SCOPING REPORT 14 - dot.nd.gov

23 USC § 409 NDDOT Reserves All Objections

SCO

PIN

G R

EPO

RT

Project No. PCN

Sterling to Wing

14

Prepared by

NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BISMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA

http://www.dot.nd.gov/

DIRECTOR William T. Panos

OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS

Steve Salwei, P.E.

Principal Author: Macy Merkel, E.I.T.

April, 2021

DocuSign Envelope ID: 02AA01EB-4A44-4826-94E1-5E319FEC6C38

http://www.dot.nd.gov/

1

SCOPING REPORT A. GENERAL INFORMATION

Project Number: District: Bismarck Highway: ND 14 Location: Sterling to Wing Reference Point: 0.000 to 21.289 – 21.289 Miles Counties: Burleigh Legal Description: T139N R76W Sec 4, 5, 8, 9, 16, 17, 20, 21

T140N R76W Sec 4, 5, 8, 9, 16, 17, 20, 21, 28, 29, 32, 33 T141N R76W Sec 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23, 27, 28, 34, 35 T142N R76W Sec 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23, 26, 27, 34, 35

Functional and Funding Roadway Classification: District Corridor National Highway System: No Speed Limit: 65 mph Freight Level: Level 2 Freight Constraints: Load Restriction Project Schedule: Proposed to be added to STIP as a minor rehabilitation and developed earlier if additional funding becomes available. dTIMS Recommendations: RP 0.000 to RP 13.000 – Constrained: PM Asphalt 2030 Unconstrained: PM Asphalt 2030 RP 13.000 to RP 21.289 – Constrained: PM Asphalt 2026 Unconstrained: PM Asphalt 2026

B. PURPOSE, NEED, AND IMPROVEMENT

Purpose and Need of Project: There is currently a 7 – Ton load restriction on this segment of ND 14. A freight level 2 requires a minimum 8 – Ton load restriction. This corridor is used as a bypass around Bismarck. There are a lot of heavy loads on the roadway, due to there being height restrictions along I-94 from Sterling to Bismarck. An overlay will put a width restriction on this segment. Proposed Improvement: There are two scenarios that apply in removing load restrictions, the first would involve just meeting the freight level requirement of an 8 – Ton limit. The second scenario would go further, taking the roadway to a legal weight requirement. In discussions with the district who is responsible for setting load restrictions, it was determined that a minor rehabilitation is needed to increase the load carrying capacity to 8 – Ton and a major rehabilitation is needed to take the roadway to legal weight. Option 1: Minor Rehabilitation Sliver Grade A minor rehabilitation sliver grade is proposed to extend the useful life of the roadway. This includes widening the roadway to 31’ (2’ widening), milling and overlaying the roadway with 3” of HMA. This would remove the load restriction and increase the load carrying capacity to 8 – Ton to meet freight expectation. Safety issues will be identified and addressed as part of the Statewide Safety Program. Safety features will remain as they exist unless a need is identified. An option is included to widen the roadway to 32’.


2

Option 2: Major Rehabilitation Cement Stabilized Full-Depth Reclamation A major rehabilitation cement stabilized full-depth reclamation with widening is proposed to bring the highway up to an acceptable condition to extend the service life and provide operational improvements. Based on preliminary pavement designs this includes milling and reclaiming the top 8” of the existing roadway, then overlaying with 4.5” of HMA, resulting in a roadway width of 31’ (2’ widening). Final sections will be determined during project development. This will remove the load restriction and increase the load carrying capacity to legal weight. A 90-1 survey will be completed and areas needing safety improvements will be addressed. Safety hardware will be upgraded to be in compliance with MASH performance criteria. An option is included to widen the roadway to 32’. Proposed Improvements Map:


3

C. TRAFFIC AND CRASH ANALYSIS

RP 0.000 to RP 21.289 Year Pass Trucks Total AADT

Flex ESALS

Rigid ESALS

Current Traffic 2020 490 140 630 105 165 Forecast Traffic 2040 635 200 835 145 230

Crash Analysis: The 5-year study period used was 12/1/2015 – 11/30/2020. Animal crashes are not included. On 8/1/2019 the cost threshold for a reportable crash increased from $1,000 to $4,000, so recent years may show fewer crashes than previous years.

