1994 AACE TRANSACTIONS

TR.1 Cost Variations in Nighttime Construction

Ashish Kumar and Dr. Ralph D. Ellis, Jr., PE
INTRODUCTION Recently, many states have changed the direction of their operations from new highways and roads to maintaining existing ones. However, problems arise from daytime lane closures, resulting in heavy congestion on roads already loaded to capacity. This problem is not limited to roads in urban areas, but also includes some rural highways that are often as crowded at certain times as urban areas. According to a state highway agency official, it has become hard to separate morning rush hours from evening rush hours, and congestion lasts for 12 to 13 hours a day [1]. This creates a situation where the natural, ordinary solution of lane closure becomes unrealistic or impossible during peak times. The daytime lane closures are also hazardous, costly, and inconvenient for the traveling public. As a result, more construction and rehabilitation work is being performed during hours when traffic flow is minimal. In addition to several obvious advantages of nighttime work such as cooler temperatures for equipment and material, fewer traffic problems, and delays, there are certain disadvantages also. Night work is comprised of many complex issues, which include safety, costs, productivity, lighting conditions, workforce availability, and administrative decisions. Recent literature on highway construction also confirms this trend and addresses problems associated with night work. However, the number of references dealing directly with the night shift operations, as a whole, are limited. Only a few studies provide a comprehensive approach and valuable information towards night shift construction. Several published reports in the transportation area have provided information on issues relating to the planning, safety, and traffic control aspects of nighttime maintenance and construction work, and their advantages and disadvantages. D. A. Price, in his study, addressed the overall nighttime paving operation with respect to lighting, personnel, and communication [3]. He also included comparisons of quality, cost, and safety in his research. Shepard and Cottrell conducted a study that compiled information on current practices in nighttime highway construction and maintenance operations [5]. The major areas covered in their nighttime construction feasibility study were: scheduling of lane and road closures, work zone costs, safety, public relations/user costs, and traffic control. Hinze and Carlisle have done further evaluation of the important factors in nighttime construction [4]. Qualitative and quantitative factors related to nighttime construction have been detailed in their study along with the discussion of advantages and disadvantages. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), like other organizations, has realized in the past that night work is one of the major solutions to the traffic congestion problem associated with highway maintenance. Research done at the University of Florida involved studying all the parameters involved in a night operation [6]. The study, in addition to identifying these parameters and evaluating their effects, also quantified the effects on construction cost and productivity. A further analysis of data, although indicating certain trends in construction cost and productivity of nighttime construction, could not confirm significant differences between day and nighttime projects [7]. In this paper, analysis of additional data is performed and presented to examine all the cost components including weighted project costs and user cost savings to the traveling public. COST COMPONENTS OF NIGHTILME HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION Similar to most decision-making processes, selection of night shift over day shift or vice versa is influenced by economics. Although the literature review indicated a lack of cost information for an effective comparison between daytime and nighttime construction, there have been various opinions regarding cost variations. According to some opinions, construction costs and total project costs are normally expected to be higher in the case of night construction as opposed to day construction. The reasons are attributed to overtime, shift differential, lighting, and higher bids, for example. However, user and public costs may follow a reverse trend. In highway construction, the attributable costs can be categorized as construction/owner costs, user costs, accident costs, and maintenance costs. Construction costs are usually the estimated project costs, while user costs are incurred by traveling motorists due to ongoing construction work. Accident costs are difficult to obtain and quantify. Pavement maintenance costs refer to post-construction costs which depend on quality control during the work. In the absence of sufficient data regarding other costs and problems with quantification, this discussion is confined to construction and user costs only. Evaluation of Night Construction Cost factors elating to construction cost Construction or owner costs are essentially the costs resulting from the construction of a facility and are borne by the owner or highway agency. This includes the costs of the contract (labor, material, equipment, and contractor) and agency costs (planning, evaluating, and monitoring). Additional construction costs that can

