11/7/2014 Route: US 40 City/Town: County 1 County 2 RP Start: Latitude Start: RP End: Latitude End: AADT Lo.: 4,530 AADT Hi.: 6,995 % Trucks: 11% Length: 0.00 # Lanes: 4 Lane Mi: 0 Func. Class: Area: N/A NHS: INSERT ONE OR DATE: LOS: Icc: 1.53 Deck: Bridge Scour: NA NA Culvert NA IRI: PCR: RUT: Friction #: Other: KPI Delta: KPI UNIT: NO Bridge/Culvert Super: Bridge Paint: Attach extra sheets as necessary to fully describe the alternatives. PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE CONTEMPLATED (ANALYSED) WITH COSTS: SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OR GOALS WITH COSTS: NO NA Substructure (Bridge/ Culvert): CONSEQUENCES IF NO ACTION IS TAKEN (DO NOTHING ALTERNATIVE IS SELECTED): The intent of this project is to improve safety at the above intersection by converting the intersection from two way stop controlled to a roundabout. If no action is taken, the number of crashes per year will remain high and may even increase. This alternative is to convert the intersection to a roundabout with one lane in the NB/SB direction and two lanes in the EB/WB direction. A new cantalever or box truss structure will be needed for the EB direction west of the roundabout to provide additional warning. ALT 2. Do nothing. This alternative does not address the crash pattern Type I Culverts/ pipes: Wearing Surface: INTENT/ PURPOSE OF PROJECT (INITIAL STATEMENT OF ESSENTIAL PROJECT PURPOSE: Completed FULL SCOPE: GREENFIELD Cambridge SAFETY District Intersection Improvement PrSCORE: Date: DES: Proposed FY: Sub-District: District: Asset Group: 12/15/2017 1702920 2023 Work Type: SEE IT: WHAT IS THE CURRENT AND PROJECTED CONDITION AND WHY IS THIS A PROBLEM (FOCUS ON THE PROBLEM): DATE AND TYPE OF LAST MAJOR TREATMENT: 70 Bridge Area (SFT): N/A Year Built: Crash Rate: Other Principal Arterial (OPA) Longitude Start: Longitude End: 115.70 -85.448131 Str. # N/A NBI #: N/A Bridge / Culvert: Length (FT) / Width (FT): N/A The intersection of US 40 and SR 3 has an ICC of 1.53 and an ICF of 1.7. There were 23 crashes at this location in 3 years. This is more than would be expected for an intersection of this type and size. Most of the crashes involved vehicles on SR 3 rearending vehicles in the NB right turn lane. Several of the more serious crashes involved vehicles on SR 3 pulling in front of traffic on US 40. A Roundabout is proposed at this location to address this crash pattern. Call Application Report Project ( Mini Scope) Project Location OWN IT: Alternatives FORM VERSION: FORM VERSION BY: Andrew Fitzgerald, PTOE, PE Intersection Improvement, Roundabout Work Category: 39.802174 39.802174 N/A No 115.70 -85.448131 Dunreith Henry PROJECT CONDITION RATINGS: Location Description: US 40 at SR 3 (W Jct) ALT 1. Roundabout ESTIMATED COST: $2,217,000 Will Further Analysis/Assessment be required beyond this form?
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
11/7/2014
Route: US 40 City/Town: County 1 County 2RP Start: Latitude Start:RP End: Latitude End:AADT Lo.: 4,530 AADT Hi.: 6,995 % Trucks: 11%Length: 0.00 # Lanes: 4 Lane Mi: 0Func. Class: Area: N/A NHS:
INSERT ONE OR
DATE:
LOS: Icc: 1.53Deck:
Bridge Scour: NA NA Culvert NAIRI: PCR: RUT: Friction #: Other:
KPI Delta: KPI UNIT:
NO
Bridge/Culvert Super:
Bridge Paint:
Attach extra sheets as necessary to fully describe the alternatives.
PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE CONTEMPLATED (ANALYSED) WITH COSTS:
SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OR GOALS WITH COSTS:
NO
NASubstructure (Bridge/ Culvert):
CONSEQUENCES IF NO ACTION IS TAKEN (DO NOTHING ALTERNATIVE IS SELECTED):
The intent of this project is to improve safety at the above intersection by converting the intersection from two way stop controlled to a roundabout.
If no action is taken, the number of crashes per year will remain high and may even increase.
This alternative is to convert the intersection to a roundabout with one lane in the NB/SB direction and two lanes in the EB/WB direction. A new cantalever or box truss structure will be needed for the EB direction west of the roundabout to provide additional warning.
