FINAL REPORT DELIVERABLE

Group member:

Katie Koontz

Adam Wilusz

Steve Rusnak

Jikun Lian

The Pennsylvania State University

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

CE 421W: Transportation Design

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

CE 421W: Transportation Design

FINAL REPORT DELIVERABLE

INTRODUCTION The objectives of the final report are to:

Describe the process used to arrive at the final recommended alternative alignment for the US Route 322 study corridor. This discussion should include the existing conditions analysis, proposed alternative design concepts, and the final design recommendation.

Present the final recommended design in a set of roadway construction drawings.

Project Introduction

Transportation deficiencies exist in south central Center County, Pennsylvania. Exacerbating the problem is the growth that is expected to occur in the region over the next 25 years. Not only is additional capacity a primary consideration, so too are safety improvements

and non-traditional transportation alternatives. Transportation improvements along U. S. Route 322, PA Route 144, and PA Route 45 are desired. See Figure 1 for study area and its boundaries.

FIGURE 1. Study Area

U. S. Route 322 currently provides inadequate flow with its volume of traffic. Areas of the existing roadway provide fair design consistency for passenger cars while poor design

consistency for truck in the same stretch of roadway. The poor design consistency restricts the speed of trucks which inadvertently slows the flow of traffic and creates queuing. This is clutch

when some areas see an upwards of 20% trucks. Not only does this create queuing but as raise concerns on rear end accidents. Speed perception is lacking in inexperience, older and distracted drivers. One may approach the queuing line more rapidly than expected and not have enough

time to decelerate. Other safety concerns are as follow:

1. Horizontal curve radius 2. Lane width 3. Traffic volume

Traffic volumes have increased steadily in the study area over the last 10 years. The US

Route 322 study corridor has experienced an annual traffic growth rate of approximately 2.2 percent. This growth is placing stress on the existing roadway network, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Road conditions need improvement due the annual traffic growth rate (2.2%). These

improvements will need to handle larger volumes of passenger cars and truck traffic as the surround areas develop. Adequate route of transportation is needed to support the population increase. As the population increases, so does the need of good and supplies. Trucks are the

logical form of transportation to support these communities. Therefore increasing communities are directly related to larger truck traffic.

The engineering group will try to solve the current problems by coming up with a new design proposal. The specific needs for this project are the following:

1. Satisfy the increasing demand for traffic capacity 2. Improve the traffic safety 3. Improve the traffic consistency 4. Decrease the environmental impact while working on the construction project

Existing Design and Traffic Characteristics

The current horizontal and vertical alignments pose an issue for the current roadway. Multiple segments along the vertical alignment need reconstructed. As 28 of the existing curves

either sag or crest are less than the minimum horizontal distance (K) for a curve or Kmin. Numerous existing curves have inadequate lengths due to its reduced K. The length required to

provide adequate horizontal distance is directly related to K per the equation L=KA. Re-evaluating this alignment is in consideration. See Appendix B for existing K-values

Table 1 shows traffic volume (both directions) and truck percentage data based on 2009 traffic counts. It also shows the project traffic for 2034 at a growth rate of 2.2%

TABLE 1. Study Area Traffic Volumes and Growth Rates.

Location 2009

AADT 2034

AADT

2009 Truck

Percentage

US 322

Between Jacks Mill Road and Elks Club Road

13,200 19,960 17%

US 322

Between Sharer Road and Wagner Road

12,000 18,145 19%

US 322 Between Dogtown Road and Mountain Back/Red Mill

Road

11,200 16,935 20%

Note: Annual Growth Rate in AADT is 2.2% per year

This data was collected in 2008 during a typical weekday, and are provided in Appendix A. The

AM and PM peak periods are noted as are the truck percentages at the following intersections:

US Route 322 and Wagner Road US Route 322 and Taylor Hill Road US Route 322 and Neff Road

US Route 322 and Mountainback/Red Mill Road US Route 322 and PA State Route 144

Safety Evaluation of Existing Conditions

For Safety Evaluation, the analysis is based on Horizontal Alignment Data for US Route

322. The original Safety Evaluation reveals severe problems in a couple of road sections in Route 322. The most obvious findings are the high accessing rate in the original design. From the calculation of the engineering group, the access points/mile is 15, which already exceed the

AASHTO requirements. Another significant finding is the complex road situations. Most of the road is in rumble strips. Also, driveway density and superelevation rate surveyed from past few

years revealed a comparatively higher roadway traffic demand than the design values. The third finding is the accident rate in the entire Route 322. From the surveyed value from year 2005 to 2009, the annual crashes are 32. Furthermore, over 70% of the crashes cause injuries or fatalities.

Most of the essential information is taken from Appendix C on the project spreadsheet,

Based on the equation and Crash Modification factors calculation, radius, curve degrees, PC, PI and PT stations are used for the safety evaluation. Also, the stations data can be applied for segments division.

The Crash Data in the attachment is also important. From that, the AADT and crashes data are obtained in certain segments. All these are essential values for Safety Evaluation check.

Then, based on the equations on AASHTO Green Book, suitable equations are used on different

Crash Modification factors. Compared the actual crash data with prediction data, the final results are obtained and attached in the Appendix. From the table, only segments 30, 32 and 42 showed a good design results on the safety evaluation criteria. In other segments, the actual annual

crashes always exceed the predicted crashes.

Based on the current situations, suggestions could be:

1. The traffic volume in US Route 322 should be limited. From the Nbr calculation, we

noticed that AADT are directly related to the annual crashes. Also, from the analysis on the Crash Data, the higher the AADT in certain segment, the more crashes happened in

that segment. The future design should consider adding more lanes to the original design. Since the increasing rate in vehicles is unlikely to shut down, adding more travelling lanes will release the current traffic pressure. Also it will satisfy the future traffic demand

without any changes in the future.

2. The lane width needs to change. From the Crash Modification factors, one of the factors is related to lane width. Even though the high AADT draw most of the answers to 1 and did not seem to matter that much, if we successfully decrease AADT (HOW), lane width

will be significant. Similar to the solution in first suggestion, adding more lanes will efficiently decrease AADT in each of the lanes. Also, new design should add corridors in

certain sections and decrease the number of access points of Route 322.

3. The radius of the horizontal curves needs to be improved (HOW). From the AASHTO

Green book, the radius will cause changes in the Horizontal Curvature AMF. This will also cause the rapid increase in crash rates. Future design should consider cut and fill in

certain sections of the road way. Also, redesign some of the curves in the original design, especially those unsatisfied to the AASHTO requirements, will efficiently decrease the crashes caused by sudden speed changes.

Speed Consistency Evaluation of Existing Conditions

For the Speed Consistency Evaluation, we used the geometric design data provided to

predict operating speeds of the passenger cars and trucks along the US Route 322 study section. After the evaluation, the geometric design consistency for the passenger cars was fair

and the geometric design consistency for the trucks was poor. For a roadway if the design speed consistency is poor or even fair on a roadway there needs to changes to that roadway. For the passenger cars design consistency there was a total of 6 segments that may benefit from some

improvements. There were 2 segments that showed fair speed design consistency and the other 4 showed good design consistency, but still show us some concerns with the drop in speed from

the others. The segments showed fair design speed consistency for the main segment that need to be changed first over the ones with good design speed consistency. For the truck design consistency, there were a total of two spots where the speed consistency is poor. Since those

spots show up poor it makes the alignment poor because of how those spots will have traffic

backed up. These spots need to be the first ones fixed since of the traffic delay and problem come from these bad design speed consistency spots.

