Sussex County Department of Engineering and Planning North ... · Sussex County Department of...

Sussex County Department of Engineering and PlanningNorth Jersey Transportation Planning Authority

Local Concept Development StudyCounty Route 653 – Clove Road Corridor Study

Township of Montague, Sussex County, New Jersey




Clove Road SouthboundM.P. 4.0 to 5.0

Clove Road SouthboundM.P. 4.0 to 5.0

Clove Road NorthboundM.P. 3.0 to 4.0

Clove Road NorthboundM.P. 3.0 to 4.0

2

Sussex County Department of Engineering and Planning, Division of EngineeringJohn C. Risko, P.E., P.L.S, P.P. Assistant County Engineer

North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA)Martin Hofler, Director Capital ProgrammingSarbjit Kahlon, Principal Environmental Planner

New Jersey Department of TransportationMilan Limbaccia, NJDOT – Local Aid District Office Amy Polachak, NJDOT - Division of Environmental Resources

TranSystems CorporationGina Zamiskie, P.E., Project ManagerArtur Daniliants, P.E., Project Engineer

Public Information Center

Sussex County Route 653 – Clove Road Corridor StudySussex County Route 653 – Clove Road Corridor Study

May 8, 2013

3


Local ConceptDevelopment

Local PreliminaryEngineering

Final Design / Right of Way Acquisition

Construction

√ Data Collection √ Environmental

Screening Report

√ Purpose and Need Statement

√ Selection of Preliminary Preferred Alternative

√ NEPA Classification

√ Concept Development Report

√ Approve Design Exception Report

√ Construction Contract Documents and PS&E Package

√ Completed Construction

√ Cost Estimates (Final Design, ROW and Construction)

√ Environmental Reevaluations√ Approved

Environmental Document

√ Approved Project Plan

√ Preliminary Engineering Report

√ Update Design Communication Report

√ Environmental Permits

√ Update Design Communication Report

√ Acquisition of ROW

√ As-Built

√ Update and Finalize Design Communication Report

√ Close-Out Documentation

Local Concept Development Process

Project Phase

Program Phase

4

Local Concept Development Process


Project Status

5

The Environmental ProcessNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Established National environmental policy and goalsCreated the Basis for environmental impact statements (EIS)

Federally Funded Projects – Require NEPA DocumentationIdentify Environmental resources and concernsExamine alternatives to Avoid, Minimize and or Mitigate impactsRequires interagency coordination (i.e. NJHPO, NJDEP, NJDOT)Process includes Public Involvement and Community Support


PIC #1July 26 th PIC #2

May 8 th

6

Overview of Project FindingsSussex County Route 653 – Clove Road Study Corridor

Clove Road (CR 653) is classified as a two-lane Rural Major Collector characterized as rolling terrain with low-density rural residential, commercial and agricultural land use.


Role of the Rural Major Collector –

Generally serve intracounty travel; provide links to routes of higher order (arterials), nearby cities or larger towns and places of intracounty importance (i.e. regional schools)

Posted Speed is 45 mphNumerous Zones of lower advisory speedsSpot Speed Study found 85th Percentile Speed of 36-38 mph at each end

and 51-52 mph at intermediate M.P. 2.8

7

Overview of Project FindingsSussex County Route 653 Fact Sheet – Roadway Geometry, Safety & Operation

Segments with Steep Vertical Grades exceeding standard design values Several locations of Sharp Horizontal Curves and Reverse CurvesSections with substandard Lane and Shoulder widths Skewed and Misaligned Intersections with Limiting Site DistanceFixed Objects within close proximity to roadway (Clear-Zone)


8

Overview of Project FindingsSussex County Route 653 – Accident Data and Analysis

106 reported collisions within the 2008-2010 study period – slightly higher than NJ Statewide average for similar roadwaysMost frequently cited accident type – Fixed-Object Collision (57/106)53 Reported Accidents – occurred on wet, snowy or icy roadway surfaces25% of Accident Reports noted pre-accident action as “negotiating curve”


Lack of Shoulder Area Fixed Object (Pole)

close to travel lane

9

Overview of Project FindingsSussex County Route 653 Environmental and Cultural Resources

Freshwater Wetlands associated with Mill Brook, Shimmers Brook, Clove Brook Green Acres Recreational & Open Space and NJ Natural Lands Trust AreasTwenty properties identified as potentially eligible or listed on the National Register Areas of Stone Ruins (Limestone Kilns, Foundations) and Burial Sites


