Guidance on using this shell: - New York State Department ...
|Use of hidden text features: |
|Hidden GREEN text instructs the writer of action to be taken or informs of important information. |
|GREEN TEXT is formatted as hidden text. |
|ALL GREEN TEXT IS TO REMAIN IN THE DOCUMENT AND MAY BE TURNED ON/OFF AS REQUIRED DURING DOCUMENT PREPARATION. |
|To turn hidden text on/off in MS Word, on the Home tab, in the Paragraph group, click Show/Hide (¶). |
| |
|[pic] |
| |
|To reformat a portion of the hidden text so that it will be always viewable and print in Word: |
|Highlight the portion you wish to unhide |
|Right-click and select the down arrow for Font… |
|In the Effects section, deselect Hidden |
|Click OK |
| |
|[pic] |
| |
|BLACK text is to be included in the report (after selecting one of the choices and deleting the non-selected choices). |
| |
|RED text offers choices or requires adaptation; choose one or all paragraphs that apply or modify as necessary. |
| |
|BLUE text is hyperlinks to web pages. |
|97 – 2003 Compatibility Mode Drop-Down Form Fields: |
|Due to a need to use the 97 -2003 Compatibility Mode of MS Word (.doc files) because of internet posting restrictions, the Legacy Form version of the |
|Drop-Down Form Field must be used. The method of choosing text from the form fields is as follows: |
|1.Double click on the form field on the Shell to open the Drop-Down |1. |
|Form Field Options dialog box. |[pic] |
|2. Highlight the choice and move it to the top of the column. | |
|3. Click OK to have the choice appear in the appropriate form field | |
|cell. | |
|2. |3. |
|[pic] |[pic] |
|Transportation | |
|Project Report | |
|[Draft] Project Scoping | |
|Report/Final Design | |
|Report | |
| | |
|Month 20xx | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|[Project Title/Description (e.g., Route______over________)] | |
|Project Identification Number (PIN): _______ | |
|[Bridge Identification Number (BIN): ________] | |
|[Village/Town/City] of________ | |
|________ County | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|[pic] | |
For 100% State funded projects delete the FHWA logo below.
[pic][pic]
|ALERT! |
| |
|This document has been formatted as a Word 97 – 2003 compatible file (.doc) due to the web-posting requirements to accommodate accessible |
|reader software. When this file is modified to produce a DAD, it is beneficial to save it as a .doc file. If it is saved as a .docx or .docm|
|file, formatting (particularly on the cover) will potentially be altered and require correction. |
| |
|Project Approval Sheet |
|Note this sheet is formatted as a table. |
|Milestones |Signatures | |Dates |
|Recommendation for, Scope and|The project cost and schedule are consistent with the Regional Capital Program. |
|Design Approval: | |
| | | | | |
| |Name, Regional Program Manager |Date |
| |
|B. Recommendation for Scope, |All requirements requisite to these actions and approvals have been met, the required independent quality |
|Design, and Nonstandard |control reviews separate from the functional group reviews have been accomplished, and the work is consistent |
|Feature Approval: |with established standards, policies, regulations, and procedures, except as otherwise noted and explained. |
|OR |Meeting all requirements requisite to these actions and approvals includes meeting the requirements of the NYS |
|Recommendation for Scope and |Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA). Recommendation for Design Approval includes |
|Design Approval |verification that SGPIPA documentation requirements are met. |
| | |
| |When the project includes justification of nonstandard features, include the following statement: The |
| |nonstandard features have been adequately justified and it is not prudent to eliminate them as part of this |
| |project. |
| |OR, |
| |Include the following when nonstandard feature justifications are not required: No nonstandard features have |
| |been identified, created, or retained. |
| | | | | |
| |Name, |Date |
| |
|C. Public Hearing |A public hearing was not required. |
|Certification (Pursuant to 23|OR, A public hearing was held on _______. |
|USC 128 and 23 CFR |OR, A Notice of Opportunity for a Public Hearing was published on ______ and ______. No requests to hold a |
|771.111):Remove “(Pursuant to|public hearing were received therefore a hearing was not held. . When required by 23 CFR 771.111(h)(2)(iii) |
|23 USC 128 and 23 CFR |FHWA NEPA regulations require certification of a hearing or offer to hold a hearing (23 CFR 771.111(h)(2)(vi). |
|771.111)” when not following | |
|FHWA public hearing | |
|requirements | |
| | | | | |
| | |Name, |Date |
| |
|D. Categorical Exclusion |This project qualifies as a Categorical Exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act per the |
|Determination on Behalf of |NYSDOT/FHWA Programmatic Agreement Regarding Categorical Exclusions. |
|FHWA This certification is | |
|required when the completed | |
|FEAW indicates that NYSDOT | |
|makes the CE determination. | |
|Remove this certification | |
|when FHWA makes the CE | |
|determination and for 100% | |
|State-funded projects. | |
| | | | | |
| | |Name, |Date |
| |
|D/E. Scope, Design, and |When project requires justification of nonstandard features, ensure this statement is revised Refer to Exhibit |
|Nonstandard Feature Approval:|4-2 in PDM Chapter 4 to determine the appropriate authority or authorities for design approval and nonstandard |
| |feature approval. The required environmental determinations have been made, and the preferred alternative for |
|OR |this project is ready for final design. Nonstandard features have been appropriately justified. . |
|Scope and Design Approval |OR No nonstandard features are being retained or created. |
|Use this row for NYSDOT | |
|administered projects. | |
|For local projects remove | |
|this certification and use | |
|rows below. | |
| | | | | |
| | |Name, | | Date |
| |
|D/E. Local Project |Nonstandard features on Non-NHS local roadways have been appropriately justified. |
|Nonstandard Feature Approval |OR No nonstandard features are being retained or created on Non-NHS local roadways. |
|Use for local projects. | |
|Include the certifications to| |
|the right as appropriate. | |
| | | | | |
| | |Name, | |Date |
| |Only include the certification below if there is work proposed on NHS/State roadways. Nonstandard features on |
| |NHS/State roadways have been appropriately justified. |
| |OR No nonstandard features are being retained or created on NHS/State roadways. |
| | | | | |
| | |Name, | |Date |
| |
|E/F. Local Project Scope and |The required environmental determinations have been made, and the preferred alternative for this project is |
|Design Approval |ready for final design. |
|Use for local projects. | |
| | | | | |
| | |Name, | |Date |
| |
|List of Preparers |
Group Director Responsible for Production of this Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report (PSR/FDR): Only stamp the final report.
|__(Name)_____, PE, Regional Design Engineer, NYSDOT Region ___ | |
|OR | |
|__(Name)_____, PE, Regional Maintenance Engineer, NYSDOT Region ___ | |
|OR | |
|__(Name)_____, PE, Regional Director of Operations, NYSDOT Region ___ | |
|OR | |
|__(Name)_____, PE, Director, Design Services Bureau, NYSDOT |PLACE P.E. STAMP |
|OR | |
|__(Name)_____, PE, Principal, ___(Consultant firm name)___ | |
|Description of Work Performed: Directed the preparation of the PSR/FDR in accordance with | |
|established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this | |
|document. | |
| | |
Note: It is a violation of law for any person, unless they are acting under the direction of a licensed professional engineer, architect, landscape architect, or land surveyor, to alter an item in any way. If an item bearing the stamp of a licensed professional is altered, the altering engineer, architect, landscape architect, or land surveyor shall stamp the document and include the notation "altered by" followed by their signature, the date of such alteration, and a specific description of the alteration.
[For NYSDOT prepared reports, include the following section. Only include licensed professionals that are stamping work as part of the main body of the report. Only stamp the final report. Add/remove rows, as needed. Include the date(s) that the Project Manager/Designer sealing the report visited the project site, as directed by the DCED. Refer to PDM Appendix 7, Section 6.1 for the technical appendices that must be stamped. The professional stamp does NOT apply to the environmental portions of the report, the cost estimate, or the schedule.]
This report was prepared by the following NYSDOT staff:
|__(Name)_____, PE, ____________, NYSDOT, _____ | |
|Description of Work Performed: | |
|Prepared the _____ for the PSR/FDR in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations | |
|and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document. I visited the project site on | |
|_______________. | |
| | |
|OR |PLACE P.E. STAMP |
| | |
|Description of Work Performed: Directly supervised the preparation of the PSR/FDR Chapters 1 and 2| |
|in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations, and procedures, except as | |
|otherwise explained in this document. I visited the project site on _______________. | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |PLACE P.E. STAMP |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
|Table of Contents |
|Update page numbers in the TOC below by right clicking on the table and selecting Update Field. Then select Update Page Numbers Only and |
|click OK. Page numbers should be updated whenever changes are made to the report. |
| |
|DO NOT CHANGE THE HEADING SETTINGS (in Styles on the Home tab) for the section titles. They are linked to the Table of Contents. When |
|additional three-digit subsections need to be added in Chapter 3, highlight the created subsection number and title in the text and select |
|“Heading 3” from the Styles Menu on the Home tab. When subsections are added or it becomes necessary to make other changes to section titles,|
|ensure the TOC below is updated by right clicking over the TOC and selecting “Update Field” and then select “Update entire table” and click |
|OK. Ensure that the steps above have been done prior to sending the report for any review. |
Project Approval Sheet i ii
List of Preparers ii
Table of Contents iii
Table of Appendices iv
CHAPTER 1 – PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 1-1
1.1. Introduction 1-1
1.1.1. Project Location 1-1
1.2. Purpose, Need and Objectives 1-1
1.2.1. Project Need 1-1
1.2.2. Project Purpose 1-1
1.2.3 Project Objectives 1-2
1.3. Project Alternative(s) 1-3
1.4 Project Effects 1-3
1.4.1 Environmental Classification 1-3
1.4.2 Comparison of Considered Alternatives 1-3
1.4.3 Anticipated Permits/Coordination/Certifications 1-5
1.5 Preferred Alternative 1-6
1.6 Project Schedule and Cost 1-7
1.7 Public Involvement 1-9
CHAPTER 2 – EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS 2-1
2.1 Functional Classification/National Highway System/Truck Access 2-1
2.2 Planning Considerations 2-2
2.2.1 Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans 2-2
2.2.2 Local Plans for the Project Area 2-2
2.2.3.Access Control 2-3
2.2.4 Access Modification 2-3
2.3. Traffic Considerations 2-3
2.3.1 Traffic Volumes 2-3
2.3.2 Speed Studies 2-4
2.3.3 Level of Service Analysis 2-4
2.3.4 Safety and Crash History Analysis 2-5
2.3.5 Pedestrians, Bicyclists and Transit (Complete Streets) 2-6
2.4 Structures 2-8
2.4.1 Structures Data 2-8
2.4.2 Hydraulic Considerations 2-9
2.5 Design Standards 2-9
2.5.1 Critical Design Elements 2-10
2.5.2 Other Design Parameters 2-12
2.5.3 Existing and Proposed Highway/Bridge Plan and Section 2-16
2.5.4 Nonstandard/Nonconforming Features 2-16
2.6 Other Infrastructure Considerations 2-17
2.6.1 Pavement and Shoulder Conditions 2-17
2.6.2 Right of Way 2-17
2.6.3 Geotechnical 2-17
2.6.4 Access Management 2-18
2.6.5 Traffic Control Devices 2-18
2.6.6 Drainage Systems 2-18
2.6.7 Utilities and Lighting 2-18
2.6.8 Guide Railing, Median/Roadside Barriers and Impact Attenuators 2-19
2.6.9 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) 2-19
2.6.10 Landscape and Community Enhancement Considerations 2-19
2.7 Work Zone Safety and Mobility 2-19
2.7.1 Transportation Management Plan 2-19
2.7.2 Proposed Work Zone Traffic Control 2-20
2.8 Additional Considerations 2-21
2.8.1 Constructability Review 2-21
2.8.2 Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction 2-22
2.8.3 NYS Smart Growth Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA) 2-22
2.8.4 Miscellaneous Information 2-22
CHAPTER 3 – SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 3-1
3.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 3-1
3.1.1 NEPA Cooperating/Participating Agencies 3-1
3.2 State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) 3-1
3.3 Additional Environmental Information 3-2
3.3.1 Wetlands 3-3
| |
|Table of Appendices |
|Consult PDM Exhibit 7-11 -Technical Appendices for DADs to the determine the appendices to be included. |
|A. |Maps, Plans, Profiles & Typical Sections |
|B. |Environmental Information |
|C. |Traffic Information |
|D. |Pavement Information |
|E. |Structures Information |
|F. |Nonstandard Features Justification |
|G. |Public Involvement Ensure the Public Involvement Plan (PIP) is included |
|H. |Right-of-Way Information |
|I. |Miscellaneous |
|J. |Other |
– PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
(Go to end of this document for instructions on turning on/off GREEN text during document preparation, and for Summary of Changes.)
