Month 20Xxdraft Design Report PIN XXXX.XX

Month 20Xxdraft Design Report PIN XXXX.XX

Month 20XXDraft Design Report PIN XXXX.XX

CHAPTER 3– ALTERNATIVES(See p. 3-22 for summary of changes)

______

This chapter discusses the alternatives considered and examines the engineering aspects for all feasible alternatives to address project objectives in Chapter 1 of this report.

______

3.1. Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Study

This section of the reportshould discuss the alternatives considered and eliminated from further study. Include initial alternative(s) that were rejected due to environmental impacts or other reasons infavor of feasible alternative(s) that meet the project’s transportation objectives while avoiding or minimizing environmental impacts.

The rationale for rejecting an alternative must be based on laws, regulations, the project’s objectives, cost, or Department goals. This section should specifically address how the rejected alternative does not meet the law, regulation, the project’s objectives, or Department goal.

The no-build/maintenance alternative shall be covered in the feasible alternatives section. Sufficient information should be provided to explain how and why the feasible alternatives were eliminated from further study. This section should emphasize,where applicable, how those alternatives are eliminated from further study by indicating they did not meet project objectives or stating other reasons for elimination.

For bridge projects, the range of alternatives to be considered when determining feasible alternatives should include: (1) no-build/maintenance, (2) bridge rehabilitation, and (3) bridge replacement. An explanation for discarding no-build/maintenance, bridge rehabilitationor bridge replacement alternatives should be provided. Refer to the following statements for additional guidance.

______

The no-build/maintenance alternative will result in the continued deterioration of the structure, resulting in increased maintenance and eventually requiring the structure to be closed to traffic. This alternative will not satisfy the project objective or the programming goal and therefore will not be considered further.

______

______

The bridge replacement alternative was evaluated in accordance with the Bridge Rehabilitation or Replacement Selection Guidelines and was eliminated primarily because of cost and schedule. The replacement cost is 60% greater than rehabilitation, would require a temporary bridge, and would increase the construction duration and corresponding traffic delays by one season.

______

______

Rehabilitating the CR 61 bridge over NY 17 at Interchange 115 does not address the non-standard vertical clearance on NY Route 17 which exists at this structure. The condition and sufficiency rating of this bridge makes it a candidate for rehabilitation. For NY 17, which the bridge spans, the existing westbound off ramp deceleration lane is too short. In order lengthen the deceleration lane, NY Route 17 under the CR 61 bridge would need to be widened. The widening of NY Route 17 would impact the northern most center pier of the existing bridge. This makes rehabilitating the bridge in its existing location not feasible and therefore, eliminated from further study.

______

3.2.Feasible Build Alternatives

3.2.1. Description of Feasible Alternatives

Feasible alternatives are courses of actions or designs toaccomplish the project objectives. Sufficient information should be provided to explain how and why the feasible alternatives were selected for further study. This section should emphasize how the alternatives still under consideration meet the project objectives.

Each feasible alternative should open with a brief summary of the major features particular to that alternative. It should describe the type of improvement, the functional class for new facilities or reclassification if different from existing, length and termini, general description of the typical section and vertical and horizontal alignment, intersections (including turning lanes), interchanges (type, special ramps or auxiliary lanes), structures, major work on intersecting roads, important right-of-way takings or features affecting the alignment and/or typical section, etc. Mobility features included in the alternative, including non-traditional improvements or actions, should be briefly described. Where applicable, include relevant information from other planning studies (e.g., a major investment study (MIS)).

Typical sections (highway and bridge) should be included for all construction and reconstruction projects, including 3R projects oninterstates and other freeways, new bridge and bridge replacement projects, bridge rehabilitation projects, intersection improvement projects and non-freeway 3R projects. Plans and profiles should be included whenexisting vertical and/or horizontal alignments are modified, when roadway wideningrequires right-of-way takings, and for all bridge projects. Plans should be provided for new construction or when the horizontal alignment is modified, when travel and/or auxiliary lanes are added such as for intersection improvements, when ROW is required, and for all bridge projects. Profiles should be provided for new construction or when the vertical alignment is modified, and for all bridge projects.