Solving for the predicted operating speed of the passenger cars we first had to find the PC

and PT’s of horizontal alignment data and vertical alignment data for US Route 322. Using those stations, segments were created for both the eastbound and westbound routes. After creating the segments, the regression equations were used from (Fitzpatrick et al. (1999)) to determine the

expected 85th percentile speed of the curve midpoint. Looking at the grades and where the curves overlap each other on the segments to figure out which formulas went with which

segment. For every tangent segment it was assumed to make its expected 85th percentile speed to be 62.2 miles per hour instead of using equations to solve for it. After the 85th percentile speed was found for every segment, each midpoint of each segment was found so we could graph the

85th percentile speed of each segment versus the actual midpoint of the segment. In appendix D shows the plot for both the east and west bound graph showing the roadway for both directions

show fair speed design consistency. Solving the predicted operating speed of the trucks was a little different in the sense that

only the vertical alignment data was needed. With using a complex excel spreadsheet; the spreadsheet only needed the distance between the PVI’s of each curve and the beginning grade

of each curve to find the predicted speeds. Also, the design speed of 50 miles per hour was used and the initial speed of 50 miles per hour. Instead of using the default weight/power ratio of 100 it was decided to use a weight/power ratio of 150 to be more realistic weight of the trucks on the

highway. Since traffic in most areas of the roadway is 20% trucks, the weight/ratio of 150 will more accurate with weight of truck to precise on the actual predicted operating speeds for the

trucks. In Appendix D shows the plot for both the eastbound and westbound graphs showing the spots of the roadway that have poor truck design speed consistency.

Environmental and Resource Inventory

The eight mile of corridor of Route 322 that stretches between Potter Mills (Junction SR-

45) and Lemont (Junction I-99) has an extreme variety of environmental, commercial, residential, and agricultural features. All of these features have the potential to negatively affect

the Route 322 improvement project whether it is by increasing the cost of any potential improvements or creating negative PR for the project due to increases in traffic noise or via high profile land acquisitions.

To quantify the potential impact of each of these features we developed the following

ranking system, in which items were categorized as either residential, commercial/community asset, environmental, agricultural. After all of the features were categorized each category was assigned a numerical value from 1-5, 5 being the most important to conserve and 1 being the

least important to conserve. After the ranking system was established two possible routes were mapped out, a northern route and a southern/central route. The comparison of each of these

routes can be found in the following table allow with the description of each land class.

Land Class Linear feet impacted.

North Route

Linear Feet Impacted

South Route

Residential A(5) 2326 0

Residential B(4) 7659 200

Residential C(3) 1000 1500

Commercial A(4) 1298 0

Commercial B (3) 1700 1500

Environmental (2) 2835 5125

Vacant / Ag (1) 21523 27514

Total 84751 54764

Residential A - This category is reserved for the high density residential developments or

high value homes. Due to the high cost of buying high value properties or disturbing multiple properties these areas if disturbed would adversely affect the budget of the project. In addition displacing large numbers of residents would adversely affect the public relation portion of the

project.

Residential B – This category represents areas that are currently in the process of being developed. Since the properties have not been developed they would be cheaper to acquire in addition to displacing a smaller number of families than a Residential A property.

Residential C – This category represents isolated homes that would have a minimal impact on the project.

Commercial/Community A – This category represents items that would are considered assets to the community and are not easily replaced. For the purposes of this project any item

classified into this category is automatically preserved.

Commercial/Community B – This category represents items would be easier to replace

or relocate in the community such as little league fields of commercial businesses. Though it would be possible to relocate such facilities they are still merited a high degree of priority for

preservation since affecting them would add significant cost to the project.

Commercial/Community C – This category was not used in the inventory for this

project.

Environmental (A, B, C) – Due to the varied nature of environmental hazards the category was not subdivided. Hazards that were labeled in the environmental category consisted primarily of wetlands, Floodplains and minor bodies of water both of which would have the

potential for only minimal impacts on the project. The impacts could be considered minimal since relocating and remediating wetlands is a relatively common practice.

Agricultural/Undeveloped – This category represents the ideal area to develop since acquiring land in either represents a minimal monetary and public relations cost to the project.

For the case of this project some consideration was given to following the existing property line and natural barriers between properties. By following this practice it will minimize the amount of

land purchased as well as the number of access points that will need to be provided. With the ranking system that we developed the lowest number is the route that will have the least

environmental impact. Based on this method the northern route has 35% more impact than the southern route on the surrounding area. For this reason the final alignment for the four lane

bypass is based on the southern/central conceptual route.

Recommended Design Improvements based on Existing Conditions Analysis

The first recommendation that is being proposed is the construction of a 322 express route that would bypass Business 322. This recommendation is illustrated in Appendix F; the

proposed alignment would have a serviceability rating of A which is a considerable improvement compared to the current under preforming route. Though this recommendation would have the

highest initial cost, it will provide the most permanent solution. With a design speed of 55 miles per hour and only two access points it would provide a seamless corridor to connect I-99 with the existing section of SR 322.

In determining the exact alignment of this corridor many of the complex environmental

factors surrounding the area had to be taking into account. As a way of quantifying this each hazard was assigned a numerical value between zero and six indicating its level of importance. For example a golf course or high-density sections of homes would receive a rating of 6 and by

comparison a stretch of undeveloped land or farm land was awarded a zero. After this system was established three conceptual routes were evaluated a northern, southern, and a hybrid route

and then evaluated to which had the lowest environmental impact number.

In our case the lowest environmental impact number was scored by the hybrid route,

which is the base for the route you see in Construction Drawing, Section 1. As can be seen by the provided mapping the alignment has only two access points at either end to merge traffic onto existing 322. In addition to the new alignment this proposal will also call for the realignment of

SR144 which currently forms a junction with 322 in the town of Potters Mills. In the proposed realignment this junction would be moved west so that the junction is on the west side of 322.

Due to the limited horizontal space on either side of the alignment the berm in this area will vary between 30 and zero depending on the amount of available space. After it has left the eastern section it will switch to a traditional rural berm of 30’ for the remainder of the route as it

approaches state college.

In addition to the space constraints the eastern portion of this proposed alignment has some of the more extreme topography in the corridor. These grade changes will be handed with the most economical combination of cut, fill, and elevated bridges. As, an added function these

elevated bridges will allow many local roads to remain unchanged which ensures continued access for local commuters and travelers. Though this recommendation delivers the highest

possible level of performance the following two other more economical recommendations were evaluated so that they could be compared to the four lane bypass.

From the CAD drawings attached in the report, all the detailed design elements are

shown. There are 11 horizontal curves and 14 vertical curves in the entire roadway. The required minimum design radius is 760 feet and minimum K values, which measure the changes of grade for vertical curve, are 61 for crest and 79 for sag. All the design criteria are met in the new Four-

lane highway design.

Recommendation 2 proposed the design and construction of a truck climbing lane. This

climbing lane is necessary due to the large traffic volumes which are composed of 17%-20% truck traffic. This will address the issue of queuing that currently exists as truck speeds decrease

by 10 plus mph. Not only will this help traffic flow but it will also decrease the possibility of rear end accidents due to approaching the queuing at a higher rate of speed.

One climbing lane will be installed east bound and two will be installed west bound on 322. All approaches are 12:1 and end transitions are 60:1. Climbing lanes will terminate when

truck traffic attain a speed within 10 mph of other vehicles and at least 40 mph. The goal is to start the transition when trucks get to 45 mph to ease the transition process. The East bound climbing lane approach will start at station 590+50 and be in full transition at station 591+94

until station 678+02. Station 678+02 will begin the end transition, which will end at 685+22. This lane starts at the first speed drop and is carried to the last speed reduction for consistency in

the roadway. The first West bound climbing lane approach will start at station 632+60 and be in full transition at station 631+16 until station 596+93. Station 596+93 will begin the end transition, which will end at 589+73. The second climbing lane approach will start at station

330+41 and be in full transition at station 328+39 until station 323+40. Station 323+40 will begin the end transition, which will end at 316+20. See below for average travel speed and

percent time spent following improvements between existing and proposed.

