Submittal/Approval Letter

Transcription

1 Submittal/Approval Letter To: Patrick Muench, P.E. Date: June 14, 2017 Turnpike Design Engineer Financial Project ID: & New Construction ( ) RRR ( ) Federal Aid : Not Applicable Project Name: Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM State Road : 91 Co./Sec./Sub.: 94/470/000 Begin Project MP: End Project MP: Full Federal Oversight: Yes ( ) No ( ) Request for: Design Exception ( ), Design Variation ( ) Community Aesthetic Feature: Conceptual ( ), Final ( ) Re-submittal: Yes ( ) No( ) Original Ref# - - Requested for the following element(s): ( ) Design Speed ( ) Lane Width ( ) Shoulder Width ( ) Cross Slope ( ) Design Loading Structural Capacity ( ) Vertical Clearance ( ) Maximum Grade ( ) Stopping Sight Distance ( ) Superelevation ( ) Horizontal Curve Radius ( ) Other This project consists of resurfacing and safety improvements for the Florida s Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) from MM to MM (County Mile Post to County Mile Post ), in St. Lucie County ( ) for a total length of miles. The main objective of the project is to extend the life of the existing pavement through milling and resurfacing of the existing northbound and southbound travel lanes, inside and outside shoulders, and the paved median openings. Safety improvements will include construction of ground-in rumble strips, repair of all guardrail openings for maintenance access and adjustment or replacement of guardrail as necessary, cross slope correction to meet criteria, shoulder drop-off correction along the edge of pavement, replacement of non-compliant signing within the project limits, bridge deck repair at the L-20 and Angle Road/Belcher canal bridges, bridge railing retrofit at the Picos Road, CR 68, and Minute Maid Road overpass bridges, and repairs to the existing box culverts and farm crossings. SR 91 is classified as a Rural Principal Arterial Expressway and is part of the National Highway System (NHS) and the State Highway System (SHS). SR 91 is also a Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Corridor with a Limited Access Right-of-Way of 400 feet. The corridor has a posted and design speed of 70 MPH. The existing typical section is a four-lane, divided, rural facility with two 12 ft. lanes, an 8 ft. inside shoulder with 4 ft. paved, and a 12 ft. outside shoulder with 10 ft. paved, in each direction. The northbound and southbound roadways are separated by a 40-ft. median. An existing median double-faced guardrail with rub rail, predominantly located adjacent to the southbound inside shoulder, runs along the median within the project limits. In some locations, such as the segment between the Belcher Canal and L-20 Canal bridges, standard guardrail is located adjacent to the median shoulders and the outside shoulders for the northbound and southbound directions. There are four locations along the project corridor where the SR 91 existing shoulder widths are less than 10 feet. The shoulder widths do not meet either the FDOT governing criteria (12 feet) or the AASHTO Criteria (10 feet Paved). Three of the four locations are the SR 91 Mainline outside shoulders at the three underpasses for Picos Road (Structure No ), County Road 68 (Structure No ), and Minute Maid Road (Structure No ). The fourth location is in the vicinity of the northbound and southbound bridges across Angle Road/Belcher Canal. The widening of the existing shoulder widths to meet the FDOT criteria will increase the construction cost significantly as well as impact the construction duration and schedule. Furthermore, FTE s customers would be impacted by the extended construction duration. Since there are no documented crashes citing narrow shoulder width as the contributing cause, and no benefit may be gained as a result of implementing the improvements, the benefit/cost ratio for widening the shoulders was determined to be zero. No quantifiable benefit in terms of safety, operational performance, or level of service can be derived from implementing any of the improvements discussed in this report. Furthermore, maintaining the current shoulder widths will eliminate any negative impacts on

2 environmental concerns, community considerations, budget, or schedule. Therefore, the approval of this Design Exception is requested for the shoulder widths, identified in Table 2.1, to remain. Recommended by: Houman Assari Date 6/14/2017 Houman Assari, P.E., Responsible Professional Engineer Approvals: Patrick Muench Digitally signed by Houman Assari Date: :50:43-04'00' Digitally signed by Patrick Muench DN: cn=patrick Muench, o=florida Department of Transportation, ou=florida's Turnpike Enterprise, c=us Date: :09:21-04'00' June 16, 2017 Date N/A Date Patrick Muench, P.E., Turnpike Design Engineer Russ Snyder, P.E., Turnpike Structures Design Engineer N/A Date N/A Date Michael Shepard, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer State Structures Design Engineer N/A Date N/A Date State Chief Engineer FHWA Division Administrator