TR.I.1

1994 AAC]E TRANSACTIONS be attributed to night work include lighting, additional traffic control, inspection, labor premiums, overtime, and increased material costs. Material costs may be higher during the night shift due to batch plants charging higher rates. According to a study in Denver on two similar overlay projects, the price for hot bitutminous pavement (HBP) per ton was found to be 23 percent higher than that of the day project. The price for emulsified asphalt (CSS-1H) per gallon was 42 percent higher [3]. A cost comparison done by a resident engineer of the FDOT indicates a 2 to 3 percent increase in material costs for asphalt roadway work during the night (2]. Labor and inspection costs are additional cost items for night construction. Shift premiumns accounted for an increase of 18 percent in direct labor costs, while overtime costs for agency persounel required an additional 16 percent (4]. One Florida contractor agreed to pay $0.50 per hour extra for all of his personnel involved in nighttime operations [2]. Lighting is one of dithe significant items in terms of differential cost between day and night construction. Since the cost of artificial lighting is unique to nighttime work, it is a project specific cost. For nighttime construction, there is an added cost for traffic control such as additional signs for low visibility environment including changeable message signs, arrow boards, warning signs, and chamnelizing devices. An analysis on paving projects in Colorado mentions that the flagging per hour cost was 71 percent higher for the Interstate 70 night paving project [3]. In die following section, an attempt has been made to compare conistructiomi cost differential ini day and nighttime projects in Florida. For cost evaluation. two comparisons are done: variations in individual item unit costs and weighted unit costs; and variations in total program costs for daytime and nighttime projects. angaysis of data Most highway projects are unique, and usually consist of different sets of work items which makes it difficult to compare the construction costs during nighttime and daytime jobs by directly comparing day and night projects. To overcome this problem in this study, a set of typical work items have been selected. These work items are chosen based upon their presence in typical day as well as night shift highway projects; their significant contribution to project costs; and their large quantities. A listing of all such work items is given as follows: o
o o

removal of existing pavement; regular excavation; bituminousmaterial-primecoat bituminous materal-tack coat; milling existing asphalt pavement-2-inch average depth; Class I concrete-miscellaneous; type S asphalt concrete-including bitumen; and asphalt concrete friction course-including bitumen.

o o o o

Daytime and nighttime rates for the above work items were obtained for all the projects done by FDOT in 1990. Table I gives the summary of statistics of these rates for the eight work items. For both daytime and nighttime projects, various information such as number of projects, mean, and standard deviations were obtained. Standard deviations for both the unit prices were found to be very high. Reasons for this can be partly attributed to the smaller sample size of projects considered for the study and other project specific conditions. It was speculated that unit price of an item was influenced by its quantity and its share in the total project cost. As a result, weighted unit prices for the two project groups were also obtained and are included in Table 1.

Table -Stafistical Summary of DIay and Nighttime Unit Pdices for Eight Selected Pay Items
Name of Item Rem exist. pavement Regular excavation Bit mat'l-prime coat Bit mat'l-tack coat Milling existing asphalt pavement Class I conc.-misc. Type S asph. conc. Asph. conc. friction Unit sq.m cu.m L L sq.m cu.m Mg sq.m No. of Projects 104.00 151.00 55.00 190.00 23.00 70.00 188.00 102.00 Daytime Projects Mean Std. Dev. Weighted ($/unit) ($/unit) Mean 12.58 13.14 4.65 9.68 0.61 0.36 0.81 455.40 50.58 1.51 10.08 0.45 0.36 0.31 306.40 37.64 0.98 3.32 0.33 0.23 0.74 252.43 28.95 1.06 No. of Projects 21.00 19.00 11.00 25.00 18.00 17.00 22.00 24.00 Nighttime Projects Mean Std. Dev. Weighted ($/unit) ($S/unit) Mean 9.00 4.44 8.92 5.35 1.14 0.25 0.85 524.30 34.50 1.57 2.48 0.73 0.06 0.38 155.11 6.74 0.63 3.90 0.33 0.22 0.71 514.30 29.96 1.31

To confirm die possible interaction between unit prices and quantity, a correlation analysis was performed. Table 2 provides the results of the analysis and the correlation coefficients. As is apparent from the results, the coefficients have very low values; however; their negative sign indicates a certain trend. In absence of an overall strong correlation, it was further speculated that unit

prices were more affected by the quantity ranges in which a certain pay item might fall, instead of actual quantity value. This was confirmed by preparing certain categories ofquantities with defined ranges. As is indicated in Table 3 for each pay item, different categories were determined. The ranges in these categories were based on the information available from all the daytime jobs and

TR. 1.2

1994 AACE TRANSACTIONS were defined for each pay item to include nearly same number of daytime projects. Mean unit prices for the projects belonging to these categories were determined. From the night project data also, pay items were sorted as per the predefined ranges, and corresponding means were determined. For daytime projects, it was observed that the items belonging to categories of large quantity have on average a smaller value of mean unit price and vice versa. To overcome the interaction effect of quantity and unit prices, corresponding weighted unit prices were also determined for both day and night projects. The weighted unit prices are obtained by dividing actual item costs by their respective total quantities.

