Submittal/Approval Letter

Transcription

1 Submittal/Approval Letter To: Patrick Muench, P.E. Date: May 1, 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 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 governing criteria, shoulder drop-off correction along the edge of pavement, replacement of noncompliant 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 seven bridges within the project limits meet AASHTO criteria for total bridge width. Three of the bridges along SR 91 mainline: the northbound bridge over Angle Road/Belcher Canal (Structure No ), and the northbound and southbound bridges over the L-20 Canal (Structure Nos and ), meet FDOT criteria. The four remaining bridges: the southbound bridge over Angle Road/Belcher Canal (Structure No ), Picos Road (Structure No ), County Road 68 (Structure No ), and Minute Maid Road (Structure No ) do not meet FDOT total bridge width criteria. Since the overall width of the existing southbound SR 91 bridge over Angle Road/Belcher Canal (Structure No ) is /8, which is less than the FDOT required minimum of 40-0, the outside shoulder width on the bridge will only be /8, and therefore noncompliant with FDOT requirement of 10 ft. In addition, the shoulder widths on both sides of the roadway at the three bridges crossing over SR 91 at Picos Road (Structure No ), County Road 68 (Structure No ), and Minute Maid Road (Structure No ) do not meet FDOT criteria. As discussed in the progress meeting of 01/24/17, the design year AADT for the three roads crossing over SR 91 is not available. The only traffic information available is raw traffic data from the PTMS sites in the vicinity of the project. Furthermore, the design speed for the three facilities, has been estimated based on the posted speeds

2 along the corridor. Due to the lack of available information, the use of low volumes for the three roadways was recommended in the meeting. As indicated in Table 2.1, the required bridge shoulder widths for undivided collector highways is eight (8) feet on both sides for facilities with low traffic volumes. The existing shoulder widths of three (3) feet for both sides of Structures Nos and , and two (2) feet for both sides of Structure No , are not compliant with FDOT requirement of eight (8) feet. For these bridges to remain in place without improvements, a Design Variation will be required. Since total bridge width and bridge shoulder width are closely related, the deficiency in total bridge width will be addressed under this Design Variation request for noncompliant bridge shoulder widths. 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 Variation is requested for the bridge shoulder widths for the outside shoulder for the southbound SR 91 mainline bridge over Angle Road/Belcher Canal (Structure No ), as well as the shoulders for the Picos Road (Structure No ), County Road 68 (Structure No ), and Minute Maid Road (Structure No ) Bridges, as identified in Table 2.1 of this document, to remain as existing. Recommended by: Digitally signed by Houman Assari Houman Assari Date: :22:43-04'00' Houman Assari, P.E., Responsible Professional Engineer Approvals: Patrick Muench Digitally signed by Patrick Muench DN: cn=patrick Muench, o=florida Department of Transportation, ou=florida's Turnpike Enterprise, =patrick.muench@dot.state.f l.us, c=us Date: :30:14-04'00' Date Patrick Muench, P.E., Turnpike Design Engineer 05/22/17 Date 5/1/2017 Russell D Snyder Digitally signed by Russell D Snyder DN: c=us, o=identrust ACES Business Representative, ou=florida DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, cn=russell D Snyder, =A01097C FEE2E1C900002D8F Date: :12:13-04'00' Date 5/11/17 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: 05/01/2017 District: Florida's Turnpike Enterprise Project Name: Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) 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 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, F A D B A w/ MM 4 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 I Page #/ NA 7 5, E 6, 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, E 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 BRIDGE SHOULDER WIDTH DESIGN VARIATION Prepared For: Florida Department of Transportation Florida s Turnpike Enterprise MAY 2017 Prepared By: Propel Engineering, Inc. Houman Assari Digitally signed by Houman Assari Date: :20:43-04'00' 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 05/01/2017 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 Variation Design Criteria American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Proposed Criteria Justification Operational s Crash History Analysis 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: Location Map Typical Sections As-Built Plans Photo Log Crash History Traffic Data Spread Analysis Cost Estimate Project Schedule

