FinalReport PBJNM Finalthornton/Spring_2013/Old Reports... · PBJNM Engineering Inc. | Fort...

PBJNM Engineering Inc. | Fort Collins, CO

Intersection Rehab of

CR30 ‐ CR11/11C

PBJNMEngineering Inc.


April 28, 2011

Dr. Chris Thornton Engineering Research Center A‐227 Fort Collins, CO 80523‐1373 (970)‐491‐8394

Dear Dr. Thornton:

PBJNM Engineering is pleased to offer you two design alternatives for the CR 30 ‐ CR 11/11C rehabilitation project located in North Loveland, Colorado. Per request during our meeting on September 30, 2010 with Larimer County Engineering, we have summarized our approach for the design of two possible intersection improvements that will be discussed fully within this report.

Attached is a hardcopy of our report which includes but is not limited to:

• Background and history of the intersection

• The purpose of design alternatives

• Qualifications of the PBJNM Engineering Design team

• Project schedule for specific milestones and completion of design

• Cost Estimate Comparison for recommended designs

• Preliminary AutoCAD design drawings

After thorough analysis of possible intersection designs, PBJNM recommends constructing roundabouts to improve the traffic situation for the CR 11/ CR30/ CR11C intersection. We at PBJNM Engineering value our customers and pride ourselves in the quality of work we provide. We hope that this report demonstrates our passion for improving public works which will ultimately allow for an enhanced standard of operation and safety. Please feel free to contact us at any time with questions or comments concerning this report or any of its content at (970) 405‐3602 or by email at [email protected]. Respectfully,

Benjamin Rowles PBJNM Engineering Inc. Project Engineer [email protected]


Table of Contents

Introduction

Site Description

Project Objectives

General Approach

Design Alternatives and Analysis

Design Alternative 1

Design Alternative 2

Cost Estimates

Schedule and Milestones

Summary, Recommendation, Deliverables

References

Design Team

Design Team Organization

Schedule of Appendices

1

1

5

6

7

10

13

16

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

Introduction

Site Description

Located in central Larimer County, Colorado, a popular route has emerged as an alternate to US 287 (College Avenue) and Interstate 25 connecting Fort Collins and Loveland. County Road 11‐11C carries traffic through the intersection of CR 11 (Timberline Road) and CR 30, and then continues south as CR 11C. An increase of traffic volume has resulted in delays in the north and south bound directions through the CR30 ‐ CR11/CR11C intersections due to the alignment between CR 11 and CR 11C as seen in Figure 1. In order for traffic to continue north or south on CR 11 and CR 11C, a quarter mile detour is required on CR 30. Each intersection is stop controlled, with limited turn lanes in either direction. Figure 2 illustrates the current absence of turn lanes on CR 11 and CR11C. Figure 3 shows that no left turn lane is present on CR 30 at CR 11C. During peak hours, the traffic volume increases, causing backups primarily in the north and south bound directions along CR 11 and CR11C. Figures 4, 5, and 6 provide closer visual detail of each intersection.

Surrounding each intersection are various homes as well as wetlands, also seen in Figures 4, 5 and 6. Power transmission lines and an irrigation ditch are also in close proximity to the intersections. The presence of these elements requires additional consideration on design aspects, such as potential land acquisition, wetland relocation, and homeowner input.

Figure 1. Aerial view of Site location

CR 30

CR 11

CR11C


2

Figure 2. CR 11 Turn Lanes

Figure 3. Lack of CR 11C Turn Lanes


3

Figure 4. Lack of Turn Lanes on CR 11 (facing north)

Figure 5. Lack of Turn Lanes on CR 11C (facing south)

CR 30

CR 11C

CR 30

CR 11


4

Figure 6. Lack of Turn Lanes on CR30 at CR 11C (facing east)

Review of traffic accident reports obtained from both Larimer County Sheriff’s Office and the Loveland Police Department indicate a large number of traffic accidents at the intersection. Data analysis from traffic volume and directional counts supports the observation of high traffic volume through each intersection. During peak hours, a queue develops on southbound CR 11, westbound CR 30, and northbound CR 11C due to limited turn lanes. High traffic volume causes motorists to take smaller windows of opportunity when turning, making the intersections more hazardous. Motorists also use bike lanes to bypass the queue in order to turn right placing bicyclists in danger, as seen in Figure 7.

Some improvements have been added in previous years, including a left turn lane from eastbound CR 30 onto northbound CR11 as well as a right turn lane from westbound CR 30 onto northbound CR 11 as seen in Figure 2. Though improvements have helped to alleviate some of the congestion, more improvements are needed to address the increasing flow of traffic through each intersection.

CR 30CR 11C


5

Figure 7. Motorists Using Bike Lanes

Project Objectives

PBJNM Engineering’s primary objective for the CR30 – CR11/CR11C intersection rehabilitation was to examine two possible design alternatives for improving the intersection’s efficiency and safety. The two designs included but were not limited to a roundabout, traffic signals, or additional turn lanes at one or both of the junctions of CR 11/CR30 and CR30/CR11C. Secondary objectives included provision of a cost estimate of both designs as well as analysis of crash reports and traffic volume counts for Larimer County’s records.


