remove Sign Structure EA x = - $
151581 Reconstruct Sign Structure EA x = - $
152641 Modify Sign Structure EA x = - $
5602XX Furnish Sign Structure LB x = - $
5602XX Install Sign Structure LB x = - $
56XXXX XXX" CIDHC Pile (Sign Foundation) LF x = - $
860090 Maintain Existing Traffic Management LS x = - $
860810 Inductive Loop Detectors EA x = - $
86055X Lighting & Sign Illumination LS 1 x 300,000.00 = 300,000 $ 8607XX Interconnection Facilities LS x = - $
8609XX Traffic Monitoring Stations LS x = - $
860XXX Signals & Lighting LS 1 x 350,000.00 = 350,000 $ 8611XX Ramp Metering System (Location X) LS x = - $
8611XX Ramp Metering System (Location X) LS x = - $
86XXXX Fiber Optic Conduit System LS x = - $
XXXXX Service Point LS x - $
$ 650,000
6B - Traffic Signing and Striping
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
120090 Construction Area Signs LS 1 x 30,000.00 = 30,000 $ 150701 Remove Yellow Painted Traffic Stripe LF x = - $
150710 Remove Traffic Stripe LF x = - $
150713 Remove Pavement Marking SQFT x = - $
150742 Remove Roadside Sign EA x = - $
152320 Reset Roadside Sign EA x = - $
152390 Relocate Roadside Sign EA x = - $
566011 Roadside Sign (One Post) EA 40 x 350.00 = 14,000 $ 566012 Roadside Sign (Two Post) EA 4 x 650.00 = 2,600 $ 560XXX Furnish Sign Panels SQFT x = - $
560XXX Install Sign Panels SQFT x = - $
82010X Delineator (Class X) EA x = - $
84XXXX Permanent Pavement Delineation LS 1 x 32,000.00 = 32,000 $ $ 78,600
6C - Stage Construction and Traffic Handling
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
120100 Traffic Control System LS 1 x 250,000.00 = 250,000 $ 120120 Type III Barricade EA x = - $
120143 Temporary Pavement Delineation LF x = - $
12016X Channelizer EA x = - $
128650 Portable Changeable Message Signs EA x = - $
129000 Temporary Railing (Type K) LF x = - $
129100 Temp. Crash Cushion Module EA x = - $
129099A Traffic Plastic Drum EA x = - $
839603A Temporary Crash Cushion (ADIEM) EA x = - $
XXXXXX Some Item
$ 250,000
$ 978,600
Subtotal Traffic Electrical
Subtotal Traffic Signing and Striping
Subtotal Stage Construction and Traffic Handling

TOTAL TRAFFIC ITEMS
6 76

PRELIMINARY

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
SECTION 7: DETOURS
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
0713XX Temporary Fence (Type X) LF x = - $
07XXXX Temporary Drainage LS x = - $
120143 Temporary Pavement Delineation LF x = - $
1286XX Temporary Signals EA x = - $
129000 Temporary Railing (Type K) LF x = - $
190101 Roadway Excavation CY x = - $
198001 Imported Borrow CY x = - $
198050 Embankment CY x = - $
250401 Class 4 Aggregate Subbase CY x = - $
260201 Class 2 Aggregate Base CY x = - $
390132 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON x = - $
XXXXXX DETOUR/MISC TEMP FACILITES LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000 $ $ 50,000
SUBTOTAL SECTIONS 1-7 5,360,400 $
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS
8A - Americans with Disabilities Act Items
ADA Items 0.0% - $
8B - Bike Path Items
Bike Path Items 0.0% - $
8C - Other Minor Items
Other Minor Items 10.0% 536,040 $
Total of Section 1-7 $ 5,360,400 x 10.0% = 536,040 $
$ 536,100
SECTIONS 9: MOBILIZATION
Item
code
999990 Total Section 1-8 $ 5,896,500 x 10% = 589,650 $
$ 589,700
SECTION 10: SUPPLEMENTAL WORK
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
066015 Federal Trainee Program LS x = - $
066063 Traffic Management Plan - Public Information LS 1 x 25,000.00 = 25,000 $ 066090 Maintain Traffic LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000 $
066094 Value Analysis LS x = - $
066204 Remove Rock & Debris LS x = - $
066222 Locate Existing Cross-Over LS x = - $
066670 Payment Adjustments For Price Index Fluctuations LS x = - $ 066700 Partnering LS x = $ -
066866 Operation of Existing Traffic Management System Ele LS x = $ - 066920 Dispute Review Board LS x = $ -
XXXXXX Some Item x =- $
= $ -
Total Section 1-8 $ 5,896,500 5% = 294,825 $
TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL WORK 369,900 $
Cost of NPDES Supplemental Work specified in Section 5C

TOTAL MINOR ITEMS

TOTAL DETOURS

TOTAL MOBILIZATION
Include constructing, maintaining, and removal
77 7

PRELIMINARY

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
SECTION 11: STATE FURNISHED MATERIALS AND EXPENSES
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
066063 Public Information LS x = $0
066105 RE Office LS x = $0
066803 Padlocks LS x = $0
066838 Reflective Numbers and Edge Sealer LS x = $0
066901 Water Expenses LS x = $0
066062A COZEEP Expenses LS x = $0
06684X Ramp Meter Controller Assembly LS x = $0
06684X TMS Controller Assembly LS x = $0
06684X Traffic Signal Controller Assembly LS 1 x 30,000.00 = $30,000 XXXXXX Some Item
Total Section 1-8 $ 5,896,500 0% = - $
$30,000
SECTION 12: TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD
Estiamted Time-Releated Overhead (TRO) Percentage (0% to 10%) = 2% Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
070018 Time-Related Overhead WD 520 X $1,693 = $880,100 TOTAL TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD $880,100
SECTION 13: CONTINGENCY
(Pre-PSR 30%-50%, PSR 25%, Draft PR 20%, PR 15%, after PR approval 10%, Final PS&E 5%) Total Section 1-11 $ 7,766,200 x 20% = $1,553,240
TOTAL CONTINGENCY $1,553,300

TOTAL STATE FURNISHED
78 8

PRELIMINARY

COST ESTIMATE
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
105 LF 35 LF 29 LF
1538 LF 474 LF 464 LF
161956 SQFT 15642 SQFT 12939 SQFT
$38,107,400.00
$32,391,200.00
Prado OC NB OFF-RAMP NB ON-RAMP
Bridge Name Prado Road/US 101 Overcrossing NB Off-Ramp NB On-Ramp Width (Feet) [out to out]
Total Bridge Length (Feet)
Total Area (Square Feet)
Structure Type CIP/PS CIP/PS CIP/PS
Cost Per Square Foot $200.00 $200.00 $200.00

COST OF EACH
STRUCTURE $3,128,400.00 $2,587,800.00
TOTAL COST OF STRUCTURES $38,107,400.00

TOTAL COST OF BRIDGES
79 9

PROJECT ANALYSIS

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis

PROJECT ANALYSIS

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
The following analysis tools were used to study the project:
• Key Project Factors
• Cost Model
• Function Analysis
• Value Metrics

KEY PROJECT FACTORS
The first day of the VA study included meetings with the project stakeholders. The following summarizes key project issues and site visit observations identified during these sessions.

Project Issues
The following are some of the issues and concerns associated with the project:

Project Budget – The project is currently estimated in the $75-80M range which is far in excess of what was originally anticipated when the project was first planned. Funding for the project will come from a variety of sources including federal; state; city; and private, but the need to keep design and construction costs to a minimum through the project delivery process while balancing project quality in all facets is essential.

Hydraulics – The project is being constructed in a known floodplain where every structural aspect will have significant repercussions on how the hydraulics of the surrounding terrain function including existing stream and surrounding natural infiltration areas. The project must not exceed a 0.1’ impact to the flood level and must not significantly impede the free flow of future flood waters during large storm and flooding events.

Project Construction Staging – While a large portion of the project will be constructed on vacant farmland, significant aspects of the project’s structures will need to be integrated with the continued operation of US-101 and its northbound on- and off-ramps as well as local streets such as Elks Lane and Prado Road. In addition, there are several local property access points that will be affected by the construction effort most notably the transit property, the drive-in theater, and the City’s corporation yard. The construction staging plan will need to be formulated to reduce the impacts to these elements as much as possible while also limiting overall project duration.

Site Visit Observations
A virtual site visit was conducted by the VA study team using Google Maps in order to visually assess the project’s site conditions and to provide context to all project design components. Through this effort and through the use of several project plan sheets, the VA team was able to more fully understand the constraints, challenges, and issues relating to the project. 81

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis

COST MODEL
The VA team leader prepared a cost model from the cost estimated presented in the Project Information section of this report. The model is based on the updated project cost estimate dated September 29, 2022, which was made available during the VA study and is organized to identify major construction element or trade categories, the original estimated costs, and the percent of total project cost for the significant cost items. The cost model and Pareto chart below provide a concise perspective of where major cost items reside within the project cost estimate.

Cost Model – Design Alternative A1R
Item Cost % of Total Cumulative %
Structures - Prado OC $36,593,000 72.5 % 72.5 %
Structures - NB Off-Ramp $2,993,000 5.9 % 78.4 %
Structures - NB On-Ramp $2,794,000 5.5 % 83.9 %
Pavement Structural Section $1,819,600 3.6 % 87.5 %
Roadway Contingency $1,345,900 2.7 % 90.2 %
Earthwork $1,072,700 2.1 % 92.3 %
Time-Related Overhead $946,900 1.9 % 94.2 %
Traffic Items $727,600 1.4 % 95.6 %
Roadway Mobilization $496,300 1.0 % 96.6 %
Minor Items $451,200 0.9 % 97.5 %
Environmental $409,500 0.8 % 98.3 %
Supplemental Work $323,200 0.6 % 98.9 %
Drainage $300,000 0.6 % 99.5 %
Specialty Items $182,400 0.4 % 99.9 %
Detours $50,000 0.1 % 100.0 %
State Furnished $0 0.0 % 100.0 %
Right-of-Way $0 0.0 % 100.0 %
TOTAL $50,505,300
82

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis Pareto Chart - Design Alternative A1R

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
$40,000,000
Structures - Prado OC
Structures - NB Off-Ramp
Structures - NB On-Ramp
Pavement Structural Section
Roadway Contingency
Earthwork
Time-Related Overhead
Traffic Items
Roadway Mobilization
Minor Items
Environmental
Supplemental Work
Drainage
Specialty Items
Detours
State Furnished
Right-of-Way
Cost Cumulative Percent
83

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis Cost Model – Design Alternative A3
Item Cost % of Total Cumulative %
Structures - Prado OC $32,391,200 68.3 % 68.3 %
Structures - NB Off-Ramp $3,128,400 6.6 % 74.9 %
Structures - NB On-Ramp $2,587,800 5.5 % 80.3 %
Pavement Structural Section $1,830,800 3.9 % 84.2 %
Roadway Contingency $1,553,300 3.3 % 87.5 %
Earthwork $1,353,900 2.9 % 90.3 %
Traffic Items $978,600 2.1 % 92.4 %
Time-Related Overhead $880,100 1.9 % 94.3 %
Roadway Mobilization $589,700 1.2 % 95.5 %
Minor Items $536,100 1.1 % 96.6 %
Specialty Items $469,600 1.0 % 97.6 %
Environmental $377,500 0.8 % 98.4 %
Supplemental Work $369,900 0.8 % 99.2 %
Drainage $300,000 0.6 % 99.8 %
Detours $50,000 0.1 % 99.9 %
State Furnished $30,000 0.1 % 100.0 %
Right-of-Way $0 0.0 % 100.0 %
TOTAL $47,426,900
84

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis Pareto Chart - Design Alternative A3
For VA alternative development, additional percentage-based cumulative mark-ups not included in the initial cost of construction are reflected within the total project estimate. These mark-ups include 10% for Minor Items, 10% for Mobilization, 5% for Supplemental Work, 20% for Roadway Contingency, and 9.3% for escalation. The mark-up for each initial construction cost items cumulatively amounts to 65.9% for roadway construction items, 31.2% for Time-Related Overhead, and 9.3% for the interchange structures. This mark-up total was used for the purpose of developing initial construction costs for analyzing individual practical design VA alternatives.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
Structures - Prado OC
Structures - NB Off-Ramp
Structures - NB On-Ramp
Pavement Structural Section
Roadway Contingency
Earthwork
Traffic Items
Time-Related Overhead
Roadway Mobilization
Minor Items
Specialty Items
Environmental
Supplemental Work
Drainage
Detours
State Furnished
Right-of-Way
Cost Cumulative Percent
85

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis

FUNCTION ANALYSIS
Function analysis was performed, and a Function Analysis System Technique (FAST) diagram was produced which revealed the key functional relationships for the project. This analysis provided a greater understanding of the total project and how the project’s performance, cost, time, and risk characteristics are related to the various functions identified. 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 questions “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 (a “When?” relationship).

Random Function Determination
Project Element Function
Construction Prepare Site
Construction Remove Existing
Construction Remove HAZMAT
Design Improve Operations
Design Improve Mobility
Design Enhance Safety
Design Enhance Maint.

