New York State Department of Transportation



Guidance on using this shell:

• GREEN text instructs the writer of action to be taken or informs the writer of important information.

o GREEN TEXT is formatted as hidden text.

o ALL GREEN TEXT IS TO REMAIN IN THE DOCUMENT AND MAY BE TURNED ON/OFF AS REQUIRED DURING DOCUMENT PREPARATION.

o To turn hidden text on/off in MS Word, on the Home tab, in the Paragraph group, click Show/Hide (¶).

[pic]

o To reformat a portion of the hidden text so that it will be always viewable and print in Word:

1. Highlight the portion you wish to unhide

2. Right-click and select Font…

3. In the Effects section, deselect Hidden

4. 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; choose one or all paragraphs that apply.

• BLUE text is hyperlinks to web pages.

|Transportation |

|Project Report |

|Access Modification Report |

| |

|Month 20xx |

| |

|Use this cover when the AMR is a standalone document. When the AMR is an appendix to a design document, include the Project Title, Project Identification Number, |

|month and year of the report on the appendix cover sheet. |

| |

| |

| |

|[Project Title/Description (e.g., Route______over________)] |

|Project Identification Number (PIN): _______ |

|[Bridge Identification Number (BIN): ________] |

|[Village/Town/City] of________ |

|________ County |

| |

| |

| |

| |

|[pic] |

[pic][pic]

For 100% state funded or 100% locally funded projects delete FHWA logo. This report may be utilized as a standalone document or included as an Appendix to the Design Approval Document/Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Statement. Thireport must be provided as a stand-alone document for access control requests where the approval authority has been delegated to the FHWA Executive Director (see PDM Appendix 8, Attachment 3).

F or a standalone document ensure each section includes a complete discussion. When the AMR is an appendix to the Design Approval Document/Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Statement, references to the main body of the document may be used where shown.

|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. |

| |

|Access Modification Approval |

|If this report is included as an appendix to the Design Approval Document, this signature sheet is not required unless the project is privately or |

|locally developed and requires different signatories from the main report. |

|Note this sheet is formatted as a table. |

|Acceptance of this document indicates that the undersigned has completed the review and the Interchange Access Request is considered acceptable for |

|safety, engineering and operations. |

|Approval is contingent upon compliance with applicable federal requirements, specifically the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Completion of|

|the NEPA process is considered acceptance of the general project location, concepts, and environmental documentation described in the Design Approval |

|Document. Conceptually, the AMR approval process looks like: |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | | | |      |

| |Name, P.E., Deputy Chief Engineer Design or Project Manager or Director – Traffic |Date |

| |Safety & Mobility | |

| |When approval is for an Interstate the recommendation comes from the DCED. For other| |

| |freeways, recommendation is the PM. For highway work permits the recommendation comes| |

| |from the Traffic Operations Bureau | |

| |

|B. Nonstandard Feature Approval: |Nonstandard features have been appropriately justified. |

|Use this row for approval of |OR No nonstandard features are being retained or created |

|Nonstandard Features on the | |

|highway system when AMR is for a | |

|portion of a larger non-highway | |

|project without a highway related | |

|design approval document. | |

| | | | | |

| |Name, |Date |

| | |

|B/C Interstate Access Modification |Based on FHWA’s review of the documentation provided in this Access Modification Report, the requested acess |

|Approval: |modification on Interstate XXX is granted. |

| | | | |      |

| |Name, Federal Highway Administration |Date |

|OR |

|B/C. Freeway Access Modification |Based on the documentation provided in this Access Modification Report, the requested acess modification on the |