10

The Project StatusCommenced Data Collection Phase: November 2011Major Task Work Completed

Field Survey, Basemap Development and Existing Right-of-WayEnvironmental & Hazardous Waste ScreeningsTraffic Counts, Accident Data Analysis, Safety AuditSummary of Findings – Existing Conditions ReportPublic Involvement and Input (PIC #1 July 26, 2012)Purpose and Need StatementDevelopment of Alternative Concepts, Impacts and CostsAlternative Analysis Presentation to Montague Township and Public May 8, 2013


11

Implement Roadway Improvements that will serve to 1) improve the safety of the corridor and 2) upgrade overall traffic operations of CR653 providing a safe and reliable transportation facility aimed at minimizing accident occurrence and severity while preserving the rural and scenic character and the historic and recreational value of the corridor in support of local community desires.

Purpose

Need

Safety - Accident Rate exceeds the NJ statewide Accident Rate for similarroadways (Two-Lane Roadways with no or limiting shoulders)

Substandard Elements - CR653 has numerous substandard geometric deficiencies including segments with excessive vertical grades, sharp horizontal curves, poor intersection alignments, deficient clear zone and substandard shoulder width

Operations – Spot Speed data shows segments of 85th percentile speed in excess of posted speed and advisory speeds. Potential pavement friction deficiency.


12

The Project Goals and ObjectivesImprove the Roadway Safety of CR653 in accordance with standards appropriate for Rural Major Collector Roadways that will serve to better meet driver expectations and reduce accident occurrence and severity

Avoid, minimize and mitigate all environmental impacts to the fullest extent possible

Implement measure to address local concerns aimed at reducing driver speeds

Minimize disruption and impacts to local community and residents and reduce acquisition of private property to the fullest extent possible

Seek to improve the corridor for walking

Maintain an ongoing public outreach plan to foster public trust and acceptance of the most viable transportation solution that will meet the project’s Purpose and Need


13

The Development of AlternativesThe Alternatives Analysis Process and Documentation


A comparative evaluation is made assessing the merits of each alternative relative to compatibility with project need, environmental impacts, right-of-way takings, cost effectiveness and public acceptability

Development of Alternative Solutions and Schemes to address the Project Need

The comparison of the alternatives is presented in the Alternative Analysis

Summary Matrix

14

The Development of AlternativesAlternatives Studied for the Clove Road – CR653 Corridor: Alternative 1: Do Nothing/No Build Alternative 2: Corridor Safety Enhancements and Improvements on

Existing Footprint Alternative 2A: Alternative 2 plus PIA #2 Alternative 3A: Corridor Safety Enhancements and Improvements with

Targeted Shoulder Widening Zones, PIA #2 and PIA #3 Alternative 3B: Corridor Safety Enhancements and Improvements with

Targeted Shoulder Widening Zones, PIA #1, PIA #2 and PIA #3 Alternative 3C: Corridor Safety Enhancements and Improvements with

Targeted Shoulder Widening Zones, PIA #2, PIA #3, PIA #4 and PIA #5 Alternative 4: Corridor Safety Enhancements and Improvements with

Corridor Shoulder Widening, PIA #1 through PIA #7


15

Alternative 2 - The Corridor Baseline Existing Footprint Baseline Enhancements and Improvements

Corridor Wide elements include:• Correction to cross slope and superelevation rates• Installation and repair of guide rail at warranted locations• High friction pavement surface (micro-surfacing), new for full corridor length • Removal of all objects closer than 4’ to the travel lane• Advisory and Warning Signs updates through detailed Safety Audit

Localized elements include:• Alteration at Red Hill Road to eliminate the right turn “slip-lane” • Minor horizontal adjustments to better align the intersection at Deckertown Turnpike• Identified segment for minor shoulder improvement between MP 6.2 to MP 6.5

between Cedar Drive (CR395) and Beach Drive (location of numerous accidents)


16

Enhancements and Improvements with Targeted Shoulder Widening ZonesCorridor Wide elements include:• Correction to cross slope and superelevation rates• Installation of guide rail at warranted locations• High friction pavement surface (micro-surfacing) new full corridor length • Removal of all objects closer than 4’ + to the travel lane• Advisory and Warning Signs updates through detailed Safety Audit