Design Accom Vehicles
Design Match Existing
Design Inform Public
Design Separate Traffic
Design Control Access
Design Provide Access
Design Control Traffic
Design Accom Movements
Design Accom Pedestrians
Design Reduce Incidents
Design Control Speed
Design Accom Bicycles
Design Inform Users
Electrical Illuminate Space
Environmental Mitigate Environment
Hydraulics Remove Water
Hydraulics Collect Water
Hydraulics Convey Water
Project Element Function
Landscaping Resist Erosion
Landscaping Establish Vegetation
Materials Support Load
Materials Support Pavement
Materials Protect Roadway
Materials Increase Longevity
Materials Enhance Durability
Planning Introduce Traffic
Project Mgmt Maintain Operations
Project Mgmt Maintain Access
Project Mgmt Meet Budget
Project Mgmt Meet Schedule
Project Mgmt Meet Standards
Project Mgmt Protect Environment
Project Mgmt Coordinate Projects
Project Mgmt Manage Contract
Project Mgmt Manage Risk
Project Mgmt Obtain Permits
Project Mgmt Award Contract
Project Mgmt Notify Public
Project Mgmt Investigate Cond.

Project Mgmt Stage Construction
R/W Maintain Utilities
Structures Retain Earth
Structures Protect Structures
86

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis The study team concluded that the higher-order function of the project is to Improve Operations through the basic functions of Improve Mobility, Reduce Maintenance, and Enhance Safety. Key secondary functions include Support Load, Match Existing, Separate Traffic, Remove Water, Accommodate Vehicles, Accommodate Pedestrians, Accommodate Bicycles, and Inform Public.

Essential requirements included Maintain Existing Operations, Maintain Access, Protect Environment, Meet Budget, Meet Schedule, Meet Standards, and Reduce Risk. The project’s FAST diagram is below.

FAST Diagram
87

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis

VALUE METRICS
Value Methodology (VM) 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 the role that VM can play with regard to improving project performance. Project costs are fairly easy to quantify and compare; performance is not.

Project performance must be properly defined and agreed to by the stakeholders at the beginning of the VA study. The performance requirements and attributes developed are then used throughout the study to identify, evaluate, and document alternatives. This process, Value Metrics, emphasizes the interrelationship between the elements of performance, cost, and time and can be quantified and compared in terms of how they contribute to overall value. The basic equation for value is:

Value =
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 + 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
Value Metrics provides a standardized means of identifying, defining, evaluating, and measuring performance. Once this has been achieved and costs for all VA alternatives have been developed, measuring value is very straightforward.

The following pages describe the steps in the Value Metrics process.

Define Performance Requirements
Performance requirements represent essential, non-discretionary aspects of project performance.

Any concept that fails to meet the project’s performance requirements, regardless of whether it was developed during the project’s design process or during the course of the VA study, cannot be considered as a viable solution. Concepts that do not meet a performance requirement cannot be considered further unless such shortcomings are addressed through the VA study process in the form of VA alternatives. It should be noted that in some cases, a performance requirement may also represent the minimum acceptable level of a performance attribute. The following performance requirements were selected for this project.

Performance Requirement Definition
Highway Design
Standards
Any deviation from the Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual must be approvable by the District’s Design Reviewer.

Structural Design
Standards
Any structure on the project must comply with current seismic design standards and meet the Load Resistance Design Factor.

Environmental Review
Process
Any concept or design modification considered must comply with state and federal environmental law and be compatible with the environmental review process.

Project Milestones
Several critical schedule milestones must be met in order to meet legislative and/or funding requirements, these include PA&ED – Oct. 2023; PS&E – Oct. 2025; RTL – Nov. 2025; Award – Jan. 2026; Begin Construction – Feb. 2026; End Construction – Nov. 2027. 88

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis Define Performance Attributes and Scales
Performance attributes represent those aspects of a project’s scope that may possess a range of potential values. For example, an attribute called “Short-Term Environmental Impacts” may have a range of acceptable values for a project ranging from 1 acre to 20 acres of wetlands mitigation. It is clear that a concept that offered 15 acres of mitigation would perform at a higher level than one that offered 5 acres, but both would meet the project’s need and purpose, and their values (i.e., the relationship between performance and cost) could be rationally compared. The following performance attributes were selected for this project.

Multi-Modal Connectivity
The degree to which the project is contributing to the overall connectivity of the transportation network and access to modal options. Enhancements in multi-modal connectivity should correlate to reductions in greenhouse gases (GHGs) and vehicle miles traveled (VMTs). Possible sub-attributes that may be considered include bicycles, pedestrians, and transit.

Rating Label Description
8-10 Ideal The highest reasonable level of performance is achieved. 6-8 High A high level of performance is achieved.
4-6 Medium A medium level of performance is achieved.
2-4 Low A low level of performance is achieved.
0-2 Minimum
Acceptable The minimum acceptable level of performance is achieved.

Long-Term Environmental Impacts
These are impacts to the environment that extends beyond the completion of construction. This category includes multiple different types of environmental considerations such as ecological (both air and water quality); biological (both animals and plants); cultural (such as parks, historical buildings, and other resources related to the built environment); archaeological (sites and resources that could be disturbed); visual; noise; equity; and economic impacts.

Rating Label Description
8-10 Ideal The highest reasonable level of performance is achieved. 6-8 High A high level of performance is achieved.
4-6 Medium A medium level of performance is achieved.
2-4 Low A low level of performance is achieved.
0-2 Minimum
Acceptable The minimum acceptable level of performance is achieved. 89

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis Construction Impacts (Short-Term Environmental Impacts) These are impacts to the environment that encompasses the construction time up through the completion of construction. This category includes multiple different types of short-term environmental and construction impacts such as ecological (both air and water quality); biological (both animal and plant); cultural (such as parks, historical buildings and other resources related to the built environment), archaeological (sites and resources that could be disturbed); visual, noise (including vibration and dust); equity, economic, and interim traffic operations.

Rating Label Description
8-10 Ideal The highest reasonable level of performance is achieved. 6-8 High A high level of performance is achieved.
4-6 Medium A medium level of performance is achieved.
2-4 Low A low level of performance is achieved.
0-2 Minimum
Acceptable The minimum acceptable level of performance is achieved.

Maintainability
The impact to long-term maintenance and operations of the infrastructure. This attribute is focused on life-cycle costs and maintenance access considerations. Maintainability may also consider the resiliency of the infrastructure which includes design and service life in the face of uncertainty. This category encompasses items such as long-term maintenance costs; energy costs related to lighting and technology; maintenance access; service and design life; preservation of critical lifelines; and resiliency of the infrastructure to climate change, seismic events, forest fires, drought, sea-level rise, and surface drainage.

Rating Label Description
8-10 Ideal The highest reasonable level of performance is achieved. 6-8 High A high level of performance is achieved.
4-6 Medium A medium level of performance is achieved.
2-4 Low A low level of performance is achieved.
0-2 Minimum
Acceptable The minimum acceptable level of performance is achieved. 90

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis Traffic Operations
This category considers the degree to which the project improves or degrades traffic operations and conforms to design standards on the transportation system. Included are items such as mainline operations (traffic movement on mainline facilities and/or specific ramp or weaving movement) and local operations (traffic movement on specific local arterials and streets).

Rating Label Description
8-10 Ideal The highest reasonable level of performance is achieved. 6-8 High A high level of performance is achieved.
4-6 Medium A medium level of performance is achieved.
2-4 Low A low level of performance is achieved.
0-2 Minimum
Acceptable The minimum acceptable level of performance is achieved.

Prioritize Performance Attributes
The performance attributes of a project are seldom of equal importance. Therefore, a systematic approach must be utilized to determine their relative importance in meeting the project’s need and purpose.

Once the performance attributes were defined and their scales developed, the project team and stakeholders prioritized them based on their relative importance to the project. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was utilized in the prioritization process. The performance attributes were systematically compared in pairs, asking the question: “An improvement to which attribute will provide the greatest benefit relative to the project’s need and purpose?” Participants were then asked to indicate their priorities and the relative intensities of their preferences. The chart on the following page provides the results of this analysis and includes the complete breakdown of the priorities, expressed as a percentage of the whole.
91

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis Performance Attributes Prioritization
13%
19%
20%
22%
26%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Construction Impacts
Traffic Operations
Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Maintainability
92

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis Measure Performance of Baseline Concept – Design Alternative A1R The project team and stakeholders evaluated the performance of the baseline concept relative to the scales previously identified. The information below reflects the performance ratings and associated rationale for each attribute.

Multi-Modal Connectivity Rating: 7
Rating Rationale: High – The roundabout design alternative provides a high level of multi-modal support. The use of a roundabout allows for continuous movement for bicycles and pedestrians along Prado road and over US-101. All design standards for spacing and distance are followed in the design.

Long-Term Environmental Impacts Rating: 5.1
Rating Rationale: Medium – The roundabout design alternative has slightly more impacts to the long-term environmental impacts, as its overall project footprint is slightly higher than the intersection alternative. The elevated roundabout will have a greater impact on the 0.1’ floodplain limitation but should not exceed it. The overall aesthetic of the structures and the sheer number of columns used is a concern and opportunities are present to enhance the visual impact of the facility.

Construction Impacts Rating: 6.3
Rating Rationale: High – The level of construction impacts for this project is seen as better than typical for the amount of structures being constructed. Extended detours, limited property access, on- and off-ramp closures, and traffic revisions on US-101 during construction of the Prado road OC structure are to be expected but appear to be standard and can be mitigated through typical means. The roundabout design alternative is seen as slightly worse than the intersection design alternative due to the slightly larger elevated structure, additional materials handled, and structural work involved. A large portion of the project can be constructed with little to no impacts to the public as it is occurring in open farmland property. There will be some utility impacts as well while services are rerouted.

Traffic Operations Rating: 7.4
Rating Rationale: High – The roundabout design alternative is seen to have a high level of traffic operations both for the mainline US-101 facility (on- and off-ramps) as well as for the Prado road and Elks Lane local roads. The roundabout is seen as a way to effectively and efficiently maintain traffic volume movement to and from the US-101 facility while also allowing for traffic on Prado road as an east-west connector road. Bicycle and pedestrian traffic are also supported effectively while all design standards are maintained.
93

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis Maintainability Rating: 5.7
Rating Rationale: Medium – The roundabout design alternative will result in a fairly typical level of future maintainability. The elevated roundabout design alternative is seen as slightly worse than the intersection design alternative simply due to its larger size and more surface area to maintain.

The finished facility will be designed and constructed while following all necessary standards and will provide a high level of future accessibility. The open areas under the structures will introduce a challenge for Caltrans and the City to keep clear but are necessary to limit and maintain floodwater flows and to limit impacts to the floodplain’s ability to weather severe flood events.

Measure Performance of Baseline Concept – Design Alternative A3 The project team and stakeholders evaluated the performance of the baseline concept relative to the scales previously identified. The information below reflects the performance ratings and associated rationale for each attribute.

Multi-Modal Connectivity Rating: 6.2
Rating Rationale: High – The intersection design alternative provides a high level of multi-modal support. The use of the signaled intersection allows for good movement of bicycles and pedestrians along Prado road and over US-101. All design standards for spacing and distance are followed in the design.

Long-Term Environmental Impacts Rating: 7.2
Rating Rationale: High – The intersection design alternative does a good job of limiting the amount of long-term environmental impacts. The project footprint is slightly better than the roundabout alternative which will have a lesser impact on the 0.1’ floodplain limitation. The overall aesthetic of the structures and the sheer number of columns used is a concern and opportunities are present to enhance the visual impact of the facility.

Construction Impacts Rating: 7.1
Rating Rationale: High – The level of construction impacts for this project is seen as better than typical for the number of structures being constructed. Extended detours, limited property access, on- and off-ramp closures, and traffic revisions on US-101 during construction of the Prado road OC structure are to be expected but appear to be standard and can be mitigated through typical means. The intersection design alternative is seen as slightly better than the roundabout design alternative due to the slightly larger elevated structure, additional materials handled, and structural work involved. A large portion of the project can be constructed with little to no impacts to the public as it is occurring in open farmland property. There will be some utility impacts as well while services are rerouted.
94

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis Traffic Operations Rating: 5.8
Rating Rationale: Medium – The intersection design alternative is seen to have a medium level of traffic operations both for the mainline US-101 facility (on- and off-ramps) as well as the Prado road and Elks Lane local roads. The intersection will require stop-and-go traffic movements for both the traffic to and from the US-101 facility and the traffic on Prado road. Bicycle and pedestrian traffic will be supported by standard design practices but will also be required to be controlled by the signalized intersection.

Maintainability Rating: 6.6
Rating Rationale: High – The intersection design alternative will result in a fairly typical level of future maintainability. The elevated intersection design alternative is seen as slightly better than the roundabout design alternative simply due to its smaller size and limited surface area to maintain. The finished facility will be designed and constructed while following all necessary standards and will provide a high level of future accessibility. The open areas under the structures will introduce a challenge for Caltrans and the City to keep clear but are necessary to limit the maintain floodwater flows and to limit impacts to the floodplain’s ability to weather severe flood events.

Measure Performance of VA Alternatives
The VA team prepared performance assessments of each of the VA alternatives during the Development Phase of the VA study. For each VA alternative, the VA team rated its performance using the previously defined scale for each performance attribute. The rationale for any change in performance as compared to the baseline concept was recorded. Please refer to the individual performance assessments for each VA alternative as presented in the VA Alternatives section of this report.

Define VA Strategies
The VA team identified a VA strategy for each design alternative for consideration. The Recommended VA Strategies reflect the combination of complimentary VA alternatives recommended by the team and is summarized in the table below.