|Approval: |roadway name is granted. |

| | | | |      |

| | |Name, P.E., Deputy Chief Engineer Design |Date |

| |

|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. |

| |

Access Modification Approval i

Table of Contents ii

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Background 2

1.3 Project Location 2

1.4 Project Purpose and Objectives 2

1.5 Project Need 2

CHAPTER 2 - STUDY METHODOLOGY 3

2.1 Overview 3

2.2 Analysis Years 3

2.3 Coordination with Projects within the Project Area 3

2.4 Data Collection 3

2.5 Design Traffic Factors 4

2.6 Travel Demand and Traffic Forecasting Methodology 4

2.7 Traffic Operational Analysis Methodology 4

CHAPTER 3 - EXISTING CONDITIONS 6

3.1 Demographics 6

3.2 Existing Land Use 6

3.3 Existing Roadway Network 6

3.4 Alternative Travel Modes 6

3.5 Interchanges 6

CHAPTER 4 – ALTERNATIVES 7

4.1 Alternatives Considered 7

4.2 Design Criteria for Reasonable Alternative(s) 7

4.2.1 Design Standards 7

4.2.2 Critical Design Elements 8

4.2.3 Other Design Parameters 10

4.3 Special Geometric Design Elements 10

4.3.1 Nonstandard Features 10

4.3.2 Non-Conforming Features 10

CHAPTER 5 – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE & PROPOSED CHANGES TO ACCESS POINTS 11

5.1 Preferred Alternative 11

5.2 Changes to Access Points 11

CHAPTER 6 – COMPLIANCE WITH POLICY POINTS & ENGINEERING STANDARDS 12

6.1 Policy Point 1: Operational and Safety Analysis 12

6.2 Policy Point 2: Connection to a Public Road and Accomodation of all Interchange Movements 12

CHAPTER 7 – CONCEPTUAL SIGNING PLAN 13

APPENDICES 14

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

(Go to beginning of this document for instructions on turning on/off GREEN text during document preparation, and the end of this document for Summary of Changes.)

1.1 Introduction

This section should include the reason for preparing the Access Modification Report.

In order to preserve and enhance the integrity of the freeway, access modifications must be clearly and convincingly justified based on adequate information in areas such as safety, traffic operations, and coordination with land use. This report documents the New York State Department of Transportation’s (NYSDOT) and the Federal Highways Administration’s (FHWA) [as applicable], decision to modify access at the (Describe where and what the access modifications entail). This appendix or report [as applicable] was prepared in accordance with the NYSDOT Project Development Manual Appendix 8 - “Interstate & Other Freeways Access Control & Modifications” and FHWA’s Policy on Access to the Interstate System dated May 22, 2017 to satisfy and document the following requirements:

Include the Considerations and Requirements below when FHWA approval is required.

Considerations and Requirements:

1. An operational and safety analysis has concluded that the proposed change in access does not have a significant adverse impact on the safety and operation of the Interstate facility (which includes mainline lanes, existing, new, or modified ramps, and ramp intersections with crossroad) or on the local street network based on both the current and the planned future traffic projections. The analysis should, particularly in urbanized areas, include at least the first adjacent existing or proposed interchange on either side of the proposed change in access (Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), paragraphs 625.2(a), 655.603(d) and 771.111(f)). The crossroads and the local street network, to at least the first major intersection on either side of the proposed change in access, should be included in this analysis to the extent necessary to fully evaluate the safety and operational impacts that the proposed change in access and other transportation improvements may have on the local street network (23 CFR 625.2(a) and 655.603(d)). Requests for a proposed change in access should include a description and assessment of the impacts and ability of the proposed changes to safely and efficiently collect, distribute, and accommodate traffic on the Interstate facility, ramps, intersection of ramps with crossroad, and local street network (23 CFR 625.2(a) and 655.603(d)). Each request should also include a conceptual plan of the type and location of the signs proposed to support each design alternative (23 U.S.C. 109(d) and 23 CFR 655.603(d)).v[1]

2. The proposed access connects to a public road only and will provide for all traffic movements. Less than "full interchanges" may be considered on a case-by-case basis for applications requiring special access, such as managed lanes (e.g., transit or high occupancy vehicle and high occupancy toll lanes) or park and ride lots. The proposed access will be designed to meet or exceed current standards (23 CFR 625.2(a), 625.4(a)(2), and 655.603(d)). In rare instances where all basic movements are not provided by the proposed design, the report should include a full-interchange option with a comparison of the operational and safety analyses to the partial-interchange option. The report should also include the mitigation proposed to compensate for the missing movements, including wayfinding signage, impacts on local intersections, mitigation of driver expectation leading to wrong-way movements on ramps, etc. The report should describe whether future provision of a full interchange is precluded by the proposed design.[2]

Include the Considerations and Requirements below when DCED approval is required.

Considerations and Requirements:

1) An operational and safety analysis has concluded that the proposed change in access does not have a significant adverse impact on the safety and operation of the freeway (including mainline lanes, existing, new, or modified ramps, and ramp intersections with crossroad) or on the local street network based on both the current and the planned future traffic projections.