Typical sections, plans, and profiles should be included with this description of the proposed alternativesor preferably in the appendix if they constitute numerous sheets. The text of this section should reference the pages of the typical sections, plans and profiles. See HDM Chapter 21 for the format and content of plans, profiles and typical sections for design approval documents.

As appropriate, a scaled map or plan showing the proposed and discarded alternatives should be included. As a summary, the following summary table should be included.

______

Alternative 1 - This alternative for NY Route 17 consists of a single course overlay with truing and leveling to correct superelevation, and make improvements to roadside safety by increasing the clear zone, and replacing guiderail and median barrier. Key elements of this alternative include:

Geometry /

This alternative includes correcting the superelevation.

This alternative includes widening the shoulder to 1.2m at five locations, approximately 2 km in length, along NY Route 17 in the eastbound and westbound directions.

This alternative would retain nonstandard grades at three locations along NY Route 17. Justification for retaining this nonstandard feature is included in Appendix L of this report.

Operational /

This alternative does not affect operations.

Control of Access /

Control of access for this alternative will meet the criteria in HDM chapter 2 for Other Freeways.

Right of Way /

NY 17 mainline improvements will not require ROW acquisition. All work will be performed within existing highway boundaries.

In accordance with the federal Highway Beautification Act and NYS Signs Program existing billboards will require removal or relocation from within the ROW.

Utility lines accessed from NY Route 17 mainline in the vicinity of Interchange 110 ROW will require relocation.

Preliminary review estimates approximately 15 km of ROW fencing will be installed in areas prohibited from access.

Environmental /

There are no wetland impacts associated with NY Route 17 mainline.

There are no significant noise or visual impacts associated with NY Route 17 mainline improvements.

Cost /

Total estimated cost of this alternative is $28.28M.

Project Goals /

These improvements meet the overall objective to bring this segment of NY Route 17 up to Interstate standards, and would allow for future designation as I-86.

______

______

Exhibit 3.2.1 Summary of Alternative Costs - Million Dollars (Calculated Year)
Activities
Alt 1 / Alt 2 / Alt 3
Construction / Bridge
Highway
Wetland Mitigation
Storm Pollution Discharge Elimination System
Subtotal (2007 )
Incidentals1 (2007) 5%
Subtotal (2007 )
Contingencies2(15% @ Design Approval)
Subtotal (2007 )
Potential Field Change Order3
Subtotal (2007)
Mobilization (4%)
Subtotal (2007 )
Expected Award Amount – Inflated4 @ 5%/yr to midpoint of Construction(2011)
Construction Inspection (8%)
ROW Costs (2008 )
Total Cost
Notes:
1. The potential cost increase due to unknown or un-tabulated items.
2.NYSDOT recommends standard contingencies: 25% Scoping stage, 15% Design Approval stage, 5% Advanced Detail Plans stage.
3.According to HDM Chapter 21 Section 21.3.9.4, EB 03-029 & EB 06-057.
4. The escalation rate of 5% to account for potential future increases in labor, material, equipment and other costs associated with Capital Program work.

______

3.2.2 Preferred Alternative

______

The following statement should be included at the beginning of this section if a preferred alternative is not identified:

All feasible alternatives are under consideration. A decision will be made after evaluating the alternatives' impacts, comments on the draft design approval document, and comments from the public hearing (if held).

______

______

If a preferred alternative is identified, include the following statement:

While Alternative __ is identified as the preferred alternative, all feasible alternatives are under consideration. The selection of the preferred alternative will not be finalized until the alternatives' impacts, comments on the draft design approval document, and comments from the public hearing (if held) have been fully evaluated.

______

3.2.3.Design Criteriafor Feasible Alternative(s)

3.2.3.1.Design Standards–The design standards used should be based on the project work type (see PDM App. 5, Table 5-1); different standards may apply to different feasible alternatives. The basis for applying the standardsto 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.

3.2.3.2.Critical Design Elements - The following exhibit identifies critical design elementsapplicable 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 includedfor each feasible alternative (e.g., a project that has both 3R and reconstruction as feasible alternatives). Separate criteria must be provided when work is proposed onside-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 establishingstandard values, the existing and proposed values should be included in the table of Critical Design Elements. It is recommended that the table illustrated below be used. This exhibit isrequired for each feasible alternative. Design criteria for more than one ramp or more than one local road or similar may be listed in one table, where appropriate, to reduce the no. of tables.