3 Request for FTE Design Exceptions & Variations Checklist Date: District: Florida's Turnpike Enterprise Project Name: SR 91 Mainline Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM Project Section Exemption BMP: BMP: EMP: EMP: FPID: & Requested Control Element(s): New Construction RRR Design Speed* Horizontal Curve Radius Lane Width Vertical Clearance** Superelevation Shoulder Widths Maximum Grade Stopping Sight Distance Other *Requires supplementary review (i.e. Planning/Structures/etc) **Requires Utility Accommodation Manual (UAM) Exception Submittals 06/14/2017 Design Loading Structural Capacity* Cross Slopes Submittal/Approval Letter (independent file from report) Short description of project, applicable criteria and reason for variation request Applicable signature fields, names, and titles listed Page #/ NA S/A Letter Design Exception/Variation Report Report Cover Project Title, FPID, digital sign, seal and date Project description General project information, typical section, begin/end milepost, county section number Include Work Mix, To From, Objectives, Obstacles and Schedule. Description of the variation element and applicable criteria (AASHTO and Department value or standard) Detailed explanation of why the criteria or standard cannot be complied with or is not applicable Description of any proposed value for project and why it is appropriate Amount and character of traffic using the facility Description of the anticipated impact on Operations, Adjacent Sections, Level Of Service, Safety, Long and Short Term Effects Is the variation temporary or permanent? Description of the anticipated Cumulative Effects A plan view or aerial photo of the variation location Showing right of way lines, and property lines of adjacent property. A photo of the area. Typical section or cross section of variation/exception location The milepost and station location of the variation/exception Any related work programmed or in future work plans 1 Cover 1, 2, 3, 4 4, E A D B A w/ MM 5 Page 1

4 The Project Schedule Management (PSM) Project Schedule Activities submitted < Phase I Phase I Phase II Phase II Phase III Phase III Phase IV > Phase IV Letting: All mitigating efforts An explanation of what if any associated existing or future Limitations as a result of public or legal commitments. Description and explanation of any practical alternatives, the selected treatment and why. Comments on the most recent 5 year crash history Including all pertinent crash reports Is the location of the variation on the High Crash List? Description of the anticipated Cost (Social and to the Department Benefit/Cost) Summary Conclusions J Page #/ NA 7 5, F 5, 6, G, H 8 Summary description of included support documentation such as: Location map or description Typical section Aerial or Photo logs when they best illustrate the element issues Crash History and analysis Plan sheets in the area of the variation elements Profiles in the area of vertical alignment variation elements Tabulation of pole offsets for horizontal clearance variation Applicable Signed and Sealed Engineering Support Documents For the specified conditions the following additional documentation is required: For design speed on FIHS/SIS Provide typical sections at mid blocks and at intersections. For lane width Provide locations of alternative routes that meet criteria Proposal for handling drainage Proposed signing and pavement markings For shoulder width Proposal for handling stalled vehicles Proposal for handling drainage For bridge width Plan view of the approaching roadways Existing bridge plans (these may be submitted electronically) For a bridge with a design inventory load rating less than 1.0 Written evaluation and recommendation by the Office of Maintenance is required Load rating calculations for the affected structure For vertical clearance Locations of alternative routes that meet criteria A, B, D, F N/A N/A 6 N/A N/A N/A Page 2

5 For cross slope Proposal for handling drainage Details on how the cross slope impacts intersections For conditions that may adversely affect the roadway s capacity Provide the comments on compatibility of the design and operation with the adjacent sections Effects on capacity (proposed criteria vs. AASHTO) using an acceptable capacity analysis procedure Calculate reduction for design year, level of service For superelevation Provide the side friction factors for the curve for each lane of different cross slope at the PC of the curve, the point of maximum cross slope, and the PT of the curve using the following equation. f = (V 2 15Re)/(V 2 e+15r) For areas with crash histories or when a benefit to cost analysis is requested Provide a time value analysis between the benefit to society quantified in dollars and the costs to society quantified in dollars over the life of the Exception/Variation. Roadside Safety Analysis Program (RSAP) Historical Crash Method (HCM) Page #/ NA N/A N/A N/A N/A Page 3

6 Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM St. Lucie County, Florida FPID s and Contract C9R86 SHOULDER WIDTH DESIGN EXCEPTION Prepared For: Florida Department of Transportation Florida s Turnpike Enterprise JUNE 2017 Prepared By: Propel Engineering, Inc. Digitally signed by Houman Assari Houman Assari Date: :46:40-04'00' 6685 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite 205 Responsible Engineer: Greenacres, FL Houman Assari, PE Certification of Authorization No State of Florida, Professional Engineer Vendor No. F License No This item has been electronically signed and sealed by Houman Assari, PE on 06/14/2017 using a Digital Signature. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed and the signature must be verified on any electronic copies.