Table 2-Corelation Coefficients and Unit Price Differences for Day and Nighttime Projects
Total Quantity (unit) 24,648.2 194,544.9 57,846.3 1,706,199.1 1,128,398.8 172.5 316,465.3 2,636,828.8 Correlation Coefficients (Quantity vs Unit Price) Daytime Nighttime -0.34 -0.12 -0.20 -0.24 -0.23 -0.27 -0.30 -0.29 -0.41 -0.48 -0.12 -0.51 -0.4 -0.33 -0.06 -0.38 Difference of Night vs Day Mean Weighted Unit Price Unit Price -3.58 4.27 -4.33 0.53 -0.11 0.04 68.90 -16.08 0.06 0.58 0.00 -0.01 -0.03 261.87 1.01 0.25

Name of Item Rem exist. pavement Regular excavation Bit mat'l-prime coat Bit mat'l-tack coat Milling existing asphalt pavement Class I conc.-misc. Type S asph. conc. Asph. conc. friction

Unit sq.m cu.m L L sq.m cu.m Mg sq.m

To determine the variation in means, an item-by-item comparison of rates has been performed and results are tabulated in Table 2. The last two columns of the table give the comparison of actual and weighted means for nighttime and daytime jobs, respectively. A negative sign in both the columns indicate lower nighttime costs. A category-wise comparison of night and day mean unit prices was also performed and results are tabulated in the last column of Table 3. To quantify the difference of nighttime and daytime unit prices and to demonstrate its effect on the total program costs, firther evaluation was done. For this evaluation, night and day project costs were obtained utilizing total quantity of work and mean unit prices. A similar analysis was also done for the weighted day and nighttime unit prices. Results of this comparison are provided in Table 4. The table also includes the percentage differences as resulted from the comparison. discussion of results An analysis of the information provided in Table I reveals that the variations in unit costs for the eight selected items are very high. Standard deviation in most of the cases is nearly 100 percent or more of the mean, which shows that unit costs are highly project-oriented and depend more on project-related conditions than on type of shift. Results of correlation between unit prices and quantities as presented in Table 2 showed a negative trend but did not confirm significant correlation, which on further analysis indicated that pay

items were strongly dependent on quantity ranges of pay items and not as much with the absolute values. The results of Table 3 confirm this finding for all pay items without exception. However, the same was not found for nighttime projects. Although a general trend similar to the one with daytime projects can be noticed, there are also a number of exceptions. The reasons for this can be attributed to the relatively smaller size of nighttime projects in various categories of each pay item. In other words, the information for nighttime projects in Table 3 cammot be considered as representative of all nighttime projects. For the comparison of mean unit prices for day and nighttime projects, several approaches were adopted, which included comparison of actual mean unit prices, comparison of weighted unit prices, and comparison of mean prices for each category. The results of the first two comparisons are provided in Table 2, which shows inconclusive evidence to confinn the differences. For actual mean unit price comparison, four pay items had higher night prices and the other four had lower prices. Similarly for weighted mean unit price comparison, four pay items had higher night prices, three had lower night prices, and for one there was no difference. Also, there was no consistency found in the two comparisons. For the third comparison, results are included in Table 3. From the results, it is evident that there is no consistency in the differences for the two unit prices except for type S asphalt concrete. For asphalt concrete, in nearly all the categories nighttime unit prices were found to be less than daytime prices. Lower concrete unit prices can be attributed to the work item characteristics. However, for the rest of the pay items, the data was insufficient to confirmn any significant difference in day and nighttime pay item unit prices.

TR.1.3

1994 AACE T[RANSACTIIONS

Table 3--ay IIemn Qaniy ]Ranges and Suamnmnry of Day and Night Unit lPices Unit (US unit) (SI unit) Rem exist. pavement SY (sq.m) Name of Item Categories of Pay Item Quantity Ranges (US unit) (SI unit) < 100 (83.6) 100-500 (83.6-418) 500-1000 (418-836) 1000-5000 (836-4180)
> 5000 (4180)

Mean Unit Price Difference (S/SI Uni) (Day v Day Night Night) 23.74 23.92 -0.18 13.07 11.73 1.34 8.52 6.80 1.71 8.27 9.34 -1.08
4.01 -

Regular excavation

Bit mat'l-prime coat

Bit mat'l-tack coat

Milling existing asphalt pavement Class I conc.-mlsc.