|ALERT! |
| |
|All text that is only appropriate for the draft PSR/FDR version must be updated for the final version before Design Approval can be requested.|
1.1. Introduction
Include reference to 23 CFR Part 771 when project has or requires a federal action including funding, federal permit or interstate access modification. 17 NYCRR Part 15 applies to all projects for which NYSDOT is the SEQRA Lead Agency. For projects where NYSDOT is not the SEQRA Lead Agency (e.g., local projects) use “6 NYCRR Part 617.”
This report was prepared in accordance with the NYSDOT Project Development Manual, 17 NYCRR (New York Codes, Rules and Regulations) Part 15, and 23 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 771. Transportation needs have been identified (section 1.2), objectives established (1.2.3) to address the needs, and cost-effective alternatives developed (1.3). This project is federally funded 100% State funded.
1.1.1. Project Location
Include a project map developed utilizing both Arc Map and Screen Snip, or similar method. If appropriate include an ortho image. For additional guidance on Arc Map and GIS applications see the Office of Design’s GIS IntraDOT page. The minimum mapping information should include (in a text bubble):
A. Route number
B. Route name
C. SH (state highway) number and official highway description
D. BIN (Bridge Identification Number) and feature crossed
E. City/Village/Township
F. County
G. Length
H. From RM XXXX-XXXX-XXXX to RM XXXX-XXXX-XXXX
I. Any other description information which is pertinent
2 1.2. Purpose, Need and Objectives
1.2.1. Project Need
Identify and describe transportation needs and/or respective concerns which the proposed action is intended to satisfy (e.g., provide system continuity, alleviate traffic congestion~ and correct safety or roadway deficiencies). In many cases the project need can be adequately explained in one or two paragraphs.
1.2.2. Project Purpose
The purpose statement should briefly describe what the project is intended to accomplish and should be stated as the expected positive outcome. The Purpose defines the transportation problem to be solved It should avoid stating a solution—e.g.,the purpose of the project is to build a bypass.
The purpose of this project is to (insert description e.g. “provide geometric and operational improvements to…”)
1.2.3 Project Objectives
See Project Development Manual Appendix 4 when establishing project objectives. Project objectives are what the project is meant to accomplish; the desired results of the project; the outcomes of the project that meet the identified needs or remedy stated problems. Therefore, objective(s) will be unique to each project.
Project objectives provide evaluation criteria (measures of effectiveness) for comparing how well alternative solutions fulfill identified needs. Objectives should be listed or grouped in order of importance. When the objectives do not completely satisfy identified needs, an explanation should follow.
A proper statement of project objectives has several characteristics. The statements should include the following:
• Describes the desired results of the project in a manner that is appropriately specific.
• Is consistent with available resources
• Gives time frames for achievement
• Allows achievement to be measured
NOTE: If the proposed project would also assist in accomplishing other objectives not directly identifiable as part of the problem(s), these should be described as well.
Objectives must be written clearly so that design alternatives can be evaluated against them. Objectives should not define or state specific solution(s) to the problem but should define criteria that the project is to achieve. Some examples are listed below. Note that when condition ratings or other such designations are used, a description of what the rating means should be provided. Bridge Condition Rating is a performance measure of the bridge; which is rated on a 1 (Failed) through 7 (New) scale, and can be found in the Bridge Data Information System (BDIS) maintained by the Office of Structures.
CHOOSE THE APPROPRIATE OBJECTIVE:
1) Restore the bridge condition rating to 5 (a rating of 5 means that the bridge remains in fully functional and non-deficient condition) or greater, for at least __ years using cost effective techniques to minimize the life cycle cost of maintenance and repair.
2) Improve overall traffic conditions using cost effective methods to reduce delay and to provide an acceptable level of service, for a design period of ___ years.
3) Address geometric deficiencies to improve traffic flow and facilitate traffic operations.
4) Correct identified pavement deficiencies that will extend the useful life of the highway and maintain it in a structurally sound condition using cost effective pavement treatments which provide low life cycle costs.
5) Restore pavement to good condition using cost effective pavement treatments which provide a service life of ___ years.
6) Correct safety deficiencies using cost effective accident reduction measures such that accident reduction benefits equal or exceed project costs attributable to safety work.
7) Improve existing facilities and services using cost effective measures to eliminate the degradation of mainline level of service, and improve level of service or reduce the hours of delay at LOS E for the design year.
On projects where a law, Executive Order or regulation (e.g. ~ Section 4(f), Executive Order 11990 or Executive Order 11988) mandates an evaluation of avoidance alternatives, the project objective statement(s) should be written so that it can be clearly determined whether avoidance alternatives meet the stated project objective(s).
3 1.3. Project Alternative(s)
Projects utilizing the PSR/FDR will typically have only one reasonable alternative. This section should provide brief descriptions of the no build alternative and the reasonable alternative. The reasonable alternative discussion must explain how it meets the project’s objectives. If there are more than one reasonable build alternatives that meet the project objectives, discuss them under the “Alternatives Under Consideration” heading below. Under the Alternatives Found to Be Not Reasonable” heading, briefly list and discuss alternatives considered and dismissed. Plans and typical sections should be prepared per the guidance offered in Highway Design Manual (HDM) Chapter 21.
Alternatives Under Consideration:
No Build: The no-build alternative should be considered and discussed briefly. It must be retained to evaluate impacts that would result from the reasonable alternative.
Alternative X: Provide brief discussion of the reasonable alternative.
Alternatives Found to Be Not Reasonable:
List and briefly discuss alternatives that were dismissed.
For a more in-depth discussion of the design criteria and nonstandard features for the reasonable alternative(s) under consideration see Section 2.5 of this report.
4 1.4 Project Effects
1.4.1 Environmental Classification
|Exhibit 1-1 |
|Environmental Classification Summary |
| |
|NEPA Classification |Class II CE |BY | | |
|SEQRA Type: | |BY | | |
1.4.2 Comparison of Considered Alternatives
In table below only list the resources or topics that are applicable to the project. If there are topics not listed below as examples that are potential issues on a project they should be added.
|ALERT! |
| |
|PSR/FDR projects usually have one reasonable alternative. If a project has multiple reasonable alternatives from the outset, the DDR/FDR |
|shell should be used. In cases where a single reasonable alternative is identified, and a second reasonable alternative is identified later |
|in the process, the PSR/FDR shell must be modified to ensure adequate comparison of the alternatives. Ensure modifications and Exhibit 1-2 |
|below fully incorporate the second reasonable alternative and that the report text includes the appropriate discussions and evaluation of |
|impacts. |
|Exhibit 1-2 |
|Comparison of Considered Alternatives |
|Category |Alternatives Evaluated |Alternatives Found Not Reasonable |
| |No Build |Preferred |Alt 2 |Alt 3 |
| | |Alt. 1 | | |
|Topics provided below are examples. Add and remove topic rows as necessary for project |
|Environmental Impacts |
|Wetlands |None |2.81 acres |3.08 acres |3.5 acres |
|Cultural Resources (Section |None |2 sites affected |2 sites affected |3 sites affected |
|106) | |No Potential to Cause Effect |Adverse Effect |Adverse Effect |
| | |on Historic Properties | | |
|Section 4(f) |None |Programmatic Section 4(f) |Individual Section 4(f) |Individual Section 4(f) |
| | |Evaluation for Minor |Evaluation |Evaluation |
| | |Involvement with Historic | | |
| | |Sites | | |
|Endangered/ Threatened Species|None |May Affect, Not Likely to |May Affect, Not Likely to |May Affect, Not Likely to |
| | |Adversely Affect the northern |Adversely Affect the northern|Adversely Affect the |
| | |long eared bat |long eared bat |northern long eared bat |
|Noise |None |4 Residences |4 Residences |2 residences |
|Social Impacts |
|Property/Relocations |None |10 acres |12.5 acres |20 acres |
| | |6 businesses |8 businesses |8 businesses |
| | |1 residence |2 residences |4 residences |
| | | | |1 relocation |
|Mobility (Pedestrian, bicycle,|No Effect |Improved pedestrian and |Increased pedestrian crossing|Reduction in shoulder width |
|transit, etc.) | |bicycle mobility |distances |used by bicyclists. |
|Environmental Justice |No Effect |No disproportionate high and |No disproportionate high and |No disproportionate high and|
| | |adverse effects to minority or|adverse effects to minority |adverse effects on minority |
| | |low-income populations |or low-income populations |or low-income populations |
|General Social Groups |No Effect |Beneficial impacts for |Increased impacts to elderly |Impacts to children’s’ |
|(elderly, disabled, children, | |disabled (new accessible |population (noise impacts, |access to parks and school. |
|transit dependent, etc.) | |sidewalks and crossings) |increased pedestrian crossing| |
| | | |distance) | |
|Crash Costs |High |Low |High | Low |
|Economic and/or Operational Impacts - Examples of issues that might cause economic impacts are temporary detours, reduction in parking, access |
|management that limits movements into businesses, removal of traffic from a roadway, etc. |
|Economic Impacts |No |Modification to vehicular |Slight modification to |No change to vehicular |
| |Effect |access to businesses |vehicular access to |access to businesses |
| | | |businesses | |
|Temporary Detours |No Effect |6 businesses affected for 2 |6 businesses affected for 2 |6 businesses affected for 2 |
| | |months |months |months |
|Reduction of Parking |No Effect |Loss of 3 on-street parking |Loss of 3 on-street spaces |Loss of 3 on-street spaces |
| | |spaces |and loss of off-street |and loss of off-street |
| | | |parking in 2 private lots. |parking in 2 private lots. |
|Operation at ETC If using |15 min delay |4 min delay |3 min delay |1 min. delay |
|this row insure the | | | | |
|appropriate design year is | | | | |
|used. | | | | |
|Utilities |None |Relocation required |Relocation required |Temporary Relocations |
| | |$0.2M |$0.3M |Required |
|Construction Cost |None |$14M |$15M |$20M |
The above table should be modified to include the items and resources that by comparison help to differentiate the alternatives (including the null/no-build alternative) and aid in conveying the reasons for the selection of the preferred alternative. All issues that have a bearing on the preferred alternative selection should be included as needed. For example, load rating could be included for a bridge project, air quality for a capacity improvement project, etc.