Summary of Recommended VA Strategies
Strategy Description Initial Cost
Savings
Change in
Schedule
Performance
Change
Value
Change
Design Alternative A1R - VA Strategy
Alts. 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 $20,707,000 7.5-month reduction + 17 % + 48 % Design Alternative A3 - VA Strategy
Alts. 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 $18,803,000 7.5-month reduction +16 % + 46 % 95

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis Compare Performance – Baseline Concept and Recommended VA Strategies The VA team considered the combined effect of all VA alternatives for the Recommended VA Strategies. The total performance scores reflect the performance rating for each attribute multiplied by its overall priority (weight) expressed using a ration scale. A total performance score of “1” would indicate the highest level of desired performance (i.e., “ideal” performance). The chart below compares the total performance scores for the baseline concept and each VA strategy.

Comparison of Performance - Design Alternative A1R - VA Strategy Comparison of Performance - Design Alternative A3 - VA Strategy 96

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis Rating Rationale for Recommended VA Strategies
The rating rationale for the performance of the baseline concept was presented previously in this section. The rating rationales for the VA strategies developed by the VA team are provided below.

Design Alternative A1R - VA Strategy (Alternatives 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0) Multi-Modal Connectivity Rating: 7.7
Rating Rationale: Improved

1.0 - (7 - 7.7) Improves the operations of the pedestrian/bicycle facility by reducing the speed of the nearby vehicles on the structure. If the physical barrier is removed from between the EOS and pedestrian/bicycle facility, there may be a higher incidence of traffic conflicts.

2.0 - (7 - 7) The narrower shoulder and narrower inside lane will function as additional traffic calming elements and should reduce the potential for traffic conflict between the modes of travel.

Reduces the shoulder width buffer area between the edge of travel way and bike path.

Long-Term Environmental Impacts Rating: 6.8
Rating Rationale: Improved

1.0 - (5.1 - 5.6) May improve the overall aesthetic of the bridge by reducing the number of columns needed to support the structure.

2.0 - (5.1 - 5.2) Reduces overall footprint of the Prado road OC structure which also reduces stormwater volumes. This will result in less disturbed soil and land.

4.0 - (5.1 - 6.6) Will reduce the number of columns needed to support the spans which will have a significant impact on the lasting structure aesthetics. The reduction in columns should also reduce the permanent flood zone impacts and provide more flexibility in terms of staying below the 0.1’ rise maximum set for the project by FEMA.

5.0 - (5.1 - 5.2) Avoids additional excavation and soil disturbance for new alignment. Reduces the loss of the residual value of the existing sewer main.

6.0 - (5.1 - 5.2) Aligns with Caltrans sustainability objectives. 97

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis Construction Impacts Rating: 8
Rating Rationale: Improved

1.0 - (6.3 - 7.3) Will provide more design flexibility and may simplify the overall structure design (potentially longer spans and completely spanning over the US-101 facility) and construction effort.

Will allow for possible elimination of the columns in the median of US-101. This will also translate to a reduction in traffic staging and traffic handling during construction. Assume a construction duration reduction of 1.5 months (30 workdays). Will lessen the noise impacts to surrounding community.

2.0 - (6.3 - 6.4) Will reduce the overall materials needed for structure construction.

3.0 - (6.3 - 6.8) Requires fewer holes to drill compared to numerous piles to drive at each column location. Will have less impact on local community from a noise standpoint. Will reduce the amount of material stockpile (driven piles) to be located near construction site. The rate of production can be considered to be improved as the pile cap work (excavation, forming, and backfill) can be eliminated. Assume a reduction of the project duration of 4 months (80 workdays).

Will require the use of Baker tank. Anomalies may be encountered when pouring concrete.

4.0 - (6.3 - 7.8) Will simplify the construction effort by the reducing the number of bents to be placed which will in turn reduce the number of columns and piles needed. Will also significantly reduce the amount of structure falsework and concrete pouring needed for CIP elements. Will have less impact on local community from a noise standpoint (reduced amount of columns needed and piles driven). The overall construction duration can be expected to be reduced by up to 6 months (120 workdays). This will reduce the amount of traffic handling and lane closures required for the mainline. Impacts to the local community, noise from pile driving and hauling on local roads, can also be expected to be reduced. Will require space for crane operation and hauling of large structural elements.

5.0 - (6.3 - 6.4) Simplifies the construction effort by eliminating relocation of the sewer line. Should reduce the construction duration for the work being performed with the Elks Lane Relocation – assume a 1-week reduction (5 workdays). Will require careful consideration when placing structural elements for the NB on-ramp and the Prado road OC structures to avoid conflicts between the existing alignment and placement of piles and pile caps.

6.0 - (6.3 - 6.4) May reduce the amount of haul for borrow and export. The recycling of materials can be completed onsite which may reduce project duration slightly. Will require additional effort by contractor to stockpile and combine into hot mixed asphalt (HMA) mixes onsite or off-site before the material can be used on the project. This may require the contractor to have a mobile recycler/grinder onsite which may require additional space for staging and stockpiling (which may reduce hauling).
98

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis Traffic Operations Rating: 7.7
Rating Rationale: Improved

1.0 - (7.4 - 7.7) Reduce the frequency and severity of potential traffic conflicts. It is not anticipated that traffic flow and volume would be affected by the reduction in speed.

2.0 - (7.4 - 7.4) The narrower shoulder and narrower inside lane will function as additional traffic calming elements and should reduce the potential for traffic conflict. No measurable impact on traffic volumes.

Maintainability Rating: 6.7
Rating Rationale: Improved

1.0 - (5.7 - 6) Should improve maintenance by reducing the number of columns and structure which may be prone to vandalism or graffiti in the future. Will reduce maintenance effort in median.

2.0 - (5.7 - 5.8) Reduces overall square footage and structure to maintain.

4.0 - (5.7 - 6.7) Represents a lower maintenance burden in terms of structural elements to inspect and maintain the structures including maintaining the spaces below the structures, which will now be more open and easier to access. The potential for graffiti and/or vandalism will also be reduced.

Would require utility conduit to be hung along the Prado road OC structure where the utility lines would be more exposed to vandalism unless casing is provided.

5.0 - (5.7 - 5.7) Future maintenance access should be improved as it is located farther from an active roadway and within the City’s right-of-way (R/W). Will not be installing a new sewer main; will be foregoing an extension of the sewer main’s anticipated useful life.

Design Alternative A3 - VA Strategy (Alternatives 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0 & 6.0) Multi-Modal Connectivity Rating: 6.9
Rating Rationale: Improved

1.0 - (6.2 - 6.9) Improves operations of the pedestrian/bicycle facility by reducing the speed of the nearby vehicles on the structure. If the physical barrier is removed from between the EOS and pedestrian/bicycle facility, there may be a higher incidence of traffic conflicts.

2.0 - (6.2 - 6.2) The narrower shoulder and narrower inside lane will function as additional traffic calming elements and should reduce the potential for traffic conflict between the modes of travel.

Reduces the shoulder width buffer area between the edge of travel way and bike path. 99

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis Long-Term Environmental Impacts Rating: 8.8
Rating Rationale: Improved

1.0 - (7.2 - 7.7) May improve the overall aesthetic of the bridge by reducing the number of columns needed to support the structure.

2.0 - (7.2 - 7.3) Reduces overall footprint of the Prado road OC structure which also reduces stormwater volumes. Results in less disturbed soil and land.

4.0 - (7.2 - 8.7) Will reduce the number of columns needed to support the spans which will have a significant impact on the lasting structure aesthetics. The reduction in columns should also reduce the permanent flood zone impacts and provide more flexibility in terms of staying below the 0.1’ rise maximum set for the project by FEMA.

5.0 - (7.2 - 7.3) Avoids additional excavation and soil disturbance for new alignment. Reduces the loss of the residual value of the existing sewer main.

6.0 - (7.2 - 7.3) Aligns with Caltrans sustainability objectives.

Construction Impacts Rating: 8.8
Rating Rationale: Improved

1.0 - (7.1 - 8.1) Will provide more design flexibility and may simplify the overall structure design (potentially longer spans and completely spanning over the US-101 facility) and construction effort.

Will allow for the possible elimination of the columns in the median of US-101. This will also translate to a reduction in traffic staging and traffic handling during construction. Assume a construction duration reduction of 1.5 months (30 workdays). Will lessen the noise impacts to surrounding community.

2.0 - (7.1 - 7.2) Will reduce the overall materials needed for structure construction.

3.0 - (7.1 - 7.6) Requires fewer holes to drill compared to numerous piles to drive at each column location. Will have less impact on local community from a noise standpoint. Will reduce the amount of material stockpile (driven piles) to be located near construction site. The rate of production can be considered to be improved as the pile cap work (excavation, forming, and backfill) can be eliminated. Assume a reduction of the project duration of 4 months (80 workdays).

Will require the use of Baker tank. Anomalies can be encountered when pouring concrete.

4.0 - (7.1 - 8.6) Will simplify the construction effort by the reducing the number of bents to be placed – which will in turn reduce the number of columns and piles needed. Will also significantly reduce the amount of structure falsework and concrete pouring needed for CIP elements. Will have less impact on local community from a noise standpoint (amount of columns needed and piles driven). The overall construction duration can be expected to be reduced by up to 6 months (120 workdays). This will reduce the amount of traffic handling and lane closures required for the 100

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis mainline. Impacts to the local community, noise from pile driving and hauling on local roads, can also be expected to be reduced. Will require space for crane operation and hauling of large structural elements.

5.0 - (7.1 - 7.2) Simplifies the construction effort by eliminating relocation of the sewer line. Should reduce the construction duration for the work being performed with the Elks Lane Relocation – assume a 1-week reduction (5 workdays). Will require careful consideration when placing structural elements for the NB on-ramp and the Prado road OC structures to avoid conflicts between the existing alignment and placement of piles and pile caps.

6.0 - (7.1 - 7.2) May reduce the amount of haul for borrow and export. The recycling of materials can be completed onsite which may reduce project duration slightly. Will require additional effort by contractor to stockpile and combine into HMA mixes onsite or off-site before the material can be used on the project. This may require the contractor to have a mobile recycler/grinder onsite which may require additional space for staging and stockpiling (which may reduce hauling).

Traffic Operations Rating: 6.1
Rating Rationale: Improved

1.0 - (5.8 - 6.1) Reduces the frequency and severity of potential traffic conflicts. It is not anticipated that traffic flow and volume would be affected by the reduction in speed.

2.0 - (5.8 - 5.8) The narrower shoulder and narrower inside lane will function as additional traffic calming elements and should reduce the potential for traffic conflict. No measurable impact on traffic volumes.

Maintainability Rating: 7.6
Rating Rationale: Improved

1.0 - (6.6 - 6.9) Should improve maintenance by reducing the number of columns and structure which may be prone to vandalism/graffiti in the future. Will reduce maintenance effort in median.

2.0 - (6.6 - 6.7) Reduces overall square footage and structure to maintain.

4.0 - (6.6 - 7.6) Represents a lower maintenance burden in terms of structural elements to inspect and maintain the structures including maintaining the spaces below the structures, which will now be more open and easier to access. The potential for graffiti and/or vandalism will also be reduced.

Would require utility conduit to be hung along the Prado road OC structure where the utility lines would be more exposed to vandalism unless casing is provided.

5.0 - (6.6 - 6.6) Future maintenance access should be improved as it is located farther from an active roadway and within the City’s R/W. Will not be installing a new sewer main but will be foregoing an extension of the sewer main’s anticipated useful life. 101

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis Compare Value
The cost and time (i.e., schedule) elements were compared and prioritized by the project decision makers. The relative importance of cost and time is shown on the following table. These factors were applied to the cost and time scores and incorporated into the value calculations.

Relative Importance
COST 62 %
TIME 38 %
Once relative scores for performance, cost, and time have been derived, the next step is to synthesize a value index for the baseline concept and each VA strategy. This is achieved by applying the following algorithm for value:
• V = Value • P = Performance • t = Time
• f = Function • C = Cost • α = Risk
𝑉𝑉 (𝑃𝑃, 𝐶𝐶,𝑡𝑡) 𝑡𝑡 = ∑ 𝑃𝑃 ∙ 𝛼𝛼 ∞
=1
∑ [(𝐶𝐶 ∙ 𝛼𝛼) + (𝑡𝑡 ∙ 𝛼𝛼)] ∞
=1
A Value Matrix was prepared which facilitated the comparison of competing strategies by organizing and summarizing this data into a tabular format. The performance scores for each strategy were divided by the total cost/time scores for each strategy to derive a value index. The value indices for the VA strategy are then compared against the value index of the baseline concept and the difference is expressed as a percent (±%) deviation.

Comparison of Value –
Baseline Concept and Design Alternative A1R VA Strategy 0%
48%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

0.00 0.10

0.20 0.30

0.40 0.50

0.60 0.70

0.80 0.90

1.00 Design Option A1R Baseline Option A1R VA Strategy
Relative Scores
Change in Value
Performance Cost/Time Rating Change in Value
102

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis Comparison of Value –
Baseline Concept and Design Alternative A3 VA Strategy
0%
46%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

0.00 0.10

0.20 0.30

0.40 0.50

0.60 0.70

0.80 0.90

1.00 Design Option A3 Baseline Option A3 VA Strategy
Relative Scores
Change in Value
Performance Cost/Time Rating Change in Value
103

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis Rating Rationale for Design Alternative A1R with Accepted VA Alternatives The rating rationale for the performance of the baseline concept was presented previously in this section. The rating rationale for the accepted VA alternatives that were developed by the VA team is provided below.