General Summary

Year Start Date End Date

Intersection (or Alley/ Driveway)

Non-Intersection Total Single

Vehicle Mult.

Vehicle 1 12/1/2015 11/30/2016 3 2 5 2 12/1/2016 11/30/2017 3 12/1/2017 11/30/2018 1 4 1 6 4 12/1/2018 11/30/2019 2 1 1 4 5 12/1/2019 11/30/2020 1 5 6

Totals 7 12 2 21 7 12 2 21 33% 57% 10% Notes/Trends:

- No fatal crashes, 1 incapacitating injury (single vehicle). - 6 of the single vehicle crashes ran off the roadway. - 4 of the single vehicle crashes occurred in adverse weather conditions (wet or

snow/ice/slush). - There were 4 crashes at the intersection of ND 14 & ND 36. - The 2017-2019 Rural Highway Segment Crash Map shows this segment is in the low

range for weighted crashes per mile. Recommendations: None at this time.

D. EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS

International Roughness Index (IRI)

Distress Score

Rut

Excellent < =60 ≥ 98 < 0.25″ Good 61 – 99 88 – 97 0.25″ to 0.375″ Fair 100 – 145 77 – 87 0.376″ to 0.50″ Poor > 145 ≤ 76 > 0.50″

RP 0.000 to RP 13.000 Actual Age IRI IRI Rating SI or SCI Faulting 57 65 Good 3 N/A Effective Age Distress Distress Score Rutting Rutting Score 21 92 Good 0.07 Excellent


4

CONSTRUCTION HISTORY Year Construction Depth (in) Width (ft) Oil 1961 GRADE - 38.0 - 1963 AGGEGATE BASE 5.0 34.0 - 1963 HOT BIT PAVEMENT 2.0 24.0 120 – 150 1990 CONTRACT CHIP SEAL - 24.0 HFMS – 2 1995 INT CONT PATCH – 1.0” - 24.0 120 – 150 1998 MAINTENANCE GRAVEL SEAL - 5.0, 24.0, 5.0 MC – 3000 2001 INT CONT PATCH – 1.25” - 24.0 PG 58 – 28 2003 DISTRICT CHIP SEAL - 2.0, 24.0, 2.0 MC – 3000 2009 HOT BIT PAVEMENT 2.0 27.0 PG 58 – 28 2013 FEDERAL AID CHIP SEAL - 27.0 CRS2P

RP 13.000 to RP 21.289 Actual Age IRI IRI Rating SI or SCI Faulting 57 78 Good 4 N/A Effective Age Distress Distress Score Rutting Rutting Score 21 91 Good 0.09 Excellent

CONSTRUCTION HISTORY Year Construction Depth (in) Width (ft) Oil 1961 GRADE - 38.0 - 1963 AGGEGATE BASE 5.0 34.0 - 1963 HOT BIT PAVEMENT 2.0 24.0 120 – 150 1990 CONTRACT CHIP SEAL - 24.0 HFMS – 2 1995 INT CONT PATCH – 1.0” - 24.0 120 – 150 1998 MAINTENANCE GRAVEL SEAL - 5.0, 24.0, 5.0 MC – 3000 2001 INT CONT PATCH – 1.25” - 24.0 PG 58 – 28 2004 DISTRICT CHIP SEAL - 24.0 MC – 3000 2009 HOT BIT PAVEMENT 2.0 27.0 PG 58 – 28 2013 FEDERAL AID CHIP SEAL - 27.0 CRS2P

Existing Foreslopes: 4:1 Existing Typical Section

*Shoulders are breaking off in several locations, leaving the road with an effective width of ~25’.


5

E. EXISTING GEOMETRY Horizontal Curves: Option 1: Use Existing

Option 2: Use existing, sign when less than posted speed. Correct superelevations to AASHTO standards 6% max.