7 Table of Contents 1.0 Project Description Description of the Design Exception Design Criteria American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Proposed Criteria Justification Operational s Safety Considerations Benefit/Cost Analysis Accommodation of Disabled Vehicles Spread Analysis Right-of-Way Impacts Community Impacts Environmental Impacts Mitigation Summary Conclusions... 8 APPENDICES Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: Appendix F: Appendix G: Appendix H: Appendix I: Appendix J: Location Map Typical Sections As-Built Plans Photo Log Traffic Data Crash History Cost Estimate Benefit/Cost Analysis Spread Analysis Project Schedule

8 Shoulder Width Design Exception FPID Nos: & Project Description This project consists of resurfacing and safety improvements for the Florida s Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) from MM to MM (County Mile Post to County Mile Post ), in St. Lucie County ( ) for a total length of miles. The main objective of the project is to extend the life of the existing pavement through milling and resurfacing of the existing northbound and southbound travel lanes, inside and outside shoulders, and the paved median openings. Safety improvements will include construction of ground-in rumble strips, repair of all guardrail openings for maintenance access and adjustment or replacement of guardrail as necessary, cross slope correction to meet criteria, shoulder drop-off correction along the edge of pavement, replacement of non-compliant signing within the project limits, bridge deck repair at the L-20 and Angle Road/Belcher canal bridges, bridge railing retrofit at the Picos Road, CR 68, and Minute Maid Road overpass bridges, and repairs to the existing box culverts and farm crossings. SR 91 is classified as a Rural Principal Arterial Expressway and is part of the National Highway System (NHS) and the State Highway System (SHS). SR 91 is also a Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Corridor with a Limited Access Right-of-Way of 400 feet. The corridor has a posted and design speed of 70 MPH. The existing typical section is a four-lane, divided, rural facility with two 12 ft. lanes, an 8 ft. inside shoulder with 4 ft. paved, and a 12 ft. outside shoulder with 10 ft. paved, in each direction. The northbound and southbound roadways are separated by a 40- ft. median. An existing median double-faced guardrail with rub rail, predominantly located adjacent to the southbound inside shoulder, runs along the median within the project limits. In some locations, such as the segment between the Belcher Canal and L-20 Canal bridges, standard guardrail is located adjacent to the median shoulders and the outside shoulders for the northbound and southbound directions. The project is currently scheduled for letting on 01/09/2018, with a production date of 09/05/2017 and a Phase II submittal date of 04/04/2017. There are currently no major obstacles to meeting this schedule. The project schedule is included in Appendix J of this document. 2.0 Description of the Design Exception Based on information gathered from field reviews, the design survey for the project, and a review of the as-built plans, the SR 91 shoulders were evaluated for compliance with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Florida s Turnpike Enterprise (FTE) criteria for total shoulder width, and paved shoulder width. As indicated in Table 2.1, there are four locations along the project corridor where the SR 91 existing outside shoulder widths are less than 10 feet. The shoulder widths do not meet either the FDOT governing criteria (12 feet) or the AASHTO Criteria (10 feet Paved). Three of the four locations are the SR 91 Mainline outside shoulders at the three underpasses for Picos Road (Structure No ), County Road 68 (Structure No ), and Minute Maid Road (Structure No ). The fourth location is in the vicinity of the northbound and southbound bridges across Angle Road/Belcher Canal. As required by Table of the TPPPH, when a Design Exception is identified for one of the ten controlling elements, the element should be evaluated against PPM Chapter 25 criteria for the final determination of a Design Exception requirement. If the element meets PPM Chapter 25 design criteria, a technical memo will be required for approval, documenting that the element meets PPM Chapter 25 criteria and a Design Exception is not required. PPM Chapter 25 states that the standards used for shoulder widths may be the AASHTO interstate standards that were in effect at the time of original construction or inclusion into the interstate system. The AASHTO requirement for shoulder width at the time of original construction was 10 feet, therefore a Design Exception for shoulder width will be required for the current shoulder widths to remain. The Design Exception locations, as summarized in Table 2.1, have been included in Appendix A of this document. Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