Type S asph. conc.

Asph. conc. friction

< 500 (383) 500-1000 (383-765) 1000-5000 (765-3830) 5000-10000 (3830-7650) 10000-50000 (7650-38300) > 50000 (38300) G < 100 (379) (L) 100-500 (379-1893) 500-1000 (1893-3785) > 1000 (3785) G < 100 (379) (L) 100-500 (379-1893) 500-1000 (1893-3785) tO00-5000 (3785-18925) 5000-10000 (18925-37850) >10000 (37850) SY 1000-50,000 (836-41800) (sq.m) 50,000-200,000 (41800-167200) CY <5 (3.83) (cu.m) 5-10 (3.83-7.65) 10-50 (7.65-38.25) > 50 (38.25) Ton < 50 (45.35) (Mg) 50-100 (45.35-90.7) 100-500 (90.7-453.5) 500-1000 (453.5-907) 1000-5000 (907-4535) 5000-10000 (4535-9070) >10000 (9070) SY < 1000 (836) (sq.m) 1000-10000 (836-8360) 10,000-50,000 (8360-41800) 50,000-100,000 (41800-83600) 100,000-500,000 (83600-418000) CY (cu.m)

17.86 9.27 7.65 5.03 4.50 2.65 0.77 0.58 0.36 0.31 1.12 0.44 0.37 0.28 0.27 0.24 0.89 0.72 707.05 422.05 324.08 190.75 101.21 70.14 55.30 48.28 40.52 33.67 29.05 3.89 2.27 1.24 1.15 1.06

9.31 7.31 9.58 5.05 4.26 3.20 1.78 1.32 0.64 0.26 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.23 0.24 1.32 0.84 615.47 431.92 548.80 444.07 82.69 52.09 45.20 38.59 39.99 27.95 30.00 1.79 1.27 1.34 1.14

8.55 1.96 -1.93 -0.02 0.24 -0.55 -1.02 -0.74 -0.27 0.04 0.15 -0.03 0.04 0.04 -0.01 -0.43 -0.12 91.58 -9.86 -224.72 -253.33 18.52 18.05 10.10 9.69 0.52 5.72 -0.95 0.48 -0.03 -0.19 -0.08

Tabie 4-Comnpadson of DIay and Nighnt Project Costs for MIean and Weighted Unit P]ices

Name of Item Rem exist. pavement Regular excavation Bit mat'l-prime coat Bit mat'l-tack coat Milling existing asphalt pavement Class I conc.-misc. Type S asph. conc. Asph. conc. friction

Unit sq.m cu.m L L sq.m cu.m Mg sq.m

Difference of Costs from Mean Unit Price Night Day Percentage Difference 221,833.8 310,074.4 -28.46 1,040,815.0 65,944.8 426,549.8 959,138.9 90,447.0 10,918,051.1 4,139,821.1 1,883,194.2 35,286.2 614,231.7 914,003.0 78,561.1 16,006,812.3 3,981,611.4 -44.73 86.89 -30.56 4.94 15.13 -31.79 3.97

Difference of Costs from Weighted Unit Price Night Day Percentage Difference 219,861.9 114,614.1 91.83 758,725.0 19,089.3 375,363.8 801,163.1 88,721.9 9,481,298.9 3,454,245.7 645,888.9 19,089.3 392,425.8 835,015.1 43,546.7 9,161,669.0 2,795,038.5 17.47 0.00 -4.35 4.05 103.74 3.49 23.58