Proposed Mitigation: If mitigation measures are proposed for the project, include a statement referencing the applicable section(s) in Chapter 3. Example:
Refer to Chapter 3 Section(s) 3.X. for mitigation measures that are proposed for this project.
1.4.3 Anticipated Permits/Coordination/Certifications
In Exhibit 1.3 list the agencies from which permits/certifications/coordination are/is anticipated to be needed for the project. Ensure that this is consistent with what has been provided in Chapter 3.
|Exhibit 1-3 |
|Anticipated Permits/Certifications/Coordination |
|Permits – remove or add rows for those that apply |
|NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC): |
|State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit |
|Article 24- Freshwater Wetlands Permit |
|Article 25 Tidal Wetland Permit |
|Water Quality Certification |
|Mined Land Permit |
|Floodplain Variance |
|Wild, Scenic, Recreational Rivers Permit |
|Construction Staging Permit |
|Construction Borrow Area Mining Permit |
|Construction Solid Waste Disposal Permit |
|Indirect Source Air Quality Permit |
|Coastal Zone Erosion Permit |
|Coastal Erosion Hazard Permit (Article 34) |
|United States Coast Guard (Reference Appendix H for the USCG Checklist) |
|Section 9 Permit |
|Army Corps of Engineers (USACE): |
|Nationwide Permit # fill in permit # and title. Some of the typical NWPs used for NYSDOT projects are; #3 – Maintenance; #13 - Bank |
|Stabilization; #14 – Linear Transportation Projects; ; #33 – Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering; #43 – Stormwater Management |
|Facilities.) |
|Section 404 Individual Permit |
|Section 10 Permit |
|Transportation Regional General Permit TRGP-1 |
|Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) |
|National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit |
|Adirondack Park Agency (APA) |
|APA General Permit |
|Others |
|Local Permits |
|Coordination – remove or add rows for those that apply |
|NYSDEC (pursuant to the “NYSDEC/NYSDOT Memorandum of Understanding Regarding ECL Articles 15 & 24”) |
|Federal Highway Administration |
|New York State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) |
|US Fish and Wildlife Service |
|New York Natural Heritage Program |
|National Park Service |
|Adirondack Park Agency |
|Section 1424(e) review by FHWA and EPA (sole source aquifer) |
|Municipalities - List all that apply |
|Metropolitan Planning Organization - |
|Utilities - List all that apply including municipal and private utilities that apply |
|Certifications – remove or add rows for those that apply |
|NYS Department of Labor: Asbestos Variances |
|NYSDEC Airport Air Quality Certification (Licensed Designer Specifications/Notes) |
|NYS Department of State Coastal Zone Consistency Certification Statement |
|NYS Department of State Coastal Zone Local Waterfront Revitalization Certification |
5 1.5 Preferred Alternative
Often, one reasonable build alternative has been identified. This section should include a rationale for the selection of the preferred alternative. Ensure that the discussion includes how the preferred alternative best meets the project objectives. If the draft report discussed multiple reasonable alternatives under consideration, the final report must discuss a preferred alternative.
Only one reasonable build alternative has been identified that meets the project objectives. A decision to enter final design will not be made until after the environmental determination is made and evaluation of the comments on the draft design approval document and comments received from the public informational meeting (if held) has been completed.
The No Build Alternative will be retained for use as a baseline to measure and evaluate impacts that might accrue from the preferred alternative.
6 1.6 Project Schedule and Cost
Refer to PPMIS or P6 schedule for the initial cost and schedule. During scoping, the designer is to develop costs and a schedule using accepted practices. The project schedule and cost estimate are to be maintained in ProjectWise. When the desired letting date is critical, a statement to that effect will be included in the request for reviews or approvals. Similarly, if there is flexibility in the schedule, this must be noted in the request memos. Schedule qualifiers such as utility involvement, ordering steel for bridges, meeting cultural resource requirements, special local events, and other schedule constraints should also be described.
|Exhibit 1-4 - Project Schedule |
|Activity |Date Occurred/Tentative |
|Scope/Design Approval | |
|ROW Acquisition | |
|Construction Start | |
|Construction Complete | |
[pic]
If important to support the selection of the preferred alternative, add additional columns in exhibit above for discarded alternatives. In the cost table above, Preliminary Design costs shall be calculated from actual PIN charges at submittal of the Design Approval Document. The Final design costs shall be taken from the resource estimate.
Prepare a Design Resource Estimate per EI 22-029 and place a copy in Appendix I and include the text below:
This project is estimated to require x,xxx design hours to complete with an estimated resource cost of $y,yyy,yyy. For a more detailed estimate of how the design hours are broken down, see the Design Resource Estimate in Appendix I.
7 1.7 Public Involvement
|ALERT! |
| |
|Some environmental regulations, (such as EO 11990, Sections 106 and 4(f)) have specific requirements for public notification/input based on |
|impacts to resources. For instance, if the project is expected to have a de minimis Section 4(f) impact finding on a park, recreation area or|
|wildlife/waterfowl refuge, public notice of an opportunity for public review and comment must be provided per 23 CFR 771.111(h)(2)(viii) and |
|23 CFR 774.5(b)(2)(i). If a public meeting is planned, this may be done as part of the notice for the public meeting. If no meeting is |
|planned, then a notice should be published in a local newspaper with deadline for acceptance of comments (concerning the Section 4(f) de |
|minimis impact finding). For historic resources, this requirement is met by following Section 106 procedures (23 CFR 774.5(b)(1)(iii). |
| |
|Coordinate with your Regional Environmental Unit. If needed, contact your MOPL or the Office of Environment for information. |
Refer to PDM Appendix 2 for public involvement measures and other information that might be appropriate for the project. Ensure the project Public Involvement Plan (PIP) and any pertinent correspondence with stakeholders and the public is provided in Appendix G and summarized here. Provide a concise summary of meetings and other opportunities to involve stakeholders and the public. Discuss any public hearings or public meetings scheduled/held for the project. Discuss any issues or controversy that has been raised by stakeholders or the public. Summarize efforts to resolve or address issues. When discussing input to be or that has been received from stakeholders or the public ensure that the discussion also mentions that this input will be considered as part of the project development process.
Ensure that efforts made to reach out to minority and Limited English Proficient (LEP) community members in accordance with EO 13166 and NYS EO 26 are discussed. For information on LEP best practices contact the Office of Civil Rights.
Establish contacts with potentially involved stakeholders such as:
• Applicable State & Federal agencies (e.g., NYSDEC, ACOE, NYSTA, SHPO, FHWA, MPO)
• Municipalities
• Commuters
• Local elected officials
• Local property owners
• Emergency services
• Businesses
• Chambers of commerce
• Schools
• Advocacy groups (transit, the disabled, pedestrians, etc.)
Fill in key public involvement activities in Exhibit 1-6. Ensure the activities and dates are consistent with the PIP.
Refer to Appendix G for the project’s Public Involvement Plan and for related project correspondence.
|Exhibit 1-6 |
|Public Involvement Plan Schedule of Milestone Dates |
|Activity |Date Occurred/Tentative |
|Initial Environmental Findings | |
|Field Pre-Scoping Meeting (all groups) | |
|In-house DOT scoping meeting | |
|Stakeholder Meeting | |
|Focus Group Meeting | |
|Meeting with Town/Village/City Officials | |
|Meeting with SHPO | |
|Public Informational Meeting | |
|Current Project Letting date | |
For additional information or to provide comments, please contact. . .
|Mailing Address: |Provide Name, Project Manager |
| |New York State Department of Transportation |
| |Region X Design |
| |Street Address |
| |Municipality, New York XXXXX |
|Email Address: |first.last@dot. |
|Telephone: |(XXX) XXX-XXXX |
Please include the six-digit Project Identification Number (PIN) XXXX.XX in any correspondence.
. . .or visit the Project website:
The deadline for submitting comments is Month XX, 20XX.
The remainder of this report is a detailed technical evaluation of existing conditions, anticipated impacts of the one reasonable/preferred alternative and comparison to the null alternative, copies of technical reports and plans and other supporting information.
– EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
The information provided in this chapter should provide a description of the existing features and the proposed features.
This chapter builds upon the work accomplished during scoping and should clearly support the selection of the preferred alternative. Conditions, deficiencies and engineering considerations must be clearly described in this chapter to document the project need and consistency with project objectives (i.e., the purpose or desired results of the project).
Describe existing and expected future no-build design year transportation features/conditions and the proposed conditions of the preferred alternative. It is important to properly and adequately describe the existing and proposed transportation features/conditions so they are clearly understood. This is especially important where the existing and expected future conditions reveal deficiencies that support the need for the project. Further discussion must compare the existing and proposed condition to clearly show how needs or deficiencies are addressed.
While it is important to document the consideration of each topic presented as a subheading in this chapter, only that information or data that is pertinent to the project (i.e., affects scope, quality, cost, or schedule) should be discussed in detail. The level of treatment of any item will depend on project need, complexity and character, and the level of detail necessary to gauge the scope and cost for the project at design approval.
When subsections below do not apply to a project, include a brief statement explaining why the subject is not relevant.
1 2.1 Functional Classification/National Highway System/Truck Access
Refer to Bridge Manual Section 2.4 for the vertical clearance network. Qualifying and truck access route information can be found on Office of Modal Safety and Security web site:
Official Description of Designated Qualifying and Access Highways in NYS (2019)
Functional classification and NHS data is available:
Functional Class Maps and Viewer
|Exhibit 2-1 |
|Classification Data |
|Route(s) | | |
|Functional | | |
|Classification | | |
|National Highway System (NHS) | | |
|Designated Truck Access Route | | |
|Qualifying | | |
|Highway | | |
|Within 1 mile of a Qualifying Highway| | |
|Within the 16 ft vertical clearance | | |
|network | | |
2 2.2 Planning Considerations
2.2.1 Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans
Briefly describe the existing conditions of the abutting highway segments including: lane and shoulder widths, general vertical and horizontal alignment, existing pavement condition, clear zone, and speed limits.
It is important to assure that the work being proposed is consistent with future plans, including long range system plans, for abutting highway segments. Include a brief statement regarding plans to reconstruct or widen the abutting highway segment within 20 years. If the project involves a state highway, a brief statement should be provided by the Regional Planning and Program Manager (RPPM). If the project is on a non-state highway, a written statement from the unit of government having authority over the facility should be obtained.
Refer to abutting highway segments match the typical section of the existing highway with the project limits.
The Regional Planning Group has confirmed that there are no plans to reconstruct or widen this highway segment, or the adjoining segments, within the next 20 years.
2.2.2 Local Plans for the Project Area
Any adopted local comprehensive plans should be referenced and briefly described in this section. Summarize local planning goals and objectives. Any approved development planned for the area which would change the culture, land use patterns, zoning, traffic volumes, parking conditions (e.g., more on street parking which may add to congestion), rural uninterrupted to suburban interrupted flow, etc., in the area, should be described, with approximate year when implementation of planned development is expected. Indicate if the necessary permits have been obtained and if the SEQRA process has been completed for the proposed local development. Indicate the project is consistent with any plans or does not preclude future development.
|ALERT! |
| |
|FHWA requires that projects using federal funding have the cost allocated on the STIP/TIP. FHWA will not grant design approval for any |
|project not on the STIP/TIP. Check the STIP/TIP to ensure the project is adequately funded and if not, contact Planning for a STIP/TIP |
|amendment. |
Include a statement if the project is on the STIP/TIP including TIP #:
This project is on the approved [add MPO name] (20XX – 20YY) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as TIP Number ____. Project funding has been fully allocated on the TIP.