9 Shoulder Width Design Exception FPID Nos: & Table 2.1 Outside Shoulder Width Deficiencies Location Begin Mile Marker End Mile Marker Direction Length (ft.) Required Shoulder Width (ft.) AASHTO New Const. (1 & 2) FDOT/FTE New Const. (3) Existing Shoulder Width (ft.) Required Paved Shoulder Width (ft.) AASHTO New Const. (1 & 2) FDOT/FTE New Const. (3) Existing Paved Shoulder Width (ft.) Recommendation Picos Road Underpass NB Design Exception CR 68 Underpass NB Design Exception North of Angle Rd /Belcher Canal Bridge NB Design Exception Minute Maid Road Underpass NB Design Exception Picos Road Underpass SB Design Exception South of Angle Rd /Belcher Canal Bridge SB 1, Design Exception (1) AASHTO A Policy on Design Standards Interstate System (2005), Page 3 (2) AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2011), Section (3) FDOT Plans Preparation Manual, Volume 1, Chapter 2, Section 2.3, Table Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

10 Shoulder Width Design Exception FPID Nos: & Design Criteria 3.1 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) A Policy on Design Standards Interstate System (2005) (AASHTO IS) Cross Section Elements, Shoulders, Page 3: The paved width of the right shoulder shall not be less than 10 feet. On a four-lane section, the paved width of the left shoulder shall be at least 4 feet. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2011) Chapter 8 Freeways, Section 8.2.4, Traveled Way and Shoulders: On four-lane freeways, the median (or left) shoulder is normally 4 to 8 feet wide, at least 4 feet of which should be paved and the remainder stabilized. The paved width of the right shoulder should be at least 10 feet. 3.2 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Plans Preparation Manual (PPM) (January 2017) Volume 1, Chapter 2.3, Table Shoulder Widths and Cross Slopes Freeways The required shoulder widths on this type of facility without shoulder gutter, are eight (8) feet for the median shoulder with four (4) feet paved, and twelve (12) feet for the outside shoulder with ten (10) feet paved. The required shoulder widths on this type of facility with shoulder gutter, are 13.5 feet for the median shoulder with six (6) feet paved, and 15.5 feet for the outside shoulder with eight (8) feet paved. Volume 1, Chapter 25, Section states: The RRR design criteria applicable for Interstate Highways and Freeways are new construction criteria, with the following exceptions: 1. The standards used for horizontal alignment, vertical alignment, and widths of median, traveled way and shoulders may be the AASHTO interstate standards that were in effect at the time of original construction or inclusion into the interstate system. Turnpike Plans Preparation and Practices Handbook (TPPPH) (March 3, 2017) Volume 1, Section 2.3 -Shoulders does not provide any additional criteria regarding Shoulder Widths for this type of high speed facility. Volume 1, Chapter 25, Table states that for the 10 controlling elements, which include shoulder width: If a Design Exception is identified under the ERCAR, the element should then be evaluated against Chapter 25 for final determination of a Design Exception. If the element meets Chapter 25 design criteria, a technical memo will be submitted for approval by the Turnpike Design Engineer documenting that the element meets Chapter 25 criteria and a Design Exception is not required. Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

11 Shoulder Width Design Exception FPID Nos: & If a Design Exception is identified under the ERCAR and also does not meet Chapter 25 criteria, then a Design Exception will be processed against current new construction criteria. 4.0 Proposed Criteria The proposed design is to allow the existing outside shoulder widths for SR 91 for the underpasses at Picos Road (Structure No ), County Road 68 (Structure No ), and Minute Maid Road (Structure No ), as well as the northbound and southbound approaches to the bridges across Angle Road/Belcher Canal, as identified in Table 2.1, to remain in place. 5.0 Justification The main objective of the project is to extend the service life of the existing asphalt pavement and improve safety related features along the corridor. The proposed design provides a balance between pavement improvements and vehicular traffic operation while maintaining the safety of the traveling public. 5.1 Operational s A project Traffic Data Report was provided by FTE. The Traffic Data results were as follows: Table SR 91 Traffic Data Two-Way AADT Trucks (DDHV) Traffic Factors K STD (%) D (%) T 24 (%) DHT (%) 32,500 33,900 45, The design and posted speed within the project limits is 70 mph. The Traffic Data is included in Appendix E of this document. The extent of the substandard shoulder width referenced in this exception is limited to the areas below the overpasses at Picos Road (Structure No ), County Road 68 (Structure No ), and Minute Maid Road (Structure No ), as well as the segment of SR 91 to the north of the northbound bridge across Angle Road/Belcher Canal and the segment to the south of the southbound bridge across the same facilities. As indicated in the FHWA document Mitigation Strategies for Design Exceptions, dated July 2007, shoulder width may have an impact on traffic operations and highway capacity on high-speed facilities, since narrow shoulder widths may reduce free-flow speeds and driver comfort. There will be a reduction in free-flow speed when the lateral clearance for outside shoulders is less than six (6) feet. Since the narrow shoulder widths are an existing condition and the existing width of the outside shoulders are greater than six (6) feet within the exception limits, no adverse impacts on the existing capacity and operation of the facility are anticipated if the current shoulder widths are maintained. The capacity of roadway is dependent on the number of lanes and the posted speed limit along the corridor. The scope of this project is limited to milling and resurfacing, therefore these elements will remain the same. Furthermore, the limited length of the substandard segments will not impede maintenance, law enforcement, and disabled vehicles from locating a suitable refuge area. There are additional design elements that are not in compliance with AASHTO and FDOT criteria, namely Vertical Clearance and Cross slope/superelevation, that occur in the vicinity of the areas established for this Design Exception, however, no cumulative effects impacting the operation of the facility are expected. Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