Design Alternative A1R with Accepted VA Alternatives (1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 6.0) Multi-Modal Connectivity Rating: 7.7
Rating Rationale: Improved

1.0 - (7 - 7.7) Improves the operations of the pedestrian/bicycle facility by reducing the speed of the nearby vehicles on the structure. If the physical barrier is removed from between the EOS and pedestrian/bicycle facility, there may be a higher incidence of traffic conflicts.

2.0 - (7 - 7) The narrower shoulder and narrower inside lane will function as additional traffic calming elements and should reduce the potential for traffic conflict between the modes of travel.

Reduces the shoulder width buffer area between the edge of travel way and bike path.

Long-Term Environmental Impacts Rating: 6.8
Rating Rationale: Improved

1.0 - (5.1 - 5.6) May improve the overall aesthetic of the bridge by reducing the number of columns needed to support the structure.

2.0 - (5.1 - 5.2) Reduces overall footprint of the Prado road OC structure which also reduces stormwater volumes. Results in less disturbed soil and land.

4.0 - (5.1 - 6.6) Will reduce the number of columns needed to support the spans which will have a significant impact on the lasting structure aesthetics. The reduction in columns should also reduce the permanent flood zone impacts and provide more flexibility in terms of staying below the 0.1’ rise maximum set for the project by FEMA.

6.0 - (5.1 - 5.2) Aligns with Caltrans’ sustainability objectives.

Construction Impacts Rating: 8
Rating Rationale: Improved

1.0 - (6.3 - 7.3) Will provide more design flexibility and may simplify the overall structure design (potentially longer spans and completely spanning over the US-101 facility) and construction effort.

Will allow for possible elimination of the columns in the median of US-101. This will also translate to a reduction in traffic staging and traffic handling during construction. Assume a construction duration reduction of 1.5 months (30 workdays). Will lessen the noise impacts to surrounding community.
104

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis

2.0 - (6.3 - 6.4) Will reduce the overall materials needed for structure construction.

3.0 - (6.3 - 6.8) Requires fewer holes to drill compared to numerous piles to drive at each column location. Will have less impact on local community from a noise standpoint. Will reduce the amount of material stockpile (driven piles) to be located near construction site. The rate of production can be considered to be improved as the pile cap work (excavation, forming, and backfill) can be eliminated. Assume a reduction of the project duration of 4 months (80 workdays).

Will require the use of Baker tank. Anomalies may be encountered when pouring concrete.

4.0 - (6.3 - 7.8) Will simplify the construction effort by the reducing the number of bents to be placed which will in turn reduce the number of columns and piles needed. Will also significantly reduce the amount of structure falsework and concrete pouring needed for CIP elements. Will have less impact on local community from a noise standpoint (reduces the amount of columns needed and piles driven). The overall construction duration can be expected to be reduced by up to 6 months (120 workdays). This will reduce the amount of traffic handling and lane closures required for the mainline. Impacts to the local community, noise from pile driving and hauling on local roads, can also be expected to be reduced. Will require space for crane operation and hauling of large structural elements.

6.0 - (6.3 - 6.4) May reduce the amount of haul for borrow and export. The recycling of materials can be completed onsite, which may reduce project duration slightly. Will require additional effort by contractor to stockpile and combine into HMA mixes onsite or off-site before the material can be used on the project. This may require the contractor to have a mobile recycler/grinder onsite which may require additional space for staging and stockpiling (which may reduce hauling).

Traffic Operations Rating: 7.7
Rating Rationale: Improved

1.0 - (7.4 - 7.7) Reduce the frequency and severity of potential traffic conflicts. It is not anticipated that traffic flow and volume would be affected by the reduction in speed.

2.0 - (7.4 - 7.4) The narrower shoulder and narrower inside lane will function as additional traffic calming elements and should reduce the potential for traffic conflict. No measurable impact on traffic volumes.

Maintainability Rating: 6.7
Rating Rationale: Improved

1.0 - (5.7 - 6) Should improve maintenance by reducing the number of columns and structure which may be prone to vandalism or graffiti in the future. Will reduce maintenance effort in median.

2.0 - (5.7 - 5.8) Reduces overall square footage and structure to maintain. 105

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis

4.0 - (5.7 - 6.7) Represents a lower maintenance burden in terms of structural elements to inspect and maintain the structures including maintaining the spaces below the structures, which will now be more open and easier to access. The potential for graffiti and/or vandalism will also be reduced.

Would require utility conduit to be hung along the Prado road OC structure where the utility lines would be more exposed to vandalism unless casing is provided.

Value Matrix
Design Alternative A1R Baseline & A1R with Accepted VA Alternatives Strategies Performance
Score
Net
Change
Cost/Time
Score
Net
Change
Value
Index
Change in
Value
Design Alternative A1R
Baseline 0.626 -- 0.558 -- 1.122 --
A1R w/ Accepted VA
Alternatives 0.730 +17 % 0.442 -21 % 1.651 +47 %
Comparison of Value
Design Alternative A1R Baseline & A1R with Accepted VA Alternatives 0%
47%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

0.00 0.10

0.20 0.30

0.40 0.50

0.60 0.70

0.80 0.90

1.00 Design Alternative A1R
Baseline
Design Alternative A1R
w/ Accepted Alternatives
Relative Scores
Change in Value
Performance Cost/Time Rating Change in Value
106

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis Rating Rationale for Design Alternative A3 with Accepted VA Alternatives The rating rationale for the performance of the baseline concept was presented previously in this section. The rating rationale for the accepted VA alternatives that were developed by the VA team is provided below.

Design Alternative A3 with Accepted VA Alternative (1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 6.0) Multi-Modal Connectivity Rating: 6.9
Rating Rationale: Improved

1.0 - (6.2 - 6.9) Improves operations of the pedestrian/bicycle facility by reducing the speed of the nearby vehicles on the structure. If the physical barrier is removed from between the EOS and pedestrian/bicycle facility, there may be a higher incidence of traffic conflicts.

2.0 - (6.2 - 6.2) The narrower shoulder and narrower inside lane will function as additional traffic calming elements and should reduce the potential for traffic conflict between the modes of travel.

Reduces the shoulder width buffer area between the edge of travel way and bike path.

Long-Term Environmental Impacts Rating: 8.7
Rating Rationale: Improved

1.0 - (7.2 - 7.7) May improve the overall aesthetic of the bridge by reducing the number of columns needed to support the structure.

2.0 - (7.2 - 7.3) Reduces overall footprint of the Prado road OC structure which also reduces stormwater volumes. Results in less disturbed soil and land.

4.0 - (7.2 - 8.7) Will reduce the number of columns needed to support the spans which will have a significant impact on the lasting structure aesthetics. The reduction in columns should also reduce the permanent flood zone impacts and provide more flexibility in terms of staying below the 0.1’ rise maximum set for the project by FEMA.

6.0 - (7.2 - 7.3) Aligns with Caltrans sustainability objectives. 107

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis Construction Impacts Rating: 8.8
Rating Rationale: Improved

1.0 - (7.1 - 8.1) Will provide more design flexibility and may simplify the overall structure design (potentially longer spans and completely spanning over the US-101 facility) and construction effort.

Will allow for the possible elimination of the columns in the median of US-101. This will also translate to a reduction in traffic staging and traffic handling during construction. Assume a construction duration reduction of 1.5 months (30 workdays). Will lessen the noise impacts to surrounding community.

2.0 - (7.1 - 7.2) Will reduce the overall materials needed for structure construction.

3.0 - (7.1 - 7.6) Requires fewer holes to drill compared to numerous piles to drive at each column location. Will have less impact on local community from a noise standpoint. Will reduce the amount of material stockpile (driven piles) to be located near construction site. The rate of production can be considered to be improved as the pile cap work (excavation, forming, and backfill) can be eliminated. Assume a reduction of the project duration of 4 months (80 workdays).

Will require the use of Baker tank. Anomalies can be encountered when pouring concrete.

4.0 - (7.1 - 8.6) Will simplify the construction effort by the reducing the number of bents to be placed – which will in turn reduce the number of columns and piles needed. Will also significantly reduce the amount of structure falsework and concrete pouring needed for CIP elements. Will have less impact on local community from a noise standpoint (reduces the amount of columns needed and piles driven). The overall construction duration can be expected to be reduced by up to 6 months (120 workdays). This will reduce the amount of traffic handling and lane closures required for the mainline. Impacts to the local community, noise from pile driving and hauling on local roads, can also be expected to be reduced. Will require space for crane operation and hauling of large structural elements.

6.0 - (7.1 - 7.2) May reduce the amount of haul for borrow and export. The recycling of materials can be completed onsite, which may reduce project duration slightly. Will require additional effort by contractor to stockpile and combine into HMA mixes onsite or off-site before the material can be used on the project. This may require the contractor to have a mobile recycler/grinder onsite which may require additional space for staging and stockpiling (which may reduce hauling).

Traffic Operations Rating: 6.1
Rating Rationale: Improved

1.0 - (5.8 - 6.1) Reduces the frequency and severity of potential traffic conflicts. It is not anticipated that traffic flow and volume would be affected by the reduction in speed.

2.0 - (5.8 - 5.8) The narrower shoulder and narrower inside lane will function as additional traffic calming elements and should reduce the potential for traffic conflict. No measurable impact on traffic volumes.
108

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis Maintainability Rating: 7.6
Rating Rationale: Improved

1.0 - (6.6 - 6.9) Should improve maintenance by reducing the number of columns and structure which may be prone to vandalism/graffiti in the future. Will reduce maintenance effort in median.

2.0 - (6.6 - 6.7) Reduces overall square footage and structure to maintain.

4.0 - (6.6 - 7.6) Represents a lower maintenance burden in terms of structural elements to inspect and maintain the structures including maintaining the spaces below the structures, which will now be more open and easier to access. The potential for graffiti and/or vandalism will also be reduced.

Would require utility conduit to be hung along the Prado road OC structure where the utility lines would be more exposed to vandalism unless casing is provided.

Value Matrix
Design Alternative A3 Baseline & A3 with Accepted VA Alternatives Strategies Performance
Score
Net
Change
Cost/Time
Score
Net
Change
Value
Index
Change in
Value
Design Option A3
Baseline 0.655 -- 0.556 -- 1.178 --
Accepted Option A3
Alternatives 0.755 +15 % 0.444 -20 % 1.701 +44 %
109

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis Comparison of Value –
Design Alternative A3 Baseline & Accepted VA Alternatives 0%
45%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

0.00 0.10

0.20 0.30

0.40 0.50

0.60 0.70

0.80 0.90

1.00 Design Alternative A3
Baseline
Design Alternative A3
w/ Accepted VA Alternatives
Relative Scores
Change in Value
Performance Cost/Time Rating Change in Value
110

IDEA EVALUATION

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Idea Evaluation

IDEA EVALUATION
The ideas generated by the VA team were carefully evaluated, and project-specific attributes were applied to each idea to assure an objective evaluation.

PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTES
The following are key performance attributes identified for this project and used to assist the VA team in evaluating the ideas:
• Multi-Modal Connectivity • Traffic Operations
• Long-Term Environmental Impacts • Maintainability
• Construction Impacts
The VA team enlisted the assistance of the stakeholders and project team (when available) to develop these attributes so that the evaluation would reflect their specific requirements.

EVALUATION PROCESS
The VA team generated and evaluated ideas on how to perform the various project functions using other approaches. The idea list was grouped by function or major project element. Each idea was evaluated with respect to the functional requirements of the project. Performance, cost, time, and risk may also have been considered during this evaluation.

Once each idea was fully evaluated, it was rated to determine which ideas had the greatest potential for value improvement. Ideas identified for development as VA alternatives or as other considerations are documented in the VA Alternatives section of this report.

IDEA SUMMARY
All the ideas generated during the Creativity Phase using brainstorming techniques are recorded on the following pages. The team created and evaluated these ideas together using Miro. Each idea received an idea code based on the function statement under which it was brainstormed. The following table indicates the functions related to each idea code.

Idea Code Related Function
AP Accom Pedestrians
CA Control Access
CE Change Elevation
CW Convey Water
CU Connect Utilities
EA Enhance Aesthetics
IS Illuminate Space
ME Mitigate Environment
Idea Code Related Function
MR Manage Risk
MT Manage Traffic
MW Manage Water
OF Obtain Funding
RE Remove Existing
SC Stage Construction
SL Support Load
SM Support Multi-Modality
112

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Idea Evaluation A detailed idea evaluation summary is also included. This summary includes additional information related to how each idea improves or degrades the elements of performance, cost, time (schedule), and risk. Only those elements where the idea differs from the baseline concept are included in this summary.