8 Bridge Shoulder Width Design Variation 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 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 governing 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 10/06/2017. There are currently no major obstacles to meeting this schedule. The project schedule is included in Appendix I of this document. 2.0 Description of the Design Variation There are seven bridges within the project limits, four of which are a part of SR 91 Mainline. The SR 91 northbound and southbound travel ways have separate bridges at the Angle Road/Belcher Canal and the L-20 Canal crossings. Structure Nos and cross the Angle Road/Belcher Canal and, and Structure Nos and cross over the L-20 Canal. The remaining bridges on the project are the three overpasses across SR 91 at Picos Road (Structure No ), County Road 68 (Structure No ), and Minute Maid Road (Structure No ). Based on information gathered from field reviews, the design survey for the project, and a review of the as-built plans, the bridges were evaluated for compliance with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) criteria for bridge shoulder width. The results of the evaluation have been summarized in Table 2.1. The seven bridges within the project limits meet AASHTO criteria for total bridge width. Three of the bridges along SR 91 mainline: the northbound bridge over Angle Road/Belcher Canal (Structure No ), and the northbound and southbound bridges over the L-20 Canal (Structure Nos and ), meet FDOT criteria. The four remaining bridges: the southbound bridge over Angle Road/Belcher Canal (Structure No ), Picos Road (Structure No ), County Road 68 (Structure No ), and Minute Maid Road (Structure No ) do not meet FDOT total bridge width criteria. Since the overall width of the existing southbound SR 91 bridge over Angle Road/Belcher Canal (Structure No ) is /8, which is less than the FDOT required minimum of 40-0, the outside shoulder width on the bridge will only be /8, and therefore noncompliant with FDOT requirement of 10 ft. Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

9 Bridge Shoulder Width Design Variation FPID Nos: & In addition, the shoulder widths on both sides of the roadway at the three bridges crossing over SR 91 at Picos Road (Structure No ), County Road 68 (Structure No ), and Minute Maid Road (Structure No ) do not meet FDOT criteria. As discussed in the progress meeting of 01/24/17, the design year AADT for the three roads crossing over SR 91 is not available. The only traffic information available is raw traffic data from the PTMS sites in the vicinity of the project. Furthermore, the design speed for the three facilities, has been estimated based on the posted speeds along the corridor. Due to the lack of available information, the use of low volumes for the three roadways was recommended in the meeting. As indicated in Table 2.1, the required bridge shoulder widths for undivided collector highways is eight (8) feet on both sides for facilities with low traffic volumes. The existing shoulder widths of three (3) feet for both sides of Structures Nos and , and two (2) feet for both sides of Structure No , are not compliant with FDOT requirement of eight (8) feet. For these bridges to remain in place without improvements, a Design Variation will be required. Since total bridge width and bridge shoulder width are closely related, the deficiency in total bridge width will be addressed under this Design Variation request for noncompliant bridge shoulder widths. The Design Variation locations have been included in Appendix A of this document. Table 2.1 Summary of Bridge Shoulder Widths Bridge No. Mile Marker Road Name Bridge Length (ft.) Existing/*Proposed Shoulder Width Required Shoulder Width (ft.) AASHTO FDOT Recommendation Picos Road over SR 91 CR 68 over SR 91 SR 91 NB over Belcher Canal SR 91 SB over Belcher Canal SR 91 NB over L-20 Canal SR 91 SB over L-20 Canal Minute Maid Rd. over SR (LT) 2 8 Design Variation (LT & RT) (LT & RT) 3-0 (RT) (2) (4) Design Variation 2-0 (LT) 2 8 Design Variation (LT & RT) (LT & RT) 2-0 (RT) (2) (4) Design Variation *6-4 Median 4 Median 6 Median Shoulder to Remain 4 Outside 10 Outside *10-0 Outside (1) (3) Shoulder to Remain *6-0 Median 4 Median 6 Median Shoulder to Remain 4 Outside 10 Outside *9-11 1/8 Outside (1) (3) Design Variation *6-1 Median 4 Median 6 Median Shoulder to Remain 4 Outside 10 Outside *10-0 Outside (1) (3) Shoulder to Remain *6-0 Median 4 Median 6 Median Shoulder to Remain 4 Outside 10 Outside *10-0 Outside (1) (3) Shoulder to Remain 3-0 (LT) 2 8 Design Variation (LT & RT) (LT & RT) 3-0 (RT) (2) (4) Design Variation (1) AASHTO A Policy on Design Standards Interstate System (2005), Cross Section, Page 5 (2) AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2011), Section 7.2.5, Bridges to Remain in Place, Page 7-6 (3) FDOT Plans Preparation Manual, Volume 1, Chapter 2, Figure (4) FDOT Plans Preparation Manual, Volume 1, Chapter 2, Figure Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