TABEL 2: Comparison of No Climbing Lane Versus Climbing Lane

RT 322

W/O Climbing

Lane Climbing Lane Both

Segment Station ATS PTSF ATS PTSF LOS

West

Bound 5487-6417

631+16-

596+93 24.86 97.74 37.83 94.41 E

35870-

36696

328+39-

323+40 20.65 98.36 36.28 97.89 E

East

Bound

33829-

35005

591+94-

678+02 24.86 97.74 37.83 94.41 E

During construction a temporary travel lane will be paved to construct the first climbing lane. Traffic will then sift to use one of the existing travel lanes and the new temporary lane. This

will give adequate room to construct and tie in the climbing lane to the existing. Traffic will then shift to the new climbing lane and existing travel lane to construct and tie in the second

climbing lane if lanes overlap.

See Appendix G for LOS calculations and truck speed profiles that contain climbing land

information. Cross section drawings for climbing lanes can also be found in the Construction Drawing, Section 2.

Another minor change is the reconstruction of part of the alignment. From station 470+00 to 530+00, there existed an “S” shape curve in the original horizontal alignment. Based on our

speed consistency and safety evaluation check, this design caused more crashes and speed drop than other sections of the highway. So it was planned to redesign this portion of the road. For the redesign of the “S” shape curve the new alignment included three horizontal curves and four

vertical curves. The alignment was drawn was the design speed of 55 miles per hour instead of 50 miles per hour like the original alignment. The change to the design speed was a

precautionary measure for the roadway. With an alignment being designed with a higher design speed it will be easier to see if the roadway is safer and has better speed consistency. The higher the design speed the more risks there will be on the alignment. Also the minimum radius for the

horizontal curve will larger for a design speed of 55 miles per hour than that of a horizontal curve with a design speed of 50 miles per hour. All three horizontal curves are larger than the

minimum curve radius of 960.3 feet and the width of each lane is 12 feet. All four vertical crest curves were designed with the K value of 114 and none of the grades for the vertical curves exceeded 5 %. The redesign that was chosen will have the least environmental impacts as other

designs would have. The biggest environment impact the new alignment has is the amount of earthwork that has to be done. Overall the new alignment for the “S” shape curve is a lot better

than the original as can be seen in Appendix H. Appendix H shows the crash prediction data and speed consistency graphs that show good speed consistency for the new alignment.

The following design criteria are based on the assumption that Route 322 will be upgraded to a four lane limited access highway.

Design vehicle - Interstate Semitrailer [WB-67] Design vehicle with 53.0 ft. trailer as grandfathered in the 1982 Surface Transportation

Assistance Act Minimum Design turning Radius - 44.8 ft.

Center line turning radius (CTR) - 41.0 ft. Minimum inside radius - 1.9 ft. Projected design traffic volume 20 years with 2.2% per year

Between Jacks Mill Road and Elks Club Road - 19,959.1 Between Sharer Road and Wagner Road - 18,144.64

Between Dogtown Road and mountain Back/Red Mill Road- 16,934.99 The design speed chosen is 55 miles per hour because of how the existing four lane

highway runs into the proposed highway is 55 miles per hour. Also, criteria based on a ten miles per hour reduction from trucks.

The design K value for this highway is 114

The maximum vertical grade is going to be 5 % Superelevation - 8%

Minimum radius of Curve grade - 8 % Minimum radius for horizontal curves - 960.3 ft. Lane widths 12 ft.

Shoulder widths - median side 6 ft. and right side 10 ft.

Safety Evaluation of Design Alternatives

Safety Evaluation is essential for our four lane highway design. The original design gave

us a comparatively high crash prediction during peak hour, especially in the central part of the Route 322—between Sharer Road and Wagner Road. There are two reasons for the high crashing rate. First, two lane highway is a comparatively high accessing design. With an access

points/mile of 15, the vehicles running in the highway will consider more complex traffic situations. Second, two lane highway need to consider more adjusting factors on the crash

prediction, such as rumble strips, driveway density, superelevation and so forth. Based on these circumstances, our original safety from Appendix C, prediction has a total crash of 29.51 per year. The highest crash in certain area reaches 1.1 per year.

After our four lane highway design established, several new traffic performance was ensured. First, four lane highway did not have any access points for the entire highway; this

significantly decreased the crash potentials caused by vehicles entering the highway. Second, the safety evaluation for four lane highway only engages with three adjusting factors, which reveals

the proficiency for this design. In the new safety evaluation from Appendix F, the total predicted crash is only 12.61 for the entire highway. When comparing the corresponding sections, over 70% of the sections are improved on the safety evaluation. This give us a positive attitude to

carry on our for lane highway design in the future.

Safety evaluation is also essential to check our horizontal alignment improvement for the S curve between Sharer Road and Wagner Road. Our design is planning to adjust the traffic changes within this portion of roadway since it provide a comparatively worse speed consistency

and safety performance than any other sections of the Route 322.

The original safety evaluation is part of the safety evaluation on the last progress report.

By tracing the horizontal stations, this section is from 470+00 to 540+00 from west to east. By referring to the original safety evaluation in Appendix D, the total crashes in this section are 4.66

per year. The major issue in this section is this S curve. Based on the AASHTO Green Book, the design of the curve should consider the radius for curves and K values. In the former radius and K values check, the design value for this section almost surpasses the design criteria.

Considering the access points in this section, the horizontal radius, vertical grade and road side hazard rating, the predicted crashes are reasonably higher than other sections.

The ideal design is to redesign the horizontal alignment for this section. The new alignment will decrease the severe changes on the grade, so that the k values will become larger

to satisfy the Kmin for design criteria. In addition, the new alignment will clear all the trivial

curves. The new safety evaluation in Appendix H for this section is optimistic. The total crashes per year decrease to 3.94. That is a good sign for this improvement.

Operational Evaluation of Design Alternatives

A speed consistency evaluation was done for the major recommendation 1 of the four lanes divided highway and on the minor recommendation 3 of the redesign of the “S” shape curve on the original alignment. For recommendation one, the truck speed consistency evaluation

was done for the east bound and the west bound truck traffic. The truck speed consistency evaluation was done for the new four lane divided highway to see if there is any speed drops

over 6 miles per hour. If the alignment for the new four lanes divided highway has no speed drops over 6 miles per hour than the alignment will have good speed consistency. In Appendix B, the speed consistency graphs for the truck speed profile will show that there are no speed

drops more than 6 miles per hour for either the east bound or west bound direction. Since the graphs show no speed drops over 6 miles per hour means for the west bound and east bound

evaluation show they both have good geometric design consistency. This is an improvement from the original two lane highway because there were parts of the highway that showed the geometric design consistency to be fair instead of good like the new alignment, which is shown

in Appendix C. Also there were a lot more drops in speed on the old alignment than the new four lane highway. The graphs for the new four lane highway show a lot more consist travel speeds

with only a couple of changes to speed consistency.

For recommendation three, the speed consistency evaluation was done for both the

passenger cars and trucks for the new alignment. In Appendix D, the graph for passenger car speed consistency will show that the new alignment has good geometric design consistency. This

is an improvement from the original “S” shape curve alignment. There are around the same number of speed drops for both alignments but the speed drops for the new alignment have smaller speed drop values. The truck speed consistency evaluation showed a good speed

consistency also for the new alignment which can be seen in Appendix D. This is also an improvement from the past truck speed consistency evaluation which had some spots of fair

speed drop consistencies. The improvement is especially seen in the west bound truck speed consistency which had the worst speed drops on the original “S” curve. The new alignment of the “S” curve showed to have better speed consistencies for both the passenger and truck profiles

for either direction.