TR. 1.4

1994 AACE TRANSACTIONS From the comparison of total costs of eight items for all the projects in Table 4, nighttime costs are observed to have a mixed trend compared to corresponding daytime costs. For cost comparisons, from mean unit prices four pay items, namely removal of existing pavement, excavation, tack coat of bituninous material, and asphalt concrete, were found to have lower nighttime costs. However, for the other four items daytime costs were lower. On the other hand, costs from weighted unit prices indicated only two items, namely tack coat of bituminous material and milling, were recorded to have lower night costs. The conclusions from the results are similar to those from the unit price comparisons, and any significant difference cannot be confirmed between day and nighttime project costs. Although it can be debated that this comparison of eight items is inadequate to conclude a definite difference in the two project costs, the large quantities of these items and their contribution to program cost cannot be ignored. Moreover, in absence of any apparent trend, increasing the number of items may not suggest any significant difference between night and daytime item unit prices and project costs. However, this analysis shows that, for FDOT projects, nighttime costs are not necessarily higher than corresponding daytime costs, which is commonly speculated. Evaluation of Night vs. Day User Costs factors relating to user costs The costs incurred by traveling motorists due to ongoing construction and maintenance work on the roadway are classified as "user" costs. This category mainly includes vehicle operating costs, personal costs, and accident costs. Operating costs and time value are determined using tables to get unit user costs. Nighttime construction greatly reduces user costs related to vehicle delays. In an attempt to measure a reduction in user costs on a night project in Colorado, Price found that the cost was reduced from $119,110 (for daytime) to $10,100 (for nighttime) [3]. The total savings to public in the same study for one project was estimated to be more than a million dollars. User costs depend on several factors; some of the important ones include amount of congestion and delays, capacity of the' highway, daily volume/capacity ratio, traffic control plan and number of closed lanes for construction, type of facility, and facility environment and distribution of daily traffic. User costs, undoubtedly, are directly proportional to the amount of congestion and delays. Although the actual time value of delays may vary from state to state, any disruption of traffic movement adds additional cost burden to highway users. Capacity, which also has a significant effect on user costs, is usually defined in terms of nunlber of lanes in a highway. Highways with higher capacities or having four or more lanes, particularly with moderate traffic, are less sensitive to lane closures and, hence, the costs to die traveling public are also relatively low. However, low-capacity highways (two or three lanes) are severely affected with any reduction in capacity. For instance, single lane closure causes only 20 percent capacity reduction on a five-lane highway compared to 50 percent reduction in capacity for a twolane highway. In addition to capacity, user costs are also affected by the daily volume of the traffic on the highway. Daily volume is usually represented by the ratio of directional design hour volume (DHV) and the capacity of the highway. For a given capacity, hourly traffic volume is computed and ratios are determined for all 24 hours of the day. DHV/capacity ratio is derived from these ratios. In general, lower to moderate DHV/capacity ratio (less than 1.0) has higher contribution of daytime traffic than night traffic. However, as the daily traffic or the DHV/capacity ratios increase, along with the increase in daytime traffic there is also a noticeable increase in night traffic. Since user costs are directly affected by the amount of traffic and reduction in capacity, for low DHV/capacity values night traffic is also low and any disruption by nighttime construction results in insignificant user costs. As a result for low to moderate DHV/capacity ratios, differences in user costs for daytime versus nighttime works are substantial and, hence, higher savings. However, at very high values of DHV/capacity ratio (greater than 1.0), night traffic is also significant and savings in user costs for night work compared to day work are not very high. Additional costs to the traveling public are also governed by the number of lanes to be closed as per the traffic control plan and schedule of construction activities. Since closing more lanes reduces the capacity of the highway system even further, it results in increased congestion and higher user costs. The type of facility, such as primary, secondary, or interstate highway system, also affects the unit user costs. Different models are required to quantify user costs depending on the type of highway facility. For example, limited-access highways are by design free of interference, and any disruption in traffic has more severe economic impacts than other non-controlled access highways. The environment of the facility (urban, rural, or semi-urban) sometimes has an effect on trend of the daily traffic volume and also affects user costs. Distribution of daily traffic over 24 hours influences differences between daytime and nighttime user costs. For traffic patterns in which day traffic is considerably higher tlhan the night traffic, any lane closure results in higher day user costs compared to that of the night time. Therefore, higher user cost savings are observed for such trends. Usually, urban highways having low to moderate DHV/capacity ratio follow this pattern of significantly high day traffic and low night traffic. However, for high DHV/capacity no such trend is found. analysis of data To compare user costs for daytime versus nighttime construction, relevant data was obtained from the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Project Development Bureau. In order to have user costs information consistent with the construction costs discussed earlier, data was obtained for similar year and type of facility. User cost data pertains to lane closures on urban arterial highways in 1990 and is summarized in Table 5. Data in the table presents dollar value of user cost savings or difference between daytime and nighttime user costs for various DHV/capacity ratio by the type of arterial. One, two and, three lane closures are considered for urban arterial highways. The table also provides the actual traffic on a particular arterial for a given DHV/capacity value. Range of the DHV/capacity ratios is selected as 0.4 to 1.3 and is most commonly encountered on urban highways.