6

General Approach

PBJNM Engineering worked with Larimer County to incorporate a solution for the CR 30 ‐ CR11/CR11C intersections. The design process included two alternatives that will satisfy the project’s primary objective. Four phases of the design process aimed to improve overall efficiency and safety of the intersection to the public. The phases were as follows: Phase A: Data Collection, Phase B: Preliminary Analysis, Phase C: Design and Phase D: Finalizing and Analysis. A graphical representation of these phases is attached as a Gantt chart in Appendix F1.

Phase A required literary research into the history of the intersection. Data from crash reports provided by both the Larimer County Sheriff’s Department and Loveland Police Department, road tube counts, and traffic counters were gathered and organized to provide a foundation for both intersection improvement designs. Data collected during Phase A was vital in determining an accident pattern to allow the safest design alternative to be developed. Phase A also involved conducting a site visit inspection, which provided a better understanding of the right of way, intersection configurations, and overall traffic flow.

During Phase B, two preliminary designs were prepared. First, Larimer County right of way information was inspected. A review of previous intersection projects by the county was performed in order to get rough estimates of cost for each intersection. By having cost‐item details, Larimer County was able to compare each design alternative with respect to their current budget. With the data gathered in Phases A and B, PBJNM Engineering used software to analyze the current traffic situation. Preliminary improvement designs were developed to examine in greater detail.

Phase C involved examining the two preliminary design options in additional detail. The two design alternatives were presented to Larimer County for review. Based on feedback from the Larimer County engineers, PBJNM Engineering proceeded to develop an architectural design of the two improvement alternatives. Detailed cost analyses of the two design alternatives were also conducted.

Phase D was the culmination of the design process, in which a recommended final design and report were submitted to Larimer County. A presentation booth with a PowerPoint slideshow was prepared and presented at the 2011 Engineering Days. A final report concerning details and a suggested design alternative will be prepared by PBJNM Engineering for Larimer County.


7

Design Alternatives and Analysis

Two intersection improvement designs were evaluated by PBJNM Engineering with the aim of improving the safety and efficiency of the CR11/CR30 and CR30/CR11C junctions. Through use of Synchro plus SimTraffic 7 (traffic analysis software) the level of service (LOS) for each approach was determined based on traffic counts found in Appendix A for the current conditions as well as for our design considerations. The first design option considered was the installation of a roundabout at both the CR30/CR11 and the CR30/CR11C intersections. Considerations during the design of the roundabout option were based primarily on the capacity and the speed of vehicles through both junctions. Parameters contributing to the development of the design alternatives included but were not limited to the radius of the center circle, entrance and exit radii, splitter island dimensions, and the type of heavy vehicles (e.g. trucks and semis) passing through the intersection. The second design option was a more traditional signaled intersection, with the addition of signals and turn lanes at both junctions. Design considerations were based primarily on the speed and volume of vehicles passing through the intersection. Important constraints for the design of the signaled intersection option included but were not limited to the turning bay length, bay taper length, signal timing, and the overall width of the roadway. More detailed descriptions of the processes leading to design alternatives as well as the design alternative specifications are included in the following pages.

General analysis that applied to both design alternatives will be described as follows. First, analysis of raw directional volume data will be explained. Table 1 below shows a summary of road tube counts performed by Larimer County to determine the volume of traffic during peak hours on each approach.

Table 1. Road Tube Counts for Larimer CR30 ‐ CR11/CR11C intersection. The Approach column has three entries: the first entry is the approach on which the tubes were situated; the second entry is the location of the sampling site relative to the third column, which is the immediate perpendicular artery. For example, CR11 N CR30 means the road tubes were on CR11, just north of CR30.

Traffic Count Road Tube Counts (number of vehicles)

Approach Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Avg. Per Day

CR11 N CR30 212 381 3158 CR30 W CR11 219 613 3795 CR30 W CR11 676 395 4604 CR11C S CR30 513 375 4051 CR30 W CR11C 201 148 1520 CR30 E CR11 297 726 4812


8

The maximum number of vehicles passing through the intersection at any one peak hour of any approach was found to be 726 vehicles per hour.

Table 2 shows a summary of vehicle turning counts for each junction. The presence of a maximum of 516 vehicles per hour turning right from CR11C onto CR30 as well as 512 vehicles per hour turning left from CR30 onto CR11C constituted major motivation for redesigning the intersection. In addition, 512 vehicles per hour from CR30 westbound (CR30 WB) onto CR11C far surpasses the Larimer County Urban Street Standards maximum value of 400 vehicles per hour for warranting left‐turn treatment (Figure 8‐1 of the Larimer County Urban Street Standards).