10 Bridge Shoulder Width Design Variation 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) Bridges and Other Structures, Cross Section, Page 5: The width of all bridges, including grade separation structures, measured between rails, parapets, or barriers shall equal the full paved width of the approach roadways. The approach roadway includes the width of paved shoulders. Long bridges, defined as bridges having an overall length in excess of 200 ft., may have a lesser width. Such bridges shall be analyzed individually. On long bridges, offsets to parapet, rail or barrier shall be at least 4 ft. measured from the edge of the nearest traffic lane on both the left and the right. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2011) Section 7.2.5, Structures, Bridges to remain in place: For an existing bridge to remain in place, it should have adequate structural strength and a width at least equal to the width of the traveled way plus 2 ft. clearance on each side. 3.2 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Plans Preparation Manual (PPM) (January 2017) Volume 1, Chapter 2, Figure , Partial Bridge Sections: The required bridge shoulder widths for a divided highway with two lanes are six (6) feet for the inside shoulder and ten (10) feet for the outside shoulder. Volume 1, Chapter 2, Figure , Bridge Section: The required bridge shoulder widths for undivided collector highways is eight (8) feet on both sides for facilities with low traffic volumes. Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table Shoulder Widths and Cross Slopes Freeways The required shoulder widths for the approach roadways to the bridges on two-lane freeways 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. Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table Shoulder Widths and Cross Slopes Undivided Collectors The required shoulder widths for the approach roadways to the bridges on two-lane, two-way undivided collectors are eight (8) feet with five (5) feet paved for facilities with low traffic volumes. 4.0 Proposed Criteria The proposed design is to allow the outside shoulder width for the southbound SR 91 mainline bridge over Angle Road/Belcher Canal (Structure No ) to be at a width of /8. Furthermore, the shoulder widths for the bridges on Picos Road (Structure No ) and Minute Maid Road (Structure No ) will be 3-0, and County Road 68 Bridge (Structure No ) will have shoulder widths of 2-0. Additionally, the proposed design will allow the existing bridge widths for the southbound SR 91 mainline bridge over Angle Road/Belcher Canal (Structure No ), Picos Road (Structure No ), County Road 68 (Structure No ), and Minute Maid Road (Structure No ) to remain as existing. Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

11 Bridge Shoulder Width Design Variation FPID Nos: & 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 F of this document. The extent of the substandard shoulder width along SR 91 mainline, as identified in this variation, is limited to one segment of ft. with an actual deficiency of less than one inch. As indicated in the FHWA publication 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 width is greater than six (6) feet within the variation limits, no adverse impacts on the existing capacity and operation of the facility are anticipated if the /8 outside shoulder on Structure No remains in place. The remaining segments of the substandard design elements referenced in this variation are at three crossings over SR 91 at Picos Road (structure no ), County Road 68 (structure no ), and Minute Maid Road (structure no ). As illustrated in Table 2.1, the lengths of the substandard bridge widths and bridge shoulder widths on the crossover bridges range between ft. and ft. Since the narrow bridge and shoulder widths are an existing condition, no additional adverse impacts on the existing capacity and operation of the facility are anticipated if the current bridge widths and 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 variation, however, no cumulative effects impacting the operation of the facility are expected. 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 Variation, 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. Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

12 Bridge Shoulder Width Design Variation FPID Nos: & Crash History Analysis Safety considerations associated with narrow shoulder widths on bridges are reduced recovery areas and 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 E 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 along SR 91 within the project limits. There have been 15 crashes on SR 91 mainline that have occurred within the limits established for this design variation, including one with a fatality. Four of the crashes involved collisions with the roadside barriers, however, none of these crashes were within the limits of bridge over Angle Road/Belcher Canal (Structure No ). Furthermore, all these crashes were with barriers on the median side, however, the only location identified as requiring a variation for bridge shoulder width along the mainline is the outside shoulder on Structure No The long form crash reports for these four crashes were reviewed to determine whether the narrow bridge shoulder width may have been a contributing factor to any of the crashes. In addition, the long form crash report for the accident with the fatality was reviewed to ensure that the narrow bridge shoulder width was not involved in the crash in any way. A summary of the crash is provided below: Table Summary of Detailed Crash Report Crash ID Year Location Summary Remarks MM (L1) Vehicle 1 was traveling southbound on State Road 91 in the inside lane. For an unknown reason, Vehicle 1 traveled onto the eastern shoulder and Driver 1 steered the Vehicle 1 back to the right, overcorrected, and subsequently lost control of Vehicle 1. Vehicle 1 traveled across both southbound lanes and onto the western shoulder of southbound State Road 91. Vehicle 1 then rotated counterclockwise and traveled back across both southbound lanes and struck the center median guardrail with the left side of Vehicle 1. Occupant 2 was ejected from Vehicle 1 through the left side window and struck the metal guardrail. Occupant 2 came to final rest in the inside lane facing north. Vehicle 1 continued to rotate counterclockwise and struck the center median guardrail a second and third time before traveling across both southbound lanes and struck the metal guardrail on the western shoulder. Vehicle 1 came to final rest on the western shoulder of southbound State Road 91 facing north. Occupant 2 was pronounced deceased on the scene. The Crash was not attributed to the narrow bridge shoulders on the outside of the bridge. Based on the available information, a correlation between the crashes and narrow bridge shoulder width could not be found. The analysis further revealed that the narrow shoulder locations, as identified in this Design Variation, 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. Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