OR
This project is on the 20XX – 20YY State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Project funding has been fully allocated on the STIP.
Other appropriate statements include:
The Regional Planning Group has reviewed the local master plan prepared for the Town of _______. This project is consistent with the local master plan.
There are no approved developments planned within the project area that will impact traffic operations.
2.2.3. Access Control
Access control is the regulated limitation of access rights to and from properties abutting the highway facility. It is measured by the degree to which access is controlled, fully controlled, partially controlled or uncontrolled. In this section, state whether the highway is, partially, fully, or without control of access. State if there is control of access at ramp intersections where applicable. Indicate proposed access control. Ensure that access management issues (providing or managing access to adjacent land development) are discussed in Section 2.6.4. The information provided here and in 2.6.4 must be consistent.
Sample statement: Access is unrestricted along Route 43. Seventeen business and residential driveways exit onto the highway within the project limits. This project will not change the existing access control.
|ALERT! |
| |
|Include the section below only for projects that require an Access Modification Request/Report (AMR) for Interstates or Other Freeways. |
|Delete the section when it is not required and ensure that the Table of Contents field is updated to reflect its removal. |
2.2.4 Access Modification
Access modification is a proposed new or revised access point to a freeway mainline or its ramps.
For interstates, per 23 USC 11(a), State DOTs may not add any points of access to or exit from the Interstate System without FHWA’s prior approval. If access modification is proposed for an Interstate or Other Freeway discuss the need and describe the changes that are to be incorporated in this section.
Note that approval of interstate access modification is a federal action and the action is subject to NEPA requirements. For Interstates, regardless of funding, an access modification request/report (AMR) is required to be approved by FHWA. Consistent with the 5/22/17 FHWA memorandum, Changes to FHWA’s Policy on Access to the Interstate System, the AMR can be included in Appendix C for projects otherwise requiring FHWA Design Approval or Categorical Exclusion determination. This allows FHWA’s approval of the AMR concurrent with other approvals. For content requirements of the AMR, refer to FHWA’s Policy on Access to the Interstate System.
For Non-Interstate Freeways an Access Modification Report may be required. Refer to the PDM Appendix 8 for requirements. Reference and include the AMR in Appendix C.
3 2.3. Traffic Considerations
2.3.1 Traffic Volumes
|Exhibit 2-2 |
|Existing and Forecast Traffic Volumes |
| |ROUTE XX |ROUTE YY |
|Year |ADT |DHV |ADT |DHV |
|Existing | | | | |
|(XXXX) | | | | |
|ETC | | | | |
|(XXXX) | | | | |
|ETC+10 | | | | |
|(XXXX) | | | | |
|ETC+20 | | | | |
|(XXXX) | | | | |
Note: ETC is the Estimated Time of Completion
Forecast no-build design year traffic volumes – The Estimated Time of Completion (ETC) + XX design year was selected per HDM Chapter 5. If the forecast build volumes are different than the forecast no-build volumes provide additional rows in the table for those values. Note and discuss truck traffic volumes (DDHV or %) as appropriate.
2.3.2 Speed Studies
Refer to HDM Section 5.2. If different speed limits apply, describe or illustrate on 1: 24,000 (1"=2000') or 1: 9,600 (1"=800') scale map. Preferably determine the operating speed by computing the 85th percentile speed. Alternatively, select an operating speed equal to or above the posted speed limit based on expertise and experience (HDM 5.2.4). Refer to Traffic Impact Study in Appendix C as applicable.
|Exhibit – 2-3 |
|Speed Data |
|Route | |Delete or add columns as necessary |
|Existing Speed Limit (mph) | | |
|Operating Speed (mph) and Method Used for | | |
|Measurement | | |
|*Travel Speed and Delay Runs for Existing |Not required since existing LOS is C or better.|Not required since existing LOS is C or better.|
|Conditions | | |
|*Travel Time and Delay Runs Estimates |Not required since existing LOS is C or better.|Not required since existing LOS is C or better.|
* For major capacity projects only.
2.3.3 Level of Service Analysis
Include the existing and proposed level of service and delays using the tables below as appropriate. If a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) has been prepared and will be appended to the DAD per PDM Appendix 7, Exhibit 7-11, provide a reference to the study and summarize the results from the capacity analysis in this section. Do not include tables below that duplicate those in the TIS.
If the project is not a capacity improvement project, intersection project, etc., include a statement such as; The RPPM does not anticipate capacity improvements within XX years.
|Exhibit 2-4 |
|Level of Service – Alternative X |
|LOCATION |EXISTING |ETC |ETC+XX |ETC+XX |
| |(20XX) |(20XX) | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Exhibit 2-5 |
|Intersection Level of Service and Delays (sec) Alternative X |
|YEAR ETC |
|YYYY |
|EXISTING | | | | | |
|YYYY | | | | | |
|ETC+20 | | | | | |
|YYYY | | | | | |
|Intersection of |
|EXISTING | | | | | |
|YYYY | | | | | |
|ETC | | | | | |
|YYYY | | | | | |
|ETC+20 | | | | | |
|YYYY | | | | | |
2.3.4 Safety and Crash History Analysis
The section should answer the questions: Is the proposed project necessary to correct an existing or potential safety problem? Does the accident history reveal abnormal patterns or concentrations of accidents (clusters)? Are the number and/or severity of accidents above the State averages? Does the project contain a HAL (SDL, PIL or PII)?
Include a summary of the crash analysis and any recommendations from the project’s Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and the Regional Traffic & Safety Group’s recommendation memo. The TIS and crash analysis or recommendation memo from the Regional Traffic and Safety Group must be included in Appendix C for the project types noted in PDM Appendix 7, Exhibit 7-11. For 2R (or 1R) projects using this shell, indicate if a Resurfacing ADA and Safety Assessment Form was completed and if project will address the identified deficiencies.
|ALERT! |
| |
|Per HDM Section 5.3.3.1.B.1, ensure that the crash analysis study area extends between 0.1 and 0.3 mi beyond the project limits for all |
|involved roadways. Update crash analysis if it is 5 years or older. |
A crash analysis was performed in accordance with NYS Highway Design Manual Chapter 5. The analysis extends from RM to RM and was performed from to . The crash rate for this segment of Route is crashes per million vehicle miles. This is the statewide crash rate for similar facilities, which is crashes per million vehicle miles.
There High Accident Locations (HALs) within the study area. The HAL exists at RM . Discuss if any nonstandard features are contributing to the HAL.
The predominate crash types are:
|Exhibit 2-6 |
|Collision Summary |
|Route , From to |
|Type of Collision |Number |Percentage |
|Run off the Road | | |
|Animal | | |
|Rear End | | |
|Other | | |
The crash analysis is contained in the in Appendix C. The crash analysis recommends consideration of the following crash reduction measures: Add countermeasures discussed in TIS or T&S memo.
2.3.5 Pedestrians, Bicyclists and Transit (Complete Streets)
Include the Capital Projects Complete Streets Checklist in Appendix C and reference it in this section. Discuss results of the checklist and whether the consideration of complete street features is warranted and whether these features will be included in the project.
Pedestrians
Describe how pedestrians use the facility and other issues relative to pedestrian travel such existing generators, planned development that will generate pedestrian traffic, planned local/regional pedestrian facilities, etc. Identify the potential for greater numbers of vulnerable pedestrian groups such as children, the elderly, disabled, etc. (look for schools, parks/playgrounds elderly residences, etc.). Discuss the condition and extent of existing pedestrian facilities (sidewalks, curb ramps, crossings/crosswalks, signals, signal controls and their placement, etc.) The existing accessibility of pedestrian facilities should be described. Discuss plans for future accommodations as applicable. Note that when pedestrian specific facilities (sidewalks, curb ramps, etc.) will not meet the design standards in HDM Chapter 18, a nonstandard feature justification must be prepared using Exhibit 2-15a in HDM Chapter 2. See the guidance text in Section 2.5.4 – Nonstandard/Nonconforming Features of this shell for more information. The statements below provide examples of the appropriate breadth of discussion. Discuss the anticipated nature of pedestrian trips based upon the surrounding land use. Are trips primarily anticipated as utilitarian or recreational in nature?
Sample statement 1:
There are no existing separate provisions for pedestrians within the project limits. There is low-density residential development in the project area that generates infrequent pedestrian travel. The pedestrian trips that do exist are anticipated to be primarily recreational trips without a specific destination along with some residence to residence travel. Pedestrians may legally use the 6-ft. paved shoulder per the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1156(b). No pedestrian-specific accommodations are warranted. This is consistent with HDM Chapter 18 and the Capital Projects Complete Streets Checklist in Appendix C.
Sample statement 2:
There are existing generators of pedestrian traffic within the project area. The adjacent land use is primarily commercial, with a few residential streets intersecting and the local high school is within 0.25 miles of the project. Pedestrian travel is more than occasional on the existing 3 ft. shoulders and adjacent roadside. There is a worn path in some areas. Pedestrian travel primarily consists of students using the shoulders to travel to school and to the adjacent commercial areas.
The Capital Projects Complete Streets Checklist (in Appendix C) indicates a need for sidewalks. Pedestrians will be accommodated on a new sidewalk on the east side of the roadway and striped crosswalks will be provided. The sidewalk and crosswalks will be constructed to meet the ADA-compliant standards for pedestrian facilities in HDM Chapter 18.
Bicyclists
Describe current bicycle use – characterize the existing level of/potential for, bicycle use as low or high based on observation of bicycle travel, land use density, existing development with potential to generate bicycle traffic (commercial centers in proximity to residential areas, recreational facilities parks/playgrounds, shared-use paths, etc.). Discuss;
1) the suitability of existing provisions for the anticipated level of bicycling. (also, discuss the suitability of the facility for any existing/potential special user groups such as children near a school, playground, etc.).
2) if there are problematic locations such as interchanges or intersections that affect bicyclists. Can project address any issues? Contact Regional Bike/Ped Coordinator for information.
3) if there are local or regional existing or planned bicycle facilities, bicycle routes etc. in or within 1 mi of the project limits;
4) issues identified in the Complete Streets Checklist and any proposed accommodation to address issues.
Sample statement 1:
The existing level of and potential for bicycling is characterized as low due to the rural nature of the project area. There are generators of infrequent bicycle traffic within and near the project limits, such as a post office, and scattered highway-related restaurants and services. The route is not a designated bicycle route.
Given the rural nature of the roadway, a shoulder is the primary means of accommodating bicyclists. Bicyclists may legally use the paved shoulder and roadway consistent with the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1234.
The existing shoulder width is 3 ft. The Capital Projects Complete Streets Checklist provided in Appendix C indicates the existing shoulder width is inadequate for bicycling. The proposed shoulder width is 6 ft. per the shoulder width standard for a non-NHS rural arterial with a design year ADT of 8,263.
Sample statement 2:
The existing potential for bicycling within the project limits is high. There are commercial generators of bicycle traffic within and outside of the project limits. In addition, the roadway has been designated as a bicycle route by the municipality and it is identified on the MPO’s list of preferred routes for bicycle accommodation. High levels of bicycle traffic have not been identified during site visits, however it is anticipated there are higher levels during evening hours and on weekends.
Question 2.3 on the Capital Projects Complete Streets Checklist in Appendix C indicates the existing bicycle accommodations do not meet current standards. The existing lane width of 12 ft and 3 ft shoulder width do not meet the standards for either a shared lane or shoulder width for bicycling.