Table 2. Traffic Counts collected during peak hours by PBJNM Engineering

Traffic Turning Counts (veh/h)

CR11/CR30 Junction AM Peak PM Peak CR30/CR11C Junction AM Peak PM Peak Right 143 271 Right 0 0 Thru 0 0 Thru 65 190 CR11 SB Left 95 66

CR30 WB Left 196 512

Right 95 190 Right 516 305

Thru 117 425 Thru 0 0 CR30 WB

Left 0 0

CR11C NB

Left 41 23 Right 0 0 Right 45 46 Thru 409 181 Thru 178 74 CR30 EB Left 302 195

CR30 EB Left 0 0

Junction Total 1161 1328 Junction Total 1041 1150

A final analytical step of summarizing crash reports provided by the Larimer County Sheriff’s office, Loveland Police Department, and the Colorado State Patrol was carried out to ascertain the safety of each junction. PBJNM summarized the crash reports in a graphic displaying the location of each crash within the past 5 years, and whether or not injuries were sustained. Figure 8 below displays the crashes spatially overlain on a satellite view of the CR30 – CR11/CR11C intersection. Of the total of 28 crashes displayed, 11 involved injuries, a rate of approximately 40%. This high rate warranted installation of signals or a roundabout to slow traffic through the junctions. A more detailed summary of the crash reports can be found in Appendix B.


9

Figure 8. Crash Report spatial distribution. A total of 28 crashes were noted in the past 5 years.

Injury Non‐Injury


10

Design Alternative 1‐ Roundabout Installation

The first design alternative considered was the installation of roundabouts at both the CR11/CR30 and CR30/CR11C junctions. Roundabouts have many advantages over traditional intersections based on safety, operations and aesthetics. Due to the geometry and vehicle volumes of both intersections, a typical design of a one‐lane roundabout would be placed at each intersection. PBJNM utilized the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Roundabouts Informational Guide for all guidelines for the roundabout design alternative.

Figure 9. Design parameters of a one‐lane roundabout.

Design of the roundabout was based primarily on the capacity and speed of vehicles entering the intersection. Based on the volume counts summarized in Table 1, maximum volume of vehicles per hour passing through any portion of the intersection was found to be 726 veh/h. This vehicle volume fell within the NCHRP guide’s volume criteria for use of a single lane roundabout. As requested by Larimer County, based on the vehicle use of the intersection, the design vehicle for the parameters of the roundabout was a WB‐50. The NCHRP guide states that a WB‐50 design vehicle is a vehicle with a 50 foot wheelbase. It is typically the largest vehicle along urban collectors and arterials.


11

Referring to Figure 9, the main components of the roundabout design that were analyzed were the inscribed circle diameter, alignment approaches, splitter islands, entry widths, circulatory roadway width, center island and the truck apron. The inscribed circle diameter was based on the WB‐50 design vehicle. The NCHRP indicated that a diameter of 105 feet was adequate for a WB‐50 design vehicle, however, PBJNM used a conservative approach and designed the diameter to be 130 feet, which is adequate to accommodate a larger WB‐67 vehicle (vehicle with 67 foot wheelbase). Alignment through the center of the roundabout was chosen instead of an offset to either the right or the left of the center to decrease the amount of alignment changes along the approach roadways. Center alignment would reduce the overall cost as well as to allow for more exit curvature, which would encourage drivers to maintain slower speeds through the exit.

Splitter islands, also known as median or divisional islands, are required on all single lane roundabouts. According to the NCHRP guide, the recommended minimum total length of the raised island should be at least 50 feet, however, a length of 100 feet is desirable. PBJNM designed all three splitter islands to be a total length of 97’‐6”, overdesigning the minimum requirements of 50’ and nearly reaching the desirable length of 100 feet. A recommended range of 16 to 20 feet for the circulatory roadway width was taken into account, with the width designed at 18 feet. A center island diameter was 94’ with a truck apron of 18’, which is large enough to accommodate the largest design vehicle (WB‐67), yet slow traffic within the roundabout. Figure 10 shows PBJNM’s design drawing, performed in AutoCAD 2011.


12

Figure 10. CR11/CR30 Junction Roundabout Design. Application of the roundabout at the CR30/CR11C intersection assumes a mirror image of the design shown.

Another consideration for utilizing roundabouts was safety. Because traditional intersections have vehicles intersecting at right angles most commonly, the chance for dangerous T‐boning collisions still remains. Roundabouts force vehicles to slow as they enter the intersection, reducing the chance for collisions with injuries. As noted in Figure 9, the percentage of collisions with injuries was large compared to the total amount of collisions. Additionally, since vehicles will be entering the intersection at lower speeds, the chance for collisions with damage is lowered.

The lack of roundabout‐specific software available to PBJNM was a key factor in the heavy use of the NCHRP guide. Though Synchro with SimTraffic 7 provided a simple roundabout model, a far more accurate program known as Rodel is used by some Larimer County engineers. Unfortunately, the timing and scope of the project didn’t allow for the utilization of Rodel. Synchro with SimTraffic 7’s treatment of the roundabout design resulted in a Level of Service of A, based on a wait time of 11.5 seconds per vehicle during the peak AM hour. A summary of results obtained from PBJNM’s Synchro with SimTraffic 7 roundabout simulation can be found in Table 3, page 13.