13 Bridge Shoulder Width Design Variation FPID Nos: & Benefit/Cost Analysis The widening of the existing bridges to achieve compliant bridge shoulder widths will require improvements at the bridge termini including widening of the shoulders at the bridge approaches, embankment placement with regrading and stabilizing of the slopes, and upgrading of the guardrail and their connection to the proposed bridge railings. The estimated cost to construct these improvements is $2,980, A cost estimate has been prepared for the widening of each of the bridges which have been included in Appendix H of this document. There are no anticipated social costs associated with the design elements discussed in this report. A Benefit/Cost analysis would result in a B/C ratio of zero since there were no crashes found to be attributed to the narrow bridge shoulder width in the analysis of the most recent 5-year crash history. 5.4 Accommodation of Disabled Vehicles The extent of the substandard shoulder width along SR 91 mainline, as identified in this variation, is limited to one segment of ft., and the actual deficiency of less than one inch. The slight deficiency and the limited length of the substandard segment will not impede maintenance, law enforcement, and disabled vehicles from locating a suitable refuge area in the vicinity of the substandard shoulder width. The lengths of the substandard bridge shoulder widths on the crossover bridges range between ft. and ft. Since the narrow bridge shoulder widths are an existing condition, no additional adverse impacts on the existing capacity and operation of the facility are anticipated if the current bridge widths and shoulder widths are maintained. As is the case with SR 91 mainline, the limited length of the substandard segments will not impede maintenance, law enforcement, and disabled vehicles from easily locating suitable refuge areas beyond the limits of the bridges. 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 southbound SR 91 mainline bridge over 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 with low longitudinal slopes. Spread is not considered to be an issue at Picos Road, CR 68, and Minute Maid Bridges due to the short limit of the curbed section at the crest of the vertical curve, significantly wider shoulders beyond the bridge limits, and steeper longitudinal slopes. The spread analysis results are included in Appendix G of this document. 5.6 Right-of-Way Impacts Whether any of the Improvements to correct the shoulder width deficiency are implemented or the existing bridge 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 as well as the three roadways crossing over 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. Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

14 Bridge Shoulder Width Design Variation FPID Nos: & 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 in both northbound and southbound directions to notify the travelling public of reduced shoulder widths. To enhance the safety regarding the narrow bridges and shoulder widths, the existing signs are to be replaced by new signs (W5-2 with supplemental W16-3aP Panels). To reduce crash severity should a driver leave the travel lanes, crashworthy approach guardrail and connections to the existing bridge railings are already in place. Additional mitigation strategies as outlined in the FHWA publication include recessed pavement markings, delineators, object markers, high visibility bridge railing, and bridge lighting are either infeasible for application at the bridges 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 Bridge Shoulder Width Design Variation 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 bridges to achieve bridge shoulder widths that 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. Widening of the bridges will negatively impact the budget and the schedule, however, since there are no documented crashes citing narrow bridge or bridge shoulder width as the contributing cause, the benefit/cost ratio for widening the bridges will 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 Variation is requested for the bridge shoulder widths for the outside shoulder for the southbound SR 91 mainline bridge over Angle Road/Belcher Canal (Structure No ), as well as the shoulders for the Picos Road (Structure No ), County Road 68 (Structure No ), and Minute Maid Road (Structure No ) Bridges, as identified in Table 2.1 of this document, to remain as existing. The outside shoulder width for the southbound SR 91 mainline bridge over Angle Road/Belcher Canal (Structure No ) will be /8. Furthermore, the shoulder widths for the bridges on Picos Road (Structure No ) and Minute Maid Road (Structure No ) will be 3-0, and County Road 68 Bridge (Structure No ) will have shoulder widths of 2-0. Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33 Bridge Width and Bridge Shoulder Width Design Variation FPID Nos: & Figure 1 - SB SR 91 Mainline (Bridge No ) Figure 3 - Picos Road Bridge (Bridge No ) Figure 2 - Picos Road Eastbound Shoulder (Bridge No ) Figure 4 - Eastbound Picos Road (Bridge No ) Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from to

34 Bridge Width and Bridge Shoulder Width Design Variation FPID Nos: & Figure 5 Eastbound Shoulder CR 68 (Bridge No ) Figure 7 - Northbound Shoulder Minute Maid Road (Bridge No ) Figure 6 - Westbound Shoulder CR 68 (Bridge No ) Figure 8 - Southbound Shoulder Minute Maid Road (Bridge No ) Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from to