The standard lane width for a NHS Urban Arterial is 13 ft when a 0-4 ft shoulder is being provided. An outside lane width of 13 ft is proposed which will accommodate shared use of the lane. The shoulder width will be reduced to 2 ft.
Sample statement 3:
Bicyclists are legally prohibited from using this limited access roadway per . Use the appropriate V&T Law section from the dropdown. Section 1229 prohibits use of bicycles on interstates and expressways. Section 1621(a)(2) allows the prohibition of bicycles by Official Order of the Commissioner on selected other limited access highways.
Transit
Discuss transit needs along corridor. Reference the Complete Streets Checklist and specifically discuss any transit specific comments on the checklist.
4 2.4 Structures
2.4.1 Structures Data
Bridge projects must consider, evaluate and document rehabilitation and replacement options in accordance with Section 19.2.2 of the Bridge Manual. For examples of the type of work considered major or minor rehabilitation, see Section 19.1 of the Bridge Manual. Include the Bridge Rehabilitation Justification Report in Appendix E as needed (see Exhibit 7-11 in PDM Appendix 7).
If the project will address a structure, provide structural information on the existing structure (generated from BDIS) as shown in the table below (Option 1). If the project will not address structures include a statement indicating this (Option 2). Where the project proposes a new/replacement structure, provide information on the proposed structure.
Option 1: The existing bridge is described below. The project proposes to _________________ (describe the work proposed)
Option 2: No work is proposed on the existing bridge(s) and no new bridge is proposed.
|Exhibit 2-7 |
|Structure Data |
|DATA |EXISTING STRUCTURE |PROPOSED STRUCTURE |
|BIN | | |
|Feature Carried/Crossed | | |
|Type of Bridge | | |
|Number and Length of Spans | | |
|Lane Width(s) | | |
|Shoulder Width(s) | | |
|Sidewalk(s) | | |
|Utilities Carried | | |
|Horizontal Clearance(s) | | |
|Vertical Clearance(s) | | |
|State Condition Rating | | |
History & Deficiencies – Describe the history, the age and geometric deficiencies of the bridge, together with relevant approach deficiencies. Refer to the record plans for historical information.
Inspection - Summarize the findings of the biennial bridge inspection and condition report and in depth inspection Summary Reports.
Restrictions – Include whether the bridge is closed, posted for load, or if a load posting will be required in the near future. List any specific restrictions which may be imposed upon public or emergency vehicle/equipment.
Waterway – Include for new and replacement structures over a waterway, and for structures (over a waterway) that will undergo rehabilitation that results in a change in the appearance of the structure, or in the navigational clearances.
A Coast Guard Checklist is not required or A Coast Guard jurisdiction checklist is included in Appendix E.
2.4.2 Hydraulic Considerations
For projects that will address bridges and or culverts, refer to Section 3 of the Bridge Manual for standards and information on Scoping and Preliminary Design DAD requirements.
For any waterway crossing, a description of the existing design discharges, over topping history, history of and consequences of debris or ice clogging at the existing and/or adjacent structures, floodplain studies, and status of hydraulic analysis should be provided. An analysis is required unless the Main Office Hydraulic Engineering Unit, based on a hydraulic assessment, has determined that there will be no significant effect on hydraulics. If a determination of no significant effect on hydraulics has been made, document this in this section.
Per Exhibit 7-11 in PDM Appendix 7, the Bridge Site Data Package with Hydraulic Study must be included in Appendix E for all bridge replacement projects and referenced here. Items of concern identified from the site data package must be discussed here. Ensure that any recommendations from the Regional Hydraulics Engineer are discussed.
The following items must be discussed for the anticipated proposed condition:
• Whether it is anticipated a minimum freeboard of 2 ft for the Q50 will be met. Provide reasons if it is not anticipated to be met. Also document as a nonconforming feature in Section 2.5.2 Other Controlling Parameters.
• Whether it is anticipated that the Q100 flow will pass beneath the proposed low chord.
• Whether it is anticipated that the proposed structure will raise upstream or downstream water surface elevation compared to the existing conditions for Q50 and Q100 flows.
• Whether It Is anticipated the proposed low chord will be lower than the existing.
• Whether it is anticipated recommendations from the Regional Hydraulics Engineer are to be met.
In an extreme situation, negative freeboard for the Q50 could be accepted as permissible (document as nonconforming) for a replacement of an existing bridge that is already inundated by the 50 year design flood, but in no case shall the proposed negative freeboard exceed the existing negative freeboard. The report should note measures recommended such as replacing existing abutments/piers with spread footings with abutments/piers founded on piles to address scour vulnerability, and choosing structure type with consideration of debris potential as one of the criteria.
Verify that the safety of any dams (particularly hydro-electric projects) in the vicinity of the project is not adversely affected. Contact the dam operator and the Office of Energy Projects, Division of Dam Safety and Inspections, New York Regional Office of FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) to do so. Contact with FERC may be made thru the Regional Hydraulics Engineer.
5 2.5 Design Standards
The design standards used should be based on the project work type in HDM Chapter 2, Section 2.2. The basis for applying the standards to the project should be stated. Guidance on establishing standards is available in NYSDOT HDM Chapters 2, 4, or 7, and/or the NYSDOT Bridge Manual, Section 2 as applicable.
2.5.1 Critical Design Elements
The following exhibit shall be used to identify the critical design elements. The table is used to document standard and existing values and compare the proposed values to identify any critical design elements that are nonstandard. Design criteria for more than one ramp or more than one local road or similar that are of the same design class may be listed in one table, where appropriate, to reduce the. number of tables.
In accordance with HDM Chapter 2, Section 2.4, if a design classification is used that diverges from the functional classification, ensure discussion is provided to explain the reasoning for the choice of design class. Note that in some cases the use of an urban design classification for collector and local roads may be at odds with the posted speed of a roadway where the roadway is suburban or rural in nature, but the functional classification is urban. In this instance, a rural design class should be used so that the proposed design speed is not less than the posted speed. Refer to HDM Section 5.2.5 for more information.
Denote any proposed nonstandard features with a double asterisk (**).
|ALERT! |
| |
|Ensure that critical design element exhibits are included to cover all affected facilities. For instance, for bridge replacement projects |
|over another roadway, provide an exhibit for the under roadway that includes values for the applicable criteria (i.e., design speed, lane |
|width, shoulder widths, vertical clearance, Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, etc.). One exhibit may be used to cover multiple |
|roadways/facilities that are the same design classification provided all criteria can be appropriately shown. |
|Exhibit 2-8.1 |
|Critical Design Elements for |
|PIN | |BIN (if applicable) | |
|Functional Class: | (HDM Chapter 2, Exhibit 2-1) |NHS |[pic] |
|Project Type: | (HDM Chapter 2, Section 2.2) |Terrain: | |
|Design Year AADT: | Refer to HDM Chapter 5, |Percentage of Trucks: | |
| |Section 5.2.2.3 for the appropriate| | |
| |design year for the project work | | |
| |type. | | |
|Truck Access or Qualifying Highway |Choose the appropriate designation |If not a QH, is project within 1 mi| |
|(QH)? |or neither |of a QH? | |
|Existing or Proposed Bicycle Route? |Refer to Complete Streets Checklist|Anticipated level of bicycle |Choose NA when bicycling is |
| | |activity |prohibited |
|Element |Standard |Existing Condition |Proposed Condition2 |
|1 |Design Speed |50 mph1 | mph posted | |
| | |HDM Section |Posted speed is distinct from |Enter proposed design speed. |
| | | |design speed but may be noted |Ensure consistency with the RTE|
| | | |here for comparison |design speed recommendation |
| | | | |(Note 1) |
|2 |Lane Width |11 ft | | |
| | |Bridge Manual (BM) Section 2.2.1 and Table 2-1| | |
| | |[OR] HDM Section | | |
| | |For ramps concisely note the R value, Case | | |
| | |I/II/III and Design Traffic Condition, as | | |
| | |applicable, to explain your choice(s) of | | |
| | |Traveled Way Width (HDM Exhibits 2-9a/2-9b). | | |
| | |In addition, specify ramp type such as loop, | | |
| | |direct connection etc. | | |
| |Approach Lane Width |MAKE NO ENTRIES IN THIS CELL; THIS CELL SHOULD| | |
| |Note only for bridge |BE LEFT BLANK |Note existing width measured no| |
| |projects, remove row for | |closer than 100 ft from the | |
| |other project types | |ends of the bridge | |
|3 |Shoulder Width |4 ft | | |
| | |BM Section 2.2.1 Table 2-1, and App. 2A Tables| | |
| | | & [OR] HDM Section | | |
| |Approach Shoulder Width |MAKE NO ENTRIES IN THIS CELL; THIS CELL SHOULD| | |
| |Note only for bridge |BE LEFT BLANK |Note existing width measured no| |
| |projects, remove row for | |closer than 100 ft from the | |
| |other project types | |ends of the bridge | |
|4 |Horizontal Curve Radius |758 ft Min (at emax= ) | | |
| | |HDM Section | |Use HDM Exhibits 2-11 - 2-14a |
| | | | |to determine the appropriate |
| | | | |radius needed based on design |
| | | | |speed and superelevation or |
| | | | |state ”on tangent.” |
|5 |Superelevation |emax = |X% @ emax = |X% @ emax = |
| | |HDM Section Refer to HDM Exhibit 2-1b to | | |
| | |determine emax. | | |
|6 |Stopping Sight Distance |425 ft Min. | | |
| |(Horizontal and Vertical) |HDM Section | | |
|7 |Maximum Grade |7% | | |
| | |HDM Section | | |
|8 |Cross Slope |1.5% Min., 2.5% Max. | | |
| | |HDM Section | | |
|9 |Vertical Clearance |14 ft Min. | | |
| |(above traveled way) |BM Section 2.3.1, Table 2-2 | | |
| | |See Notes to BM Table 2-2 for minimum | | |
| | |clearances at through-truss bridges, | | |
| | |pedestrian bridges and sign structures | | |
|10 |Design Loading Structural |Use Bridge Manual standards for new and | | |
| |Capacity |replacement bridges: |Enter the existing inventory | |
| | |NYSDOT LRFD Specifications |and operating rating | |
| | |AASHTO HL-93 Design Live Load and NYSDOT | | |
| | |Design Permit Vehicle with LRFR 1.2 or higher | | |
| | |BM Sections 1.3 and 1.5 | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Use HDM Chapter 19 standards for new and | | |
| | |replacement culverts: | | |
| | |NYSDOT LRFD Specifications | | |
| | |AASHTO HL-93 Live Load and NYSDOT Design | | |
| | |Permit Vehicle | | |
| | |HDM Section 19.5.3 | | |
|11 |Americans with Disabilities|HDM Chapter 18 |Use one of the following: |Use one or combination of the |
| |Act Compliance3 | | |following as appropriate: |
| | | |No existing pedestrian | |
| | | |facilities |No new proposed pedestrian |
| | | |[OR] |facilities |
| | | |Existing pedestrian facilities |[OR] |
| | | |comply with HDM Chapter 18 |Proposed pedestrian facilities |
| | | |standards |will comply with HDM Chapter 18|
| | | |[OR] |[OR] |
| | | |Facilities will be evaluated in|There are pedestrian facility |
| | | |final design |elements [proposed [OR] to |
| | | | |remain] that cannot be made |
| | | | |compliant and will be justified|
| | | | |as nonstandard4**. |
| | | | |[OR] |
| | | | |If pedestrian facilities are |
| | | | |found to have noncompliant |
| | | | |elements that cannot be made |
| | | | |compliant, they will be |
| | | | |justified as nonstandard.4 |
Notes:
1. The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the proposed Design Speed of mph is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed and is within the design classification’s range of design speeds for terrain and volume.