12 Shoulder Width Design Exception FPID Nos: & Based on the analysis performed, no long or short term adverse impacts are anticipated on operations, Level of Service, or adjacent roadway sections for the areas identified in this Design Exception, which is expected to be in place through the design life of the project. SR 91 from MM 152 to MM 193 is to be evaluated for widening by year 2035 which may ultimately eliminate the substandard shoulder widths along SR 91. A Project Development and Environment (PD&E) study would be required, which may address the shoulder width deficiency, prior to design and construction. 5.2 Safety Considerations Safety considerations associated with narrow shoulder widths are reduced recovery areas, as well as reduced storage space for disabled vehicles, maintenance operations, law enforcement activities, and stormwater management. The most recent 5-year crash history from the years 2011 through 2015 was reviewed. The crash data is included in Appendix F of this document. This report covers crash data, field investigations, and assessments of the existing conditions along the corridor. The data provided includes the location of each crash, the type of crash, the date, and the existing conditions. The analysis of the crash history revealed a total of 376 crashes within the project limits. There have been 49 crashes that have occurred within the limits established for the Design Exception, eight of which have involved collisions with the outside roadside barriers. The long form crash report for only one of the eight crashes was available. The report was reviewed to determine whether narrow shoulder widths were a contributing factor to any of the crashes. The findings are summarized in Table Table Summary of Detailed Crash Report Crash ID Year Location Summary Remarks MM (R1) Vehicle 1 was traveling northbound on SR 91 in the area of the 158 MM in the outside lane. Due to inclement weather and balding tires, Driver 1 lost control of Vehicle 1. Vehicle 1 traveled from the outside lane to the right shoulder striking the guardrail with its front right side. This action caused Vehicle 1 to rotate clockwise 180 degrees stopping on the shoulder facing NB to final rest. According to our analysis of the nature of the crash, it was not attributed to the deficient shoulder width. Based on the available information, a correlation between the crashes and narrow shoulder widths could not be found. The analysis further revealed that the narrow shoulder locations, as identified in this Design Exception, are not on the Turnpike s Top 30 Crash List. From the foregoing information presented, it is reasonable to conclude that the crashes would not be mitigated by widening the narrow shoulders, and safety is not compromised. 5.3 Benefit/Cost Analysis The widening of the existing shoulders to achieve compliant shoulder widths without compromising any existing conditions will require the reconstruction of the overpass bridges at Picos Road (Structure No ), County Road 68 (Structure No ), and Minute Maid Road (Structure No ), since the piers of the existing structures need to be at an offset of at least 14 ft. to accommodate a new shoulder width of 12 ft. and the required pier protection barrier. The reconstruction of the bridges is impractical with respect to the scope of this rehabilitation project, based on the significant impacts on the environment, community, budget, and schedule. Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