Localized elements include:• Alteration at Red Hill Road to eliminate the right turn “slip-lane” or PIA #1• PIA #2 Roundabout at Deckertown Turnpike intersection• Identified segments (3 miles total) for shoulder improvement and widening to consistent 4’


Alternative 3 - The Corridor Baseline

Alternative 4 - The Corridor Baseline Baseline is similar to Alt. 3 with shoulder widening full corridor length

17

The Priority Improvement Areas (PIA’s)PIA #1 CR653 and Red Hill Road Intersection Realignment of CR653 west at the Red Hill Road intersection Correct the substandard horizontal curve to minimum standards (AASHTO) 4 Reported accidents in a 3-year period; 7 reported collisions in a 6-year period


18

Priority Improvement Area #1


19

The Priority Improvement Areas (PIA’s)PIA #2 CR653 and Deckertown Turnpike (CR650) Intersection Proposes a Roundabout (mini-circle) to correct the misaligned 4-leg intersection Improve the limiting substandard intersection sight lines; multiple accident location Provide a physical Traffic Calming element to serve in reducing speeds


20



21

The Priority Improvement Areas (PIA’s)PIA #3 CR653 at M.P. 1.6 (1200’ north of Millville Road Intersection Realignment of CR653 horizontally for 400 LF and vertically for 500 LF Correct the substandard horizontal curve to minimum standards (AASHTO) Reduce steep grades that are in excess of 8% to recommended values 4 Reported accidents in a 3-year period


22



23

The Priority Improvement Areas (PIA’s)PIA #4 CR653 and New Road Intersection Vertical Realignment of CR653 to reduce grades and correct substandard curve Reconfigure New Road intersection to eliminate the skew and form a “T” intersection Construct retaining wall to limit impacts to historic property (Cole House and Barn) 4 Reported accidents in a 3-year period; 8 collisions reported in a 6-year period


24



25

The Priority Improvement Areas (PIA’s)PIA #5 CR653 between M.P. 3.7 to M.P. 3.9 (Old Mashipacong Road) Horizontal Realignment of CR653 to correct the sharp curve to minimum standards Vertical Realignment to reduce steep grades that far exceed recommended values Construct retaining wall to limit impacts to wetlands and property Vertical Realignment to reduce steep approach grade from Old Mashipacong Road Highest number of reported accidents of all Priority Areas


26

Sussex County Route 653 – Clove Road Corridor StudySussex County Route 653 – Clove Road Corridor StudyPriority Improvement Area #5

27

The Priority Improvement Areas (PIA’s)PIA #6 CR653 between M.P. 4.8 to M.P. 5.2 (2100 LF) Vertical Realignment to reduce steep grades in excess of 10% Reduce (Cut) Roadway Crest by approximately 6’ for improved sight distance Raise Roadway by approximately 12’ at approach to crest to reduce steepness


28

Sussex County Route 653 – Clove Road Corridor StudySussex County Route 653 – Clove Road Corridor StudyPriority Improvement Area #6

29

The Priority Improvement Areas (PIA’s)PIA #7 CR653 between M.P. 5.5 to M.P. 5.9 centered about Reinhardt Road Significant Vertical Realignment to eliminate substandard vertical curvature Hold Roadway Crest at Reinhardt Road (11.6% Grade) Raise Roadway by approximately 22’ at north approach to crest to reduce steepness


30



31

The Development of AlternativesThe Alternatives Grouping


ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 4ALTERNATIVE 3A/3B/3CALTERNATIVE 2/2A

LEAST IMPACTS & COST HIGHEST IMPACTS & COST

MINIMAL IMPROVEMENT GREATEST IMPROVEMENT

32

Alternative 1 – Do Nothing/No Build The “No Build” alternative is used as a baseline for the evaluation. This alternative maintains the status quo and does not propose any new work and therefore does not meet the project Purpose and Need. This alternative is described in order to recognize the consequences that might result from taking no action.

• Roadway geometric deficiencies will remain and there will be no remedial action to clear fixed objects located within the established 4’ clear zone.

• The No Build alternative will not provide improve the corridor for walkers and does not provide effective measures to address local concerns for reducing driver speeds through the corridor.

The No Build has no adverse environmental impacts including historic resources, green acres and freshwater wetlands. There are no ROW impacts associated with the No Build alternative.