2) The proposed access connects to a public road only.

Include a statement on the funding for the project. Identify the specific funding programs or private sources needed to support all of the improvements proposed. Project revenue requirements will be discussed if the project is a toll project.

This project is federally funded or 100% State funded or Locally funded or Privately funded. Project funding will be aquired from the following funding programs and/or private sources:

• List funding sources

1.2 Background

This section should identify any supporting information from previous studies or data acquired to introduce the project and support the project purpose and how the project has evolved to date.

1.3 Project Location

Project Location – Include aerial photography or an ortho image of the project area and the project study area (area of influence), a map displaying the subject interchange location, and a brief description of the project limits and the project study area for purposes of the report. Maps should be to scale or be schematic drawings showing distances between interchanges, intersections, and other key features. The subject interchange location should be identified, relationship to adjacent interchanges, and system linkages. Factors used to define the study area should be discussed, including interchange spacing, signal locations, anticipated traffic impacts, anticipated land use changes, or proposed transportation improvements. If necessary, additional maps should be provided to clearly label the roadway and ramp names.

Generally, the limits of analysis will extend outward from the proposal site to the highway network nodes at which motorists choose which competing alternative routing they will take to move through the freeway corridor being studied. The analysis should be included for Interstate mainline or freeway segments and interchanges with traffic impact changes due to the interchange modification proposal. At a minimum, this should extend one full interchange before and after the access modification. In urban areas, it is often necessary to consider the two adjacent interchanges in both directions.

1.4 Project Purpose and Objectives

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 should highlight the desired safety, operational and access condition. The 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 and refine the project purpose. Project objectives provide evaluation criteria (measures of effectiveness) for comparing how well alternative solutions fulfill identified needs.

1.5 Project Need

The need for improvement should be established using factors such as existing conditions and the conditions anticipated to occur in the analysis years under the No-Build Alternative, or other factors such as the need for system linkage.

CHAPTER 2 - STUDY METHODOLOGY

This section presents an overview of the methodology used to complete the traffic and safety analyses for this AMR.

2.1 Overview

Traffic forecasting and traffic operational and safety analyses for this project were performed in accordance with FHWA' Traffic Analysis Tools Program guidelines and NYSDOT Highway Design Manual Chapter 5.

This section should document the development of the existing and future-year design traffic for each alternative. Information to be contained should include network and project validation, future travel demand projections, and the design traffic projections.

2.2 Analysis Years

Ensure that the Design Year is selected per HDM Chapter 5.

The established study years for the AMR are as follows:

• Existing Year: XXXX

• Estimated Time of Completion (ETC): XXXX

• Design Year (ETC + 20): XXXX

2.3 Coordination with Projects within the Project Area

Identify independently programmed projects within the project’s study area that are scheduled to be implemented by the design year. Identify the AMR has been developed in coordination with all independently programmed projects.

There are no approved developments planned within the project area that will impact traffic operations.

OR

The following approved developments within the project area may impact traffic operations:

• (List Projects)

This AMR has been developed in coordination with all independently programmed projects.

2.4 Data Collection

For each item in the list below, identify the section and/or Appendix of the Design Approval Document or the location in the standalone AMR where detailed information on the types of data collected and the time frames for the traffic data collected can be found, as appropriate.

The list of data collected to develop this AMR includes but is not limited to the following:

⎭ Road Geometrics

• Number of lanes, lane usage, and presence and type of medians

• Shoulder widths

• Speed and delay data

⎭ Existing and Historical Traffic Data

• Existing turning movement counts

• Existing queuing at signals

• Existing signal timing

• Existing traffic volumes

• Historical traffic volumes

⎭ Control Data

• Signal timing data

• Stop/Yield signs

• Regulatory/Advisory speed limits

⎭ Calibration Data

• Traffic volumes

• Travel times

• Visual bottleneck locations

• Queue data

⎭ Land Use Data

Land use data for the project area were obtained by windshield surveys and by collecting parcel-level data provided by individual jurisdictions.

⎭ Planned and Programmed Projects

A list of planned and programmed projects was gathered from [identify where information was obtained including the TIP name], as well as other involved stakeholder agencies, and was reviewed for consistency.

2.5 Design Traffic Factors

Factors used for the design traffic analysis include:

Identify any design factors used for the Traffic Analysis. (e.g. K factor: The K-factor is the proportion of the annual average daily traffic (AADT) occurring during peak hours of the design

year, depending upon the area type and facility type.