After drawing the roundabout design in AutoCAD, the areas of each component were found. Using a spreadsheet provided by Larimer County Engineering to compute the materials and labor cost of each component, the total cost of construction of roundabouts at each junction was found to be $816,766.

Design Alternative 2‐ Turn Lane and Signal Installation

PBJNM Engineering’s second design alternative considered was the installation of turn lanes and signals at both the CR30/CR11 and CR30/CR11C junctions. Volume and speed of vehicles passing through these intersections dictated the design considerations. PBJNM utilized the general process in the following for the design of this intersection improvement alternative.

Inspection of the traffic counts shown in Appendix A indicates the volume of traffic for each direction of flow is very high. As specified in the Larimer County Urban Street Standards design manual, if the volume of traffic making a right or left turn at an intersection exceeds 400 vehicles per hour, designated turn lanes must be present to allow for adequate traffic flow. As seen in Table 2, the traffic volume making right and left turns exceeds the maximum allowable volume without the presence of a designated turn lane.

Crash reports provided by the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office indicated a high amount of collisions at both junctions. Injuries were sustained in nearly 40% of collisions at both the CR11/CR30 and CR30/CR11C junctions, necessitating signals and turn lanes to safely move traffic through both junctions. Figure 9 shows the distribution of the crashes. The CR30/CR11C junction was particularly dangerous, in that 4 out of 9 crashes resulted in injury. Signal warrant studies based on the volume of traffic flowing through the intersection were also carried out by Larimer County on both the CR11/CR30 and


13

CR30/CR11C junctions; the results of these studies supported the conclusion PBJNM reached from the MUTCD resource. The signal warrant studies can be found in Appendix D for both junctions.

Application of the traffic counts found in Appendix A into the traffic software Synchro with SimTraffic 7 allowed for the determination of the level of service (LOS) for both junctions with the addition of traffic signals. As seen in Table 3, the LOS of the approach at CR30/CR11 was a D on an A to F grading scale. Additionally, the LOS for the approach at CR30/CR11C was an F during the morning peak volume hour of 7:00am to 8:00am, referring to Table 3. Similar conditions exist for the afternoon peak volume counts for these approaches, which can be found in Table 3, or in Appendices C2 and C4 in more detail. The addition of the turn lanes and traffic signals allows for the current LOS for each approach to improve to an A. To better understand how adding signals will affect the intersection, a simulation for the current traffic situation (simply applying the traffic volumes collected in Table 2, but adding in signals) was run for both junctions. The addition of turn lanes and signals greatly improved the intersection, with the highest LOS being an A (refer to Appendix C5‐C12). However, the volume passing through the CR30 ‐ CR11/CR11C intersection is expected to increase. Using a future growth factor of 2.0% over twenty years, the LOS for the CR11/CR30 junction was found to be a D and the LOS for the CR 30/CR 11C junction was found to be a C for the peak morning hours. The software predicted similar results for the evening peak hour. Table 3 summarizes the results of the signalized future intersection simulation, while Appendices C13‐C16 display the results in more detail.

Table 3. Synchro 7 Simulations Summary

Synchro 7 Output Summary CR11/CR30 Delay Time (s) LOS Existing AM 121.6 F Existing PM 95.1 F Future Signalized AM 25.1 C Future Signalized PM 58.8 E Future Roundabout 11.5 A CR30/CR11C Delay Time (s) LOS Existing AM 30.2 D Existing PM 22.7 C Future Signalized AM 103.5 F Future Signalized PM 74.6 E Future Roundabout 11.5 A

Design of the turn lanes depended primarily on the design speeds and traffic volume. Design of the bay length for containment of traffic queue was based on the volume of traffic passing through the intersection. Approach speed of the vehicles approaching each junction was the guiding factor in the design of the bay taper length. PBJNM consulted the Larimer County Urban Street Standards to ascertain the minimum dimensions of the bay taper length and bay length, where exclusive right‐hand and left‐hand turn lane criteria were available. Application of turn lane criteria to the design lengths


14

resulted in the dimensions shown in the AutoCAD design drawing shown in Figure 11. Appendix E details each junction in more detail.

After consultation of the Larimer County Standards and AASHTO Standards for safety and efficiency in design, right‐of‐way was then considered. Widening CR11 approaching CR30 has little right‐of‐way obstacles, in that the widening of the road would occur into a field far away from any structures, albeit onto privately‐owned land. The CR30/CR11C intersection provided a more interesting challenge, in that a portion of residential property would need to be obtained in order to add a right hand turn lane. Expansion could not occur in the opposite direction, as there is a very large power pole that would be very expensive to relocate. A ditch with a culvert spanning the road near the junction was also an issue, but the culvert carrying water beneath CR11C could be extended fairly easily. CR30 was also designed to be widened between CR11 and CR11C to account for the addition of a left turn lane from westbound CR30 onto CR11C.