Location Speed Radius (ft) Superelevation (%) (mph) Existing Required Existing Required

RP 9.351 65 3820 1657 0.0 0.0 RP 10.103 65 3820 1657 3.4 0.0 RP 11.304 65 3183 1657 4.0 4.8 RP 11.611 65 3183 1657 4.0 4.8 RP 20.482 65 5730 1657 2.1 3.2 RP 20.971 65 3820 1657 3.4 4.2

Vertical Curves: Option 1: Use Existing

Option 2: Use existing. All existing vertical curves meet a design speed of no less than 20 mph below the overall project design speed.

F. EXISTING STRUCTURES

Bridges: None Centerline Pipes: Option 1:

Use existing. Any pipes affected by the sliver widening should be extended and have their end sections re-laid. Option 2: It is estimated 18 pipes will need to be extended ranging from 4 – 14’ to meet clear zone standards.

G. LAND INTERESTS

Communities: Wing; Population = 152 Reservation: None Public Land: None Wildlife Management Area: Rice Lake Wildlife Management Area (~RP 9.7 – 10.3) Waterfall Production Area: None Adjacent Land Usage: Agricultural

H. ISSUES AND APPURTENANCES CHECKLIST 1. Curb and Gutter? Yes No X 2. Sidewalk? Yes No X 3. Multi-Use Path? Yes No X 4. ADA Ramps? Yes No X 5. State Bicycling Network? Yes No X 6. Lighting? Yes X No Lighting at off/on-ramps for I-94 (~RP 0.092). No suggested improvements.


6

7. Signals? Yes No X 8. Storm Sewer? Yes No X 9. Manholes? Yes No X 10. Other Underground Work? Yes No X 11. Parking Facilities? Yes No X 12. Frontage Roads? Yes No X 13. Utility Issues? Yes X No There are buried telephone, fiber optic, electric, and overhead electric lines throughout the

corridor. 14. Landscaping? Yes No X 15. Approach or Ditch Block Flattening? Yes No X 16. T Intersection Recovery Approaches? Yes No X 17. Fence? Yes No X 18. Railroad Crossings? Yes No X 19. Detours? Yes No X 20. Automatic Traffic Recorder Locations? Yes No X 21. Weigh-In-Motion Sites? Yes No X 22. ITS (Deicing, Snow Gates, VMS, RWIS, etc.)? Yes No X 23. Highway Patrol/Truck Pullouts or Rest Areas? Yes No X 24. Additional Right of Way? Yes No X ROW ranges from 100 – 500’. It is anticipated additional ROW may be needed for deep fill

sections and hill cut back areas. 25. Drainage Issues? Yes No X 26. Snow Impact Areas? Yes No X 27. Subgrade Issues? Yes No X 28. Noise Analysis: Type I Project? Yes No X Maybe 29. Maintenance Issues? Yes No X


7

30. Guardrail? Yes X No ______

Type RP L/R Length (ft) Box Beam 0.023 L 142 Box Beam 0.023 R 68

Blocked Out “W” Beam 0.036 R 42 Blocked Out “W” Beam 0.050 L 42

31. Milling? Yes X No See option 1. 32. Repeated ER Events? Yes No _ X__

I. Load Restrictions Travel Information Map Proposed Load Restriction: 7-Ton HPCS Load Restrictions: 7-Ton Freight Level Required Minimum Load Restriction: 8-Ton Projected Load Restrictions after project is complete: Option 1: 8 – Ton Options 2: Legal – weight

J. Roadway Widths Required Minimum Roadway Width: Option 1: 26’ Option 2: 30’ Freight Level Required Minimum Width: 26’ Surrounding Corridors: US 83 – 36’

ND 14 – 30’ ND 36 (W) – 29’ ND 36 (E) – 27’