IDEA SUMMARY LIST
Idea Code and Description Rating
AP-1: Keep ped/bike facility at-grade, cross under US-101 DIS AP-2: Reduce some lane/shoulder widths DEV
CA-1: Remove consideration for space below for maintenance vehicle parking DIS CA-2: Lots under bridge to city ownership for municipal use DS CA-3: Trespass resistant landscape/hardscape DIS
CE-1: At-grade roundabout along the main line DIS
CE-2: Embankment fill with culverts/arches rather than columns DIS CE-3: Lower some ground areas to offset some additional fill DIS CE-4: Bridge type to allow for future raising if US-101 needs to be raised OC CW-1: Revisit flood bypass channel/basin DIS
CU-1: Install utility conduit across structure OC
CU-2: Provide utility conduit along under hang DIS
CU-3: Leave existing sewer line in place DEV
EA-1: Use screen in front of columns DIS
EA-2: Integrally colored concrete OC
EA-3: Use concrete form liner for columns OC
EA-4: Use flared columns, non-structural OC
EA-5: Use arch facades between exterior columns OC
EA-6: Eliminate structure within roundabout central island area ABD EA-7: Join columns with arches at abutment DIS
EA-8: Use rounding at exterior girder OC
EA-9: Explore other ideas for exterior aesthetic at abutment that include rounding OC EA-10: Ensure that design uses consistent aesthetics with LOVR OC EA-11: Use art on columns OC
EA-12: Public art embedded within bridge barrier railing and fence OC EA-13: Use texture on columns and barrier; combine with above DIS 113

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Idea Evaluation Idea Code and Description Rating
EA-14: Plantings along larger columns (living wall) OC
IS-1: Install pedestrian scaled lighting OC
ME-1: Incorporate mitigation planting under structure OC MR-1: Conduct peer review of structures OC
MR-2: Update unit costs OC
MR-3: Review similar facilities in flood-prone areas OC MT-1: Separate bike/ped signal phase vehicle movements at intersection DIS MT-2: Reduce the maximum speed on structure to 35 mph DEV MW-1: Utilize space below structures for post-const. stormwater requirements OC OF-1: Plantings along larger columns (living wall) OC
OF-2: Pursue funding from Bond Measures OC
OF-3: Pursue ATP grants for additional funding OC
OF-4: Pursue additional funding by re-branding as "Community Connectivity" project OC OF-5: Combine with concurrent main line project DIS
OF-6: Consider the no-project option DIS
RE-1: Use recycled and/or reclaimed material in project DEV SC-1: Daytime closure opportunities OC
SC-2: Move bridge crossing a block or two south DIS
SC-3: Evaluate feasibility of SB median crossover given horizontal curve of mainline OC SC-4: Consider shift in layout to straighten bridge DIS SC-5: Shift roundabout to reduce R/W impacts DIS
SC-6: Reduce construction duration OC
SC-7: Prioritize construction staging plans OC
SC-8: Pursue use of night work; drilling of foundations; use more crews OC SC-9: Identify construction staging areas OC
SL-1: Use longer spans/fewer columns; steel girders or precast T-beams in lieu of CIP girders DEV
SL-2: Use CIDH columns in lieu of pile caps DEV
SL-3: Use steel girders in lieu of CIP DIS
SL-4: Use larger diameter columns DIS
SL-5: Use spread footings for columns DIS
114

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Idea Evaluation Idea Code and Description Rating
SL-6: Use ABC - bents and abutments DIS
SL-7: Use long precast spans for structures DIS
SL-8: Reduce number of supports for structures DIS
SM-1: Construct separate pedestrian bridge DIS
SM-2: Incorporate vehicle barrier rail between ES and ped/bike facility DIS SM-3: Incorporate "teardrop" style roundabout OC
SM-4: Incorporate aesthetic on vehicle barrier rail between ES and ped/bike DIS SM-5: Provide bike/ped amenities/furniture OC
DEV: Develop as a VA Alternative
DS: Design Suggestion
ABD: Already Being Done in the Baseline Concept
DIS: Dismissed
OC: Other Consideration

DETAILED IDEA EVALUATION SUMMARY
AP-1: Keep ped/bike facility at-grade, cross under US-101 Overall Rating: DIS
General comments: Not feasible with Caltrans and US-101 requirements.

AP-2: Reduce some lane/shoulder widths Overall
Rating: DEV
General comments: This will be developed as a feasible VA alternative.

CA-1: Remove consideration for space below for maintenance vehicle parking Overall Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determined that this space is needed by the City.

CA-2: Lots under bridge to city ownership for municipal use Overall Rating: OC
General comments: Should be documented as “other consideration.” 115

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Idea Evaluation CA-3: Trespass resistant landscape/hardscape Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determined that this was not a feasible solution to the area under the structures and would lead to additional maintenance. It also would hinder infiltration of stormwater.

CE-1: At-grade roundabout along the main line Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – This concept is not keeping with Caltrans and FHWA standards.

CE-2: Embankment fill with culverts/arches rather than columns Overall Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – It was determined that this concept would not be practical from a design and construction standpoint.

CE-3: Lower some ground areas to offset some additional fill Overall Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determined that this would not have the desired effect on flood control.

CE-4: Bridge type to allow for future raising if 101 needs to be raised Overall Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” COWA-1: Revisit flood bypass channel/basin Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determined that this would not have the desired effect on flood control.

CU-1: Install utility conduit across structure Overall
Rating: ABD
General comments: Determined that this concept is already being considered in the Prado Road OC design.
116

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Idea Evaluation CU-2: Provide utility conduit along underhung Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determine that this was not desirable by maintenance.

CU-3: Leave sewer in place Overall
Rating: DEV
General comments: This will be developed as a VA alternative.

EA-1: Use screen in front of columns Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determined that this would become a maintenance issue.

EA-2: Integrally colored concrete Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” EA-3: Concrete form liner Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” EA-4: Flared columns - non-structural Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” EA-5: Use arch facades between exterior columns Overall Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” 117

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Idea Evaluation EA-6: Eliminate structure within roundabout central island area Overall Rating: ABD
General comments: Determined that this was already in the plans.

EA-7: Join columns with arches at abutment Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” EA-8: Use rounding at exterior girder Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” EA-9: Explore other ideas for exterior aesthetic at abutment that include rounding Overall Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” EA-10: Ensure that design uses consistent aesthetics with LOVR Overall Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” EA-11: Art on columns Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” EA-12: Public art embedded within bridge barrier railing/fence Overall Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” 118

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Idea Evaluation EA-13: Texture on columns and barrier - combine with above Overall Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determined that the barrier was not needed in the design. Based on a review of the ped/bike requirements.

EA-14: Plantings along larger columns (living wall) Overall Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” IS-1: Ped scaled lighting Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” ME-1: Mitigation planting under structure Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” MR-1: Perform a peer review of structures
Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” MR-2: Update unit costs Overall
Rating: ABD
General comments: Determined that this is already in process.

MR-3: Review similar facilities in flood-prone areas
Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” 119

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Idea Evaluation MT-1: Separate bike/ped signal phase vehicle movements at intersection Overall Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determine that this was not necessary.

MT-2: Reduce the maximum speed on structure to 35 mph Overall Rating: DEV
General comments: This will be developed as a VA alternative.

MW-1: Utilize space below structures for post-const. stormwater requirements Overall Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” OF-1: Plantings along larger columns (living wall) Overall Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” OF-2: Pursue funding from Bond Measures Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” OF-3: Pursue ATP grants
Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” OF-4: Re-brand as "Community Connectivity" project Overall Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” OF-5: Combine with concurrent main line project Overall Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Does not appear feasible from a funding standpoint. 120

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Idea Evaluation OF-6: Pursue the no-project option Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determined that this is not a feasible option given the amount of growth and current/projected traffic volumes.

RE-1: Recycled use of materials (AC, base, etc.) Overall Rating: DEV
General comments: This will be developed as a VA alternative.

SC-1: Daytime closure opportunities Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” SC-2: Move bridge crossing a block or two south Overall Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determined that this is not a feasible option given the alignments and current use.

SC-3: Evaluate feasibility of SB median crossover given horizontal curve of mainline Overall Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” SC-4: Layout shift to straighten bridge Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determined that this is not a feasible option given the alignments and current use.

SC-5: Shift roundabout to reduce R/W impacts Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determined that this is not a feasible option given the alignments and current use.
121

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Idea Evaluation SC-6: Reduce construction duration Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” SC-7: Prioritize staged construction plans Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” SC-8: Pursue use of night work - drilling of foundations - use more crews Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” SC-9: Identify staging areas: use Prado , drive-in, and corporation yard Overall Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” SL-1: Use longer spans/fewer columns; steel girders or precast T-beams in lieu of CIP girders
Overall
Rating: DEV
General comments: This will be developed as a VA alternative.

SL-2: Use CIDH columns in lieu of pile cap Overall
Rating: DEV
General comments: Will be developed as a VA Alternative.

SL-3: Use steel girders in lieu of CIP Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determined that this would introduce a maintenance element that was not acceptable to maintenance staff.
122

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Idea Evaluation SL-4: Larger diameter columns Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determined that the larger columns would have a negative impact on flood water management.

SL-5: Spread footings Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determined that spread footings were not desirable from a constructability standpoint.

SL-6: Use ABC: bents and abutments Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: This can be combined with the other VA alternative addressing longer spans.

SL-7: Pursue precast long spans for structure Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismiss – Can be combined with other alternatives.

SL-8: Reduce supports
Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismiss – Can be combined with other alternatives.

SM-1: Construct separate pedestrian bridge Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismiss – Is not financially feasible. Desire is to integrate OC with multi-modal operations.

SM-2: Include vehicle barrier rail between ES and ped/bike facility Overall Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismiss – Determined that a vehicle barrier is not required for the Prado Road OC structure.
123

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Idea Evaluation SM-3: Incorporate "teardrop" style roundabout Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” SM-4: Include aesthetics on vehicle barrier rail between ES and ped/bike Overall Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismiss – Determined that a vehicle barrier is not required for the Prado OC structure.

SM-5: Provide bike/ped amenities/furniture Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.” 124

VA PROCESS

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Process

VA PROCESS
The Caltrans Value Analysis (VA) process involves 16 activities needed to accomplish a VA study, and is organized into three parts: Pre-Study, VA Study, and Report. Integral to Caltrans’ VA process is the Value Metrics process. Value Metrics offers the cornerstone of the Caltrans VA process by providing a systematic and structured means of considering the relationship of a project’s performance and cost as they relate to value.

VA has traditionally been perceived as an effective means for reducing project costs. This paradigm only addresses one part of the value equation, often at the expense of the role that VA can play with regard to improving project performance. Project costs are fairly easy to quantify and compare; performance is not.

Project performance must be properly defined and concurred by the stakeholders at the beginning of the VA study. The performance attributes and requirements developed are then used throughout the study to identify, evaluate, and document alternatives. This process, Value Metrics, emphasizes the interrelationship between cost and performance and can be quantified and compared in terms of how they contribute to overall value.

Value Metrics provides a standardized means of identifying, defining, evaluating, and measuring performance. Once this has been achieved, and costs for all VA alternatives have been developed, measuring value is straightforward.

Value Metrics can improve VA studies by:
• Building consensus among project stakeholders (especially those holding conflicting views) • Developing a better understanding of the project goals and objectives as they relate to purpose and need
• Developing a baseline understanding of how the project is meeting performance goals and objectives
• Identifying areas where project performance can be improved through the VA process • Developing a better understanding of an alternative concept’s effect on project performance • Developing a deeper understanding of the relationship between performance and cost in determining value
• Using value as the basis for selecting the best project or design concept The following provides an overview of the Caltrans approach to VA. The Caltrans VA Study Activity Chart at the end of this narrative identifies the steps in each activity, which are detailed as follows. 126

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Process

PRE-STUDY
Meaningful and measurable results are directly related to the pre-study work performed. Depending on the type of study, all or part of the following information needs to be determined during the prestudy phase:
• Clear definition of the current situation and study objectives • Identification of study team members
• Identification of project stakeholders
• Definition of how stakeholders are impacted by the project • Identification of key issues and concerns
• Identification of project’s performance requirements and attributes • Status of project cost estimate
• Project data gathered to be distributed to VA team
In preparation for the VA study, the team leader confers with owners and stakeholders to outline the VA process; initiate data gathering; refine project scope and objectives; structure the scope, team members, and technical specialists; and finalize study plans. Specific deliverables are provided.

Following the initial planning meeting, the team leader reviews the data collected for the project and develops a cost model. The team leader also consults with the technical specialists to prepare them for the VA study.

VA STUDY
The VA Job Plan guides the VA team in their search to enhance value in the project or process.

Caltrans follows a seven-phase VA Job Plan:

1. Information Phase

2. Function Analysis Phase

3. Creativity Phase

4. Evaluation Phase

5. Development Phase

6. Presentation Phase

7. Implementation Phase
127

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Process
Information Phase
At the beginning of the VA study, the design team presents a more detailed review of the design and the various systems. This includes an overview of the project and its various requirements, which further enhances the VA team’s knowledge and understanding of the project.

The project team also responds to questions posed by the VA team. The project’s performance requirements and attributes are discussed, and the performance of the baseline concept is evaluated.

Function Analysis Phase
Key to the VA process are the function analysis techniques used during the Function Analysis Phase.

Analyzing the functional requirements of a project is essential to assuring an owner that the project has been designed to meet the stated criteria and its need and purpose. The analysis of these functions in terms of cost, performance, time, and risk is a primary element in a VA study and is used to develop alternatives. This procedure is beneficial to the VA team, as it forces the participants to think in terms of functions and their relative value in meeting the project’s need and purpose. This facilitates a deeper understanding of the project.

Creativity Phase
The Creativity Phase involves identifying and listing creative ideas. During this phase, the VA team participates in a brainstorming session to identify as many means as possible to provide the necessary project functions. The judgement of the ideas is not permitted in order to generate a broad range of ideas. The idea list includes all of the ideas suggested during the study. These ideas should be reviewed further by the project team since they may contain ideas worthy of further evaluation and may be used as the design develops. These ideas could also help stimulate additional ideas by others.