13 Shoulder Width Design Exception FPID Nos: & The most cost effective approach to providing shoulder widths that would meet FDOT criteria under the existing bridges would be to realign mainline SR 91 to the inside, thereby narrowing the existing median width. This approach would require widening mainline SR 91, and consequently the inside shoulder, as well as replacement of the existing guardrail. To upgrade the shoulder width in the vicinity of the bridges across Angle Road/Belcher Canal to meet current standards, additional improvements beyond the widening of the existing shoulder such as, modifying existing drainage structures, regrading and stabilizing the front slope, and replacement of guardrail and connections to the bridge railings will be required. The estimated cost to construct the described improvements is $490,382.75, which has been included in Appendix G of this document. A Benefit/Cost analysis was performed, however, the B/C ratio was found to be zero, since there were no crashes found to be attributed to the narrow shoulder width in the analysis of the most recent 5-year crash history. Furthermore, based on the Highway Safety Manual, Crash Modification Factors (CMF) for shoulder widths greater than 8 feet wide can be assigned a CMF equal to 8 ft. wide shoulders. Therefore, the Crash Reduction Factor for widening the shoulders will effectively be zero. There are no anticipated social costs associated with the deficient shoulder widths. 5.4 Accommodation of Disabled Vehicles The narrowest shoulder width of 9.45 ft. occurs at the area below the overpass at County Road 68 (Structure No ). The length of the shoulder width deficiency in this area does not exceed 159 ft. The deficiency lengths for the northbound and southbound segments in the vicinity of the bridges across Angle Road/Belcher Canal are 845 ft. and 1109 ft., respectively. However, the shoulder width deficiency in these areas is approximately six (6) inches with respect to AASHTO and approximately 2.5 feet with respect to FDOT requirements. The limited length of the substandard segments with shoulder widths at mainline SR 91 underpasses will not impede maintenance, law enforcement, and disabled vehicles from easily locating suitable refuge areas beyond the limits of the barrier in place to shield the existing bridge piers. For the remaining areas where the existing shoulder width varies between 9.49 ft. to 9.56 ft., the shoulder width is sufficient to accommodate disabled vehicles. 5.5 Spread Analysis Spread calculations were performed to ensure that existing spread calculations meet FTE criteria and no adverse impacts on the operation of the roadways are realized as a result of the narrow shoulder widths. The analysis pertains to the approaches to the SR 91 Mainline Bridge over the Angle Road/Belcher Canal. The spread criteria at this location has been met. This area represents the most critical location as the longest segment with the largest contributing area, and the low longitudinal slopes. Spread is not considered to be an issue in the areas below the Picos Road, CR 68, and Minute Maid Bridge overpasses due to flat longitudinal slopes, open shoulders on either side of the overpasses, and the short limit of the constrained sections which provides for minimal runoff that would need to be accommodate by these sections. The spread analysis results are included in Appendix I of this document. Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

14 Shoulder Width Design Exception FPID Nos: & Right-of-Way Impacts Whether any of the Improvements to correct the shoulder width deficiency are implemented or the existing shoulder widths are allowed to remain in place, no right-of-way impacts are anticipated. 5.7 Community Impacts Since the substandard shoulder widths are an existing condition, no adverse community impacts are expected if the existing shoulder widths are maintained. However, if any of the Improvements to correct the shoulder width deficiency are implemented, the additional work will impact the maintenance of traffic on SR 91, thereby increasing the cost and extending the construction duration of the project. This will ultimately result in additional disturbance to the FTE consumers, and the local community. 5.8 Environmental Impacts With the implementation of the Improvements to correct the shoulder width deficiency, there may be impacts on the environmentally sensitive areas adjacent to the roadway as a result of placement of required embankment. Furthermore, Gopher tortoise burrows were observed during our field visits which will require coordination with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). The appropriate habitats must be surveyed during design to confirm whether the burrows are active. If the burrows are impacted, a relocation permit will be required prior to moving the tortoise. Relocation permitting does not typically occur until approximately 90 days prior to the start of construction in the area. Since the substandard shoulder widths are an existing condition, no adverse environmental impacts are expected if the existing shoulder widths are maintained. 5.9 Mitigation There are existing warning signs along the mainline on the approach to the bridges over Angle Road/Belcher Canal in both northbound and southbound directions to notify the travelling public of narrow shoulder widths. To enhance the safety with respect to narrow shoulder widths, the existing signs are to be replaced by new signs (W5-2 with supplemental W16-3aP Panels). As indicated previously, narrow shoulder widths will cause a reduction in free-flow speed when the lateral clearance for outside shoulders is less than six (6) feet. Since the narrow shoulder widths along the SR 91 Mainline outside shoulders at the three underpasses for Picos Road (Structure No ), County Road 68 (Structure No ), and Minute Maid Road (Structure No ) are an existing condition and the existing width of the outside shoulders are greater than six (6) feet within the exception limits, no adverse impacts on the existing capacity and operation of the facility are anticipated if the current shoulder widths are maintained. Furthermore, the length of the shoulder width deficiency at the underpass locations does not exceed 159 ft. Therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed for the underpass locations. Additional mitigation strategies as outlined in the FHWA publication Mitigation Strategies for Design Exceptions, dated July 2007, include recessed pavement markings, delineators, object markers, high visibility bridge railing, and bridge lighting are either infeasible for application on this project, or impractical based on the scope of this resurfacing project. There are no associated existing or future limitations as a result of legal or public commitments are known for this project. Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