35

36 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

37 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

38 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

39 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 /28/ M M N /5/ R S N N /23/ R N N /23/ R S N /23/ R N /24/ L N /24/ M M S S /4/ L S S /8/ L S S /12/ R N 1 1 N /18/ R N N /18/ M M N /22/ R N N /31/ M M N /4/ L S S /15/ R S N /16/ R N N /16/ L S S /22/ R S S /27/ L S S /27/ R N N /28/ L S /4/ L N S /4/ M M S /9/ R N N /10/ L S S /18/ L S S /27/ R N N /27/ L S 12 1 S /31/ R S N /3/ R S N /6/ M M N /11/ M M N /18/ M M S /20/ M M S /23/ R S N /23/ L S S /25/ L S S /27/ L S S /28/ L S S /29/ R N N /3/ R N N /4/ M M E /9/ R N N /15/ R N N /17/ M M S /18/ L S S /25/ M M S /1/ M M N

40 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/ M M S S /4/ L S S /8/ R N /15/ R S N /19/ M M N /24/ L S S /1/ M M S /3/ L O 21 1 S /3/ L S S /18/ M M S /23/ L S S /23/ L S S S /5/ R N /6/ R S N /6/ L S S /7/ L S S /7/ R S N N /14/ L N S /18/ M M S /24/ M M S /1/ R N N /1/ L S S /1/ R N N /1/ R S N /20/ M M S S /26/ M M N /29/ M M S /1/ L S S /1/ M M N /1/ L S S /1/ L S S /1/ R N N /9/ L S N /9/ M M N /25/ L S /25/ L S S /14/ M M N /14/ L S S /16/ R N /23/ R N N /28/ R N N /2/ R N N /3/ M M N /6/ L S /6/ L S /10/ R N 4 1 N /22/ R N N /25/ L S S 2 0 0

41 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/ L S S /30/ M M S /6/ M M S /17/ M M S /21/ M M N /2/ L S S /2/ L S /2/ M M S /14/ L S S S /14/ L S S /16/ M M S /26/ L S S /30/ R N N /8/ R S N /11/ L S S /12/ R S N /23/ L S S /24/ M M S /29/ L S S /30/ M M S /8/ M M S /10/ L S S /18/ L S S /19/ R N N /26/ R S S /27/ R S N /27/ L S N /28/ L S /3/ M M S /16/ L S S S /26/ M M S /26/ R S 15 1 S /5/ R N N /13/ M M N /18/ L S S /24/ R S N /27/ R S N /9/ R S N /9/ M M N /12/ M M S /15/ R N N /18/ L S S /19/ R N N /20/ R N N /22/ M M O /27/ R N N /31/ R N N /5/ L S S /9/ M M S

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 /18/ L S S /21/ M M N /23/ L S S /30/ R S N /2/ R N N /5/ L S S /5/ M M S /11/ R S N /15/ R N /16/ R S S /1/ R N N /2/ R N N /2/ L S W /13/ L S /18/ M M N /21/ M M N /31/ L S S /13/ R N /14/ L S S /22/ R N N /23/ L S /28/ R N N /7/ L S 1 1 S /13/ L S S /16/ L S /23/ R N N /24/ L S S /26/ R S N /29/ R S S /29/ R N N /29/ R N N /1/ R N 4 1 N /3/ R N N /3/ L S S /14/ L S S /15/ R S N /19/ R S N /19/ M M S /14/ R S S /23/ R S N /24/ R S S /27/ L S S /27/ M M S /28/ L S S /28/ M M N 21 1 N /31/ L S /2/ L S S /3/ M M U 1 0 0

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 /13/ M M S /13/ L S /18/ L S /18/ R S N N /19/ R N /19/ R N /19/ R N /24/ L S 3 1 S /28/ L S 3 1 S /29/ L S S /9/ L S S /16/ M M N /20/ L S S /21/ R N N /5/ M M N S /5/ M M S /5/ L S S /5/ M M N /9/ R N N /9/ L S S 11 8 S /12/ R N /26/ R N /7/ M M N /12/ R N /15/ R S N /17/ L S S /22/ L S S /25/ M M S /25/ L S S /30/ L S /6/ M M N /13/ L S S /17/ L U 13 1 S /19/ R N /27/ M M N /28/ R N N /30/ L S S /3/ M M S /3/ L S S /4/ R N N /7/ R S S /10/ R S N /18/ R S N /22/ M M S /24/ R N /25/ M M S S 2 0 1

44

45

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