2.6 Travel Demand and Traffic Forecasting Methodology

This section briefly discusses the need for understanding existing traffic volumes and adopting the appropriate travel demand model for the project, the procedure to include future land use projections and roadway network changes, and growth rate estimation for the No-Build and Build Alternatives.

Review of existing traffic data has been performed to develop a distribution of traffic within peak flows, develop peak hour volume diagrams and determine directional factor and percentage of trucks and provide an understanding of current demand and a basis for future traffic estimates for the study area.

Future traffic forecasting is based on the year XXXX existing condition volumes. Traffic counts were collected from [Month, Year] to [Month,Year] for the [identify corridors].

These counts were used to develop the existing year [Year] volumes. Future year forecast have been developed for XXXX and XXXX.

Discuss the growth rates used

OR

Refer to Section X and/or Appendix X, Traffic Impact Study, of the DAD.

2.7 Traffic Operational Analysis Methodology

This section outlines the study methodology used to conduct the detailed operational analysis in [identify software]. A calibration report was prepared for calibration of existing and proposed conditions.

The purpose of the microscopic simulation model is to examine detailed operational aspects of the transportation network within the corridor. These operating characteristics are measured for both freeway and surface-street systems.

For the freeway system, operating characteristics are measured in lane density (vehicles per mile per lane). These densities are translated into a measure of congestion called LOS. The LOS has letter values between A and F, with A being the least congested (free-flow conditions) and F being severely congested.

For surface streets, operational characteristics are expressed in terms of average delay per vehicle at intersections. As with the freeway system, these characteristics are expressed in terms of LOS, with A being the least congested (free-flow conditions) and F being severely congested.

Discuss any other pertinent information related to the analysis such as the capture period, congestion, peak hour volumes, speed and delay, performance measures etc.

OR

Refer to Section X and/or Appendix X, Traffic Impact Study, of the DAD.

CHAPTER 3 - EXISTING CONDITIONS

This section provides an overview of the surroundings of the existing project area and discusses the following:

1. Demographics

2. Existing Land Use

3. Existing Network

4. Alternate Travel Modes

5. Interchanges

4. Existing Data

5. Operational Performance

6. Existing Safety Conditions

7. Existing Environmental Constraints

3.1 Demographics

This section should identify significant population and employment statistics within the project study area. Summary for traffic analysis zones for the base year from the selected travel demand forecasting model should be included

OR;

Refer to Section X and/or Appendix X of the DAD.

3.2 Existing Land Use

Existing land use within the project study area should be summarized by general land use classifications (residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational, etc.). Major developments within the study area should be identified

OR

Refer to Section X and/or Appendix X of the DAD.

3.3 Existing Roadway Network

Facilities within the project study area should be identified by functional classification, laneage, and access control (e.g., limited or controlled-access). In addition to a discussion, a figure should be provided illustrating each facility within the study area

3.4 Alternative Travel Modes

Existing single occupant vehicle (SOV) alternatives related to the project should be identified in this section. These modes may include special use/HOV, park and ride, bus transit, fixed-guide way mass transit, airports, ports, and forms of non-motorized transportation facilities. A figure should be provided illustrating the location of these modes

OR

Refer to Section X and/or Appendix X of the DAD.

3.5 Interchanges

This section should describe the existing configuration, geometry and other design features of existing interchanges in the project study area, including identifying any elements that do not meet current design standards. This section should also identify any approved but not yet constructed interchanges, and define their geometry and status. Also, any other Interchanges being developed in the study area should be identified

CHAPTER 4 – ALTERNATIVES

4.1 Alternatives Considered

This section should provide a brief narrative of the alternatives (that are reasonable and most closely meet the objectives) that are or have been considered. Each alternative shall include a figure with a simplified view of the existing and proposed layouts for easy comparison.

At a minimum, the following alternatives will be considered if applicable.

• No-Build Alternative.

• Improvements to Alternate Interchanges.

• Transportation System Management Alternative.

• Alternatives Providing a Change in Access.

The proposed modifications and engineering factors including structures, landscaping, schedule, cost, and traffic control devices and impacts on traffic should be discussed for each alternative considered.

Alternatives which will not be carried forward may be identified as DISMISSED in parenthesis.