15 Shoulder Width Design Exception FPID Nos: & Summary Conclusions The main objective of the project is to extend the life of the existing pavement through milling and resurfacing of the existing northbound and southbound travel lanes, inside and outside shoulders and the paved median openings. Additional safety related improvements will also be provided along the corridor. The proposed design provides a balance between pavement improvements and vehicular traffic operation while maintaining the safety of the traveling public. The widening of the existing shoulder widths to meet the FDOT criteria will increase the construction cost significantly as well as impact the construction duration and schedule. Furthermore, FTE s customers would be impacted by the extended construction duration. Since there are no documented crashes citing narrow shoulder width as the contributing cause, and no benefit may be gained as a result of implementing the improvements, the benefit/cost ratio for widening the shoulders was determined to be zero. No quantifiable benefit in terms of safety, operational performance, or level of service can be derived from implementing any of the improvements discussed in this report. Furthermore, maintaining the current shoulder widths will eliminate any negative impacts on environmental concerns, community considerations, budget, or schedule. Therefore, the approval of this Design Exception is requested for the shoulder widths, identified in Table 2.1, to remain. Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

16 Shoulder Width Design Exception PID Nos: & Appendix A Location Map Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

17

18 Shoulder Width Design Exception PID Nos: & Appendix B Typical Sections Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31 Shoulder Width Design Exception PID Nos: & Appendix C As-Built Plans Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

32 Shoulder Width Design Exception PID Nos: & Appendix D Photo Log Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

33 Shoulder Width Design Exception FPID Nos: & Figure 1 - NB SR 91 Mainline Outside Shoulder at Picos Road Bridge Figure 2 - SB SR 91 Mainline Outside Shoulder at Picos Road Bridge Figure 3 - NB SR 91 Mainline Outside Shoulder at CR 68 Bridge Figure 4 - NB SR 91 Mainline Outside Shoulder at Minute Maid Road Bridge Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

34 Shoulder Width Design Exception FPID Nos: & Figure 5 NB SR 91 Mainline Outside Shoulder North of Angle Road/Belcher Canal Bridge Figure 6 - SB SR 91 Mainline Outside Shoulder South of Angle Road/Belcher Canal Bridge Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

35 Shoulder Width Design Exception PID Nos: & Appendix E Traffic Data Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

36

37 Traffic and Revenue Consultant Florida s Turnpike Enterprise Florida Department of Transportation MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Copies: Subject: FPN: State Road: Counties: Typical Section Traffic Data and Equivalent Single Axle Loading (ESAL) Calculations_Update FY 2016 Turnpike Annual Traffic Trends Report AECOM P.O. Box Florida s Turnpike Milepost 263, Building 5315 Ocoee, Florida Tel:

38 Lane Closure Traffic Data Page 2 U.S. DOT Mitigation Strategies for Design Expectations Typical Section Traffic Data and Trucks Directional Design Hour Volume Segment South of Fort Drum Service Plaza (MP 184) Two-Way AADT Traffic Factors Trucks (DDHV) K STD D T 24 (%) DHT (%) ,500 33,900 45, % 60.7% AECOM P.O. Box Florida s Turnpike Milepost 263, Building 5315 Ocoee, Florida Tel:

39 Florida's Turnpike - Ticket System FPN Mainline Resurfacing from MP to MP Mainline - South of Fort Drum Service Plaza Two (2) Lanes Year AADT Lane Factor ESAL CUM-ESAL (1000S) (1000S) , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,842 (Daily Truck Factor) T 24 = 14.0% (Directional Distribution Factor) D F = 0.5 (Lane Factor) L F = ( x Ln(One-Way AADT) x LV) (Load Equivalency Factor) EF* = *Freeway - Urban - Flexible Pavement LV = ESAL = AADT x T 24 x D F x L F x EF x year design (Years ) Opening to Mid-Design Year (2025) ESAL Accumulation: 5,198 Opening to Design Year (2032) ESAL Accumulation: 10, year design (Years ) Opening to Mid-Design Year (2028) ESAL Accumulation: 7,587 Opening to Design Year (2038) ESAL Accumulation: 16,148

40 Shoulder Width Design Exception PID Nos: & Appendix F Crash History Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