Evaluation Phase
The purpose of the Evaluation Phase is to systematically assess the potential impacts of ideas generated during the Creativity Phase relative to their potential for value improvement. Each idea is evaluated in terms of its potential impact to performance, cost, time, and risk. Once each idea is fully evaluated, it is classified as an idea to either “Develop” or “Dismiss.” Some ideas can also be “Combined” with other promising ideas or ideas which are “Already Being Done.” The rationale for why ideas were rated highly but not developed as alternatives is documented in the Idea Evaluation section of the report.
128

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Process
Development Phase
During the Development Phase, the highly rated ideas are expanded and developed into VA alternatives. The development process considers the impact to performance, cost, time, and risk of the alternative concepts relative to the baseline concept. This analysis is prepared as appropriate for each alternative, and the information may include a performance assessment, initial cost and lifecycle cost comparisons, schedule analysis, and an assessment of risk. Each alternative describes the baseline concept and proposed changes and includes a technical discussion. Sketches and calculations are also prepared for each alternative as appropriate.

Presentation Phase
The VA study concludes with a preliminary presentation of the VA team’s assessment of the project and VA alternatives. The presentation provides an opportunity for the owner, project team, and stakeholders to preview the alternatives and develop an understanding of the rationale behind them.

Implementation Phase
After the stakeholders have had an opportunity to review the alternatives identified by the VA team, the team leader conducts an implementation meeting to discuss the alternatives and resolve appropriate action for each VA alternative. If necessary, any other VA report edits requested by the representatives are also made by the VA team leader and a final report is issued. This implementation meeting helps to ensure that savings or process improvements are not lost due to a lack of communication, and that those VA alternatives that are accepted are properly integrated into the project design.

VA REPORT
Preliminary Report: Following the completion of the VA study, the team leader compiles the information developed during the VA study into the Preliminary Value Analysis Study Report. This report, documenting viable alternatives, is provided to the customer within the timeframe requested (usually within two weeks of study completion). The preliminary report also contains a VA Study Summary Report – Preliminary Findings, designed to highlight critical elements of the VA study, including detailed documentation of VA alternatives, in a concise manner for the use of parties without the opportunity to review the report in its entirety. More details can be found in the complete preliminary report, which consists of the following documentation: Executive Summary, VA Alternatives, Project Information, Project Analysis, Idea Evaluation, and VA Process.

Final Report: Once all VA alternatives have been either accepted or rejected, the team leader updates the Preliminary Value Analysis Study Report to show the final results of the study in a Final Value Analysis Study Report. In addition, a Value Analysis Study Summary Report (VASSR) is sent to Caltrans HQ to permit easy documentation into the Caltrans Annual Report to FHWA.

The following Caltrans VA Study Activity Chart describes each activity. 129

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Process

CALTRANS VA STUDY ACTIVITY CHART

PREPARATION

INITIATE STUDY
 Identify study project
 Identify study roles and
responsibilities
 Define study goals
 Select team leader
 Prepare draft Study Charter
1 ORGANIZE STUDY
 Conduct Pre-Study Meeting
 Select team members
 Identify stakeholders,
decision-makers, and
technical reviewers
 Identify data collection
 Select study dates
 Determine study logistics
 Update VA Study Charter
 Identify and define
performance requirements
2 PREPARE DATA
 Collect and distribute data
 Develop construction cost
models
 Develop highway user
benefit/life-cycle cost (LCC)
model (if required)
3 VA STUDY
Segment 1

INFORM TEAM
 Review study activities and
confirm reviewers
 Present design concept
 Present stakeholders’
interests
 Review project issues and
objectives
 Rate performance of
baseline concept
 Visit project site 4

ANALYZE FUNCTIONS
 Analyze project data
 Expand project functions
 Prepare FAST diagram
 Determine functional cost
drivers and performance
5 CREATE IDEAS
 Focus on functions
 List all ideas
 Apply creativity and
innovation techniques
(group and individual)
6 EVALUATE IDEAS
 Apply key
performance
attributes to rate idea
 List advantages and
disadvantages
 Consider cost impacts
 Rank all ideas
 Assign alternatives for
development
7 Segment 2

DEVELOP ALTERANTIVES
 Develop alternative
concepts
 Prepare sketches and
calculations
 Measure performance
 Estimate costs, LCC
benefits/costs
8 CRITIQUE ALTERNATIVES
 VA alternatives technical
review
 VA alternatives team
consensus review
 Identify mutually exclusive
groups of alternatives
 Identify VA strategies
 Validate performance
9 PRESENT ALTERNATIVES
 Present findings
 Document feedback
 Confirm pending reviews
 Prepare preliminary report
*Interim presentation of study
findings
10 Segment 3
ASSESS ALTERNATIVES**
 Review Preliminary Report
 Assess alternatives for
project acceptance
 Prepare draft
implementation
dispositions
**Activities performed by PDT,
Technical Reviewers, and
Stakeholders 11

RESOLVE ALTERNATIVES
 Review implementation
dispositions
 Resolve implementation
actions with decisionmakers and stakeholders
 Edit alternatives
 Revisit rejected
alternatives, if needed
12 PRESENT RESULTS*
 Present results
 Obtain management
approval on implemented
alternatives
 Summarize performance,
cost, and value
improvements
*Final presentation of study
results 13
REPORT

DOCUMENT STUDY
 Document process and
study findings
 Distribute Preliminary VA
Report
 Distribute electronic report
to HQ VA Branch
 Conduct Implementation
Meeting
14 VA IMPLEMENTATION ACTION
MEMO
(If Conditionally Accepted
Alternatives exist)
 Publish memo to document
action plan to complete
study
 Resolve Conditionally
Accepted Alternatives
15 PUBLISH RESULTS
 Document process and
study results
 Incorporate all comments
and implementation actions
 Distribute Final VA Report
 Distribute electronic report
to HQ VA Branch
 Update VA Study Summary
Report (VASSR)
 Provide HQ the Final VA
Report in PDF format 16
Note: The dashed
boxes indicate steps
that may not be
required in some VA
studies
130

Prado Interchange Project
City of San Luis Obispo & Caltrans District 5
VA Study Agenda
WebEx Meeting Info to be provided via email / Outlook
Day 1 – Monday, March 20 – City of San Luis Obispo - Prado Road Corporation Yard – Room TBD 8:30 Introductions
8:35 Brief overview of the VA Process
8:45 Overview of the Project by Designers
• Purpose & Need / Scope
• Issues & Concerns
• Project Design Clarifications
10:00 Confirmation of Project Baseline
• Discuss Cost & Schedule
• Discuss and Weight Performance Attributes
• Discuss and Score Current Design
11:00 VA Study Focus & Additional Q&A
12:00 Lunch
1:00 Site Visit & Observations & Initial Team Brainstorming 2:00 Team Review and Discussion of Design Documentation & Estimate Review 3:00 Initial Team Brainstorming
4:00 Adjourn
Day 2 – Tuesday, March 21 – City of San Luis Obispo - Prado Road Corporation Yard – Room TBD 8:00 Review Agenda
8:30 FAST Analysis Discussion
9:30 Team Brainstorming
11:30 Lunch
12:30 Team Brainstorming (cont.)
1:00 Team Evaluation of VA Ideas
2:00 Technical Review of VA Ideas
4:00 Adjourn
𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 = 𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 + 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
131

Prado Interchange Project
City of San Luis Obispo & Caltrans District 5
VA Study Agenda
Day 3 – Wednesday, March 22 – City of San Luis Obispo - Prado Road Corporation Yard – Room TBD 8:00 Review Agenda & Validated VA Alternatives
8:30 Team Development of VA Alternatives
11:00 Lunch
Need to be out of room between 11:00 to 1:00
1:00 Team Development of VA Alternatives (cont.)
4:00 Adjourn
Day 4 –Thursday, March 23 – City of San Luis Obispo - Prado Road Corporation Yard – Room TBD 8:00 Review Agenda & Developed VA Alternatives
8:30 Team Development of VA Alternatives (cont.)
11:30 Lunch
12:30 Team Development of VA Alternatives (cont.)
4:00 Adjourn
Day 5 – Friday, March 24 – San Luis Obispo – Prado Maint. Facility (w/ WebEx if needed) 8:00 Review Agenda & VA Team Recommended Strategy
8:30 Finalization of VA Alternatives
10:00 Determine and Score VA Team Recommended Strategy
11:00 Finalization of VA Design Suggestions
11:30 Lunch
12:30 Final Review of VA Alternatives, Design Suggestions, VA Study Presentation 2:00 Presentation of Initial VA Study Results (VA Team Recommended Strategy) 4:00 Adjourn
Tentative VA Study Process Dates:

Preliminary Report Distribution: by Friday, April 7th
Review/Implementation Comments Due: by Date TBD
Final Report Distribution: by Friday, May 5th
132

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Process

VA STUDY MEETING ATTENDEES
PM 3/20 3/21 3/22 3/23 3/24 Name Organization Position/Role E-mail X X X X X X Eric Trimble VMS VA Study Team Leader [email protected] X X X X X Meaghan Rowland VMS Asst VA Study Team Leader [email protected] X X X X X Wyatt Banker-Hix City of SLO Project Manager [email protected] X X X X X Luke Schwartz City of SLO Transportation Manager [email protected] X X X Kyle Anderson City of SLO [email protected]
X X Jay Walter GHD Design Manager [email protected]
X X X X Jorge Vanegas-Moran GHD [email protected] X X X X John Rogers GHD Transportation Engineer [email protected] X X X X X X Jorge Aguillar Wallace Group Transportation Engineer [email protected] X X X X Paul Valadao Caltrans – D5 Project Manager [email protected] X Corby Kilmer Caltrans – D5 [email protected]
X X Scott Dowlan Caltrans – D5 [email protected]
X X X X X David Romero Caltrans – D5 Structures Design (VA FT) [email protected] X X X X X Alex Martinez Caltrans – D5 Structures Construction (VA FT) [email protected] X X X X X Adam Rianda Caltrans – D5 Construction (VA FT) [email protected] X X X X X Phlora Barbash Caltrans – D5 Landscape Architecture (VA FT) [email protected] X X X Kristen Langager Caltrans – D5 Landscape Architecture (VA PT) [email protected] X X X Patrick Bolger Caltrans – D5 Landscape Architecture (VA PT) [email protected] X X X X Valerie Moore Caltrans – D5 Bridge Aesthetics [email protected] X Abraham Almaw Caltrans – HQ Bridge Architecture (VA PT) [email protected] X X Kevin Mcguigan Caltrans – D5 R/W Utilities (VA PT) [email protected] X MD Alam Caltrans – D5 Geotechnical (VA PT) [email protected] X X Michael Britton Caltrans – D5 Maintenance (VA PT) [email protected] X Berkeley Lindt Caltrans – D5 Maintenance Design
X X David Silverberger Caltrans – D5 Office Chief – Project Management X X Joe Erwin Caltrans – D5 Corridor Manager
X Dianna Beck Caltrans – D5 Environmental Planner
133

San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Process
PM 3/20 3/21 3/22 3/23 3/24 Name Organization Position/Role E-mail X Sara von Schwind Caltrans – D5
X Miguel Barcenas City of SLO Deputy Director – Utilities X X Josh Erquiaga City of SLO IT Dept
X Kurt Spradling City of SLO CIP
X Jason Wilkinson
X Richard Rosales
X Kelly McClendon
X Darron Hill
X Aaron Henkel
X Marshall Garcia
X Peter Hendrix
134

APPENDIX:

Implementation Documentation and
Comments

Implementation Documentation and Comments
The PDT and Stakeholders reviewed all proposed alternatives presented within the Preliminary Value Analysis Study Report and provided decisions and comments concerning project decisions. The documentation is presented on the following pages. The first document includes the provided, collective decision from both the City and GHD/Bengal with full accepted alternative highlighted in green, accepted with modification in yellow, and rejected in red. The second document provides the comments for decisions from GHD/Bengal concerning the proposed alternatives.

Recommendation Overall City GHD/Bengal Notes
1 YY N
GHD ‐ Concerned about liability if speed reduced to 35 mph City ‐ New standards will support 35 mph
Caltrans ‐ Interested in design exception
2 YY Y
GHD ‐ Will Paul Gennaro have to be involved?City ‐ Excellent cost savings potentialCaltrans ‐ Yes, Paul Gennaro will make final decision 3 Y /Mods Y /Mods N
GHD ‐ Doubtful due to soils report that CIDH can be used City ‐Caltrans ‐ Agree with modifications ‐ more geotech analysis required 4 Y /Mods Y /Mods N
GHD ‐City ‐Caltrans ‐
5 NN Y
GHD ‐City ‐Caltrans ‐
6 YY Y
GHD ‐City ‐Caltrans ‐
VE Alternative Implementation Action Recommendation: Collective Decisions Green: AcceptedYellow: Accepted with ModificationRed: Rejected

VA ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION RECOMMENDATION
D-5 San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project
Providing your disposition of these alternatives denotes your recommendation to implement, based on current information, in the given project development phase. It is recognized that future conditions may change this disposition. Your comments will be discussed at the Implementation Meeting where final disposition and savings validation will be determined.
1 of 9
Responses prepared by: GHD/Bengal
Date: 4/24/2023
VA ALTERNATIVE 1.0
Reduce the maximum speed on structure to 35 mph
Disposition Recommendation: (Select one)

AGREE AGREE WITH MODIFICATIONS DISAGREE
Explain, comment, and/or discuss rationale for disposition recommendation:

Design Speed of 45 mph for Future/Existing Prado Road was selected in accordance with the Street Classification in the Circulation Element and in accordance with the 2020 City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standard 1010, Section 3.1.3.

Solely reducing the Design Speed of Prado Road from 45mph to 35mph does not necessitate removing the center bent proposed in the US-101 median. VA Alternative 1.0 is tied to VA Alternative

4.0 (use longer spans, removing the center bent in US-101 median). Longer spans will increase the bridge depth which will result in needing to raise the vertical profile to meet vertical clearance requirements. Reducing the design speed of Prado Road can provide more flexibility in the vertical design to raise the vertical profile to attempt to achieve longer spans with an increased bridge depth.