Integrating a pre‐constructed cost estimator based on design parameters such as construction material amounts and construction costs provided by Larimer County Engineering, the estimated cost for this design alternative was calculated to be $1,012,493.

Figure 11. Signalized Intersection Design with Added Turn Lanes.


15

Cost Estimates

PBJNM performed cost estimates of each design alternative. A spreadsheet provided by Larimer County allowed for an estimation of the cost of materials and labor based on the area of each component in the design drawings. The depth of each component was assumed to be a standard value, and was hard‐coded into the spreadsheet. PBJNM simply had to enter the areas of each component from the AutoCAD drawings into the spreadsheet. In addition to road construction materials, the spreadsheet also took into account miscellaneous construction items, including but not limited to paint for lanes, landscaping, and traffic signs. The cost estimates for each design follow as Figure 12 for the signalized intersection design alternative, and Figure 13 for the roundabout design alternative.

PBJNM’s signalized intersection design required less material cost to construct the intersection, but the cost of adding signals at each junction pushed the cost estimate for the signalized intersection design to $1,012,493. PBJNM’s roundabout design option required more material at the junction itself, but cost less overall because no signals were needed. An estimate of the roundabout design option construction cost was approximately $816,766, nearly $200,000 less expensive than the signalized design.


16

Item Number Description

ContractQuantity Unit

Unit Price

Contract Cost

203 Earthwork 2 Lump Sum 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00

304 ABC (Class 5) 5000 Sq Yd 4.00 $ 20,000 305 Recycle Pavement Section 0 Sq Yd 1.50 0 308 Fly Ash (CL C)(12") (CIP) 5111.111 Sq Yd 5.75 $ 29,389 403 Hot Mix Asphalt 20751.56 Sq Yd 15.00 $ 311,273 412 Concrete Pavement Truck Ramp (10") 0 Sq Yd 50.00 0

608 Concrete Curb Rmp Type 1 8 Each 750.00 $ 6,000

609 Curb Type 2 (Section M) 0 Lin Ft 12.00 0 610 Median Concrete Material 0 Sq Ft 4.25 0

610 Misc Minor Quantities (Approx 35% of Total Cost) 1 Lump Sum 137,081.78 $ 137,082

626 Mobilization (Approx 15% of Total Cost) 1 Lump Sum 58,749.33 $ 58,749

630 Const.Traffic Control 1 Lump Sum 25,000.00 $ 25,000

Contract Item Totals Original Contract $ 612,493

Extras Item

Number Description

Quantity Unit Unit Price

CMO Cost

1 Roundabout Landscaping Lump Sum $ 35,000.00 0

2 Luminaries for Roundabouts Each $ 1


17

1,500.00

3 Traffic Signals for Traditional Intersection 2 Each $ 200,000.00 $ 400,000

4 $ -

5 $ -

6 $ -

7 $ -

Extras $ 400,000 Project Totals $ 1,012,493

Figure 12. Cost Estimate for Signalized Intersection with Added Turn Lanes

Item Number Description

ContractQuantity Unit

Unit Price

ContractCost

203 Earthwork 2 Lump Sum 25,000.00 $ 25,000 304 ABC (Class 5) 4451.111 Sq Yd 4.00 $ 17,804

305 Recycle Pavement Section 3522.444 Sq Yd 1.50 $ 5,284

308 Fly Ash (CL C)(12") (CIP) 8600 Sq Yd 5.75 $ 49,450 403 Hot Mix Asphalt 17000 Sq Yd 15.00 $ 255,000 412 Concrete Pavement Truck Ramp (10") 955.1111 Sq Yd 50.00 $ 47,756

608 Concrete Curb Rmp Type 1 12 Each 750.00 $ 9,000

609 Curb Type 2 (Section M) 3882 Lin Ft 12.00 $ 46,584 610 Median Concrete Material 3600 Sq Ft 4.25 $ 15,300 610 Misc Minor Quantities (Approx 35% of Total Cost) 1 Lump Sum 164,912.18 $ 164,912 626 Mobilization (Approx 15% of Total Cost) 1 Lump Sum 70,676.65 $ 70,677 630 Const.Traffic Control 1 Lump Sum 25,000.00 $ 25,000

Contract Item Totals Original Contract $ 731,767

Extras Item

Number Description

Quantity Unit Unit Price

CMO Cost

1 Roundabout Landscaping 2 Lump Sum $ 35,000.00 $ 70,000 2 Luminaries for Roundabouts 10 Each $ 1,500.00 $ 15,000

3 Traffic Signals for Traditional Intersection Each $ 200,000.00 $ -

4 $


18

-

5 $ -

6 $ -

7 $ -

CMO Item Totals $ 85,000 Project Totals $ 816,767

Figure 13. Cost Estimate for Roundabout Design Alternative.