41 Exemption from Florida Public Records Section 119, Florida Statutes: The information contained in the Crash Analysis Reporting (C.A.R.) system has been compiled from information collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning safety enhancements. This system and its products identify information used for the purpose of developing highway safety construction improvement projects which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds. Since this information is collected for the above-mentioned purpose it is exempt from disclosure as a public record pursuant to Federal law. Any document displaying this exemption from public records shall be used only for those purposes deemed appropriate by the Department. See Title 23 United States Section 409. Crash Event Crash Date Crsh Loc Final MP On Roadway Turnpike MM First Harmful Event Accident Side Of Road Lane Of Accident Road Surface Lighting Event Weather Work Zone Related First Road Alcohol Involved In Acc. Harmful Event Seq 01 Cd Point Of Impact Movement Direction Of Travel First Driver Action Cd Veh #2 Point Of Impact Veh #2 Movement Veh #2 Direction Of Travel Total Of Vehicle Total Of Fatality Total of Injuries /2/ L S S /2/ R N /5/ R S N /6/ R S N /6/ L S S /6/ L E 2 1 S /13/ R N N /20/ R S N /30/ L S /13/ R S N /18/ L S 21 6 S /21/ L S S /27/ R S N /5/ L S S /9/ L S S /9/ L S S /14/ R N N /16/ R S N /17/ M M S S /17/ R N N /22/ M M S /10/ L S 7 1 S /15/ L S /27/ L S S /1/ R S N /7/ R S N /13/ R N N /22/ R N /24/ L S S /30/ L S S /3/ L S S /5/ M M S N /12/ R S N /23/ M M S /26/ L S S /26/ L S S /30/ L S S /21/ R N N /22/ L S S /24/ L S S 2 0 0

42 Crash Event Crash Date Crsh Loc Final MP On Roadway Turnpike MM First Harmful Event Accident Side Of Road Lane Of Accident Road Surface Lighting Event Weather Work Zone Related First Road Alcohol Involved In Acc. Harmful Event Seq 01 Cd Point Of Impact Movement Direction Of Travel First Driver Action Cd Veh #2 Point Of Impact Veh #2 Movement Veh #2 Direction Of Travel Total Of Vehicle Total Of Fatality Total of Injuries /4/ L S S /7/ L S S /13/ R N N /25/ M M N /2/ M M N /16/ L N S /22/ R N N /26/ L S S /1/ M M N /6/ R N N /8/ R N /13/ L S S /15/ L S S /18/ L S S /22/ R S N /31/ M M S /3/ L S S /16/ L S S S /16/ R N N /27/ L S S /5/ R S N /10/ R N N /15/ L X S /16/ L S S /22/ R S N /24/ R S N /27/ L S S /1/ L S S /2/ R N N /8/ M M N N /14/ L S S /15/ R N /11/ L S 13 1 S /15/ R S N /17/ R N 3 1 N /1/ L S /2/ R N N /6/ R S N N /29/ L S S /29/ L S S /16/ R S N 4 1 N /22/ L S S /27/ M M S /27/ R S N /9/ L N S /14/ R N N /15/ M M N /26/ L S S

43 Crash Event Crash Date Crsh Loc Final MP On Roadway Turnpike MM First Harmful Event Accident Side Of Road Lane Of Accident Road Surface Lighting Event Weather Work Zone Related First Road Alcohol Involved In Acc. Harmful Event Seq 01 Cd Point Of Impact Movement Direction Of Travel First Driver Action Cd Veh #2 Point Of Impact Veh #2 Movement Veh #2 Direction Of Travel Total Of Vehicle Total Of Fatality Total of Injuries /29/ R N N /31/ L S S /15/ R S N /28/ R N 11 1 N /2/ R S N /4/ L S S /13/ L S S /13/ L S N /15/ R N /16/ R N N /20/ R S N /29/ L S /29/ L S /7/ M M N /7/ L S S /11/ L S /17/ L S S S /17/ R S N /21/ R N /25/ R S N /1/ L S S /8/ L S /13/ R S N /14/ L S S /15/ R S N /29/ M M S /30/ R S N N /1/ M M N /4/ L S S S /8/ M M N /11/ R N N /12/ L S S /13/ L S /21/ L S S /26/ M M N /7/ R N N /7/ L S S /11/ R S N /22/ R N N /22/ M M S 13 1 S /31/ R S N /2/ R N /3/ R S N /17/ R N N /20/ M M S /21/ L S S /22/ M M S /25/ M M S