______

______

Exhibit 3.2.3.2.
Critical Design Elements for Route __
PIN: / X123.45 / NHS (Y/N): / Yes
Route No. & Name: / NY 5Columbia Tpk. / Functional Classification: / Rural - Minor Arterial
Project Type: / (PDM App. 5, Table 5-1) / Design Classification: / Rural Arterial (HDM Exhibit 2-1)
% Trucks: / 7 / Terrain: / Level
ADT: / 5500 / Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. / Neither
Element / Standard / Existing Condition / Proposed Condition
1 / Design Speed / 80 km/h1 / 40 mph posted
2 / Lane Width / 3.0 m minimum, 3.6 m maximum
Bridge Manual (BM) Sections2.3.1 Table 2-1 and Appendix 2A. Table R & Table N
3 / Shoulder Width / 1.0 m minimum, 2.4 m Maximum,
BM Sections2.3.1 Table 2-1, and App. 2A Table R & Table N
4 / Bridge Roadway Width / 2(3.0) + 2(1.0) = 8.0 m Min.
2(3.3) + 2(2.4) = 11.4 m Max.
BM Sections2.3.1 Table 2-1, and App. 2A Table R & Table N
5 / Maximum Grade / 7%
HDM Section2.7.3.1 E, Table 2-5
6 / Horizontal Curvature / 229 m (@ e = 8.0%)
HDM Section2.7.3.1 F, Table 2-5
7 / Superelevation Rate / 8% Maximum
HDM Section 2.7.3.1 G
8 / Stopping Sight Distance / 130 m Minimum (Crest)
HDM Section2.7.3.1 H, Table 2-5
130 m Minimum (Sag)
HDM Section2.7.3.1 H, Appendix 5B
9 / Horizontal Clearance / 3.0 m without rail; Along rail, use larger of 1.2 m or actual shoulder width
HDM Section 2.7.3.1 l
10 / Vertical Clearance / 4.3 Minimum, Highway
4.45 m Desirable, Highway
5.05 m Minimum for Thru-Truss
BM Section 2.4
11 / Pavement Cross Slope / 1.5% Min. to 2% Max.
HDM Section 2.7.3.1 K
12 / Rollover / 4% between lanes; 8% at EOT;
(If shoulder drainage is a concern, and superelevation > 6%, may use 10% for outer 1.2 m of shoulder.
HDM Section3.2.5.1
13 / Structural Capacity / NYSDOT LRFD Specifications AASHTO HL-93 Live Load and NYSDOT Design Permit Vehicle
NYSDOT Standard Specifications AASHTO MS23 (HS25) Live Load
HDM Section 2.7.3.1.M &BM Section 2.6.1
14 / Level of Service / Min. “B” – Rolling
Min. “C” – Mountainous
HDM Section 2.7.5.2.N
15 / Control of Access / Fully controlled
HDM Section 2.7.5.2.O
16 / Pedestrian Accommodation / 1.525 m Highway
1.7m Bridge
Complies with HDM Chapter 18 and ADAAG
17 / Median Width / 1.2 m minimum w/o left turn
3.6 m minimum
HDM Section 2.7.2.1.O
(1) The Regional Traffic Engineer hasconcurred that the use of a Design Speed of 80 km/h is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. (Refer to Section 2.3.1.5 Speeds and Delays and Appendix C of this report for additional information on speed data).

______

1) Include a statement as in footnote 1 above.

2) Designer's NOTES: For curves flatter than the minimum radius, the radius and superelevation on each horizontal curve shall be correlated with the design speed in accordance with the appropriate e-max table (HDM Table 2-13 for e-max = 6% or Table 2-14 for e-max = 8%).

3.2.3.3. Other Design Parameters- This section should include the following tabularized information. Other important parameters that warrant specific mention also may be included in this section (e.g., design storm).

The following table is required for each feasible alternative.

______

Exhibit 3.2.3.3 a
Other Design Parameters
Highway or Feature
Element / Standard Criteria / Proposed Condition
2 / Level of Service
(for non – interstate projects)
3 / Other important parameter
4 / Other important parameter

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. The designer shall consult with the RegionalTraffic and Safety Group. If the design vehicle cannot be accommodated, this feature will be non-conforming.