Schedule and Milestones

Beginning October 4th 2010 and culminating on April 29th 2011, PBJNM Engineering analyzed the intersection of CR 30 ‐ CR 11/CR11C for which a final design was created and presented to the Larimer County Engineering office for review. A cumulative outline displayed as a Gantt chart of the 7 month process can be found in Appendix F1. Milestones were defined by the four phases as shown on the attached Gantt chart.

The first milestone completion occurred near the end of November 2010 with the completion of Phase A. Phase A’s completion indicated that data collection, review of crash reports, and site inspections were finished. Phase A was approximately 25 percent of the total project, and overlapped into Phase B. PBJNM Engineering reached its second milestone after Phase B was completed during the second week of December 2010. Completion of Phase B included the review of right of way information, cost item details, and a traffic condition analysis along with the alternative designs. Upon completion of Phase B, the project was nearly 50 percent complete. Phase C did not begin until the beginning of January 2011 and was projected to be complete at the end of February 2011. However, design delays pushed the actual completion date back to mid‐March. Completion of Phase C was signified by the formulation of two complete design alternatives. Phase C’s conclusion signified the third milestone, and the project was 80 percent complete. The fourth and final phase of design consisted of finalizing the report and presentation coinciding with the 2011 Engineering Days Completion on the 15th of April, 2011. PBJNM Engineering presented the recommended design option of the CR 30 – CR 11/CR11C intersection to CSU students, faculty, and visitors. Presentation and delivery of the design and report to the Larimer County Engineering office represented the final milestone and 100 percent completion of the design phase.


19

Summary, Recommendation, and Deliverables

Over the course of the 2010‐2011 academic school year, PBJNM Engineering designed two alternative configurations to improve the conditions of the CR30 ‐ CR11/CR11C intersection. Through research and analysis, PBJNM Engineering developed the most economical, safe, and functional design options for Larimer County. Based on the overall efficiency, safety, and cost considerations of both the signalized intersection design and the roundabout design, PBJNM recommends constructing roundabouts at both the CR11/CR30 and CR30/CR11C junctions. Once the project was complete, PBJNM Engineering provided Larimer County with the following deliverables:

• An oral presentation showing the two design options to improve the intersection of interest, utilizing PowerPoint as well as other visual displays.

o The presentation summarized the entire process for choosing the two design options as well as which option PBJNM Engineering recommended.

• A written report explaining the process for designing the two design options.

• Final drawings of the intersection showing the new intersection layout with the two design

options.


20

• Non‐engineering cost estimates. o Cost estimate of materials and labor for each of the design options.

PBJNM Engineering was honored to be a part of the intersection improvements for Larimer County. Engineers belonging to PBJNM Engineering will continue to strive to provide reliable, honest, and thorough engineering services for Larimer County and all future clients.

References “Chapter 8‐ Intersections.” Larimer County Urban Street Standards. 2007 Edition. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report 672. “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide.”

US Department of Transportation and the US Federal Highway Administration, 2010. “Roundabouts: Technical Summary.” US Department of Transportation and Federal Highway

Administration, 2010, FHWA‐SA‐10‐006. “Signalized Intersection Methodology.” Highway Capacity Manual. Chapter 16‐ Signalized Intersections,

2000 Edition. “Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies.” Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and

Highways. Chapter 4C, 2009 Edition. Wilkinson, Martina and Kyle Arend. Personal Interviews. 10 February 2011.


21

Design Team

PBJNM Engineering consists of five senior Civil Engineering students with a variety of skill sets providing for a well‐rounded team. Specific skills and interests are described below. Figure 14 shows a breakdown of PBJNM Engineering’s design team roles for the project.

Benjamin Rowles: Project Engineer, Traffic Analysis and Transportation Engineering A dedicated student, Benjamin has worked as a summer intern for the Colorado Department of Transportation for three consecutive summers developing a variety of skills. He has worked alongside Project Engineers as well as a variety of Contractors allowing for a deep understanding of the inner process and requirements of a both the design and construction of a project. Jeff Williams: Assistant Project Engineer, Structural Engineering A Structural Engineering senior, Jeff has internship experience designing power plant structures with Zachry Engineering. He has gained experience using STAAD.PROV8I structural analysis software as well as an extensive knowledge of AutoCAD. Jeff maintains a competitive GPA and is currently a member of two engineering honor societies, Chi Epsilon and Tau Beta Pi. Nick Beavis: Physics and Mathematical Modeling A senior double majoring in physics and civil engineering, Nick has internship experience with Sandia National Laboratories working with modeling and satellite imagery for three summers. He is also an enthusiastic honors student working on a senior thesis in atmospheric science. He is an expert in Microsoft Excel and statistical analysis.


22

Marc Ragasa: Structural Engineering A Structural Engineering major with a minor in Construction Management, Marc has interned with the City of Loveland and Larimer County, gaining valuable knowledge involving transportation engineering. He has exceptional experience with Microsoft Office, as well as AutoCAD. With his minor in Construction management, he has gained experience with project scheduling, management and estimating. Phillip Korpi: Structural Engineering Phillip is a hard working student who has had numerous jobs involving many areas of work. He has gained experience in the construction field, and has worked alongside many project managers and supervisors. Working in many different fields, Phillip has an understanding of many different perspectives on the job site, from the design through completion of the project.