Summary of Alternatives Sussex County Route 653Summary of Alternatives Sussex County Route 653

33

Alternative 2 – Corridor Safety Enhancements and Improvements on Existing Footprint Alternative 2 will partially meet the project Purpose and Need. Limited safety enhancements will provide some level of safety improvement together with two minor intersection improvement areas.This alternative minimally addresses measures to deter speeds with advisory sign updates. Nearly 4.5 miles of the 7 mile corridor remains substandard in roadway/shoulder width offering little improvement through the corridor for walkers. Alternative 2 provides minimal disturbance to environmental and historic resources. As no substantial widening or vertical realignment is proposed, there will be no impacts to wetlands and no impact to existing flood plain areas under the NJ Flood Hazard Control Act.Very minor ROW acquisition (0.05 acres) is required for the four (4) properties surrounding CR653 intersection.

Opinion of Probable Construction Cost: $ 15,600,000 ($ 15.60 M)Estimated ROW cost is: $ 1,000


34

Alternative 2A – Corridor Safety Enhancements and Improvements on Existing FootprintPlus PIA #2 (Roundabout)

Alternative 2A will partially meet the project Purpose and Need. Limited safety enhancements together with the intersection improvement at Red Hill Road and the implementation of a physical traffic calming measure at CR 650 (Roundabout) will provide a moderate level of safety improvement. Alternative 2A addresses measures to deter speeds by physical means as well as advisory sign updates. Nearly 4.5 miles of the 7 mile corridor remains substandard in roadway/shoulder width offering little improvement through the corridor for walkers. Alternative 2A is similar to Alt. 2 minimizing disturbances to environmental and historic resources. As no substantial widening or vertical realignment is proposed, there will be no impacts to wetlands and no impact to existing flood plain areas under the NJ Flood Hazard Control Act.Very minor ROW acquisition (0.26 ac) is required for the four (4) properties surrounding CR653 intersection.



35

Alternative 3A – Corridor Safety Enhancements and Improvements with Targeted Shoulder Widening Zones, PIA #2 and PIA #3

Alternative 3A including baseline together with targeted shoulder zones plus PIA #2 and PIA #3 does meet the project Purpose and Need. The corridor safety enhancements, 3-miles of shoulder widening, intersection improvement at Red Hill Road, the roundabout at CR650 and correction of roadway geometry at M.P. 1.6 provides a moderate level of safety improvement. Alternative 3A addresses measures to deter speeds. Nearly 5 of the 7-mile corridor will be upgraded to standards for roadway/shoulder width offering improvement to most of the corridor for walkers. Alternative 3A will result in very minor impacts to historic/cultural resources; no adverse impacts are anticipated to these 8-resources. There will be no significant impacts to wetlands and existing flood plain areas.Moderate ROW acquisition (13.0 ac) is required corridor wide. Shoulder widening requires nearly 6.25 ac (58 frontage parcels) plus 5.5 additional acres for storm water basins (TBD). PIA #2 requires 0.26 ac (4-frontage parcels) and PIA #3 estimates 0.97 ac (3 parcels). Opinion of Probable Construction Cost: $ 20,285,000 ($ 20.28 M)Estimated ROW cost is: $ 252,000

Summary of Alternatives Sussex County Route 653 StudySummary of Alternatives Sussex County Route 653 Study

36

Alternative 3B – Corridor Safety Enhancements and Improvements with Targeted Shoulder Widening Zones, PIA #1, PIA #2 and PIA #3

Alternative 3B including baseline work, targeted shoulder zones plus PIA #1, PIA #2 and PIA #3 does meet the project Purpose and Need. The corridor safety enhancements, 3-miles of shoulder widening, the roundabout at CR650 and correction of roadway geometry at M.P. 0.3 (Red Hill Road) and M.P. 1.6 provides a moderate level of safety improvement.

Alternative 3B addresses measures to deter speeds. Nearly 5 of the 7-mile corridor will be upgraded to standards for roadway/shoulder width offering improvement to most of the corridor for walkers.

Alternative 3B will result in very minor impacts to historic/cultural resources; no adverse impacts are anticipated to these 8-resources. There will be no significant impacts to wetlands and existing flood plain areas.