TR. 1.5

1994 AACE TRANSA(C1ONS

Table 5--HI-ghway User Cost Savings for Nighttime Type of the Highway 0.40 Daytime rvesus Construction for Differnt Lae Closauaes (Source: NYSD[T)

Difference of Day vs Night User Cost (in US dollars) for various DHV/Capacity ratio 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30

a) Five lane urban arterial (capacity = 43,840 vehicles) Daily traffic volume User costs for one lane closure User costs for two lane closure User costs for three lane closure 17,540 $0 $0 $0 21,920 $0 $0 $8,000 26,300 $0 $9,800 $27,500 30,690 $0 $32,900 $43,500 35,070 $0 $41,700 $50,600 39,460 $0 $58,600 $55,100 43,840 $12,400 $62,200 $49,700 48,220 $25,500 $52,400 $40,000 52,610 $32,000 $48,000 $34,600 56,990 $8,000 $24,900 $18,600

b) Four lane urban arterial (capacity = 39,840 vehicles) Daily traffic volume User costs for one lane closure User costs for two lane closure 15,940 $0 $0 19,920 $0 $1,800 23,900 $0 $8,000 27,890 $9,800 $31,100 31,870 $32,900 $43,500 35,860 $44,400 $53,300 39,840 $57,700 $49,700 43,820 $55,100 $43,500 47,810 $48,000 $36,400 51,790 $29,300 $18,600

c) Three lane urban arterial (capacity = 23,920 vehicles) Daily traffic volume User costs for one lane closure User costs for two lane closure 9,570 $0 $0 11,960 $0 $5,300 14,350 $0 $16,000 16,740 $0 $24,900 19,140 $0 $25,800 21,530 $8,000 $25,800 23,920 $9,800 $23,100 26,310 $19,500 $19,500 28,700 $20,400 $17,800 31,100 $16,000 $7,100

d) Two lane urban arterial (capacity = 19,920 vehicles) Daily traffic volume User costs for one lane closure 7,970 $0 9,960 $900 11,950 $4,400 13,940 $16,000 15,940 $22,200 17,930 $26,600 19,920 $24,900 21,910 $22,200 23,900 $20,400 25,900 $9,800

For analysis of the trends in user cost savings, data is plotted separately for single, double, and triple lane closures. Figures 1, 2 and 3 depict such trends. Data is
also analyzed by the type of highway for different lane

6oooo . 500004
'40o-6

ane highway

closures and impacts of decreasing capacity are studied.

Results of the analysis are discussed in the following lane highway

section.
discussion of esults

3lane highway
2 lane highway highway

As has been reflected in several studies, there is a ' tremendous cost savings due to less congestion during
night operations. It is found that for low daily traffic

3000

volumes or low DHV/capacity ratio, in general, most the traffic is confined to day hours only, and night traffic is significantly low. Therefore, considerable user cost savings are obtained. However, as shown in the figures as the DHV/capacity ratio increases, user cost savings also increases at a diminishing rate until the user costs during daytime lane closures become comparable to
nighttime closures. For high DHV/capacity ratios, not

100o00 .
0 Design Hour Volume/Capacity ratio

only does the daytime traffic volume reach capacity, but nighttime traffic is also quite high. As a result, any lane closure, during day or night, results in significant
congestion, the direct effect of which is indicated in

O Lanne lFiguae 1-User Cost Savings by Volume/Capacity Raedo lfor ne

Closure Work on Various Ini-ghways

reduced user cost savings. Thus, the peak of the curves in the figures signifies the optimum DHV/capacity ratio for a particular highway lane closure at which user cost savings are maximum. TR.1.6