An Evaluation Matrix may be included to present an analysis of the alternatives using various criteria to assess the impacts and potential consequences for the proposed change in access.

4.2 Design Criteria for Reasonable Alternative(s)

4.2.1 Design Standards -The design standards used should be based on the project work type (see PDM Chapter 2, Section 2.2); different standards may apply to different Reasonable alternatives. 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.

OR

Refer to Section X and/or Appendix X of the DAD

4.2.2 Critical Design Elements

The following exhibit identifies critical design elements applicable to new and reconstruction projects, 3R projects on interstates and other freeways, new and replacement bridge projects, bridge rehabilitation projects, and intersection improvement projects. Project types are listed in PDM App. 5, Table 5-1. For complex projects that encompass several highway types, several sets of design criteria that apply to different segments of the project may be required. Separate criteria should be developed and included for each reasonable alternative (e.g., a project that has both 3R and reconstruction as reasonable alternatives). Separate criteria must be provided when work is proposed on side-roads, ramps, intersections, and shared-use paths. For further guidance on establishing design criteria refer to HDM Chapters 2, 4 and 7 as appropriate.

In addition to establishing standard values, the existing and proposed values shall be included in the table of Critical Design Elements. The source for the standards (e.g. HDM 2.7.2.1 H) must be noted. It is recommended that the table illustrated below be used. This exhibit is required for each reasonable alternative. Design criteria for more than one ramp or more than one local road or similar may be listed in one table, where appropriate and can be done clearly, to reduce the number of tables.

Complete the table below for each roadway.

OR remove the tables and

Refer to Section X and/or Appendix X of the DAD.

|Exhibit 3.2.3.2-x |

|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 | |

| | |activity | |

|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 |Bridge Manual (BM) 2.2.1 notes that for bridge|closer than 100 ft from the | |

| |other project types |replacements or rehabilitations that are not |ends of the bridge | |

| | |part of a highway project, the bridge widths | | |

| | |determined from this policy (BM Section 2) | | |

| | |shall also be used for the widths of any | | |

| | |highway reconstruction work necessary on the | | |

| | |bridge approaches. | | |

|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 with LRFR 1.2 or| | |

| | |higher | | |

| | |BM Section 1.3 | | |

| | | | | |

| | |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.

4.2.3 Other Design Parameters

This section should include the following tables as needed. Important parameters that warrant specific mention should be added to the Other Design Parameters table.

Complete the tables below for each roadway.

OR remove the tables and

Refer to Section X and/or Appendix X of the DAD.

|Exhibit 3.2.3.3-x |

|Other Design Parameters |

|Highway or Feature |

| |Element |Criteria |Proposed Condition |

|1 |Level of Service | | |

| |(for non – interstate projects) | | |

|2 |Drainage Design Storm | | |

|3 |Freeboard (BM 2.4.3) |2 ft for the 50 year design flood | |

When determining the design vehicle(s), assume multiple design vehicles may need to be considered at different locations of the project. Consider school bus routes, designated qualifying and access highways, and the needs of individual property owners. Consult with the Regional Traffic and Safety Group. If the design vehicle cannot be accommodated, this feature will be non-conforming. In the table below indicate the USC designation for the appropriate design vehicles (e.g., use WB-67 instead of WB-20).

|Exhibit 3.2.3.3-x |

|Other Design Parameter: Design Vehicle |

|Location |Design Vehicle (HDM Ch. 5) |Vehicle Accommodated |

|Rte 34 |HDM 5.7.1 / SU |SU |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

4.3 Special Geometric Design Elements

4.3.1 Nonstandard Features

This section should include a statement that the reasonable alternatives comply with the geometric features and cross section elements in the design criteria and a statement of the features that do not meet design criteria.

For each critical design element that does not comply with the design criteria, a description of the feature and information in accordance with the Highway Design Manual, Section 2.8, Requirements for Justification of Nonstandard Features, to support approval of the nonstandard feature shall be included. As necessary, use HDM Exhibit 2-15 - Nonstandard Feature Justification. Note that HDM Exhibit 2-15a – Nonstandard Feature Justification Form for Pedestrian Facilities is used to justify non-standard elements on pedestrian facilities (sidewalks, curb ramps, ramps, etc.). Per ED 15-004, this form is included in the project file. If there are pedestrian facility nonstandard features and the information is available prior to design approval to complete the form, it should be included in the appendices with a description provided in this section.