Please note that any changes to the Prado Road Vertical Profile will need to consider future Southbound Ramps and ensure not to preclude them. There is an alternative for the Future SB Ramps that goes underneath the structure.

VA ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION RECOMMENDATION
D-5 San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project
2 of 9
VA ALTERNATIVE 2.0
Reduce lane and shoulder widths where practical
Disposition Recommendation: (Select one)

AGREE AGREE WITH MODIFICATIONS DISAGREE
Explain, comment, and/or discuss rationale for disposition recommendation:

We agree that reducing the inside travel lanes from 12’ to 11’ and shoulders from 5’ to 4’ on Prado Road will result in cost savings by reducing the structure width by 4’.

Lane and shoulder widths for the Prado Road Overcrossing within Caltrans right-of-way should follow the HDM design standards. HDM Index 308.1 sets 12’ Travel Lanes and 5’ Shoulders as a boldface standard. A meeting with District 5 Design staff and possibly Paul Gennaro (Caltrans Project Delivery Coordinator for Headquarters Division of Design) will need to be set up to discuss the likelihood of approving this design exceptions if it needs to be included in the Design Standard Decision Document (DSDD).

VA ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION RECOMMENDATION
D-5 San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project
3 of 9
VA ALTERNATIVE 3.0
Use CIDH columns in lieu of driven piles and pile caps
Disposition Recommendation: (Select one)

AGREE AGREE WITH MODIFICATIONS DISAGREE
Explain, comment, and/or discuss rationale for disposition recommendation:

The VA team has recommended the use of CIDH columns in conjunction with longer spans to reduce the project cost. However, increasing the span lengths affects the design of the bridge's supporting foundations which are interrelated with many other factors in highway and bridge design. It is important to consider the potential ramifications of such changes, as altering one aspect can have a domino effect on others.

We believe that the use of CIDH columns coupled with longer spans will significantly increase the project's cost due to several factors not solely because of the foundation type change from driven piles to CIDH piles. While we have addressed some of these factors, this topic is quite broad.

Ultimately, we do not consider these recommendations to be a cost-effective and feasible alternative to the concepts presented in the approved Advanced Planning Studies, and thus would not recommend pursuing them as a "preferred alternative."
Furthermore, we would like to draw attention to the issue of risk which must be considered in addition to economic considerations. For instance, building CIDH piles generally increases the danger of "claims" during construction, as most Structure Reps agree that they bring more construction risk than the use of driven piles. Additionally, there is a risk of encountering problems during construction that may lead to redesigns, delays, and additional costs associated with such issues. If even one CIDH pile must be abandoned due to equipment failure or a collapsed hole, or if testing reveals a problematic CIDH pile, the contractor has less liberty to try something else than if driven piles had been used. We also note that there are far fewer contractors who can build large CIDH piles compared to those who can drive piles. As such, risks associated with building CIDH piles can also bring associated increased costs.

VA ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION RECOMMENDATION
D-5 San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project
4 of 9
Technical Aspects of CIDH Piles
The technical aspects of using CIDH piles must also be considered. Designers will need more geotechnical information than what is provided in the Preliminary Foundation Report (PFR). This being said, the document was based on practical recommendations from experienced practitioners and considered a valuable resource. It seems those who suggested the use of CIDH piles should have noticed that the PFR does not recommend CIDH piles due to the presence of groundwater and sandy materials at the proposed project site.

Bengal reviewed the PFR during the development of the Advanced Planning Studies (APS) and found that the recommendations to use driven piles and pile caps for the bridges were reasonable given the available information. The decision to use driven piles and pile caps in lieu of CIDH was made based on Bengal's experience with designing bridges supported by these foundation types around California including several different freeway interchanges on US-101 in District 5.

We have taken into account several factors during the design process including:
• Historically, the construction of large-diameter CIDH piles has exposed agencies to greater construction claims compared to driven piles. However, CIDH piles can be a suitable alternative in certain locations based on appropriate investigation and engineering. As such investigations were not undertaken at the early APS stage, the designs we included focused on driven piles and pile caps.
• For larger structures, it is rare to consider using CIDH/CISS columns instead of driven piles and pile caps for bridges unless the structure crosses rivers where there is a possibility of river scour. The bridge designer usually explores these options during the Structure Type Selection Phase rather than the APS phase.
• Once the bridge designer has access to data on pile vertical capacity, seismic ARS curves, and soil p-y data for static, dynamic, and liquefiable cases they can analyze the foundation of the structure for CIDH and driven piles options. If the soil strata are found to be liquefiable, as indicated by the PFR, this situation will present an added challenge for large diameter CIDH piles due to the addition of downdrag force. This will result in larger and longer CIDH piles for the structures.
• When looking ahead to construction and project specifications, it is important to consider that groundwater may vary over time due to seasonal fluctuations, influences from nearby creeks, local irrigation practices, surface and subsurface flows, ground surface run-off, and other factors. If the use of CIDH piles is adopted in the design, Caltrans standard slurry displacement method and temporary casing should be anticipated throughout the entire construction process.

VA ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION RECOMMENDATION
D-5 San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project
5 of 9
Use of CIDH Piles in the Center of US-101
The use of CIDH piles in the center of US-101 was a topic of discussion during the workshop. The practicality of building a bent in the median of US-101, which is supported by a pile cap and driven piles, was disputed despite this approach being commonly used in bridge construction. This method has been successfully utilized in several of our previous projects, including Storke Road, Cathedral Oaks, Betteravia, and Los Osos Valley Road overcrossings. There is adequate width in the median to allow only shoulder closures with slightly reduced lane width to accommodate construction.

Therefore, we respectfully disagree with the notion that the "single span idea" is necessary to solve a problem that does not exist.

Longer Spans—Increase “Demand” and Downdrag Forces
It is important to note that as span lengths increase, so does loading on foundations, leading to increased static and dynamic load demands. As pile sizes increase, liquefaction-induced downdrag forces also increase due to friction between piles and downward-moving soil. Given concerns raised in the PFR specifically mentioning liquefaction, we would like to inquire how the VAT plans to address additional demand created by downdrag resulting from lengthening spans. This consideration raises an important question regarding the feasibility of the proposed VA team project approach.

VA ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION RECOMMENDATION
D-5 San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project
6 of 9
VA ALTERNATIVE 4.0
Use longer spans and fewer columns with precast I-girders in lieu of CIP girders Disposition Recommendation: (Select one)

AGREE AGREE WITH MODIFICATIONS DISAGREE
Explain, comment, and/or discuss rationale for disposition recommendation:

We understand this comment is proposed to save costs. However, should this concept be undertaken, the effect on cost will have opposite intentions: the project will cost more because of the following.

1. Precast I-girder structures are reported to be between 18% and 40% more expensive than CIP/PS Box Girder Structures as indicated by the CT Comparative Bridge Costs report of 2019.

2. The implementation of precast I-girders will have a significant impact on the roadway profile resulting in increased costs throughout the project. Further details regarding this issue are provided below – given its importance to the project.

3. Constructability when evaluating design options. For instance, the proposal to use a single span across the US-101 mainline is mentioned throughout the document, resulting in spans of approximately 250 feet across the freeway. However, it is unclear how the VA team plans to construct such a structure and why this option is preferred when simpler alternatives are available.

4. Concerns regarding the number of contractors, particularly local contractors, who will be able to bid on such a unique project compared to one designed using more manageable spans presented in the APS.

5. The implementation of unique structures such as the 250-foot long free-span suggested by the proposal presents a significant increase in risk. Notably, the construction of such structures brings with it unique risks which result in higher costs to transport and handle their installation at the site.

6. It is prudent to consider the possibility of damage to the bridge or the need for modifications in the future should an accident occur. In the event of damage or modifications, the 250-foot span is likely to be more expensive to accommodate than a conventional design.

VA ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION RECOMMENDATION
D-5 San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project
7 of 9
Roadway Profile
The VA team has suggested the use of a single-span bridge over US-101 as a means of saving on construction costs. However, this idea has significant implications for the roadway profiles throughout the project, as the profile of Prado Road will control the project grades. Even if the cost of design and construction for such a concept is not a concern, the use of a single-span bridge across US101 will require a bridge that is much thicker than the concepts shown in the APS plans. As a result, the Prado Road profile will likely be raised, pending running any numbers, by approximately 5 feet to accommodate this massive 250-foot single span. This will have a domino effect on the alignment and lengthening of the ramps to conform to US-101, thereby increasing the cost of each of these ramps.

Lengthening the ramps will also pose challenges. The intersection of the ramps will likely have to be shifted northward to accommodate the more distant freeway conforms, which may impact other infrastructure, potentially requiring more right-of-way and TCEs to the north, and possibly inconveniencing access to the new RTA O&M facility.

ADA-Compliance
In addition to these challenges, it is crucial to consider ADA-compliance. Although the APS team has provided profiles compliant with ADA walkways, the estimates provided in the VA team information include $0 for "ADA Items" in their suggestions. Since the project design is partially controlled by ADA-compliance, it cannot be ignored when implementing the massive 250-foot single span as the Prado Road is raised and the resultant impacts on the bridge profiles.

Viewshed Impacts
Projects often receive public push-back, particularly regarding impact on viewsheds. Alternatives with higher profiles are generally unpopular among the public. Bengal has not seen a case where the public prefers a higher bridge over a lower.

Impact to Foundations Due to Longer Spans
In terms of foundations, the overall structure weight will rise due to the increased depth, and bridge support systems such as columns, abutments, and foundations will have to handle additional seismic and static forces due to the increased weight. This topic is covered in the CIDH discussion.

Spliced I-Girder Construction for Longer Spans
Spliced girders are precast, prestressed concrete members that are fabricated in several relatively long pieces (i.e. girder segments) that are assembled into a single girder for the final bridge structure.

Designers use spliced girders to overcome limitations of fabrication, shipping, and erection of the girders. Post-tensioning reinforces the connection between girder segments.

VA ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION RECOMMENDATION
D-5 San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project
8 of 9
In concrete bridge designs using spliced girders, site conditions frequently determine the span layout.

Transportation constraints and facilities at the fabrication plant usually govern maximum segment size. Segment sizes are selected to accommodate these constraints and provide splices at locations that are accessible at the construction site or dictated by flexural stresses in the girder.

The process of girder erection, shoring, splicing, and post-tensioning adds significant construction cost to traditional PC/PS I-girder structures.

Construction Costs
We know the PC/PS I-girders have a few advantages over CIP/PS Box Girders, but construction cost is usually not one of them. Regardless, the different structure types will be considered in the Structure Type Selection (STS) process and not at this APS stage.

When the time for the STS comes, Bengal will duly consider the PC/PS I-Girder option. However, at this APS stage, Bengal has the knowledge and experience to see the implications generated by such profiles, span lengths, foundation locations, performance, and construction cost, and has developed a solid and feasible concept using the current information available.

Practicality of Using PC/PS I-Girders on the Ramps
It is also important to note that even now at the APS level, the use of longer spliced PC/PS I-girders on the NB on-ramp may not be practical as the ramp has a fairly complicated profile consisting of reversing vertical curves. Additionally, structure depth will be an important consideration because of the ramp's proximity to the freeway as it conforms to it. The difficulty of forming and pouring a rollercoaster deck on top of spliced PC/PS girders may make this idea impractical, or even infeasible, compared to the CIP/PS Box for this situation.

VA ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION RECOMMENDATION
D-5 San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project
9 of 9
VA ALTERNATIVE 5.0
Leave existing sewer main on current Elks Lane alignment in lieu of relocation Disposition Recommendation: (Select one)

AGREE AGREE WITH MODIFICATIONS DISAGREE
Explain, comment, and/or discuss rationale for disposition recommendation:

We agree that the existing sewer main should be left in place and not be relocated as part of the Elks Lane Realignment.

Please note that Elks Lane Realignment is not currently part of the interchange project. Although related, the realignment of Elks Lane is its own standalone project.

VA ALTERNATIVE 6.0
Utilize recycled and/or reclaimed materials in project
Disposition Recommendation: (Select one)

AGREE AGREE WITH MODIFICATIONS DISAGREE
Explain, comment, and/or discuss rationale for disposition recommendation:

We agree that the project should utilize recycled and/or reclaimed materials.

s s s
s s
s
s
s
s
s
s s
s
s
s
FH
s s
s s
s
s
s
s
s s
s
FH
s s
s
s
407 136.85
410 135.60 X
X
X
X
X X

X X X X

X X X X
X X X
X X
XX

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X
X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X
X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X
X

X X X X X
X X X
X X X
◊ ◊
◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊
X
X
X
XX X

FH STOP
s
s s
s
s
s
403 132.74
X
X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X
X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X
X X
◊
◊
◊◊
X
FH
s
FH
s
FH
409 139.24
144.76
X X X

X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X
X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X

X X X X X
X
X X X

X X X X
Δ
0 100' 200' PRELIMINARY, NOT

FOR CONSTRUCTION

Item 7a
Department: Police
Cost Center: 8001
For Agenda of: 9/5/2023
Placement: Study Session
Estimated Time: 90 minutes
FROM: Rick Scott, Police Chief
Prepared By: Brian Amoroso, Deputy Chief
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT 5-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN

RECOMMENDATION
Receive a mid-point status update on the creation of the Police Department five-year Strategic Plan, to be presented by Jacob Green and Associates. The update will include activities conducted to date and future work to be performed in the creation of the final plan, with an expected completion date of December 2023.