Moderate ROW acquisition (14.1 acres) is required corridor wide. Shoulder widening requires nearly 6.25 ac (58 frontage parcels) plus 5.5 additional acres for storm water basins (TBD). PIA #2 requires 0.26 ac (4-frontage parcels) and PIA #3 estimates 0.97 ac (3 parcels) and PIA #1 requires 1.1 ac (3 parcels).



37

Alternative 3C – Corridor Safety Enhancements and Improvements with Targeted Shoulder Widening Zones, PIA #2, PIA #3, PIA #4 and PIA #5

Alternative 3C including baseline work, targeted shoulder zones plus PIA #2, #3, #4 and #5 does meet the project Purpose and Need. The corridor safety enhancements, shoulder widening, roundabout and correction of roadway geometry at four locations provides a high level of safety improvement.

Alternative 3C addresses measures to deter speeds. Nearly 5 of the 7-mile corridor will be upgraded to standards for roadway/shoulder width offering improvement to most of the corridor for walkers.

Alternative 3C will result in moderate impacts to historic/cultural resources; visual impacts are expected at one property due to new wall. Wetland impacts will be greater than 0.25 acres requiring an Individual Wetland Permit. Flood Plain areas will require hydraulic analysis and a determination of impact due to vertical alignment improvements.

Moderate ROW acquisition (15.3 ac) is required. Shoulder widening requires 6.25 ac (58 frontage parcels) plus 5.5 additional acres for storm water basins (TBD). PIA #2 requires 0.26 ac (4-frontage parcels) and PIA #3 estimates 0.97 ac (3 parcels), PIA #4 requires 1.05 ac (8 parcels) and PIA #5 requires 1.27 ac (4 parcels).



38

Alternative 4 – Corridor Safety Enhancements and Improvements with Corridor Shoulder Widening, PIA #1 through PIA #7

Alternative 4 including baseline work, full corridor length shoulder widening PIA #1 through #7 does not meet the project Purpose and Need. The corridor safety enhancements, shoulder widening, roundabout and correction of roadway geometry at six locations provides the highest level of safety improvement. Alternative 4 addresses measures to deter speeds. The corridor will be upgraded to standards for roadway/shoulder width for all 7-miles offering adequate accommodation for walkers as well as cyclists. Alternative 4 will result in the greatest impact to environmental / historic properties; PIA #7 requires the full acquisition of a potentially historic site. Significant ROW acquisition (35.4 ac) is required including an estimated 10 ac for storm water basins. Approximately 151 properties are affected.This alternative is not prudent or feasible; accident data does not support the need to correct vertical geometry but rather assure that adequate clear zone be provided through these steepened segments. Although the corridor will be widened throughout, the vertical changes in these segments will alter the character of the roadway. Opinion of Probable Construction Cost: $ 28,800,000 ($ 28.85 M)Estimated ROW cost is: $ 625,000


39

Selection of the Preliminary Preferred AlternativeThe selection of the preferred alternative must consider many factors and eliminate alternatives that do not address the Project Purpose and Need, cause unacceptable social or economic impacts, cause serious community disruption, or have excessive costs, or impact other project-area environmental constraints.

Based on the comparison summarized in the matrix, the Project Team recommends Alternative 3C – Corridor Safety Enhancements and Improvements with Targeted Shoulder

Widening Zones, PIA #2, PIA #3, PIA #4 and PIA #5Alternative 3C

Alternatives not meeting the Project Purpose and Need

Alternative 3A

Alternative 3B


40

The Public Participation PlanNotification of Project Start to all residents within the Project Area √Introductory Meeting No. 1 with Local Township Officials √Public Information Center No. 1 (July 26, 2012) √

Presentation of Findings and Existing ConditionsPurpose and Need DevelopmentLocal Township Officials Meeting No. 2 May 8, 2013 √Public Information Center No. 2 May 8, 2013 √

Presentation of Alternatives AnalysisSelection of the Preliminary Preferred Alternative (PPA)

Local Township Officials Meeting No. 3Resolution of Support for the PPA


41

Project Schedule

Local Concept Development Study18-Month Completion ScheduleCompletion Goals: Preliminary Preferred Alternative (PPA) selection

Next StepsPublic Comment Period:Review and finalize PPA:Obtain Resolutions of Support from Township and CountyCompletion of Concept Development ReportHold Inter-Agency Review with FHWA, NJTPA and NJDOT for acceptance


QUESTIONS & COMMENTS







Date post:	05-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times