2. ** Denotes non-standard feature
3. Refer to Section 2.3.5 for detailed pedestrian facility information.
4. Pedestrian facility nonstandard features to be retained or created will be justified in final design.
2.5.2 Other Design Parameters
This section should include the following tables as needed (delete the Roundabout Controlling Features and Primary Design Values for Shared-Use Path tables if they are not applicable to the project). Important parameters that warrant specific mention should be added to the Other Design Parameters table.
Once the Roundabout Controlling Features table is completed, the designer shall highlight any values that are not typical, desired &/or preferred as indicated below:
KEY
|not typical, desired, &/or preferred, but within general range of acceptance (highlight yellow) |
|not typical, desired, &/or preferred and outside general range of acceptance (highlight orange) these are nonconforming features. |
See examples in table below.
|Exhibit 2-9 |
|Roundabout Controlling Features |
|Elemen|Parameter1 |North Leg |
|t | | |
| |
| |
1. Exit radius is measured along the right curb line at exit.
2. Consult with the Regional Traffic safety and Mobility Office if the highway is designated as a Truck Access Route. A larger design vehicle may be needed.
3. Not typical, desired or preferred, but within the general range of acceptance.
4. Not typical, desired, or preferred and outside the general range of acceptance. These are nonconforming features.
5. Noncompliant pedestrian facilities that must be retained or created are nonstandard and will be justified as nonstandard in final design.
|Exhibit 2-10 |
|Other Design Parameters |
|Element |Parameter(Standard) |Existing Conditions |Proposed Condition |
|Level of Service (for non-interstate | | | |
|projects) | | | |
|Drainage Design Storm | | | |
|Freeboard (BM 2.4.3) |2 ft for the 50-year design | | |
| |flood | | |
| | | | |
*Nonconforming feature
For a comprehensive list of potential Other Design Parameters refer to the Nonconforming Features Checklist found on the HDM Chapter 5 webpage.
Note: Level of Service is an Other Design Parameter only for non-interstate projects.
When determining the Design Vehicle(s) the designer shall assume multiple design vehicles may need to be considered at different locations of the project. Consideration shall include school bus routes, designated qualifying and access highways and the needs of individual property owners. The designer shall consult with the Regional Traffic and Safety Group. If the design vehicle cannot be accommodated, this feature will be non-conforming.
|Exhibit 2-11 |
|Other Design Parameter: Design Vehicle |
|Location |Design Vehicle (HDM Ch. 5) |Vehicle Accommodated |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
*Nonconforming feature
Use exhibit below, Primary Design Values for Paved Shared-Use Path as necessary when shared-use paths are proposed on projects.
|Exhibit 2-12 |
|Primary Design Values for Paved Shared-Use Path |
|Element |Standard Value |Source1 |Proposed Value |
|Design Speed |20 mph |AASHTO | |
|Shared Use Width |10 ft min. |AASHTO | |
|Adjacent Graded Width |2 ft min. |AASHTO | |
| |1:6 max. cross slope | | |
|Maximum Grade |5% max. or match grade of adjacent roadway |AASHTO | |
|Cross Slope |2% max. |HDM Chapter 18 | |
|Horizontal Curvature |74 ft min. |AASHTO | |
|Stopping Sight Distance |195 ft min. |AASHTO | |
|Horizontal Sight Distance |56 ft min. |AASHTO | |
|Crest Vertical Curve |423 ft min. |AASHTO | |
|Horizontal Clearance |2 ft min. |AASHTO | |
|Vertical Clearance |10 ft min. |AASHTO | |
|Bridge Path Width |12 ft min. clear width |BM Table 2-1 | |
|Separation from Roadways |5 ft min. from face of curb or edge of |AASHTO | |
| |shoulder | | |
1. 2012 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities
← Nonconforming Feature
Notes on Exhibit 2.9:
20 mph is typically used as a general maximum operating speed. A design speed of 18 mph may be used in relatively flat areas (grades less than 2%). However, a higher design speed up to 30 mph may be needed if the path has grades steeper than 5%. A design speed as low as 15 mph may also be used if conditions warrant. Such conditions could include flat topography or where frequent conflicts or constraints exist. It may be necessary to assign different design speeds to different segments of a shared-use path as conditions warrant. A separate Primary Design Values Table should be used for each segment with a different design speed.
10 ft width is the minimum two-way width for typical path use and conditions. AASHTO recommends less than 10 ft (down to 8 ft. (2.4 m) min.) only when the following conditions exist:
• Bicycle traffic is expected to be low even on peak days or during peak hours;
• Pedestrian use is not expected to be more than occasional;
• There will be adequate horizontal and vertical alignment providing safe, frequent passing and resting opportunities;
• The path will not be subject to maintenance vehicle loadings that would cause pavement edge damage.
See the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities for more information.
Where proposed values do not meet or exceed the standard values derived for the project, document the proposed values as non-conforming features in the Design Approval Document.
3 Existing and Proposed Highway/Bridge Plan and Section
Refer to the existing and proposed typical sections. The typical sections may be in the report or an appendix.
4 Nonstandard/Nonconforming Features
This section should include a listing and discussion of all:
• Existing nonstandard features that are being corrected with the project.
• Proposed or retained nonstandard and/or nonconforming features as determined in the sections above.
Reference the nonstandard feature justification(s), which may be provided in Appendix F or in this section. To justify retained or new nonstandard features for roadway features, use the Nonstandard Feature Justification Form (HDM Exhibit 2-15). Include each form either in this section or in an Appendix F. Nonstandard features for pedestrian facilities must use the Nonstandard Feature Justification Form for Pedestrian Facilities (HDM Exhibit 2-15a). This form is typically completed in final design and is not required to be attached to the DAD (see ED 15-004 for more information).
Option 1:
There are no nonstandard or nonconforming features within the project limits.
Option 2:
The following nonstandard and nonconforming features are proposed to be retained.
Nonstandard Features
1) Provide numbered or bulleted list.
Nonconforming Features
1) Provide numbered or bulleted list.
Use the following statement where the HDM Chapter 18 compliance status of existing pedestrian facilities is unknown and needs to be evaluated.
The compliance of existing pedestrian facilities within the scope of this project (refer to Section 2.3.5) will be evaluated in final design using the applicable standards in the NYSDOT Critical Elements for the Design, Layout and Acceptance of Pedestrian Facilities found on the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual Chapter 18 webpage. If any facilities do not meet the applicable standards, then the procedural requirements identified in ED 15-004 - Design, Construction and Inspection of Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right of Way will be followed and they will be rehabilitated, replaced or justified as nonstandard (in final design).
6 2.6 Other Infrastructure Considerations
2.6.1 Pavement and Shoulder Conditions
This section should summarize the condition of the existing pavement. If a pavement evaluation is required, but not yet completed indicate it will be completed as design is progressed. If a Pavement Evaluation and Treatment Selection Report (PETSR) is not required, a general statement on the condition of the pavement and shoulders in the project area will suffice (i.e., Are there structural or surface pavement deficiencies, what are the causes, and how serious are they?). Also, describe proposed pavement treatment.
The pavement condition rating is ___. The proposed pavement treatment is ____.
2.6.2 Right of Way
Identify approximate existing ROW width. Indicate if acquisitions or releases are required to perform the work and why ROW is needed, for example, temporary easements (TE’s) required at toe of slope for construction access. State if there are any consequences to the proposed ROW acquisition, such as loss of parking, loss of significant trees or vegetation, effect upon wells, septic systems, etc. Include a statement that acquisitions will be done in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (if federally funded) and NYS Eminent Domain Procedure Law. Provide a reference to Appendix H for right of way information.
|Alert! |
| |
|Discuss whether takings are de minimis or non-de minimis (discuss with Regional Right-of-Way Group). Note that a non-de minimis finding may |
|require a public hearing or the offer to hold a public hearing. Refer to PDM Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2 – Moderate Project Steps, Public |
|Hearings for CE Projects for detailed information on public hearings. |
Provide additional tables below for any other reasonable alternatives.
|Exhibit 2-13 |
|Anticipated Right-of-Way Acquisitions |
|Owner |Tax Map |Type of |Estimated |Parcel Size |Percentage of |
| |No. |Acquisition |Acquisition Area | |Acquisition |
| | | | | | |
* Take is identified by the Regional Right of Way Group as non-de minimis.
2.6.3 Geotechnical
Describe special soil or rock problems or features, if any, which could affect ROW, design and construction schedules and costs. Determine if any rock slopes within or adjacent to the project limits have been identified as potential problems by the Geotechnical Engineering Bureau's Rock Slope Rating Procedure. In addition, consult with the Regional Geotechnical Engineer to determine if any earth slope problems exist within or adjacent to the project limits. If frost heaves and subgrade problems are present discuss where if any test holes are needed. Indicate how geotechnical concerns will be addressed and the Regional Geotechnical Group will be involved in final design as applicable.
There are no special geotechnical concerns with the soils or rock slopes within the project area.
2.6.4 Access Management
Access management provides (or manages) access to land development while simultaneously preserving the flow of traffic on the surrounding road system in terms of capacity, speed, and low crash frequency and severity. (AASHTO Green Book, 2011, p. 2-71). Discuss any existing issues related to access management, such as crashes related to existing business or residential driveways, and provide information on potential resolution of those issues.
2.6.5 Traffic Control Devices
Signs, traffic signals, pavement markings, motorist information systems, ramp metering, surveillance systems, etc. Describe signal locations, elements (e.g., type of controller, type of activation, if coordinated, number and types of phases and required timing, etc.); and give an overview of sign, traffic signal, or other traffic control device deficiencies including lack of conformance with the latest guidelines and warrants for such devices. Identify if new signs, traffic signals, etc will be installed to current guidelines. When new signals are installed, prepare a Systems Engineering Review Form (SERF) and place a copy in the Traffic Appendix.
Provide information on any proposals for optimization of signal timing for improving traffic progression.
2.6.6 Drainage Systems
Drainage Needs - Is the proposed project necessary to address routine flooding? Describe:
(1) Type (e.g., open or closed, concrete or corrugated metal pipe culvert, ditch, etc.).
(2) Condition/deterioration.
(3) Deficiencies/needs (e.g., need to replace the headwall and end section, culvert extensions for slope flattening or to reduce fixed objects in the existing clear zone, etc.).
Describe how drainage will be updated, retained or further investigated.
2.6.7 Utilities and Lighting
List all publicly and privately-owned overhead and underground utilities within existing ROW or in the vicinity of the project that could be affected by or have an effect on the project using the table below. Any modifications of utilities should be identified under Condition/Conflict (include a description of major utility relocations that will be project costs).
|Exhibit - 2-14 |
|Utilities |
|Owner |Type |Location/Side |Length |Condition/Conflict |
| | | | |Condition unknown; no obvious conflicts. |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
2.6.8 Guide Railing, Median/Roadside Barriers and Impact Attenuators
Include the condition and type of existing system(s), adequacy and need to upgrade to current standards. Indicate the proposed rail system and if it will meet current standards,
|Exhibit 2-15 |
|Proposed Location of Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators |
|Type |Location |Side |Length (m) |
| |Between 1st and 3rd St | |100± |
| | | | |
| | | | |
2.6.9 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
Is there a plan for implementing the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS), TSM and/or TDM type of improvements in the project area to reduce congestion and improve overall operating conditions? Discuss the potential need for coordination of work zone traffic control since the subject project route may serve as a construction detour for another project.