K. PERFORMANCE GUIDELINES Design Speed: 65 mph Clear Zone (from edge of driving lane): Option 1: Use Existing

Option 2: 20’ Shoulder Surface: Paved Foreslopes: 4:1

L. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

There are two scenarios that apply in removing load restrictions, the first would involve just meeting the freight level requirement of an 8 – Ton limit. The second scenario would go further, taking the roadway to a legal weight requirement. In discussions with the district who is responsible for setting load restrictions, it was determined that a minor rehabilitation is needed to increase the load carrying capacity to 8 – Ton and a major rehabilitation is needed to take the roadway to legal weight. Option 1: Minor Rehabilitation Sliver Grade A minor rehabilitation sliver grade is proposed to extend the useful life of the roadway. This includes widening the roadway to 31’ (2’ widening), milling and overlaying the roadway with 3” of HMA. This would remove the load restriction and increase the load carrying capacity to 8 – Ton to meet freight expectation. Safety issues will be identified and addressed as part of the Statewide Safety Program. Safety features will remain as they exist unless a need is identified. An option is included to widen the roadway to 32’.


8

Option 2: Major Rehabilitation Cement Stabilized Full-Depth Reclamation A major rehabilitation cement stabilized full-depth reclamation with widening is proposed to bring the highway up to an acceptable condition to extend the service life and provide operational improvements. Based on preliminary pavement designs this includes milling and reclaiming the top 8” of the existing roadway, then overlaying with 4.5” of HMA, resulting in a roadway width of 31’ (2’ widening). Final sections will be determined during project development. This will remove the load restriction and increase the load carrying capacity to legal weight. A 90-1 survey will be completed and areas needing safety improvements will be addressed. Safety hardware will be upgraded to be in compliance with MASH performance criteria. An option is included to widen the roadway to 32’. Proposed Typical Sections Proposed typical sections shown are for estimating purposes only. Actual typical section dimensions should be determined in the design phase. Option 1: Minor Rehabilitation Sliver Grade (31’)

Option 1: Minor Rehabilitation Sliver Grade (32’)

Option 2: Major Rehabilitation Cement Stabilized Full-Depth Reclamation (31’)


9

Option 2: Major Rehabilitation Cement Stabilized Full-Depth Reclamation (32’)

M. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

District Engineer:

N. COST ESTIMATE Option 1: Minor Rehabilitation Sliver Grade (Inflation factor of 4% was used to estimate costs for bid year)

Item 31’ Roadway Estimated Cost

32’ Roadway Estimated Cost

Contract Bond & Mobilization $ 632,000.00 $ 655,000.00 Removals $ 531,000.00 $ 531,000.00 Dirt Work $ 1,018,000.00 $ 1,082,000.00 Aggregate $ 2,200,000.00 $ 2,350,000.00 HMA $ 5,522,000.00 $ 5,692,000.00 Pipe $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 Striping/Signing $ 253,000.00 $ 253,000.00 Erosion Control $ 426,000.00 $ 426,000.00 Traffic Control $ 532,000.00 $ 532,000.00

Subtotal = $ 11,164,000.00 $ 11,571,000.00 Inflation = $ 911,000.00 $ 944,000.00

Engineering = $ 2,415,000.00 $ 2,503,000.00 Estimated Total Cost = $ 14,490,000.00 $ 15,018,000.00

Estimated Total Cost / Mile = $ 680,000.00 $ 705,000.00


10

Option 2: Major Rehabilitation Cement Stabilized Full-Depth Reclamation (Inflation factor of 4% was used to estimate costs for bid year)

Item 31’ Roadway Estimated Cost

32’ Roadway Estimated Cost

Contract Bond & Mobilization $ 755,000.00 $ 782,000.00 Removals $ 604,000.00 $ 604,000.00 Dirt Work $ 872,000.00 $ 930,000.00 Aggregate $ 2,142,000.00 $ 2,292,000.00 HMA $ 7,701,000.00 $ 7,937,000.00 Pipe $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 Striping/Signing $ 253,000.00 $ 253,000.00 Erosion Control $ 426,000.00 $ 426,000.00 Traffic Control $ 532,000.00 $ 532,000.00

Subtotal = $ 13,335,000.00 $ 13,806,000.00 Inflation = $ 1,088,000.00 $ 1,127,000.00

Engineering = $ 2,885,000.00 $ 2,986,000.00 Estimated Total Cost = $ 17,308,000.00 $ 17,919,000.00

