FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1495085688> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1495085688 abstract "This report presents the results of a two-part study that compared the lifecycle costs of two long-life pavement (LLP) rehabilitation options and several conventional rehabilitation strategies for existing asphalt and concrete pavements, considering both agency costs and road user cost associated with traffic delay caused by construction. In the first part of the research, data from a 1996 study was reanalyzed using a more appropriate method of calculating traffic demand whilst using other assumptions of the earlier study. Then, a factorial sensitivity study was performed comparing lifecycle costs of hypothetical long-life strategies and conventional rehabilitation strategies, but with more variables than were included in the 1996 study and more appropriate data sourced from recent projects. The RealCost software package, developed by the Federal Highway Administration, was used for all analyses. The results of the analyses showed that for the current data and assumptions (pavement lives, construction productivity, hourly traffic patterns) used in the study together with better traffic delay analysis, the LLP options have greater total costs than conventional rehabilitation alternatives assuming 24-hour-per-day closures for LLP options and 8-hour nighttime closures for conventional alternatives. However, the sensitivity analyses showed that as traffic demand is reduced by implementation of Traffic Management Plans (TMP) and use of weekend closures, the traffic delay costs associated with LLP options are significantly reduced. The sensitivity analyses also showed that if non-pavement costs are reduced for the LLP options (they were not considered for the conventional rehabilitation alternatives), LLP options become competitive for projects with large numbers of lanes. Because of a lack of good pavement performance data, and limited cost data for long-life projects (two projects), the results of the sensitivity analyses presented in this report should be considered in terms of their general trends, and should absolutely not be used to compare different conventional rehabilitation strategies or alternative long life strategies for individual projects without using better and site-specific data. The alternatives considered in this study are all hypothetical cases. The study was limited to rehabilitation strategies only and is not applicable to new construction or widening. The sensitivity analyses made clear the need to perform lifecycle cost analysis for each project using project-specific data for both agency costs and road user costs. Despite the findings of this study, LLP is still considered to be a feasible rehabilitation option. It is thus strongly recommended that LCCA be performed on a case-by-case basis when determining whether to use long-life or conventional strategies as significantly different results could be obtained when project specific data and actual overhead and administration costs are used. An example is provided in the report in which lifecycle cost analyses showed LLP to be more cost-effective than conventional rehabilitation alternatives because the existing pavement condition made some conventional rehabilitation alternatives infeasible, which would have resulted in shorter lives than those assumed in this study. Local conditions resulted in a traffic management plan with significantly greater reduction in traffic demand that that assumed in this study. The results of LCCA are dependent on the following variables which are different for each project: * Traffic demand patterns, including hourly demand, weekday and weekend demand, directional peaks and discretionary versus job-related travel * Alternative routes and modes * Lane and shoulder configurations and highway geometry in each direction * Feasibility and expected life of each rehabilitation strategy, which depend on truck traffic and existing pavement condition in each lane * Expected construction durations Sensitivity analyses should be carried out to identify specific issues that influence the agency and road user costs and which could be managed better to reduce the costs on alternative strategies. There is consensus in the industry that quality LCCA in the design phase of rehabilitation projects can result in more appropriate strategies, considerable total savings (agency and road user) and better cash flow management." @default.
• W1495085688 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1495085688 creator A5016101667 @default.
• W1495085688 creator A5057167506 @default.
• W1495085688 creator A5083173462 @default.
• W1495085688 date "2005-06-01" @default.
• W1495085688 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W1495085688 title "Economic Implications of Selection of Long-Life versus Conventional Caltrans Rehabilitation Strategies for High-Volume Highways" @default.
• W1495085688 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W1495085688 type Work @default.
• W1495085688 sameAs 1495085688 @default.
• W1495085688 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1495085688 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1495085688 hasAuthorship W1495085688A5016101667 @default.
• W1495085688 hasAuthorship W1495085688A5057167506 @default.
• W1495085688 hasAuthorship W1495085688A5083173462 @default.
• W1495085688 hasConcept C108170787 @default.
• W1495085688 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W1495085688 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W1495085688 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1495085688 hasConcept C139719470 @default.
• W1495085688 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W1495085688 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W1495085688 hasConcept C204983608 @default.
• W1495085688 hasConcept C21547014 @default.
• W1495085688 hasConcept C22212356 @default.
• W1495085688 hasConcept C2778818304 @default.
• W1495085688 hasConcept C42475967 @default.
• W1495085688 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W1495085688 hasConceptScore W1495085688C108170787 @default.
• W1495085688 hasConceptScore W1495085688C111472728 @default.
• W1495085688 hasConceptScore W1495085688C127413603 @default.
• W1495085688 hasConceptScore W1495085688C138885662 @default.
• W1495085688 hasConceptScore W1495085688C139719470 @default.
• W1495085688 hasConceptScore W1495085688C162324750 @default.
• W1495085688 hasConceptScore W1495085688C169760540 @default.
• W1495085688 hasConceptScore W1495085688C204983608 @default.
• W1495085688 hasConceptScore W1495085688C21547014 @default.
• W1495085688 hasConceptScore W1495085688C22212356 @default.
• W1495085688 hasConceptScore W1495085688C2778818304 @default.
• W1495085688 hasConceptScore W1495085688C42475967 @default.
• W1495085688 hasConceptScore W1495085688C86803240 @default.
• W1495085688 hasLocation W14950856881 @default.
• W1495085688 hasOpenAccess W1495085688 @default.
• W1495085688 hasPrimaryLocation W14950856881 @default.
• W1495085688 hasRelatedWork W1502391826 @default.
• W1495085688 hasRelatedWork W1581393216 @default.
• W1495085688 hasRelatedWork W159821469 @default.
• W1495085688 hasRelatedWork W2016786612 @default.
• W1495085688 hasRelatedWork W2066346317 @default.
• W1495085688 hasRelatedWork W2111810903 @default.
• W1495085688 hasRelatedWork W2243809350 @default.
• W1495085688 hasRelatedWork W2248420484 @default.
• W1495085688 hasRelatedWork W22675387 @default.
• W1495085688 hasRelatedWork W2767068668 @default.
• W1495085688 hasRelatedWork W2946478416 @default.
• W1495085688 hasRelatedWork W3122607507 @default.
• W1495085688 hasRelatedWork W587157244 @default.
• W1495085688 hasRelatedWork W601868695 @default.
• W1495085688 hasRelatedWork W609836371 @default.
• W1495085688 hasRelatedWork W657314225 @default.
• W1495085688 hasRelatedWork W789408808 @default.
• W1495085688 hasRelatedWork W809483819 @default.
• W1495085688 hasRelatedWork W831008989 @default.
• W1495085688 hasRelatedWork W2303161878 @default.
• W1495085688 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1495085688 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1495085688 magId "1495085688" @default.
• W1495085688 workType "article" @default.