1994 AACE TRANSACTIONS From the analysis, it was also observed that, for any
70000

multi-lane arterial highway, when more lanes are closed, words, since by closing more lanes capacity of the
highway is further reduced, user costs become more sensitive to the DHV. As shown in Table 5 for a fivelane arterial highway in New York, user cost savings for nighttime versus daytime construction were $32,000, $62,200, and $55,000 for one, two, and three lane closures, respectively, and the corresponding DHV/capacity ratios were 1.2, 1.0, and 0.9. Analysis was also performed to demonstrate the effects of capacity of the highway system on the user costs. It was determined that adverse effects of any lane closure are felt sooner on a two-lane highway as contrasted to that on a five-lane highway. This is demonstrated in Figure 1, which shows that the DHV/capacity ratio corresponding to maximum user cost savings by one lane closure are 1.2, 1.0, 1.1, and 0.9 for a five, four, three, and two lane highway, respectively. Similarly, Figures 2 and 3 indicate the quantitative effects of two and three lane closures. Another trend evidently observed as an analysis of Figures 1, 2, and 3 is that maximum cost savings are usually higher for four- and five-lane arterial highways compared to two- or three-lane highways. This trend can be attributed to the distribution of traffic in a day and capacity of the highway system. Higher daytime traffic and lower nighttime traffic helps increase savings in user cost for any lane closure. CONCLUSIONS From the statistical analysis, it could not be confirmed that nighttime item unit costs are significantly However, a different from daytime unit costs. correlation analysis as a result of high variations revealed that unit prices are significantly correlated to categories of quantity. Conclusions derived from the analysis and results are as follows:
F

5lane highway
60000-

the optimum DHV/capacity ratio is lower.

In other

4 lane highway 3 lane highway 50000.

c >a 0

30000o

20000

l 10000 J
0.4 o0.
0.6 0.7

/
0.8
o.9
1 1.1 1.2 1.3

Design Hour Volume/Capacity ratio Figure 2-User Cost Savings by Volume/Capacity Ratio for Two Lane Closure Work on Various Highways
60000

lane highway

50000
X q)
0) 40000-

30000-

20000

/
10000

0.4

0.5

0,6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1,1

1.2

1.3

*
*

* *

Design Hour Volume/Capacity ratio unit costs of items are found to be highly Figure 3--User Cost Savings by Volume/Capacity Ratio for One Lane dependent on project specific conditions rather Closure Work than type of shift; from the comparison, nighttime actual and weightedmean Nighttime construction appeared to be more economical if unit prices were not found to be significantly different user cost savings to public are also considered in the total project from the corresponding daytime prices. Category-wise costs. The study of user costs resulted in several conclusions, comparison also confirned the same conclusion except some of the important ones include: for asphalt concrete, which can be attributed to work item characteristics; * night work is economically beneficial on urban highways to get an idea of variation in project costs, total cost having greater daytime traffic than night traffic; comparisons were done for eight items. No significant highways with even traffic distribution or consistent differences were confirmed; and traffic volume in a day do not record any substantial user contrary to popular belief, from these findings it can be cost savings for nighttime work; suggested that nighttime construction unit prices and * in order to maximize user cost savings for a particular project costs are not necessarily higher than that of highway, the number of lanes to be closed should depend daytime construction for FDOT projects. However, more on its DHV/capacity ratio. More lanes can be closed if nighttime data can help to derive conclusions with greater the DHV/capacity ratio is small; confidence.

TR.1.7

1994 AACE TIANSACTIINS$ o from a user cost savings point of view, night work may
not be recommended for highways having high capacities

3.

Ellis, R. D., and A. Kumar.

January 1993. Influence of

Nighttime Operations on Construction Cost and Productivity.

and low DHVlcapacity ratio, as daytime lane closures in absence of congestion do not give rise to high user costs; and
o

Tranpaitnon Resesnrh Iecos, No. 1389, Washington, D.C. 4. Hinze, J. W., and D. Carlisle. 1990. An Evaluation of the
Important Yariables in Nighttime Construction.

highways with lower capacity (two or three lanes) are

more severely affected by and lane closure than the ones with higher capacity (four or more lanes). However, the maximum user cost savings is higher for the highways with higher capacities. RIEIFI=NCES 1. 2. Anonymous. Texas-Sized Traffic. September 1982. IBeer Rotds. Ellis, R. D., Z. Herbsman, and A. Kumar. April 1992. Developing Night Operations in Florida. Final Report, Engineering & Experiment Station, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville. Ashish Kumar Dept. of Civil Engineering University of Florida 346 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611

Transportation Northwest (TransNow), Washington, Seattle, Washington. 5.

University

of

Layfield, R. G. 1988. Nightwork Comparison. Memorandum/Report by Resident Engineer, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee. Price, D. A. 1986. Nighttime Paving. Implementation Report, Colorado Department ofHighways, Denver, Colorado. Shepard, F. D., and B. Cottrell. 1984. Benefits and Safety Impact of Night Work Zone A ctivities. Virginia Highway & Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, Virginia.

6.

7.

Ralph D. Ellis, Jr., PE Dept. ofCivil Engineering University of Florida Gainesville, Florida 32611 i

'

TR. 1.8