{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03172205438066465, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01661631419939577, 'mean_word_length': 4.786026200873362, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
USER COSTS ON THE I-15 DESIGN-BUILD RECONSTRUCTION

This study evaluates the impact of Salt Lake City's I-15 reconstruction on user delays. It compares user delays for three reconstruction alternatives between 1996 and 2010. The actual reconstruction of I-15 was carried out with the Design-Build (DB) alternative. Under DB, I-15 was completed in four and a half years. Design and construction were combined in a single contract. With the Traditional-Build (TB) approach, design and construction take place separately. The TB process is divided into 20-30 smaller "design-bid-build" contracts and lasts for ten years. The No-Build (NB) alternative did not increase I-15 capacity or involve any major maintenance during the study period. The alternatives were compared and DB was evaluated based on total user delays, travel times along the corridor, and average network congestion. The Wasatch Front Regional Council provided travel demand data for the study. The results show that any active construction alternative is better than no construction. DB was better than TB in all performance measures. Traffic accidents were also estimated for the three alternatives. The calculated number of crashes were significantly lower using DB. Vehicle emissions in the form of CO, NOx, and VOC were estimated for the three scenarios.