The HCS software gives us a similar prediction on the safety evaluation. Referred from Appendix F, the original two lane highway have a level of service of D for the passenger cars, if considering passing lane influence, the level of service will drop to E. The major reasons for this

low performance are the same as the safe evaluation part. Once the four lane highway design is established, the level of service is A. The clearance of access points and other safety issues we

need to consider provide a predictably optimistic result on the level of service. This result supported the development of the four lane highway.

Recommended Design Improvement

Based on the all the recommended designs, the benefits and costs are listed and compared for future development. The four lane highway design should be the most suitable and efficient

recommendation. This design will clear most of the influence from the surrounding environment. Most of the unsatisfied vertical and horizontal curves are redesigned and provided a smoother grade change and horizontal curve change. Furthermore, on the safety evaluation and speed

consistency check, four lane divided highway provide an optimistic result. The total predicted crashes per year are decreased from 29.51 to 12.61, and over 70% of the sections are improved.

In the two lane highway design, the speed drop surpassed 6 miles per hour in the Jacks Mill Road and Elks Club Road section and Dogtown Road and mountain Back/Red Mill Road section, after the new design applied, there is no speed drop than 6 mile per hour in either east or

west bound. Also, since the four lane highway will eliminate all the access points to the highway, the mobility will be effectively ensured. From the level of service comparison, the new design

changes the overall level of service from D to A.

The two minor changes also provide considerably effective improvement in certain

sections. For the climbing lane design, the original speed drop for the trucks in there sections are 10 plus miles per hour. Based on the Average Total Speed (ATS) and Percent Time-Spent-

Following (PTSF) calculated, the level of service in these sections of road is only E. After the climbing lanes are applied, the PTSF is decreased for 1.7 percent averagely for all the sections, and ATS is increased for 13 mph for all the sections.

For the horizontal alignment changes for the S curve in Sharer Road and Wagner Road

sections, the original road way section provide a poor safety evaluation and speed consistency results. The total crashes for this section is 4.6 per year, and the speed drop for this section is over 10 mile per hour for trucks and a 3 mile per hour drop in the east bound and 7 mile per hour

drop in the west bound for passenger cars. After the new alignment is applied, the predicted crashes decreased to 3.94 per year. The speed drop for trucks decreased to 2.5 miles per hour and

speed drop for passenger cars decreased to 1.6 miles per hour.

Having considered all the benefits and cost it will provide for all the recommendations,

the major recommendation will be adopted and developed in the future. Four lane highway can provide the most direct and efficient changes for Route 322. Also, four lane divided highway

will improve 322 for the entire scale rather than just improve portion of this highway, so that it will benefit for future traffic volume increasing.

Pavement Design for Recommended Alternative

Pavement design is the most essential portion for our four-lane highway design. The

detailed design procedures are based on the AASHTO Green Book. For the rigid pavement design, groups should assume a 20 year design life. For the flexible pavement design, a 10 year

design life was assumed. A three-inch surface course overlay at year 10 and year 15 were completed to reach a 20 year design life. The equivalent single axle loads (ESALs) were given for a 5-axle semi-tractor trail to be 2.33 and 2.4 for flexible and rigid pavement respectively.

The ESALs were then multiplied by 210 trucks as 210 was the base year truck traffic to determine the ESALs in a given day. Next, the ESALs per day were mulipied by 365 days to

determine the total ESALs per year. The following equation was used to expand the total ESALs from year 1 to year 10, 15 and 20: ESAL at year # = Truck/per (yr1)*1.022^ (yr#). Refer to

Appendix I for pavement design. Corresponding design monographs were used for flexible pavement to determine the structural number (SN) and rigid pavement to determine the slab

depth. The following information was used to determine the SN of 5 and slab thickness of 8”: Concrete Modulus of Rupture (S’c) = 630 lb/in2; Concrete Elastic Modulus (Ec) = 4 x 10^6 lb/in2; Subgrade Reaction Modulus (k) = 160 pci; Standard deviation (rigid)(S0)= 0.35; Standard

deviation (flexible) (S0) = 0.45; Load transfer coefficient (J) = 3.2; Drainage coefficients (M or Cd) = 1.0; CBR = 8; PSI = 4.2; TSI = 2.5; ΔPSI = 1.7; Reliability (R) = 90%; Minimum surface

(wearing course) thickness for flexible pavement = 4 inches.

Calculations were completed to determine the construction cost of both flexible and rigid

pavements. Flexible pavement contains three layers (wearing, base and subbase). The depth of the layers were dependent the SN and cost. Preliminary depths were ran to determine the total

cost per yd²/inch thick. The cheapest combination of surface course ($2.82 yd²/inch thick), hot mix asphalt base course ($4.25 yd²/inch thick) and No. 2A subbase course ($1.17 yd²/inch thick) was used. That combination is a 5” wearing course, 5” hot mix asphalt base course and 8” No.

2A subbase course. The total cost for flexible pavement is $113,120,945.25, while rigid pavement is $123,879,520.36. From this analysis, the flexible pavement was chosen to construct

US Route 322 as it is roughly $10.76 million cheaper. Refer to Appendix J for construction cost.

Construction Cost Estimate for Recommended Alternative

Referring to Appendix J for what follows in this section, it shows all of the calculations make up the construction cost estimate for the recommended alternative. The calculations start

off with the overall length of the new roadway and the total length of the Jersey Barrier on the project. Then it shows the total amount of inlets, concrete piping, and box culverts (10’x7’).

After finding the total quantities for each one, the cost was calculated using the unit cost sheet provided from lab.

Next, was to calculate the flexible and rigid pavements to figure out which one was the cheapest. For the flexible pavement the thickness of the wearing, base, and subbase was

accounted for along with the total area of the new four lane divided highway. The cost per unit was once again pulled from the sheet given in lab and the costs for all three parts of the flexible pavement were calculated. Also, the 10 year overlay and the 15 year overlay were calculated for

the flexible pavement. The overlay years were calculated because that is the typical lifespan and treatment time for flexible pavement. Then for the rigid pavement the slab thickness and the sub

base were accounted for along with the total area again. The cost per unit for rigid pavement was taken from the handout from lab. There was no need for an overlay for the rigid pavement because the lifespan for it is 20 years.

The next quantity that needed to be calculated was the bridges that were needed along the

new four lane divided highway. There were a total of eleven bridges along the new highway and all of the lengths were found using the CADD drawings. The width for each bridge was found to be 30 feet and all the areas of the bridges were calculated. The cost per unit of the bridge was

175 dollars were coming from the handout from lab and an individual cost for each bridge was

calculated. Then the individual cost of each bridge was added to the total prices of the flexible and rigid pavement. Finally, the cut and fill of the project was calculated and the total cost of

each bridge was also calculated. This includes the amount cost of the right-of-way that will be taken up by the new four lane divided highway. We used vacant rural land cost when calculating

the right-of-way cost. Then all of those costs were added the recent total cost of the flexible and rigid pavements. For this project the total cost for flexible pavement was $113,120,945.25 and the total for rigid pavement was $123,879,520.36. In conclusion, the flexible pavement for the

new highway is cheaper than the rigid pavement. Benefit-Cost Analysis for Recommended Alternative

AASHTO User and Non-User Benefit Analysis for Highways wizard will provide a

convenient way to calculate the Benefit-Cost Analysis for the entire project. In the Construction Cost Section above, all the criteria for construction cost are already obtained. However, there is more inputs need to be clarified and checked to begin the software calculation. In the appendix,

all the input items and their values are shown. Based on the AASHTO Red Book, most of the values are set based on correlating criteria.

