Framework for Implementing Constructability Throughout Project Development from NEPA to Final Design (2023)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 388 Framework for Implementing Constructability Throughout Project Development from NEPA to Final Design University of Florida Gainsville, FL Conduct of Research Report for NCHRP Project 10-99 Submitted September 2022 © 2023 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the graphical logo are trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 initiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), United States Department of Transportation, under Agreement No. 693JJ31950003. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, APTA, FAA, FHWA, FTA, GHSA, or NHTSA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; the FHWA; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board does not develop, issue, or publish standards or specifications. The Transportation Research Board manages applied research projects which provide the scientific foundation that may be used by Transportation Research Board sponsors, industry associations, or other organizations as the basis for revised practices, procedures, or specifications. The Transportation Research Board, the National Academies, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This material has not been edited by TRB.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major program divisions of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to mobilize expertise, experience, and knowledge to anticipate and solve complex transportation-related challenges. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,500 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP WEB-ONLY DOCUMENT 388 Waseem Dekelbab, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs, and Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Christopher McKenney, Senior Program Officer Sheila A. Moore, Senior Program Assistant Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications Jennifer Correro, Assistant Editor NCHRP PROJECT 10-99 PANEL Field of Materials and Construction—Area of Specs, Procedures, and Practices Carrie A. Stanbridge, Florida Department of Transportation, Lake City, FL (Chair) Stuart D. Anderson Texas A&M University, College Station, TX Christofer "Harper" Harper, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO David Hoyne, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. (GPI), N Fayston, VT David A. Sadler, Eisman & Russo Consulting Engineers Orlando, FL Ms. Katherine A. Petros, FHWA Liaison Nelson H. Gibson, TRB Liaison ‘ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The NCHRP 10-99 research team takes this opportunity to acknowledge the participation of approximately 65 public transportation agencies and to thank them for providing subject matter experts and data for this project. The team would further like to thank the 200-plus individuals who shared information with the team through phone interviews, lengthy questionnaires, and participation in focus groups and case studies. We especially want to thank the 75 experts who gave of their time to attend and contribute to our nine-hour online workshop; their contributions to the workshop process had such a large impact on the final deliverables. Finally, we save our deepest and most heartfelt thanks for the five departments of transportation that hosted our researchers for a week at a time, often scheduling interviews in their home offices, having their people travel to meet us, allowing maximum productivity, and scheduling project site visits. The information gathered during these interviews form the foundation for the recommendations presented in this report.

iv SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 1 Phase I ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Phase II............................................................................................................................................ 5 CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 8 The Advent of Integrated Project Delivery ......................................................................................8 NEPA and the Expanded Environmental-Permitting Process .......................................................11 Problem Statement .........................................................................................................................11 Research Objectives .......................................................................................................................13 Scope of Study ...............................................................................................................................14 CHAPTER 2. PHASE I: BENCHMARK THE CURRENT STATE-OF-PRACTICE ....... 15 Task 1-1: Literature Review ..........................................................................................................15 Task 1-2: Define the Current State-of-Practice .............................................................................53 Task 1-3: Conceptual Decision-Making Framework .................................................................. 201 Tasks 1-4/1-5: Interim Report and Face-to-Face Meeting .......................................................... 201 CHAPTER 3. PHASE II: CRP DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK ............................ 202 Task 2-1: CRP Decision-Making Framework ............................................................................ 202 Task 2-2: Workshop .................................................................................................................... 212 Task 2-3: Training Materials ...................................................................................................... 225 Task 2-4: Electronic Presentation ............................................................................................... 235 Task 2-5: Stand-Alone Technical Memorandom ........................................................................ 236 ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, INITIALISMS, AND SYMBOLS ............................... 246 REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................250 APPENDIX A: LEVEL ONE INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT ............................................. 258 APPENDIX B: DATA GATHERING: AGENCY DOCUMENTS ...................................... 282 APPENDIX C: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION QUESTIONS ............................................ 435 CONTENTS

v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Breakdown of Level 2 Survey Populations ............................................... ……………59 Figure 2: Most Commonly Used by DOTS to Improve Constructability ..................................... 60 Figure 3: Project Phases Included in the Constructability Review Process. ................................. 61 Figure 4: Project Phases During Which DOTs Commence the Constructability Review Process.. ........................................................................................................................ 61 Figure 5: DOT Policies Related to the Relationship Between NEPA and Their CRP ................. 63 Figure 6: DOTs With Existing Policies to Encourage Flexibility in the NEPA Process. ............. 63 Figure 7: Fators Used by DOTs to Decide Whether to Employ a CRP to a Project— and What Level of CRP to Employ ........................................................................................... 65 Figure 8: Metrics Used By DOTs to Measure Constructablity Review Program Effectiveness .. 66 Figure 9: Reported Benefits of Constructibility Reviews... .......................................................... 66 Figure 10: Problems Most Often Discovered During the Course of a Constructibilty Review .............................................................................................................. 67 Figure 11: The Proposed Procedure for the Industry Constructability Review Process ............. 113 Figure 12: Screen Capture of the Disctrict 11 Project Review Organization System ................ 170 Figure 13: A Pop-Up Message Clarifying a Question About the Limits of Disturbance Footprint of a Project, Superimposed Over the Model Input Questions Mality ...................... 217 Figure 14: Levels of CR Formality ............................................................................................. 234 Figure 15: CR Tools and the Timing of Their Use in Different Project Phases. ........................ 236 Figure 16: A Definition Pop-Up Message on “Utility Mapping,” Superimposed on the Model Input Questions. ............................................................................................................ 239 Figure 17: An Instructional Pop-Up Message on an Input Question Superimposed Over the Model Input Questions .............................................................................................. 240 Figure 18: An Pop-Up Message to Explain the Idea Behind a Question Superimposed Over the Model Input Questions .............................................................................................. 240

vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1: List of Selected DOT Contacts for Level Two Survey ................................................... 55 Table 2: List of Selected Non-DOT Contacts for Level Two Survey .......................................... 58 Table 3: Milestones Requiring a Constructaiity Review ............................................................ 163 Table 4: Attributes of CR Levels ................................................................................................ 235