NOTE: Approval of nonstandard features (also termed design exceptions) must be obtained from the appropriate person as per the Design Related Approval Matrix in Chapter 4 of the PDM at, or prior to, Design Approval. For approval of pedestrian facility nonstandard feature justifications see HDM Chapter 2, section 2.8.1.

OR

Refer to Section X and/or Appendix X of the DAD.

4.3.2 Non-Conforming Features

This section should also describe and provide values and support for features that do not comply with normally accepted engineering policy or practice. The degree of explanation for the non-conforming features should be proportionate to the amount of the variations from normal practice. Examples include inadequate length of acceleration, deceleration, climbing and turning lanes, inadequate transitions to horizontal curves, skewed intersections, compound or broken back curves, inadequate intersection corner radii for the design vehicle, no curb offset, less than recommended bike lane width for bicyclists, etc.

In addition this section of the report may describe and provide support for features that are more than normal practice. Include statements indicating that a wider than normal shoulder will be provided on a bridge to provide better intersection sight distance as appropriate.

OR

There will be no non-conforming features within the project limits

OR

Refer to Section X and/or Appendix X of the DAD.

CHAPTER 5 – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE & PROPOSED CHANGES TO ACCESS POINTS

5.1 Preferred Alternative

Once the 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. A presentation style plan calling out the proposed features should be included. Provide any other recommendations for further action, such as programming the detailed design phase.

5.2 Changes to Access Points

Describe the proposed changes to the new features for which approval are being requested. A table or bulleted list identifying the ramps by names or other access changes should be provided. Each item listed should provide a detailed description of the change (relocation, closing, lengthening of weaving section, extensions of acceleration/deceleration lanes etc.) along with the movement that is being served. Control of access for the proposed changes should be identified. Once the 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. A presentation style plan calling out the proposed features should be included. Provide any other recommendations for further action, such as programming the detailed design phase.

CHAPTER 6 – COMPLIANCE WITH POLICY POINTS & ENGINEERING STANDARDS

This section will document the preferred alternatives consistency with State and FHWA policies and engineering standards, and the need for any design exceptions based on the preliminary engineering concepts

6.1 Policy Point 1: Operational and Safety Analysis

Operational Analysis

The documentation of the operational analysis should provide sufficient information for an independent review of the conditions. It is recommended that the safety and operational analysis is summarized using graphics to convey key findings, with detailed analyses included in appendices. Suggested graphics include drawings showing traffic volumes for all turning movements, as well as mainline, ramp, and local road traffic volumes, for both current conditions and the design year. Similarly, graphics and/or tables summarizing LOS and potential queue lengths can be beneficial.

Access modifications must be justified based on regional traffic needs and not only to solve local system needs or problems. The freeway should not become part of the local traffic circulation system. However, special purpose access for high occupancy vehicles, for transit vehicles, or into park and ride lots may be decided on a case by case basis.

This section should demonstrate by analysis that the network of crossroads and parallel roads in the traffic study area can satisfactorily accommodate design-year demand traffic volumes induced by the proposed modification. The concept “satisfactorily accommodate design-year demand traffic volumes” is defined as not having a significant adverse impact on the safety and operation of the freeway. The analysis may be based on comparison of highway segment and intersection volume/capacity ratio performance measures provided by traffic simulation models.

A traffic and operational analysis must include an analysis of adjacent segments of the freeway as well as nearby existing and proposed interchanges. The results must demonstrate operational acceptability for the opening year and design year as it relates to following:

• Freeway mainline

• Freeway weaving

• Freeway diverge

• Ramp merge

• Ramp/Crossroad intersection

• Crossroads and other local streets ability to effectively collect and distribute traffic from the new of revised interchange.

• Special use lanes (HOV, HOT Lanes, and associated bypass lanes) where proposed or present

Analysis results should be presented in the request at critical points (e.g., weave, merge, diverge, accident sites, HOV lanes) along the affected section of Interstate (mainline and ramps) or freeways, and on the surface street system for both the AM and PM peak period. Show new congestion points which would be introduced by the proposal, and congestion points which should be improved or eliminated, any locations at which congestion is compounded, and any surface street conditions which would affect traffic entering or exiting the Interstate or freeway. This should be presented for existing, year of implementation, and design year.