However, the Four-lane highway project has its own characteristics on some input items

so that some of the values are changed. These values are explained in the following paragraphs.

For input No. 26, Base Case accident data and No.30, Improved Case accident data, the

annual crashes are measured and calculated based on the real situations. The annual crashes for Two-lane highway are measured from the original data and Four-lane highway is calculated from safety evaluation.

For input No.20, cost estimate, the project cost is recalculated based on the following

aspects: The detailed data is shown on the Table 3 attached in the Appendix. Based on our calculation, the Right-of-way cost is $19,312,986.24 and construction cost is $113,120,943.25. The rest of

the cost values remain default number.

For No. 21, accident data, based on our assumption, the Four-lane highway did not engage with too much construction stuff. As a result, the property damage decreased to 3, injury decreased to 3 and the fatality is totally avoided.

For No.24, base case traffic data and No. 28, improved case traffic data, the default

number are not useful. The daily two-directional traffic volume is 13,746 vehicles/day for base and 19,959.1 veh/day for improved case. And the free-flow speed is 50 mph hour for base and 55 mph for improved, instead of 60. These changes are based on our measurements on Route 322

for these years.

For No. 25, base case user class data, the percentage of passenger cars and trucks are slightly different from the default number, specifically, 81% for PCs and 19% for trucks.

There are several assumptions on the input tabular.

1. The first assumption is on accident data on construction. Our assumption is based on the

general performance and data observed for Four-lane highway. There is very few accidents caused by Four-lane highway construction since most of the construction will occur without

traffic. Only if the new 4-lane construction is finished will the traffic happen. 2. The second assumption is in No.27, Annual agency operation costs for the base year. For

the length of U.S. Route 322, a total cost of $120,000 is a fair estimate.

3. The third assumption is on Annual agency operating costs for the opening year. The snow removal is $100,000. $70,000 is planned for Guardrail, Pavement Deficiency, and Pavement Drop off, vegetation control, litter, drainage, signs and pavement marking. These numbers are

justifies on the general situations of the project.

4. The fourth assumption is terminal value. $0 is assumed for the value of the project brought at the end of its service life.

5. The fifth assumption is for K-factors and D-factors. From the real situation data, K=0.135 and D=0.6.

Once all the inputs are obtained or calculated, they can be plugged into the

RedbookWizard to calculate the outputs. From the final summary results, positive performance is

shown in most of the aspects. The user value of time benefits is $408,572,516, which is a considerably high value. This reveals a huge amount of time will be saved for vehicles traveling

in this road in the future. Also, the operating and operational savings is $86,434, the accident savings is $52,926,624. The huge number savings in accident field will be good news for this project, since people will always prefer to drive in a safer highway. The total user costs

associated with the Four-lane highway is $ 118,101,106

Compared to the user costs, the Four-lane highway provides total user benefits of $460,341,231. The net benefits are $342,240,125 and the benefit-cost ratio is 3.898. This reveals that the Four-lane highway will provide more benefits than the existing conditions.

Summary

The existing traffic issues were analyzed on U.S. Route 322, PA Route 144 and PA Route 45. Route 322 currently provides inadequate flow with its current volume of traffic. Areas of

the existing roadway also provide fair design consistency for passenger cars while poor design consistency for trucks in the same stretch of roadway. Other areas of the alignment pose unsafe maneuvers that could be removed. Addition capacity consideration, safety improvements and

non-traditional transportation alternatives are primary considerations when designing the proposed recommendations.

Various features such as radii, k-values, safety and speed consistency evaluations of existing 322 were evaluated between Boalsburg and Potters Mills. During this time multiple

recommendations were made to handle the traffic growth rate of 2.2% annually. These

recommendations were then reduced to 3 and AADT values were projected for 2034. The 3 recommendations are as followed.

Recommendation 1 proposed a four lane divided highway. This alignment was based on

preliminary environmental inventory and priorities avoiding existing development and environmental hazards.

Recommendation 2 proposed the design and construction of a truck climbing lane. This was determined from the evaluation of the truck speed profile in both east and west bound lanes as truck traffic consists of 17%-20% of the total traffic. The justification of the climbing was

completed in Deliverable 1.

Recommendation 3 proposed the removal of an S-bend in the existing horizontal alignment. This recommendation was based on a drop in speed consistency and an increase rate in accidents at this point of the alignment.

Furthermore, design controls and criteria were discussed and recommendations were

designed to this criterion. The design speed was determined to be 55mph due to connecting old four lane alignments to the proposed alignment.

Data was then collected to and evaluated of the general traffic performance of U.S. Route 322. Based on the results, the three recommendations were designed to improve the safety and efficiency of US RT 322. Essential evaluations, including safety evaluation, speed consistency

check, HCS software check, climbing lane performance check were applied for certain recommendations in order to reach a detailed prediction for future performance. After all the

evaluations, the three recommendations were weighed based on the benefits and costs they provided in the future. In the end, four lane divided highway was finally adopted as the future solution to carry through to final design.

The construction cost is then calculated based on the planning design. The following

criteria are considered in the construction cost: 1. Elementary construction facilities, this includes Jersey barriers, inlets, concrete

pipes and 10’x7’ box culvert.

2. Pavement construction, this includes flexible pavement and rigid pavement. Different categories on pavement will meet different traffic situations and design

constants. 3. Bridge construction, there is a consistent design for all the bridges required. Cost

is predicted based on the length of the bridge.

4. Excavation cost, the new Four-lane highway required cut and fill to improve the consistency of the roadway, and the new cost is calculated based on the overall

roadway scale.

With all the cost and benefit calculated, the ASSHTO RedBookWizard will be applied to

reach the benefit-cost analysis. All the required inputs are evaluated. Some of them are calculated based on the actual traffic conditions of Route 322, others are the AASHTO default

values. The final benefit-cost analysis is attached in Appendix L. the Four-lane highway provides total user benefits of $460,341,231. The net benefits are $342,240,125 and the benefit-cost ratio is 3.898. Other detailed criteria are all performed in positive ways in the final analysis. The

results proved that Four-lane highway design will be an effective solution for the current traffic problems. Also, it will be a beneficial design for future transportation demand in Pennsylvania.

** Reference the Construction Drawing booklet for all drawings.**

APPENDIX A

Intersection Turning Movement Count Data

US Route 322 and Wagner Road

US Route 322 and Taylor Hill Road

Note: Vehicle through movements along US Route 322 at Taylor Hill Road intersection must be

derived from Wagner Road data.