23

Figure 14. Design Team Organization

Schedule of Appendices Appendix A: Traffic Counts CR11/CR30 Junction, AM Data Summary A1 CR11/CR30 Junction, AM Summary Graphic A2 CR11/CR30 Junction, PM Data Summary A3 CR11/CR30 Junction, PM Summary Graphic A4 CR30/CR11C Junction, AM Data Summary A5 CR30/CR11C Junction, AM Summary Graphic A6 CR30/CR11C Junction, PM Data Summary A7 CR30/CR11C Junction, PM Summary Graphic A8 Raw Directional Traffic Count Data, CR 11/CR30 Junction A9‐11 Raw Directional Traffic Count Data, CR30/CR11C Junction A12‐14 Appendix B: Crash Reports CR11/CR30 Junction Summary B1 CR30/CR11C Junction Summary B2 Appendix C: Software Analysis Output CR 11/CR30 Junction, AM Current Traffic Simulation, No Signals C1


24

CR 11/CR30 Junction, PM Current Traffic Simulation, No Signals C2 CR30/CR11C Junction, AM Current Traffic Simulation, No Signals C3 CR30/CR11C Junction, PM Current Traffic Simulation, No Signals C4 CR 11/CR30 Junction, AM Current Traffic Simulation, With Turn Lanes, No Signals C5 CR 11/CR30 Junction, PM Current Traffic Simulation, With Turn Lanes, No Signals C6 CR 30/CR11C Junction, AM Current Traffic Simulation, With Turn Lanes, No Signals C7 CR 30/CR11C Junction, PM Current Traffic Simulation, With Turn Lanes, No Signals C8 CR 11/CR30 Junction, AM Current Traffic Simulation, With Turn Lanes, With Signals C9 CR 11/CR30 Junction, PM Current Traffic Simulation, With Turn Lanes, With Signals C10 CR 30/CR11C Junction, AM Current Traffic Simulation, With Turn Lanes, With Signals C11 CR 30/CR11C Junction, PM Current Traffic Simulation, With Turn Lanes, With Signals C12 CR 11/CR30 Junction, AM Future Traffic Simulation, With Turn Lanes, With Signals C13 CR 11/CR30 Junction, PM Future Traffic Simulation, With Turn Lanes, With Signals C14 CR 30/CR11C Junction, AM Future Traffic Simulation, With Turn Lanes, With Signals C15 CR 30/CR11C Junction, PM Future Traffic Simulation, With Turn Lanes, With Signals C16 Both Junctions, AM Current Traffic Simulation, Roundabout Installation C17 Appendix D: Signal Warrant Studies CR11/CR30 Junction, Signal Warrant Summary D1 CR11/CR30 Junction, Signal Warrant Curves and Table D2 CR30/CR11C Junction, Signal Warrant Summary D3 CR30/CR11C Junction, Signal Warrant Curves and Table D4 Appendix E: AutoCAD Design Plans Overview of Signalized Design E1 CR11/CR30 Signalized Design E2 CR30/CR11C Signalized Design E3 Roundabout Design for Both Junctions E4 Appendix F: Project Schedule Gantt Chart of Project Schedule and Tasks F1 Appendix G: PBJNM Design Team PBJNM Design Team Biographies G1‐3


Appendix F1: Project Schedule

PBJNM Engineering

Project Schedule

Phase Task 4‐8 11‐15 18‐22 25‐29 1‐5 8‐12 15‐19 22‐26 29‐3 6‐10 13‐17 20‐24 27‐31 3‐7 10‐14 17‐21 24‐28 31‐4 7‐11 14‐18 21‐25 28‐4 7‐11 14‐18 21‐25 28‐1 4‐8 11‐15 18‐22 21‐29

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

1

2

3

Progress

B

C

2011

DecemberNovemberOctober

2010

January February AprilMarch

A

D

Phase A: Data Collection, Review and Research

Task 1 x Conduct Morning and Afternoon Traffic Counts Phase C: Design

Task 2 x Review of Larimer County Accident Reports Task 1 x Present Design Alternatives to client

Task 3 x Conduct Site Inspection Task 2 x Develop Preliminary Architectural Design

Task 4 x Preliminary Proposal Outline Task 3 x Determine Cost Analysis of Design

Phase B: Preliminary Analysis

Task 1 x Review Larimer County Right‐of‐way Information Phase D: Finalizing and Presentation

Task 2 x Obtain Larimer County Cost‐Item Details Task 1 x Prepare Final Design and Report

Task 3 x Analysis of Current Traffic Task 2 x Prepare and Present at the 2011 Engineering Days Competition

Task 4 x Prepare Preliminary Design Alternatives Task 3 x Presentation and Submission of Report and Final Design

A

B

C

D

Figure F1. Gantt Chart


G1

Appendix G – Team Member Biographies

Benjamin Rowles

Benjamin is a Senior Civil Engineering major with an emphasis in Transportation and Traffic Analysis. His competitive GPA in coordination with part time employment indicates his hard work and dedication. This dedication has resulted in his induction into CSU’s engineering honor chapter of Chi Epsilon. Throughout his college education he has developed many technical skills involving AutoCAD, EPANET, Microsoft Word, Excel and Power Point which have been applied to various projects both within CSU and within his Engineering Internships.