ALT 2. Do nothing. This alternative does not address the crash pattern
Type I Culverts/ pipes:
Wearing Surface:
INTENT/ PURPOSE OF PROJECT (INITIAL STATEMENT OF ESSENTIAL PROJECT PURPOSE:
Completed FULL SCOPE:
GREENFIELD
Cambridge
SAFETY
District Intersection Improvement Pro
SCORE:
Date:
DES:
Proposed FY:
Sub-District:
District:
Asset Group:
12/15/2017
1702920
2023
Work Type:
SEE IT: WHAT IS THE CURRENT AND PROJECTED CONDITION AND WHY IS THIS A PROBLEM (FOCUS ON THE PROBLEM):
The intersection of US 40 and SR 3 has an ICC of 1.53 and an ICF of 1.7. There were 23 crashes at this location in 3 years. This is more than would be expected for an intersection of this type and size. Most of the crashes involved vehicles on SR 3 rearending vehicles in the NB right turn lane. Several of the more serious crashes involved vehicles on SR 3 pulling in front of traffic on US 40. A Roundabout is proposed at this location to address this crash pattern.
Call Application Report Project ( Mini Scope)
Project Location
OWN IT: Alternatives
FORM VERSION: FORM VERSION BY: Andrew Fitzgerald, PTOE, PE
Intersection Improvement, Roundabout Work Category:
39.80217439.802174
N/ANo
115.70 -85.448131Dunreith Henry
PROJECT CONDITION RATINGS:
Location Description: US 40 at SR 3 (W Jct)
ALT 1. Roundabout ESTIMATED COST: $2,217,000
Will Further Analysis/Assessment be required beyond this form?
$2,217,000.00YES COST: $40,000.00
NO COST: $0.00
YES COST: $296,180.00
NO COST: $0.00
YES COST: $0.00
NO COST: $0.00
NO COST: $0.00
YES COST: $0.00
YES COST: $0.00
NO COST: $0.00
YES COST: $1,880,820.00
YES COST: $0.00
NO COST: $0.00
NO COST: $0.00
DES: FY: Work Type: Location:
DES: FY: Work Type: Location:DES: FY: Work Type: Location:
1 FY
3
NO YES NO
YES YES
YES NA
YES YES
YES NO
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approval by:
11/7/2014
Other Projects within Limits
SOLVE IT: Project Recommendations and Costs
Maintenance of Traffic:
Utilities PE (UT1):
Estimated Total Project Costs:
FORM VERSION: FORM VERSION BY: Andrew Fitzgerald, PTOE, PE
Report Prepared By and Approved By Signature
Nathan Sturdevant District Investigations Engr
Report Prepared By and Approved By
District Traffic Staff Engr Title:
Engineer Assessment:
Bridge/Culvert Inspection Report:
NOTE: Appropriate environmental and assessment process need to be followed.
Location Map:
Spreadsheets (calcs):
Attachments
NOTE: Any changes require a re-submittal of Call Application Report.
Other items relevant to the project not specifically listed elsewhere.
Taylor Ruble
Pathway Data:
Accident History:Cost Calculations:
Additional Comments
Luis Laracuente District Traffic Engineer Luis Laracuente APPROVED ON: 12/15/17
Taylor RubleNathan Sturdevant
ANTCIPATED NUMBER OF YEARS TO COMPLETE DESIGN (1, 2 or 3 fiscal years):
Right of Way Purchase (RW1):
Preliminary Engineering 2 (PE2):
Solution Schematic:
Mobility History:
Some Small Takes May Be Needed
If Designed Out of House
Asset Team Scoring Sheet:
Miscellaneous Notes
Preliminary Engineering 1 (PE1):
Railroad PE (RR2):
Construction Engineering (CE):
Pictures
ANTCIPATED NUMBER OF CONSTRUCTION SEASONS TO COMPLETE(1, 2 or 3 seasons):
See Attached Estimate
Included in CN
Included in CN
In House
Included in PE
Relinquishment Payment (RQP):
QUANTIFIABLE PRIMARY GOAL(S) OF PROJECT (WHAT ARE WE PURCHASING SUCH AS CONDITION, SERVICE LIFE, LOS, OR CRF):
This project aims to reduce the number and the severity of crashes at this intersection by 58/% by changing the intersection from a two way stop to a Roundabout.