US Route 322 and Neff Road

US Route 322 and Mountain Back/Red Mill Road

US Route 322 and PA Route 144

Appendix B

K-value and Radius Evaluation

PVI

StationElevation Type K min K

Less Than

K minA G1 G2 VCL

308+68.24 1194.38 Crest

313+36.34 1196.95 Sag 79 230.840 2.166 2.154 4.32 500

323+03.77 1238.74 Crest 61 60.144 X 12.470 4.32 -8.15 750

331+49.12 1169.85 Sag 79 52.836 X 8.517 -8.15 0.367 450

336+61.67 1171.73 Sag 79 50.000 X 4.000 0.367 4.367 200

340+78.85 1189.94 Crest 61 30.800 X 8.117 4.367 -3.75 250

345+08.10 1173.85 Sag 79 43.764 X 4.570 -3.75 0.82 200

352+22.22 1179.7 Sag 79 185.185 1.620 0.82 2.44 300

358+21.28 1194.32 Crest 61 106.383 0.940 2.44 1.5 100

374+86.99 1219.3 Crest 61 51.387 X 0.973 1.5 0.527 50

379+52.63 1221.76 Crest 61 114.207 2.189 0.527 -1.662 250

386+11.68 1210.81 Sag 79 129.702 1.542 -1.662 -0.12 200

402+82.47 1208.8 Crest 61 25.773 X 3.880 -0.12 -4 100

406+1226 1195.61 Sag 79 24.374 X 10.257 -4 6.257 250

410+50.00 1223 Crest 61 78.247 1.917 6.257 4.34 150

416+32.03 1248.26 Crest 61 52.083 X 3.840 4.34 0.5 200

421+40.68 1250.8 Crest 61 59.322 X 5.900 0.5 -5.4 350

426+78.41 1221.77 Sag 79 62.180 X 7.237 -5.4 1.837 450

436+72.44 1240.03 No Curve - 0.000 3.130 1.837 4.967 0

440+00.00 1256.3 Crest 61 96.759 2.067 4.967 2.9 200

443+00.00 1265 Sag 79 278.293 1.078 2.9 3.978 300

453+34.83 1306.16 Crest 61 101.010 4.950 3.978 -0.972 500

460+00.00 1299.7 Crest 61 217.707 1.378 -0.972 -2.35 300

464+26.70 1289.67 Sag 79 162.866 1.842 -2.35 -0.508 300

483+69.04 1279.8 Sag 79 320.770 3.741 -0.508 3.233 1200

491+92.25 1306.42 Crest 61 63.385 4.733 3.233 -1.5 300

497+68.97 1297.77 Sag 79 86.207 5.800 -1.5 4.3 500

502+79.08 1319.7 Crest 61 38.126 X 9.180 4.3 -4.88 350

509+62.04 1286.37 Sag 79 45.620 X 5.480 -4.88 0.6 250

513+61.90 1288.77 Crest 61 81.103 3.699 0.6 -3.099 300

520+00.00 1269 Crest 61 123.254 2.434 -3.099 -5.533 300

523+00.00 1252.4 Sag 79 252.101 1.190 -5.533 -4.343 300

530+00.00 1222 Sag 79 162.778 1.843 -4.343 -2.5 300

534+93.25 1209.67 Sag 79 45.161 X 7.750 -2.5 5.25 350

542+21.82 1247.92 Crest 61 51.282 X 9.750 5.25 -4.5 500

546+60.00 1228.2 Sag 79 36.383 X 5.497 -4.5 0.997 200

550+44.19 1232.03 Crest 61 44.042 X 7.947 0.997 -6.95 350

555+54.31 1196.58 Sag 79 45.383 X 8.263 -6.95 1.313 375

567+76.60 1212.62 Crest 61 51.185 X 6.838 1.313 -5.525 350

574+05.16 1177.89 Sag 79 56.338 X 5.325 -5.525 -0.2 300

581+89.47 1176.32 Sag 79 61.404 X 5.700 -0.2 5.5 350

592+34.62 1233.8 Crest 61 82.413 6.067 5.5 -0.567 500

605+63.16 1226.28 Crest 61 65.789 X 5.700 -0.567 -6.267 375

613+07.55 1179.63 Sag 79 39.473 X 14.567 -6.267 8.3 575

619+68.87 1234.52 Crest 61 37.250 X 10.067 8.3 -1.767 375

625+97.41 1223.41 Crest 61 69.952 6.433 -1.767 -8.2 450

635+12.70 1148.36 Sag 79 73.046 X 8.214 -8.2 0.014 600

647+19.99 1148.53 Sag 79 49.857 X 8.023 0.014 8.037 400

658+92.15 1242.74 Crest 61 41.125 X 6.687 8.037 1.35 275

664+63.39 1250.46 Sag 79 91.075 5.490 1.35 6.84 500

673+12.56 1308.54 Crest 61 49.432 X 10.115 6.84 -3.275 500

679+00.00 1289.3 Sag 79 97.752 2.046 -3.275 -1.229 200

690+23.32 1275.5 Crest 61 107.239 1.865 -1.229 -3.094 200

No data available

Radius of

Curve

(feet)

260+85.41 S 88o24’00” E 32

o09’30” Right 2

o15’ 2546.64 759.1442

291+50.54 N 78o57’00” E 12

o39’00” Left 2

o00’ 2864.93 759.1442

303+02.64 N 87o13’30” E 8

o16’30” Right 1

o30’ 3819.83 759.1442

315+12.55 N 85o15’30” E 1

o58’00” Left 1

o00’ 5729.65 759.1442

339+44.64 N 87o23’00” E 2

o07’30” Right 1

o00’ 5729.65 759.1442

370+39.10 N 62o23’00” E 25

o00’00” Left 3

o15’ 1763.18 759.1442

382+52.53 N 57o12’00” E 5

o11’00” Left 2

o15’ 2546.64 759.1442

393+35.01 N 73o31’00” E 16

o19’00” Right 1

o30’ 3819.83 759.1442

405+00.75 N 56o10’00” E 17

o21’00” Left 3

o30’ 1637.28 759.1442

417+79.14 N 81o01’30” E 24

o51’30” Right 3

o30’ 1637.28 759.1442

435+90.64 N 57o02’30” E 23

o59’00” Left 3

o00’ 1910.08 759.1442

451+06.46 N 70o01’30” E 12

o59’00” Right 2

o00’ 2864.93 759.1442

460+25.04 N 65o16’00” E 4

o45’30” Left 1

o00’ 5729.65 759.1442

486+91.22 S 57o59’00” E 56

o45’00” Right 4

o00’ 1432..69 759.1442

502+99.76 N 67o33’30” E 54

o27’30” Left 5

o00’ 1146.28 759.1442

516+12.48 N 66o34’30” E 0

o59’00” Left No curve No curve 759.1442

526+21.35 N 52o36’30” E 13

o58’00” Left 4

o00’ 1432.69 759.1442

538+68.30 N 78o20’30” E 25

o44’00” Right 4

o00’ 1432.69 759.1442

550+51.23 N 74o17’30” E 4

o03’00” Left 1

o00’ 5729.65 759.1442

564+17.09 N 78o46’30” E 4

o29’00” Right 1

o00’ 5729.65 759.1442

614+78.38 S 84o23’30” E 16

o50’00” Right 1

o30’ 3819.83 759.1442

673+02.89 S 76o02’30” E 8

o21’00” Right 1

o00’ 5729.65 759.1442

Gravitational 32.2 ft/s^2

Vehical Speed 73.33333 ft/s

side friction 0.14

road way super elv 8

OK

Passing but close

Below min

Min

Design

Radius

PI Station Bearing Ahead

Curve

Deflection

Angle

Direction

of Curve

Degree of

Curve

Appendix C

Safety Evaluation (Existing Alignment)

Safety Evaluation

Appendix D

Speed Consistency (Existing 322)

Passenger Cars

54.00

55.00

56.00

57.00

58.00

59.00

60.00

61.00

62.00

63.00

30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000 60000 65000 70000

Spee

d (M

PH

)

Distance (ft)

EastBound Design Speed Consistency

54.00

55.00

56.00

57.00

58.00

59.00

60.00

61.00

62.00

63.00

64.00

25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000 60000 65000 70000

Spee

d (m

ph

)

Stations (feet)

EastBound Design Speed Consistency

Trucks

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

0.0 10000.0 20000.0 30000.0 40000.0 50000.0

Sp

ee

d (m

ph

)

Distance (ft)

TRUCK SPEED PROFILE FOR 322 East Bound

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

0.0 5000.0 10000.0 15000.0 20000.0 25000.0 30000.0 35000.0 40000.0 45000.0

Sp

ee

d (m

ph

)

Distance (ft)