During the summers of 2007 through 2010, Benjamin was an intern for the Colorado Department of Transportation. Through these internships, Benjamin performed a variety of tasks including: Traffic Control management which involved verifying Contractor compliance with MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) , site inspections, ensuring contractor compliance with CDOT standards and specifications and assisting in design activities including quantity development and plans spreadsheets.

Jeff Williams

Jeff is a senior Civil Engineering major at Colorado State University. During his time at CSU, Jeff studied a variety of aspects of civil engineering, placing his emphasis on structures. Jeff is proficient in Microsoft Word, Xcel, PowerPoint, AutoCAD, and STAAD.ProV8i as well as numerous other programs. Jeff is a member of the civil engineering national honor society Chi Epsilon, as well as the all engineering discipline national honor society Tau Beta Pi. The summer before his senior year, Jeff was chosen to work for Zachry Engineering for a summer internship. During his internship, Jeff learned about the real world applications of structural design as he helped design power plants for Zachry Engineering. After graduation, Jeff hopes to be working for an engineering firm doing structural design and has plans for

the future to obtain his masters degree in structural engineering. Jeff is very enthusiastic about currently working for PBJNM Engineering, and hopes to apply his experience throughout his professional career.


G2

Marc Ragasa

Marc is a senior Civil Engineering student graduating with an emphasis in structural engineering at Colorado State University. In addition to receiving his bachelor’s degree in May 2011, Marc will also be receiving a minor in Construction Management. While at CSU, Marc has been involved in numerous extracurricular activities. He has served as the Publicity officer for the American Society of Civil Engineers from January 2008 to December 2009. Marc is currently a member of CSU’s engineering society, Chi Epsilon. He has significant experience working with computer programs such as AutoCAD and Microsoft Office. He is also the current President of a religious group on campus, Narrow Road Christian Fellowship.

In addition to Marc’s knowledge gained through university courses and activities, he has gained valuable experience through internships. He spent a year working for the Larimer County Engineering department where he helped evaluate road conditions on both paved and non‐paved roads throughout the county. Marc also spent a summer working with the City of Loveland’s Engineering department assisting the project manager with various projects throughout the city as well as designing a proposed parking lot on AutoCAD. During a 2007 summer internship with Unemori Engineering in Maui, Hawaii, Marc furthered surveying skills, performed residential boundary surveys and mapped the topography of land using a Global Positioning System.

Nick Beavis

Hailing from Albuquerque, New Mexico, Nick Beavis is a senior double majoring in physics and civil engineering at Colorado State University. He is part of the honors program and is currently writing his senior thesis in atmospheric science in addition to his engineering and physics courses. He also has excellent experience with mathematical modeling and coding. He honed these skills while working at Sandia National Laboratories for three summers as an intern. His time at Sandia has paid off, as a poster chronicling the project he helped with will be presented at the American Geophysical Union Annual Meeting in December 2010 in San Francisco. The study involved

estimation of cloud super cooled liquid water using satellite imagery and measurements. He keeps a detailed list of many things, which helps him with the organizational demands of engineering projects.


G3

Nick enjoys taking pictures of clouds, especially large convective thunderstorms. His love for atmospheric science has driven him to accept a graduate research assistantship at Colorado State University, with research emphasis in atmospheric electricity and cloud physics. Though his interest in civil engineering usually falls second to his interest in the atmosphere, Nick finds improving infrastructure and studying how people move in the modern world very fascinating.

Phillip Korpi

Phillip is a senior at Colorado State University majoring in Civil Engineering, with an emphasis in structural analysis and design. Phillip was a member of ASCE his sophomore year where he was in charge of designing and maintaining the website. Through his education and involvement in ASCE, Phillip has become very efficient with his time management skills. He is also a hard working student who has had numerous jobs involved in many areas of work. His experience consists of work in the construction field. During his construction experience he worked alongside many project managers and supervisors. Working in a variety of different fields, Phillip has developed an understanding of the various aspects of the phases on the job site, including design through completion of projects. Phillip’s future goals consist of obtaining a career within a structural engineering firm upon completion of his Bachelors of Science degree in Civil Engineering. In the future, Phillip plans on pursuing a Master’s degree in structural engineering and receiving his PE.

Date post:	08-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

FinalReport PBJNM Finalthornton/Spring_2013/Old Reports... · PBJNM Engineering Inc. | Fort...

Documents