POLICY CONTEXT
The Police Department contracted with Jacob Green and Associates in 2023 to aid in the creation of a strategic plan to guide the direction and work effort of the Police Department for the next 5 years. The strategic planning effort is identified as Task 2.51 of the 2023- 2025 Work Program and Financial Plan.

DISCUSSION
Background
In February 2023, the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department (Department) engaged the services of Jacob Green and Associates, Inc. (JGA), to help facilitate the development of the Department’s Strategic Plan. At the direction of the Council, City Manager, and Chief of Police, the team from JGA has spent significant time reviewing City planning documents, conducting field interviews, administering surveys, and meeting with staff and community leaders to ensure a comprehensive and collaborative approach to strategic planning.

This mid-project status update provided by JGA will review the strategic planning process efforts to date, including a review of the methodology employed thus far and preliminary city and community input results. Specifically, the presentation will highlight the outcomes of a broad community engagement strategy based on numerous interviews conducted

1 Page #49, 2023-2025 Financial Plan. “Use Community partnerships to help build a 5‐year strategic plan to create transparency and legitimacy”.

Item 7a
with key community partners that have served as a valuable source of information, offering perspectives from various community leaders, and allowing the strategic planning team to align the department's goals with the community's needs and expectations. The insights gleaned from these interviews will shed light on areas of alignment and potential areas for improvement, fostering a collaborative and inclusive approach to shaping the department's strategies to help guide and align the future of policing in San Luis Obispo.

The presentation will also feature the results from four broad reaching anonymous survey instruments that were utilized as part of the process. The surveys act as a platform for community members and police department staff to voice their opinions, lived experiences, concerns, and suggestions. The aggregated survey data will provide quantitative insights into community sentiment, enabling data-driven decision-making and a well-rounded understanding of public perceptions and recommendations.

Finally, the presentation will outline the tasks completed thus far, and the forthcoming steps in the strategic planning process, providing transparency and a sense of direction for both the council and the community.

The strategic planning process involves five steps.

1. Project Kickoff & Project Charter Development

2. Current State Assessment

3. Future State Development - Vision, Mission, Values, Priorities, & Paradigm

4. Strategic Plan Development, Action Plan Implementation & Monitoring

5. Approval & Distribution

1. Project Kickoff & Project Charter Development (Completed) During the strategic planning development process, JGA will work with the SLO PD and key executive staff to solidify the project committee members, critical strategic planning components, desired outcomes, and associated deadlines. A project charter will be created to create mutual expectations and project road-map approval.

2. Current State Assessment (Completed)
JGA will collaborate with the department during this phase of the strategic planning process to explore the current context of the organization to include an external and internal review with key stakeholders to include the SLO community and department personal. The process will incorporate the SWOT assessment (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) for an accurate snapshot of current operations.

JGA will collect data from a variety of sources to include focus groups, working groups, surveys of key players, and one-on-one interviews. Key focus areas and objectives will be identified. Consultant shall revisit and, if necessary, create a process to update the Department’s Vision, Mission, Values, and any other related fundamental department brand identity statements.

Item 7a

3. Future State Development - Vision, Mission, Values, etc. (Scheduled 9/6-9/7) JGA will work with all stakeholders to develop the fundamental elements that build organizational alignment: vision, mission, values, priorities, and paradigm. During this step, JGA will facilitate a two-day strategic planning retreat as outlined below.

The Department has identified a need to bring key leadership together for a facilitated two-day session to assess the department's current and future state. Facilitation services enable all members of the team to actively engage in the meeting process instead of having a designated team member take the role of facilitator and be excluded from group discussion.

Activities facilitated by JGA during the retreat will be consolidated into the final Strategic Plan product. Facilitated activities will include identifying strategic priorities, objectives, strategies, and metrics. Activities will include all-hands discussions and break-out sessions for process efficiency and effectiveness.

4. Strategic Plan Development, Action Plan Implementation (To be completed Fall 2023) JGA will help the organization develop a set of priorities, as well as an action plan focusing on achieving the identified priorities during the five-year life span of the strategic plan. The action plan may include priorities, goals and objectives, strategies and actions, indications, key players responsible, target dates, and KPI’s.

As requested in the RFP instructions, the Strategic Plan will also include reference to the best timing and approach to conduct the department’s future staffing study. JGA will not conduct the staffing study as part of this process but is available to manage this project at a future date if desired by the city. During this step of the process, the feasibility of a staffing study, recommended schedule, and scope will be further examined.

5. Approval & Distribution (Expected completion 1/2024) A final strategic plan will be assembled by JGA and routed to key SLOPD stakeholders for review, edit, and ultimate approval. The plan will then be distributed to the organization and JGA will work with the Police Chief to determine the most effective way to educate the Department regarding the final Strategic Plan and associated implementation strategy.

Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
None.

Item 7a
Public Engagement
Extensive public engagement has been conducted through in-person interviews and several online survey instruments to solicit broad input from the community on departmental direction. In addition, the Department is coordinating with the Community Safety Advisory Council, which is comprised of both the PAC and Police Roundtable advisory bodies, to review progress and provide important input into the development of the Strategic Plan.

Attachment A provides a comprehensive list of all targeted stakeholders contacted during the engagement process. This list does not include anyone who completed the general survey posted via Open City Hall.

Council Focus Questions
This study session is an opportunity for the council to provide direct feedback to the Police Department as the strategic planning process transitions from information gathering to plan creation. These focus themes will be presented to council at the onset of the presentation, and again at the end to solicit further thought on the strategic planning efforts to date and as an opportunity to provide additional guidance after hearing from Chief Scott and the strategic plan consultant, Jacob Green. a. Community Engagement
i. Has the level of community engagement completed to date met and/or exceeded council expectations?
b. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
i. Are there any areas that the Council recommends that the Department evaluate to further ensure the fair and unbiased treatment of all individuals, regardless of their background in promoting a safe and welcoming San Luis Obispo for all persons?
c. Alternative Approaches to Crime Response
i. Are there concepts focused on alternative crime response(s) to align safe and efficient crime abatement, congruent with community expectations?
d. Infrastructure and Equipment
i. What investments might be necessary to help reduce crime and the perception of crime, aligning resources to ensure exemplary service and response readiness for a growing community?

CONCURRENCE
None.

Item 7a

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action in this report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15378.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: n/a Budget Year: 2023-24
Funding Identified: n/a
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $ $ $ $
State
Federal
Fees
Other: $ $ $0 $0
Total $ $ $0 $0
There are no fiscal impacts directly associated with this item. The consultant contract with Jacob Green and Associates was funded in FY 2022-2023 in the amount of $58,400.

ALTERNATIVES
There are no alternative actions as this presentation is an update on the existing strategic plan creation process.

ATTACHMENTS
A - SLOPD Master Survey Final

A - SLOPD STRATEGIC PLAN MASTER SURVEY LIST
Mayor and City Council
City Manager
Diversity Coalition SLO County
Latino Outreach Council
RACE Matters SLO

PAC & FEMA
Tranz Central Coast
Public Safety SLO
Bend the Arc
NAACP
SLO Chamber
Transitions Mental Health Association
County Behavioral Health
Black Faculty Staff Association
Lumina Alliance
Mission Prep
SLO High School
Laguna Middle School
Cuesta College Admin
Roundtable
Central Coast Gymnastics
Meathead Movers
RQN
Covelop
Cal Poly
CAPSLO (40 Prado)
Downtown SLO
AAPI SLO County
GALA Pride and Diversity Center
Jewish Community Center Federation
Cal Poly Student Diversity and Belonging
American Indian and Indigenous Faculty
Staff
Asian Pacific Islander Faculty Staff
Association
Chicanx/Latinx Faculty Staff Association
Disability Faculty Staff Association
Pride Faculty Staff Association
Women's Faculty Staff Association
5Cities Homeless Coalition
Access Support Network
Artist/ Owner of The Bunker SLO
Behavioral Health Department
Big Brothers Big Sisters of San Luis Obispo
County
Bike SLO County
board member of the JCC Federation of SLO
Board Member SLOMA
Cal Poly office of University Diversity &
Inclusion
Center for Family Strengthening (CFS)
Central Coast Coalition for Undocumented
Success
Central Coast Community Energy (CCCE)
City Farm SLO
Climate Coalition
Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation
District (CSL-RCD)

A - SLOPD STRATEGIC PLAN MASTER SURVEY LIST
Community Action Partnership of San Luis
Obispo County, Inc
Community Counseling Center (CCC) of San
Luis Obispo
Community Foundation
Court Appointed Special Advocates of San
Luis Obispo County, Inc
Cuesta College
Cuesta College Foundation
Cuesta Performing Arts Center
Diversity Coalition
Duke Energy
EcoSLO
Electric Power Research Institute
Electrification Coalition (electric vehicles)
Festival Mozaic
Food Bank Coalition of San Luis Obispo
County
Foundation PAC
GALA
History Center
HOPE-House of Pride and Equity
Hospice of San Luis Obispo County
Independent Living Resource Center, INC
Islamic Society of SLO
IWMA
Jack's Helping Hand, Inc
Literacy for Life Organization
Long Term Care Ombudsman Services of
San Luis Obispo County
MCSC Women's Business Center
Meals That Connect
NeoCharge
Northern Chumash/First Nation
One Cool Earth
PAC
Pacific Heating and Sheet Metal
Pathpoint
Peace Academy of the Science and Arts
People's Self-Help Housing Corporation
Promotoras
Public Health Department
RACE Matters
Restorative Partners
San Luis Obispo Climate Coalition
San Luis Obispo Committee for Education on
Alcoholism, dba "MiddleHouse"
San Luis Obispo Legal Assistance Foundation
Senior Volunteer Services
Shower the People
SLO Access For All
SLO Children’s Museum
SLO County Arts Council
SLO International Film Festival
SLO Museum of Art
SLO Noor Foundation
SLO Partners
SLO Rep. Theater

A - SLOPD STRATEGIC PLAN MASTER SURVEY LIST
SLOCOG
Smart Share Housing Solutions, Inc
Spokes
The Link Family Resource Center
The San Luis Obispo Child Development
Resource Center
Tolosa Children's Dental Center
Tri-Counties Regional Center
Tri-County Regional Energy Network
Undocu Support
United Cerebral Palsy of San Luis Obispo
County
United Way of San Luis Obispo County
Veritas
Veteran Services Officer
Veterans Affairs
Women’s March
YMCA
Above Grade Engineering
ACI Jet
Ah Louis Store
Amazon
Ambient Communities
Arris
ASH Management
Astound
Astound Broadband
Big Sky Cafe
Bishop’s Peak Elementary PTA
Blackwater
Blue Mango
Bluebird Salon
Buffalo Pub & Grill
C.L. Smith Elementary PTA
Cal Poly CIE Economic Development
Director
Cannon Corporation
Cattaneo Brothers
Central Coast Community Builders
Central Coast Parks
Charter/Spectrum
Clever Ducks
COE Wine
Copelands' Properties
Corvus Wealth Management
CRSA Architecture
Cuesta
Design Professional
Dettmer Architecture
Eighty 20 Group
French Hospital
Garcia Architecture and Design
Glenn Burdette
Guaranteed Rate Mortgage
Gymnazo
Hampton Inn
Hawthorne Elementary PTA

A - SLOPD STRATEGIC PLAN MASTER SURVEY LIST
Highwater
Hodge Company
Hotel SLO
Housing Authority San Luis Obispo
Hubbard Development Consulting
HumanKind
Hunter Smith Architecture
Idlers Home
Ifixit
In Balance Green Consulting
J.W. Design & Construction
Junk Girls
Kovesdi Consulting
Lamplighter Inn/ Shell Gas Stations
Lawyer
Logiq
Los Ranchos Elementary PTA
Madonna Properties
Matchfire
McCarty Davis
Megan’s Organic Market
MFI Design
MIG
Mindbody
Mission College Prep PTA
Montage Development
Mountain Air
MW Architects
NKT
Nomada
Oasis Associates
Old Mission Elementary PTA
Omni Design
Pacheco Elementary PTA
Pacific Beach PTA
Paragon Architects
Peak WiFi
Peck Planning
People's Self-Help Housing
Precision Construction
Promega Biosciences, LLC
Property Owner
Property Owner/Hotel Restaurant
PSHHC
REACH
Real Estate
Resident
Richardson Properties
RRM Design
San Luis Coastal School District
Sesloc
Sierra Vista
Sinsheimer Elementary PTA

SLO COG
SLO County
SLO Economic Development Dept.

A - SLOPD STRATEGIC PLAN MASTER SURVEY LIST
SLO Foodbank

SLO RTA
SLOCAL

SLOHS PTA
Sloma
SOFTEC
Southpaw Sign Company
Specialty Construction
Stalwork
Stephen Patrick Designs
Stephen Ross Winery
Stone Park Capital
Teach Elementary PTA
Ten Over Studio
Tenover
The Law Office of Marshall E. Ochylski
Thoma Electric
Tolosa Winery
Tricamo Construction
Trust Automation
Vivian Hanover Ventures
Wallace Group
Wilshire Health
SLOPD - All Employees
Parks and Recreation Department
Community Development Department
City Attorney Department
Human Resources Department
Utilities Department
Deputy City Manager
Public Works Department
Finance Department
Assistant City Manager
Fire Department
Information Technology Department
Natural Resources Department
Communications Department
Tourism Manager