TRUCK SPEED PROFILE FOR 322 West Bound

Appendix E

Environmental and Resource Inventory

Appendix F

Major Change: Four-lane Highway

Safety Evaluation for Four-lane Divided Highway

EL H L AADT Nbr (crash/yr) CMFlw CMFs CMFmw Nrs

1 Tan 182.21 11566.33 0.049924496 1 1 1 0.049924

2 Curve 1034.92 11566.33 0.283562149 1 1 1 0.283562

3 Tan 1439.83 11566.33 0.394505168 1 1 1 0.394505

4 Curve 833.68 11562.25 0.228339018 1 1 1 0.228339

5 Tan 613.61 11562.25 0.168063412 1 1 1 0.168063

6 Curve 673.62 11553.33 0.184350415 1 1 1 0.18435

7 Tan 1701.34 11553.33 0.465607813 1 1 1 0.465608

8 Curve 740.69 11544.33 0.202539903 1 1 1 0.20254

9 Tan 2281.29 11544.33 0.623813276 1 1 1 0.623813

10 Curve 513.49 11550 0.140484952 1 1 1 0.140485

11 Tan 2993.42 11546.91 0.818735414 1 1 1 0.818735

12 Curve 723.38 11546.91 0.197852899 1 1 1 0.197853

13 Tan 788.52 11546.91 0.215669451 1 1 1 0.215669

14 Tan 104.51 11568 0.028639478 1 1 1 0.028639

15 Curve 346.56 11568 0.094969836 1 1 1 0.09497

16 Tan 4436.51 11585.8 1.217724891 1 1 1 1.217725

17 Curve 334.83 11585.8 0.091903506 1 1 1 0.091904

18 Tan 1716.32 11585.8 0.471092274 1 1 1 0.471092

19 Curve 364.47 11585.8 0.100039038 1 1 1 0.100039

20 Tan 1247.67 11543.2 0.341137336 1 1 1 0.341137

21 Curve 263.96 11543.2 0.072171817 1 1 1 0.072172

22 Tan 1092.57 11543.2 0.298729968 1 1 1 0.29873

23 Curve 417.13 11543.2 0.114051486 1 1 1 0.114051

24 Tan 198.71 11569.6 0.054461548 1 1 1 0.054462

25 Tan 710.79 11589.78 0.195166602 1 1 1 0.195167

26 Curve 1362.48 11589.78 0.374105703 1 1 1 0.374106

27 Tan 2212.57 11552.5 0.605471124 1 1 1 0.605471

28 Curve 304.34 11552.5 0.083282826 1 1 1 0.083283

29 Tan 1565.24 11552.5 0.428328876 1 1 1 0.428329

30 Curve 217.85 11552.5 0.059614785 1 1 1 0.059615

31 Tan 2010.22 11557.83 0.550364163 1 1 1 0.550364

32 Curve 862.89 11557.83 0.236244656 1 1 1 0.236245

33 Tan 2501.69 11582.67 0.686464554 1 1 1 0.686465

34 Curve 239.87 11582.67 0.065820406 1 1 1 0.06582

35 Tan 3981.2 11568 1.090991199 1 1 1 1.090991

36 Curve 669.08 11568 0.183351852 1 1 1 0.183352

37 Tan 4357.08 11585.8 1.195923095 1 1 1 1.195923

Speed Consistency for Four-lane Highway

HCS Evaluation for Two Lane (Existing 322)

HCS Evaluation for Four-lane Divided Highway

Appendix G

Climbing Lane

LOS No Climbing Lane

LOS With Climbing Lane

East Bound Climbing Lane

Details

West Bound Climbing Lane

Details

Appendix H

New Horizontal Alignment Design

Safety Evaluation for New Horizontal Alignment Design

Original Design

New Design

EL H L F AADT Nbr (crash/yr) CMFlw CMFs CMFh CMFv CMFdd CMFrs CMFpl CMFrhr Nrs

1 Tan 48.94 0.45 11544.33 0.028588526 1 0.92538 1 1.1 1.102882 0.94 1 1.069082 0.03225318

2 Curve 1210.71 0.1 11544.33 0.707241808 1 0.92538 1.20307842 1.1 1.102882 0.94 1 1.069082 0.95993667

3 Tan 253.9 0.1 11544.33 0.148316851 1 0.92538 1 1.1 1.102882 0.94 1 1.069082 0.167329

4 Curve 832.38 0.1 11544.33 0.486238601 1 0.92538 1.34011645 1.1 1.102882 0.94 1 1.069082 0.73514447

5 Tan 1273.65 0.1 11544.33 0.744008498 1 0.92538 1 1.1 1.102882 0.94 1 1.069082 0.83938

6 Curve 273.03 0.2 11550 0.159570063 1 0.92538 2.03690486 1.1 1.102808 0.94 1 1.069082 0.36666846

7 Tan 1285.6 0.2 11550 0.751357994 1 0.92538 1 1.1 1.102808 0.94 1 1.069082 0.84761437

EL H L F AADT Nbr (crash/yr) CMFlw CMFs CMFh CMFv CMFdd CMFrs CMFpl CMFrhr Nrs

27 Curve 1419.04 0.2 11550 0.829345868 1 0.92538 1.1344 1.1 1.102808 0.94 1 1.069082 1.06133699

28 Tan 373.5 0.2 11550 0.218288901 1 0.92538 1 1.1 1.102808 0.94 1 1.069082 0.24625386

29 Curve 1089.51 0.1 11544.33 0.636442271 1 0.92538 1.2188 1.1 1.102882 0.94 1 1.069082 0.87512922

30

31 Tan 1646.43 0.1 11544.33 0.961769648 1 0.92538 1 1.1 1.102882 0.94 1 1.069082 1.08505509

32

33 Curve 349.24 0.1 11544.33 0.20401015 1 0.92538 1.546 1.1 1.102882 0.94 1 1.069082 0.35582953

34 Tan 745.95 0.1 11544.33 0.435750119 1 0.92538 1 1.1 1.102882 0.94 1 1.069082 0.4916072

35 Curve 643.47 0.45 11553.33 0.376178998 1 0.92538 1.2963 1.1 1.102764 0.94 1 1.069082 0.55009063

Speed Consistency of Passenger Cars for New Horizontal Alignment Design

Original Design

Eastbound

Westbound

New Design

Eastbound

Westbound

62.00

62.20

62.40

62.60

62.80

63.00

63.20

63.40

63.60

63.80

64.00

0.00 1000.00 2000.00 3000.00 4000.00 5000.00

Spe

ed

(mp

h)

Distance(feet)

EastBound Design Speed Consistency

62.00

62.20

62.40

62.60

62.80

63.00

63.20

63.40

63.60

63.80

64.00

0.00 1000.00 2000.00 3000.00 4000.00 5000.00

Spe

ed

(mp

h)

Distance(feet)

WestBound Design Speed Consistency

Speed Consistency of Trucks for new horizontal alignment design

New Design

Appendix I

Pavement Design

Mat

eri

al

De

pth

(in

) (1

)D

ep

th (

in)

(2)

De

pth

(in

) (3

)

We

arin

g 5

44

Rig

id D

ep

th8"

Bas

e5

74

Sub

bas

e8

415

Car

s ES

AL

SN M

ust

Be

5

Co

st44

.71

45.7

145

.83

Fle

x0.

0002

Rig

id0.

0002

Mr

1200

0

Equ

ival

en

t Si

ngl

e A

xle

(Tr

uck

s/d

ay)

Tru

ck/Y

r (y

r 1)

Tru

ck/Y

r (y

r10)

Tru

ck/Y

r (y

r15)

Tru

ck/Y

r (y

r20)

Fle

xib

le48

9.3

1785

94.5

2220

123.

011

3712

981.

422

5519

706.

58

Rig

id50

418

3960

3824

530.

2256

8553

4.67

5

SN(u

sed

a1:

Ho

t-m

ix;a

2;H

ot-

mix

Asp

h C

on

; a3:

cru

sh s

ton

e)

Fle

xib

leD

esi

gn 1

De

sign

2D

esi

gn 3

SN5.