COMMENTS
Right of Way Services (RW2):
Railroad PE (RR1):
Environmental Study:
Utilities CN (UT2):
Construction (CN):
Other Considerations:
Project Notes
This locations has been an area of concern given the presence of several high speed right angle
collisions and many low speed rearend collisions. This intersection has received much public
attention over the years by the public and elected officials.
A Roundabout was chosen as the recommended countermeasure since it should correct the
right angle crash pattern and since a signal nor a 4 way stop were warranted. The Roundabout
should also correct the NB rearends in queues of right turners.
The Roundabout is expected to cost somewhat more than average since it will have two lanes in
the EB and WB direction and one lane in the NB and SB directions.
A sign structure is needed for EB traffic to the west of the roundabout. This is the first stop after
a long stretch of free flow roadway so extra warning is needed.
The existing span to the east of the roundabout will remain for lane assignment signs for WB
traffic.
A pedestrian trail exists to the south of the proposed Roundabout. It will need to be avoided
during design and construction.
PRICING REPORT
Project: US 27 at SR 28 Roundabout Project ID: NA
Location: US 27 at SR 28 Bid Date: NA
County: Randolph Route: US 27
District: Greenfield
Item No. Description Quantity Unit Bid Price Extension
1 Excavation Common 9000 CY $15.00 $135,000
2 Compacted Agg No 53 Base 3000 TON $28.00 $84,000
3 HMA Full Depth 7500 TON $70.00 $525,000
4 Curb, Island Concrete 2550 SYS $78.00 $198,900
5 Curb, Concrete 1200 LF $20.00 $24,000
6 Curb and Gutter, Concrete 6000 LF $19.00 $114,000
Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right BypassCirculating Flow (Vc), pc/h 192 79 222 397 Exiting Flow (Vex), pc/h 215 246 28 222 Entry Flow (Ve), pc/h 6 246 163 184 73 0 166 41
Entry Volume veh/h 6 239 148 167 66 0 149 33
Capacity and v/c RatiosEB WB NB SB
Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right BypassCapacity (cPCE), pc/h 1108 1108 1210 1210 1083 1083 944
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARYGeneral Information Site Information Analyst Taylor Ruble Agency/Co. INDOT Date Performed 5/24/2017 Analysis Time Period 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM
Intersection US 40 at SR 3 Jurisdiction Greenfield Analysis Year 2016
Project Description NA East/West Street: US 40 North/South Street: SR 3 Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 1.00
Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsMajor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T RVolume (veh/h) 6 177 40 128 154 3 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 7 215 48 156 187 3
Percent Heavy Vehicles 11 -- -- 11 -- --Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T RVolume (veh/h) 49 13 133 4 4 8 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 59 15 162 4 4 9
Percent Heavy Vehicles 11 11 11 11 11 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T TR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of ServiceApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12Lane Configuration LTR LT L T TR L T TR v (veh/h) 7 156 59 7 169 4 2 11 C (m) (veh/h) 1332 1251 360 362 743 263 342 614 v/c 0.01 0.12 0.16 0.02 0.23 0.02 0.01 0.02 95% queue length 0.02 0.43 0.59 0.06 0.88 0.05 0.02 0.05 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 8.3 17.0 15.1 11.3 18.9 15.6 11.0 LOS A A C C B C C B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 12.8 13.4 Approach LOS -- -- B B
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARYGeneral Information Site Information Analyst Taylor Ruble Agency/Co. INDOT Date Performed 5/24/2017 Analysis Time Period 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM
Intersection US 40 at SR 3 Jurisdiction Greenfield Analysis Year 2016
Project Description NA East/West Street: US 40 North/South Street: SR 3 Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 1.00
Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsMajor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T RVolume (veh/h) 6 177 40 128 154 3 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.38 0.87 0.71 0.80 0.86 0.75 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 15 203 56 159 179 4
Percent Heavy Vehicles 18 -- -- 34 -- --Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T RVolume (veh/h) 49 13 133 4 4 8 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.54 0.88 0.50 0.50 0.40 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 52 24 151 8 8 19
Percent Heavy Vehicles 35 31 36 50 75 50 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T TR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of ServiceApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12Lane Configuration LTR LT L T TR L T TR v (veh/h) 15 159 52 12 163 8 4 23 C (m) (veh/h) 1301 1141 312 330 671 216 270 575 v/c 0.01 0.14 0.17 0.04 0.24 0.04 0.01 0.04 95% queue length 0.03 0.49 0.60 0.11 0.96 0.12 0.05 0.12 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.8 8.7 18.8 16.3 12.1 22.3 18.5 11.5 LOS A A C C B C C B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 13.9 14.8 Approach LOS -- -- B B