The limits of the analysis on the Interstate or freeway shall at a minimum be through the adjacent interchanges on either side of the proposed access. In urban areas, it is often necessary to consider the two adjacent interchanges in both directions. Distances to and projected impacts on adjacent interchanges should be provided in the request. The limits of the analyses on the existing or improved surface street system will be the extent of the system necessary to show that the surface street system can safely and adequately handle any new traffic loads resulting from the new/revised access point.

Safety Analysis

The effects on safety (increase or decrease in the type, number, and severity of crashes) of the proposed project should be discussed. The safety implications of the access modification must be determined by comparing the existing accident rates with the accident rates expected after the access modification.

A Crash Analysis should be performed following the Crash Analysis Procedure defined in HDM Chapter 5. The analysis should include a review of SIMS and/or ALIS, checking police reports, and identification of High Accident Locations (HALs), which include Safety Deficient Locations (SDLs), Priority Investigation Locations (PILs), and Priority Investigation Intersections (PIIs). Check any existing and/or proposed nonstandard features that could lead to safety issues (e.g. wrong-way entries onto the Interstate or freeway).

Establishing the area of influence/study area for safety performance associated with Interstate System Access Change Requests is strongly related to the following:

• Traffic volume (average daily and peak periods).

• Mix of traffic volumes (percent trucks).

• Location (rural, urban, suburban).

• Terrain (mountainous, rolling, level).

• Interchange type and access (ramp) spacing along the mainline and their effect on weaving distances, the number of lane changes required, and the speed differential of mixing vehicles.

• Roadway segment (mid-block or typical section; intersection, including type of intersection traffic control) along the crossroad.

• Surrounding land use (number of commercial and residential driveways, and associated pedestrian activity).

• Emergency response times and access for public safety personnel.

• Transit, pedestrian, bicycle, and motorcycle use.

Crash or collision data for diagnosing safety as part of an Interstate System Access Change Request should include at least 3 years of related historical data for the following: crash frequency, crash type and crash severity.

If the Crash Analysis determines that there are no existing or proposed issues in the study area for the access modification, this may be documented with a brief discussion in this section.

If the Crash Analysis shows that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, this section must document the area(s) of concern and what is being done to correct or mitigate the issue(s).

This section should also discuss the project's effects on public safety issues such as emergency services and evacuations.

6.2 Policy Point 2: Connection to a Public Road (for Interstates and freeways) and Accomodation of all Interchange Movements (for Interstates only)

Access Connection: Access points must be connected to a public road. Direct access from an Interstate or a freeway to a private driveway will not be permitted.

For Interstates: Except in the most extreme circumstances, all interchanges on the Interstate should provide for all movements. When initial construction of a partial interchange can be clearly justified, commitments for completion of the full interchange must be made prior to the initial construction. Describe how all movements to and from the Interstate are provided.

For Interstates, use the following statement and the appropriate choice below.

In summary, the proposed interchange accommodates all movements and/or wayfinding signage will allow all drivers to clearly locate the ramp that leads them to and from the interstate and local roadways, in accordance with Policy Point 2.

CHAPTER 7 – CONCEPTUAL SIGNING PLAN

Each request must include a conceptual plan of the type and location of the signs proposed to support each design alternative (23 U.S.C. 109(d) and 23 CFR 655.603(d)). Proposed ITS elements should also be included. Describe any new or modified trafiic signalization that is required as part of the project.

APPENDICES

Appendices will be used for other supporting documents such as traffic operational analysis documentation. Lane configuration schematic and figures illustrating the existing geometry overlaid with proposed geometry are recommended. These figures should clearly show dimensions for the acceleration and deceleration lane spacing, lane transition taper lengths, auxiliary lanes, and interchange spacing (measured from the centerline of grade-separation structures)

|Table of Appendices |

| |

|A. |Plans, Profiles & Typical Sections |

|B. |Traffic Information |

|C. |Accident Analysis |

|D. |Conceptual Sign Layout Plans |

OR

Refer to appropriate appendices in the DAD.

Summary of Changes:

9/24/2021 –

• Added “Director – Traffic Safety & Mobility” to recommend design approval to conform to section 2.1 of PDM Appendix 8.

-----------------------

[1] Policy on Access to the Interstate System –

[2] Policy on Access to the Interstate System –

-----------------------

Project

Location

-----------------------

14

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download