Exhibit 3.2.3.3 b
Other Design Parameter: Design Vehicle
Location / Design Vehicle / Vehicle Accommodated

*Non conforming feature

______

3.3. Engineering Considerations

The following subject headings and their sequence are to be used so the reader can quickly find the discussion on any of these subjects. For any alternative, such as the no-build/maintenance or rehabilitation alternative, there is no need to duplicate information that has been provided in Chapter 2. Provide all necessary information in a clear and concise manner,and strive to avoid duplication and unnecessary text.

3.3.1.Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance

______

3.3.1.1. Functional Classification and National Highway System - This project will not change the functional classification of the highway.

______

3.3.1.2. Control of Access - [No, Full, Partial] control of access will be provided.

______

3.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices

______

3.3.1.3. (1)Traffic Signals: No new traffic signalsare/is proposed.

______

3.3.1.3. (2)Signs: Existing signs will be replaced. Curve warning and speed advisory signs will be added for the non-standard curvature.

______

3.3.1.4.Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) –No ITS measures are proposed. Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) improvements included in the project should be described. Traffic related mobility features such as ramp metering, reversible lanes, truck prohibitions during peak hours, etc. should be described.

______

3.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay -

______

3.3.1.5. (1)Proposed Speed Limit - The posted speed limit within the project limits will be __mph. OR The existing posted speed limitof __mph will be retained upon completion of the project.

______

3.3.1.5. (2)Travel Time Estimates –If the LOS is C or better travel times are not needed. See HDM Section 5.2.2.

______

Travel time estimates are not applicable for a bridge replacement project ORTravel time estimates are not included as the feasible alternatives will not change the capacity.

______

Exhibit - 3.3.1.5
Speed Data
Route
Posted Speed Limit
Operating Speed and Method Used to Measure
*Travel Speed and Delay Runs for Existing Conditions / Not required since existing LOS is C or better. / Not required since existing LOS is C or better.
*Travel Time and Delay Runs Estimates / Not required since existing LOS is C or better. / Not required since existing LOS is C or better.

______

3.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes–Include a statement indicating the impact on school buses, farm machinery, milk trucks, large trucks, etc.,that routinely use the route.

______

Since there are no anticipated changes in traffic volumes see Section 2.3.1.6 for existing traffic volumes. Refer to Appendix _ for traffic flow diagrams. Refer to Exhibits 2.3.16-1 and 2.31.6-2 for a summary of the traffic data. Peak hour turning movement volumes for intersections with identified accident problems, all major intersections, & major traffic generator driveways/entrances are included in Appendix __.

______

______

Exhibit 3.3.1.6 -1
Traffic Data
Route
Directional Distribution / ___ AM, ___PM / ___ AM, ___PM
Peak Hour Factor
Peak Hour Percent Trucks / ___ %AM, ___%PM / ___ %AM, ___%PM
Daily Trucks

______

______

Exhibit 3.3.1.6 -2
Forecast Traffic Volumes
Route ___, From __ to ___
Year / Alternative 2 / Alternative 3 / Alternative 4
ADT / DHV / ADT / DHV / ADT / DHV
Existing
(XXXX)
ETC
(XXXX)
ETC+10
(XXXX)
ETC+20
(XXXX)
ETC+30
(XXXX)

Notes:

(1)ETC is the Estimated Time of Completion.

(2)Refer to Section 2.3.1.6 for the no-build traffic under Alternative 1.

______

3.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility–

3.3.1.7 (1) At Project Completion & Design Year -Describe design year level of service and capacity analysis findings for commuter travel periods (e.g., A.M. and P.M. peak hours) on all links,intersections, interchanges and major traffic generators driveways/ entrances for all approaches for which design year traffic and forecasts were given. For interchanges, the levels of service should be established for all ramps, merges, diverge, and all weave areas. For projects that improve on sustain capacity (?) the capacity analysis calculations should be included in the Appendix.

For locations with poor service during commuter travel periods or other peak periods, estimates of the duration of congestion should be provided.

NOTE: There may be a need to give level of service for other peak periods for commercial generators or special events (e.g., Saturday peak shopping hours, concert performances, fairs, etc.). Also, some highways have a midday peak period that should be shown.