Estimated Total Cost / Mile = $ 813,000.00 $ 842,000.00 Cost Summary & Per Mile Comparison

Option Per Mile Cost Total Cost Option 1: Minor Rehabilitation Sliver Grade (31’) $ 680,000 $ 14,490,000 Option 1: Minor Rehabilitation Sliver Grade (32’) $ 705,000 $ 15,018,000 Option 2: Major Rehabilitation Cement Stabilized Full-Depth Reclamation (31’) $ 813,000 $ 17,308,000 Option 2: Major Rehabilitation Cement Stabilized Full-Depth Reclamation (32’) $ 842,000 $ 17,919,000

Future Outlook Pavement management philosophies change as new treatments/technology becomes available but as a preliminary forecast of future projects the Bismarck district anticipates the following work over the next 20 years for both options:

Year Treatment 2 Chip Seal

10 Chip Seal or Microsurface 15 PM Overlay

Each option provides an identical short-term future. Roadway widths provide differences in the long-term future. The following table compares the variations in future overlay details based on current requirements of the NDDOT’s Freight Plan and Design Guidelines.


11

Future Overlay Info Option 1 Option 2

31’ Roadway

32’ Roadway

31’ Roadway

32’ Roadway

Number of subsequent overlays that reintroduces width restriction* 3 4 3 4

Thickness of pavement when width restriction (26’) is reintroduced >15” >16.5” >11.25” >12.75”

Number of subsequent overlays before minimum width of 24’ is reached* 4 5 4 5

Thickness of pavement when minimum width of 24’ is reached ~17.75” ~19.25” ~14” ~15.5”

*May vary with milling strategies

O. DECISIONS

1. Which option(s) should advance to project development to address current loadrestriction?

Option 1: Minor Rehabilitation Sliver Grade 31’ Roadway Width Estimated Cost: $14,490,000 32’ Roadway Width Estimated Cost: $15,018,000

Option 2: Major Rehabilitation Cement Stabilized Full-Depth Reclamation 31’ Roadway Width Estimated Cost: $17,308,000 32’ Roadway Width Estimated Cost: $17,919,000

None

DDE Comments:

_________________________________ Deputy Director for Engineering Date

X

X


5/18/2021

Certificate Of CompletionEnvelope Id: 02AA01EB4A44482694E15E319FEC6C38 Status: Completed

Subject: Please DocuSign: Scoping Report

Contract Number:

PCN:

Source Envelope:

Document Pages: 12 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator:

Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Michael Wilz

AutoNav: Enabled

EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled

Time Zone: (UTC-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada)

608 E Boulevard Ave

Bismarck, ND 58505

[email protected]

IP Address: 165.234.252.245

Record TrackingStatus: Original

5/18/2021 9:46:32 AM

Holder: Michael Wilz

[email protected]

Location: DocuSign

Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: StateLocal

Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: Carahsoft OBO North Dakota Department of

Transportation CLOUD

Location: DocuSign

Signer Events Signature TimestampRonald Henke

[email protected]

ND Department of Transportation

Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None), Authentication Signature Adoption: Uploaded Signature Image

Using IP Address: 165.234.92.2

Sent: 5/18/2021 9:50:47 AM

Viewed: 5/18/2021 12:08:19 PM

Signed: 5/18/2021 12:08:41 PM

Authentication DetailsSMS Auth: Transaction: 65E601CB690C0304919366F14FAA051E Result: passed Vendor ID: TeleSign Type: SMSAuth Performed: 5/18/2021 12:08:11 PM Phone: +1 701-400-8185

Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign

In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp

Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp

Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp

Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp

Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp

Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp

Witness Events Signature Timestamp

Notary Events Signature Timestamp

Envelope Summary Events Status TimestampsEnvelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 5/18/2021 9:50:47 AM

Envelope Summary Events Status TimestampsCertified Delivered Security Checked 5/18/2021 12:08:19 PM

Signing Complete Security Checked 5/18/2021 12:08:41 PM

Completed Security Checked 5/18/2021 12:08:41 PM

Payment Events Status Timestamps

SCOPING REPORT 14 - dot.nd.gov

Documents