Refer to PDM Appendix 6. Also, refer to EB 15-040 for information on FHWA Project of Division Interest (PoDI) categorization of ITS projects. Note that a Systems Engineering Review Form (SERF) must be completed for all projects with ITS proposed work to determine the ITS project type. Projects that are determined to be “high risk” must be reviewed by FHWA as a potential PoDI. Add the SERF in Appendix C and add a reference to it from this section.
2.6.10 Landscape and Community Enhancement Considerations
The purpose of this section is to discuss the appropriateness and need for landscape development/plantings and/or other community enhancements such as the development of fishing access or pocket parks. Proposed plantings may provide functional values such as; mitigation for vegetation removal, visual screening (e.g., the highway from residential properties or adjacent unsightly properties from the highway) snowdrift abatement, wildlife habitat, or dust attenuation. Also discuss anticipated vegetation management methods, particularly if there is a potential for community concern (such as large-scale-tree removal). Proposed roadside vegetation management practices can include adding mowing delineation to reduce maintenance costs and enhance wildlife and wetland habitat. Consult the Regional Landscape Architect for specific treatments.
7 2.7 Work Zone Safety and Mobility
2.7.1 Transportation Management Plan
The Region shall identify upcoming projects that are expected to be significant (Note that this designation is separate and distinct from “significant impacts” from an environmental standpoint and the “Statewide Significant” determination described in the Highway Design Manual Chapter 21 and recorded in the PS&E Transmittal Memo). Significant projects are defined in 23 CFR 630.1010. The applicability of the provisions in 23 CFR 630.1012(b)(2) [Transportation Operations] and 630.1012(b)(3) [Public Information] is dependent upon whether a project is determined to be significant.
All Interstate system projects within the boundaries of a designated Transportation Management Area (TMA) that occupy a location for more than three days with either intermittent or continuous lane closures shall be considered significant projects. A TMA is an area designated by the US Secretary of Transportation, having an urbanized area population of over 200,000. The following TMAs have been designated in New York State:
• New York--Newark, NY-NJ-CT.
• Buffalo, NY
• Rochester, NY
• Albany, NY
• Syracuse, NY
• Poughkeepsie--Newburgh, NY
The exact geographical boundaries of TMAs should be obtained from the Regional Planning and Program Manager.
For an Interstate system project or categories of Interstate system projects that are classified as significant, but in the judgment of the Region they do not cause sustained work zone impacts, the Region may document (in the project files) an exception to § 630.1012(b)(2) and § 630.1012(b)(3). Exceptions to these provisions may be granted by the Regional Director or FHWA (consistent with the PS&E column of the Design Related Approval Matrix in the Project Development Manual) based on the ability to show that the specific Interstate system project or categories of Interstate system projects do not have sustained work zone impacts. FHWA approvals should be progressed through the Design Quality Assurance Bureau’s Project Development Section similar to Design Approval.
For other significant projects identified by the Region, the Department’s work zone policy provisions, the project’s characteristics, and the magnitude and extent of the anticipated work zone impacts should be considered when determining if a project is significant.
The Region has determined that the subject project significant per 23 CFR 630.1010.
Choice #1: FOR SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS
A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) will be prepared for the project consistent with 23 CFR 630.1012. The TMP will consist of:
• A Temporary Traffic Control (TTC) plan
• A Transportation Operations (TO) component
• A Public Information component (PI)
Choice #2: FOR PROJECTS WHICH THE REGION BELIEVES ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT PER 23 CFR 630.1010
A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) will be prepared for the project consistent with 23 CFR 630.1012. The TMP will consist of a Temporary Traffic Control (TTC) plan. Transportation Operations (TO) and Public Information (PI) components of a TMP will be considered during final design.
2.7.2 Proposed Work Zone Traffic Control
|ALERT! |
| |
|Ensure that the social, economic and environmental impacts related to proposed work zone traffic control schemes are discussed and evaluated |
|for significance in Chapter 3. For example, if the project will propose restrictions to residential parking that would impact elderly, |
|disabled, EJ, etc. populations, or if there is potential for economic impacts to businesses due to an off-site detour, the impacts need to be |
|evaluated under appropriate headings created in Chapter 3. |
Proposed work zone traffic control plan(s) should be described including discussion(s) of the assessment of any off-site versus on-site analysis in accordance with HDM Chapter 16.
When off-site detours are discussed, describe among other matters, the effects on providers of essential services (e.g., schools, fire departments, and ambulance service), pedestrians, bicyclists, school children, traffic dependent businesses, adjacent residents, community centers (e.g., libraries, municipal buildings, places of worship), etc. When on-site and off-site detours are discussed, the user benefits and user costs as well as construction costs should be part of the evaluation of detour alternatives. Safety of any detour routes and cost(s) to improve a detour route to minimum safety standards and ride-ability should be evaluated and discussed. This section should also show coordination with local officials, businesses and residents as appropriate. If coordination has not been completed, it should be stated and proposed coordination list given. The report should contain documentation of these coordination efforts.
Consideration should also be given to make temporary work zone traffic control (WZTC) measures permanent during construction, if they have longer term benefits worth retaining. This consideration also applies, but is not limited to, temporary improvements in transit service, and motorist information systems.
Sample statement #1:
Refer to Appendix A of this report for the proposed traffic control stages. Two-way traffic will be maintained at all times via lane shifts onto the existing paved shoulder. No off-site detours will be required. Routes for emergency vehicles will be maintained and open during construction. The details for the work zone traffic control will be prepared and evaluated during final design. No additional environmental impacts will occur.
Sample statement #2:
Refer to Appendix A of this report for the proposed traffic control stages. Two-way traffic will be maintained at all times with the exception of stage 2, which will require alternating one-way traffic and a temporary traffic signal for approximately 4 months.
No off-site detours will be required. A detour was evaluated along routes _____, which would divert traffic ___ miles and add __ minutes to the trip duration for traffic traveling to ___ (See Exhibit ___). The detour was determined to be infeasible since it would require $__ M of improvements to Route __ to allow for the additional left turning traffic at the intersections of _____. Additionally, the response time for emergency vehicles would be increased by over 10 minutes.
Routes for emergency vehicles will be maintained and open during construction. The details for the work zone traffic control will be prepared and evaluated during final design.
Special Provisions - Special provisions such as peak hours or seasonal restrictions, incident management plans, time related contract provisions (e.g., A+B Bidding), and coordination with other projects or special events should be described. Additionally, consideration of nighttime construction should be given in accordance with the latest requirements.
Sample statement #1:
Due to the close proximity to residences and the ability to maintain traffic with acceptable delays during the daylight hours, night time construction will not be utilized. The use of time related provisions will be evaluated during final design. The work zone traffic control will need to be coordinated with local officials and residents.
8 2.8 Additional Considerations
2.8.1 Constructability Review
Include a statement to indicate that the Regional Construction Group has reviewed the project and their concerns, if any, have been addressed.
2.8.2 Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction
Include a statement or discussion about the current and proposed ownership and future maintenance of the infrastructure.
2.8.3 NYS Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA)
An evaluation of how projects meet the ten criteria (as described in ECL § 6-0107) of the New York State Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA) is required for all projects. Note that the Recommendation for Design Approval signature (Item E of the Project Approval Sheet) signifies, in part, verification that the SGPIPA documentation requirements are met.
Include the following two paragraphs for all projects. Note: Modify the first paragraph by adding appropriate information from the Smart Growth Screening Tool to back up the first sentence.
Pursuant to ECL Article 6, this project is compliant with the New York State Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA). Describe how . . . by using bullets to cite results from the project’s Smart Growth Screening Tool (Step 2). The Screening Tool shell can be found on the NYSDOT Smart Planning webpage.
To the extent practicable this project has met the relevant criteria as described in ECL § 6-0107 The Smart Growth Screening Tool was used to assess the project’s consistency and alignment with relevant Smart Growth criteria; the tool was completed by the Region’s Planning and Program Management group on insert date and reflects the current project scope. The Smart Growth Screening Tool is included in Appendix I.
2.8.4 Miscellaneous Information
Include other pertinent information on the existing and proposed conditions. Describe any other relevant features, conditions, etc. not covered in the sections above. Examples are, railroads, parking regulations, lighting, airports, recreational issues/facilities (e.g., horse trails, fishing access), rest areas, etc.
– SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Refer to the Social, Economic and Environmental Resources Checklist (SEERC) included in Appendix B for information on all environmental issues for which the project was screened.
|ALERT! |
| |
|Ensure that the current Statewide version of the SEERC is used. The current version is approved by the FHWA and must be used with all |
|PSR/FDR and IPP/FDR projects. |
3.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Example statement:
Per the result of the Federal Environmental Approvals Worksheet (FEAW) provided in Appendix B, this project is being progressed as a NEPA Class II action (Categorical Exclusion or CE) because it does not individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental impact. As a CE, it is excluded from the requirement for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment (EA).
Per the Federal Highway Administration’s regulations in 23 CFR 771.117, this project qualifies as a Categorical Exclusion (CE). The project is primarily a (add (c) or (d) list project type) bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction or replacement or the construction of grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings (23 CFR 771.117(c)(28)) and does not significantly impact the environment. In accordance with the NYSDOT/FHWA Programmatic Agreement Regarding Categorical Exclusions, the will make the NEPA environmental determination. Refer to the FEAW in Appendix B for the details of this determination.
3.1.1 NEPA Cooperating/Participating Agencies
According to 23 CFR 771.111(d), agencies with special expertise may be invited to become cooperating agencies. However, agencies with jurisdiction by law must be requested to become cooperating agencies. For CE projects, NYSDOT addresses this requirement throughout preliminary design as part of the agency permitting processes. The agencies must be listed as shown in the text below.
According to 40 CFR 1508.5, "cooperating agency" means any Federal agency, other than a lead agency, that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposed project or project alternative.
[For projects with no federal funding]
This project is 100% State funded; therefore, the FHWA NEPA requirements for Cooperating and Participating Agencies do not apply.
[For projects with federal funding]
The following agencies are Cooperating Agencies in accordance with 23 CFR 771.111(d):
2 3.2 State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)
Refer to 17 NYCRR Part 15.14 for SEQRA Type II criteria. A project that does not meet the Type II criteria is classified as Non-Type II (EA).
Use the following statement and the appropriate choice below.
New York State Department of Transportation is the SEQRA lead agency as per 17 NYCRR Part 15 “Procedures for Implementation of State Environmental Quality Review Act”, Section 15.5.
Example #1 (SEQRA Exempt):
The Department has determined that this project is a SEQRA Exempt Action in accordance with 17 NYCRR Section 15.12, and requires no further SEQRA processing.
Example #2 (SEQRA Type II):
In accordance with 17 NYCRR Part 15, the Department has determined that this project meets the requirements of a SEQRA Type II Action. A Type II Action is one that is of a class or type of action which has been determined in 17 NYCRR 15.14 to not have a significant effect on the environment. No further SEQRA processing is required. The project is identified as Type II per 17 NYCRR Section 15.14, Subdivision (e), Item 37, Paragraph v. The project does not violate any of the criteria contained in subdivision (d) of Section 15.14.
Example #3 (SEQRA Non-Type II): use second paragraph below when the project meets one of the Type II actions in 15.14(e), but exceeds the criteria in 15.14 (d). If the project is Non-Type II because it does not meet one of the project types in 15.14(e) and it is anticipated the project will result in a Determination of No Significant Effect, include the first paragraph only.