085

5.01

Appendix J

Construction Cost

Item East Mid West Total yards Cost

Length of four lane 14520.02 10504.15 20956.14 45980.31 15326.77

Jersey barrier 3300.00 0.00 0.00 3300.00 $150,249.00

Inlets 38.04 0.00 0.00 38.04 $77,059.23 29.33333333

concrete pipe 14920.00 0.00 0.00 14920.00 $29,840.00

Box Culvert (10'x7') 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 $1,769.50

type thickness Area cost per cost total cost 10 year overlay 15 year overlay

Flexible wearing 5.00 449585.25 2.82 $6,339,152.07 total so far with flex total so far with rigid

base 5.00 4.25 $9,553,686.63 $20,359,874.41 $36,189,771.18

subbase 8.00 1.17 $4,208,117.97 $20,359,874.41 73,243,116.18$

Rigid slab 8.00 8.82 $31,722,735.48

subbase 8.00 1.17 $4,208,117.97

bridges length width area cost per total

1.00 976.77 30.00 29303.10 175.00 5,128,042.50$

1.00 976.77 30.00 29303.10 175.00 5,128,042.50$

1.00 688.91 30.00 20667.30 175.00 3,616,777.50$

1.00 688.91 30.00 20667.30 175.00 3,616,777.50$

1.00 1663.21 30.00 49896.30 175.00 8,731,852.50$

1.00 1663.21 30.00 49896.30 175.00 8,731,852.50$

1.00 400.00 30.00 12000.00 175.00 2,100,000.00$

1.00 339.05 30.00 10171.50 175.00 1,780,012.50$ Total with flex total with rigid

1.00 339.05 30.00 10171.50 175.00 1,780,012.50$ $113,120,945.25 $123,879,520.36

1.00 443.04 30.00 13291.20 175.00 2,325,960.00$

1.00 443.04 30.00 13291.20 175.00 2,325,960.00$

Excavation

cut 13,980,924.63$

fill 9,130,548.32$

right-of-way 19,312,986.24$

$20,100,956.68

$35,930,853.45

2,535,660.83$ 2,535,660.83$

Appendix K

Inputs for RedbookWizard

Input items and values for wizard

Input Item Value

Number of segments to analyze 1

Year construction begins 2014

Year operation begins 2018

Last year of analysis period 2034

Base year 2014

Name of User Class 1 PCs

Name of User Class 2 Trucks

Vehicle Type for User Class 1 All cars

Vehicle Type for User Class 2 All trucks

Vehicle Occupancy for User Class 1 (persons) 1.50

Vehicle Occupancy for User Class 2 (persons) 1.05

Value of Time for User Class 1 (base-year dollars) $16.50

Value of Time for User Class 2 (base-year dollars) $24.85

Fuel Cost for User Class 1 (base-year dollars per gallon) $3.67

Fuel Cost for User Class 2 (base-year dollars per gallon) $3.96

Percent of Operating Costs that are fuel (percentage points) 13.00

Real discount rate (percentage points) 4.00

Inflation rate (percentage points) 2.00

Financing rate (percentage points) 2.00

Financing term (years) 10.00

Issuance cost (% of amount financed) (percentage points) 5.00

General traffic growth rate (percentage points) 2.20

Annual Growth of Value of Time (percentage points) 1.50

Average Truckload Value (base-year dollars) $50,000

Market Interest Rate for truckload value (percentage points) 6.00

Average Commercial Cargo Value (base-year dollars)

Market Interest Rate for Commercial Cargo Value (percentage

points)

Cost per property damage accident (base-year dollars) $3,900

Cost per injusr accident (base-year dollars) $138,100

Cost per fatal accident (base-year dollars) $3,723,700

Name of Construction Management Alternative 1

Four Lane US

322

Choice to proceed with extension

Segment input items and values for wizard

Input Item Value

Names given to segments US Route 322

Functional Class of each segment Rural other

principal arterial

Improvement Type for each segment Additional lanes

Segment Length without improvement (miles) 7.14

Segment Length with improvement (miles) 8.70

Base peak-direction, peak-hour volume (PCE per hour) 13746.00

Base peak-direction capacity (PCE per hour) 1700.00

Base Free Flow Speed (miles per hour) 50.00

Base Property-Damage Only Accidents (with base-year volume)

(accidents per year)

12.8000

Base Injury Accidents (with base-year volume) (accidents per year) 13.6000

Base Fatal Accidents (with base-year volume) (accidents per year) 0.8000

Base Operating Cost (base-year dollars) $120,000

Improved peak-direction, peak-hour volume (PCE per hour) 19960.00

Improved Capacity (PCE per hour) 3400.00

Improved Free Flow Speed (miles per hour) 55.00

Additional peak hour change in delay (hours per vehicle)

Highest exponent on volume

Improved Property-Damage Only Accidents (with opening-year volume)

(accidents per year)

8.5600

Improved Injury Accidents (with opening-year volume) (accidents per

year)

3.8800

Improved Fatal Accidents (with opening-year volume) (accidents per year) 0.1600

Improved Operating Cost (opening-year dollars) $170,000

K Factor (peak hour volume/daily volume) 4.35

D Factor (peak-direction volume/total volume) 1.00

Week Factor (weekly volume/weekday volume)

Month Factor (monthly volume/weekly volume)

Seasonal Factor (peak monthly volume/average monthly volume)

Percent of base peak-hour, peak-direction volume that is in User Class 1

(percentage points)

81.00

Percent of base peak-hour, peak-direction volume that is in User Class 2

(percentage points)

19.00

Percent of improved peak-hour, peak-direction volume that is in User

Class 1 (percentage points)

81.00

Percent of improved peak-hour, peak-direction volume that is in User

Class 2 (percentage points)

19.00

Terminal Value (base-year dollars) $0

K-Factor (This factor adjusts peak-hour volumes to daily volumes) User

Class 1

0.14

K-Factor (This factor adjusts peak-hour volumes to daily volumes) User

Class 2

0.14

K-Factor (This factor adjusts peak-hour volumes to daily volumes) User

Class 3

K-Factor (This factor adjusts peak-hour volumes to daily volumes) User

Class 4

K-Factor (This factor adjusts peak-hour volumes to daily volumes) User

Class 5

K-Factor (This factor adjusts peak-hour volumes to daily volumes) User

Class 6

D Factor (peak-direction volume/total volume) User Class 1 0.60

D Factor (peak-direction volume/total volume) User Class 2 0.60

D Factor (peak-direction volume/total volume) User Class 3

D Factor (peak-direction volume/total volume) User Class 4

D Factor (peak-direction volume/total volume) User Class 5

D Factor (peak-direction volume/total volume) User Class 6

User delay

Delay Choice 4.00

Daily two-directional traffic volume (vehicles per day)

Peak direction capacity (PCE per hour)

Daily two-directional traffic volume (vehicles per day)

Peak direction capacity (PCE per hour)

Weekday-to-Week Factor User Class 1 7.00

Weekday-to-Week Factor User Class 2 7.00

Construction Management Alternative 1

Construction Property-Damage Only Accidents (each) 3.0000

Construction Injury Accidents (each) 3.0000

Construction Fatal Accidents (each) 0.0000

Total delay during construction (vehicle hours) 0.00

Total extra VMT on detour route (vehicle miles) 0.00

Speed on detour route (miles per hour) 0.00

Right-of-way acquisition cost (construction-year dollars) $19,312,986

Planning and design cost (construction-year dollars) $11,312,094

Construction management cost (construction-year dollars) $11,312,094

Construction cost (construction-year dollars) $113,120,945

Appendix L

Benefit-Cost