The Department has determined that this project is a SEQRA Non-Type II (EA) Action in accordance with 17 NYCRR Part 15. SEQRA Non-Type II actions are those which cannot be classified as Type II actions under 17 NYCRR 15.14 and require an environmental assessment (EA) per 17 NYCRR 15.6(a). This PSR/FDR serves as the EA under SEQRA.
The project type is listed in 17 NYCRR Section 15.14(e)(xx) (insert all appropriate subsection numbers). However, the project does not meet the criteria contained in 17 NYCRR 15.14(d)(x)(yy)(insert all appropriate subsection number(s)). Based on the results of this EA, it is [anticipated/determined] that there will be no significant effect to these resource(s) (see Section(s) X below for details). A Determination of No Significant Effect (DONSE) [will be/has been] prepared and filed in accordance with 17 NYCRR 15.10.
Note that Non-Type II (EA) projects require a determination of significance. Ensure that the information provided for the individual topic(s) in Section 3.3 is sufficient to document the analysis of the topic and the determination of whether the effects to the topic or resource is significant. Refer to the Environmental Manual for in depth requirements related to SEQRA determinations. Guidance on when and how to prepare and file a Determination of No Significant Effect (DONSE) is available in the project steps for Maintenance/Simple and Moderate projects in PDM Chapter 4. A notice shell is provided in PDM App. 3, Letters and Notices and DONSE samples are posted on the PDM examples web page.
3.3 Additional Environmental Information
Ensure the current version of the Social, Economic and Environmental Resources Checklist (SEERC) is completed and included in Appendix B (use of the SEERC is mandatory with a PSR/FDR and Regional versions of this form are not acceptable). Provide additional information as necessary to expand on yes answers and comments from the SEERC. Create subsections below for each topic area from the checklist that requires documentation.
When sections are created to discuss individual topics identified in the SEERC, use the commonly known title for the item or resource (i.e., Wetlands, Cultural Resources, Floodplains, Business Districts, etc.). Separate discussions of federal and state requirements under the same heading. For example, in a section discussing threatened and endangered species, discuss the federal ESA Section 7 or 9 requirements separately from NYSDEC requirements.
If there were no issues on the SEERC that require documentation add a statement to that effect and reference the SEERC.
Refer to the guidance text within Chapter 4 of the Draft Design Report Shell for detailed information to aid in providing in the writeups for the individual resource sections to be created in this Chapter. Also, examples of individual topic writeups are provided in the DDR shell. However, be aware that environmental regulations and guidance is subject to change. The specific information written regarding these topic areas should be reviewed by the Regional Environmental Manager or Office of Environment to ensure that any necessary updates and appropriate wording is incorporated.
|ALERT! |
| |
|Additional three-digit subsections should be added to this chapter to discuss SEERC topics. To do so, highlight the created subsection number |
|and title and select “Heading 3” from the Styles Menu on the Home tab. Also, ensure that the Table of Contents is updated (right click on the|
|TOC and select “Update Field”, then select “Update entire table” and click OK) to reflect the additional sections in the TOC. Note that the |
|Headings Styles are specifically set for each subsection level. DO NOT MODIFY THESE SETTINGS. |
3.3.1 Wetlands
If wetland impacts are identified, use table below.
|Exhibit 3-1 |
|Wetland Impacts |
|Wetland |Identified |Total Size |Impacts (acre) |
| |Functional Values |(acre) | |
|ID |Type | | |Alt. 1 |Alt. 2 | | |
|2 |Shrub/ |Highway & Roadside drainage/filtering|0.280 |0.15 |0.21 |0.15 |0.27 |
| |Scrub |Storm water drainage/storage | | | | | |
|Total Impacts |0.15 |0.29 |0.15 |0.43 |
Environmental Resource Information
Also, see the links below for guidance/information sources by topic:
General:
• Draft Design Report Shell
• Social, Economic and Environmental Resources Checklist (SEERC)
• The Environmental Manual
• Environmental Viewer
• NYSDOT Office of Environment’s Environmental Toolbox
NEPA:
• 23 CFR 771
• FHWA Environmental Review Toolkit
• FHWA NEPA Implementation Links
• FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A
• FEAW
SEQRA:
• 17 NYCRR Part 15
• 6 NYCRR Part 617 (Local Projects)
• NYSDEC SEQR Environmental Assessment Forms (Local Projects)
Social and Economic:
• US Census Bureau webpage
• American Fact Finder Tool
• FHWA Guidance on Environmental Justice
• Environmental Justice at the (US) Department of Transportation
• US EPA Environmental Justice
Wetlands
• Programmatic EO 11990 Wetland Finding
Ecology and Wildlife
• IPaC (USFWS mapping)
• NYSDOT Natural Heritage Program Viewer
• FHWA Endangered Species Act Section 7 Compliance (updated 8/17)
Cultural Resources
• NYSDOT Section 106 Procedures
• Section 106/14.09 Effect/Impact Determination Definitions
Section 4(f)
• See Section 4.5 in PDM Appendix 7
• FHWA Section 4(f) Guidance
• 23 CFR 774
APPENDICES
Summary of Changes
5/25/11
No headings/subheadings added or deleted. Choice #3 added in section 3.2 and section 2.3.3.9 revised to reflect EB 10-052; minor changes in section 1.8 and Exhibit 2.6.
9/27/11
No headings/subheadings added or deleted. Some changes in Exhibits 1.3 and 2.6.
11/20/12
Headings reformatted to correct page numbering.
Added a statement about significant projects to section 2.3.1.6 C.
Slight rewording in section 2.3.1.7.
Added section 2.3.1.5 Speeds
Added “overall” column to Exhibit 2.4
Slight revision in section 1.1
9/10/13
Revised Project Approval Sheet and Section 2.4 to incorporate Smart Growth information.
Slight revision in List of Preparers sheet (deleted “by firm” from the end of “Description of Work Performed”)
Improved guidance in Section 1.3
Revised Section 1.7 to be consistent with DDR.
11/26/13
Added statement to Section 1.8 regarding need to allow for public notice and opportunity for review and comment for projects with a Section 4(f) de minimis impact finding.
1/29/14
Sections 2.3.3.5 and 2.3.2.1 have been revised to reference the updated non-standard feature justification form and new non-standard feature justification form for pedestrian facilities.
Added Section 2.3.3.11 Constructability Review
7/25/14
Sections 1.4, 3.1 and 3.3 were revised to include guidance for documenting the Federal Environmental Approvals Worksheet.
12/17/14
Added note on page i suggesting that the page be omitted for USC units projects
Spelled out SH and BIN in section 1.2.1
Added links to Section 2.3.1.1 for Qualifying and Access Highways and for functional classification
Added USC units to Exhibit 2.1
Added to Section 2.3.1.4 green guidance to include discussion of truck volumes
Added USC units to Exhibit 2.6 plus minor improvements
Minor improvements to Exhibits 2.7 and 2.8
Added Exhibit 2.9-Shared Use Path Design Values
5/28/15
New NYSDOT logo added to cover page
4/12/16
Project Approval Sheet – Separate signature line was added for scope approval by the Regional Director, since scope approval cannot be granted by the DCED or FHWA.
Section 1.4 – Statement revised to clarify that for 100% State funded projects, FHWA’s NEPA regs are not followed. Other agency NEPA requirements may still apply.
Section 1.5 - Exhibit 1.1 revised to be consistent with one reasonable alternative requirement for Simple Projects. Added new subsection 1.5.1 Anticipated Permits/Certifications/Coordination and revised listings for clarity
Section 1.6 - Revised Exhibit 1.2 to indicate combined scope/design approval. Revised Exhibit 1.3 for one reasonable alternative.
Section 1.8 – Last sentence modified to reflect that PSR/FDR has only one reasonable alternative.
Section 2.3.1.8 - Revised section to beef up accident analysis documentation guidance.
Section 2.3.2 - Revised to accommodate the Complete Streets Checklist
Section 2.4.1 - Modified to better indicate that describing results from the Smart Growth Worksheet is required.
Throughout – Revised document to change or replace “feasible alternative.” The correct term is “reasonable alternative.”
7/9/18:
PSR/FDR Shell completely rewritten and updated.
Highlights:
• New cover page added
• Project Approval Sheet modified to accommodate Local Projects and to include signature line for NEPA environmental determination by NYSDOT (RD) on behalf of FHWA; includes dropdowns for selections
• Addition of “Alert” text boxes provide focused guidance
• Chapter 1 renamed Project Development and the subheadings have been reorganized and renamed to remove the question format
• Comparison of Alternatives table has been enhanced and guidance added on its preparation
• Chapter 2 outline has been reorganized to better highlight important information and more intuitively group subheadings and information
• More guidance provided on pedestrian and bicycle documentation needs
• Roundabout Controlling Features table provided.
8/27/18:
Section 1.4.1 – Correction made to add SEQR Type II to Exhibit 1-1.
Section 2.5.1 – Corrections made to Exhibit 2-8.
12/14/18:
Exhibit 1.5 – Project Cost Excel file inserted
Exhibit 2-8 – Clarification provided for ADA Compliance
Section 2.5.4 – Statement added regarding timing of pedestrian facility nonstandard feature justifications
3/6/19:
Updated DOT Logo on cover sheet
Project Approval Sheet: Added reference to PDM Exhibit 4-2 in Design Approval signature instructions.
5/28/19:
Project Approval Sheet: Public Hearing Certification was revised for applicability when public hearing per FHWA regulations is not required.
Exhibit 2-8 was revised to:
• Change the new and replacement bridge standard statement for Design Loading Structural Capacity due to Bridge Manual revision.
• Add statement options for the existing and proposed conditions columns for ADA Compliance.
Exhibit 2-9 was revised to revise Element 15 from Pedestrian Accommodation to ADA Compliance and to add Note 10 regarding need to address noncompliant pedestrian facilities as nonstandard.
4/1/20:
Critical Design Elements exhibit was revised to comply with EB 20-018.
7/9/20:
Design Loading Structural Capacity standard in the Critical Design Elements exhibit was revised to better reference use of the Design Permit Vehicle per Office of Structures comment.
Links in Chapter 2 were updated.
5/16/2022
Text added to List of Preparers to add certification that the Project Manager / Designer visited the project site.
12/8/2022
ETC+30 removed
Added text for Design Resource Estimate EI 22-029.
Added text to indicate public hearing completed.
Exhibit 1-5 Field Change is now 10%
7/21/2023
Revised hidden text guidance and moved to the top/front of the report shell.
Added Transportation Regional General Permit TRGP-1 to 1.4.3 Anticipated Permits/Coordination/Certifications
Added text to 2.6.5 Traffic Control Devices for Systems Engineering Review Form (SERF).
Added text to 3.1.1 NEPA Cooperating/Participating Agencies for projects with no state funding.
10/3/2023
Revised Exhibit 1-5 Preliminary/Final Design rows for Design Resource Estimate and added guidance text
1/18/2024
Revised Project Cost Table – Design Build estimate tab
-----------------------
Project
Location
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- office of the new york state comptroller thomas p dinapoli
- 2019 20 sirs reporting timeline 10 31 2019
- department of taxation and finance
- attachment 2 homes and community renewal
- guidance on using this shell new york state department
- chapter 7 recertification hud
- gov
- laoh nys home
- instructions for preparation of structured settlement
Related searches
- new york state department of education
- new york state department of financial services
- new york state department of corporations
- new york state department of the professions
- new york state department of state licensing
- new york state department of professions
- new york state department education
- new york state department of education nyc
- new york state department of public service
- new york state department of nursing
- new york state department of professional licensing
- new york state department of license services