Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
North Whitfield County Roadway Corridor Study
Report #2: Unconstrained Alternatives
MA Project 11501
September 16, 2011
Prepared For: Greater Dalton Metropolitan Planning Organization
Prepared By: Moreland Altobelli Associates, Inc. 2211 Beaver Ruin Road Suite 190 Norcross, GA 30071 (770) 263-5945
© 2011 Greater Dalton Metropolitan Planning Organization (GDMPO). All rights reserved. The contents of this publication reflect the views of the author(s), who is (are) responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The opinions, findings, and conclusions of this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of those of the GDMPO. This publication does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
North Whitfield County — Roadway Corridor Study
16-Sep-11 ii
Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................. 4 1.1 Purpose of this report ............................................................................... 4 1.2 Organization of the Report ...................................................................... 4 2.0 Description of Alternatives ..................................................... 6
2.1 Unconstrained Project List ....................................................................... 6 2.1.1 Shoulder Upgrades ................................................................................ 6 2.1.2 Pavement rehabilitation and maintenance ....................................... 6 2.1.3 Restriping Program ................................................................................ 6 2.1.4 Bicycle Elements ................................................................................... 6 2.1.5 Safety Improvements ............................................................................ 7 2.1.6 Major Reconstruction ............................................................................ 7 2.1.7 Road Widening ...................................................................................... 7 3.0 Costs and Benefits ................................................................. 10 3.1 Cost Development Methodology ......................................................... 10 3.2 Benefit Development Methodology ..................................................... 12 3.3 Benefit Cost Ratios ................................................................................. 13 3.4 Level of Service Improvement .............................................................. 13 4.0 Ranked Improvements ......................................................... 15
4.1 Ranked by Benefit Cost ......................................................................... 16 4.2 Ranked by Type and Benefit Cost ........................................................ 17 4.3 Ranked by Level of Service and Capacity Improvement ................. 17 5.0 Funding Programs ................................................................. 20 5.1 Traditional Funding Programs ............................................................... 20 5.1.1 Lump Sum Funding .............................................................................. 20 5.1.2 Funding for improvements not covered by lump sum funding ...... 20 5.2 Innovative, “Non-Traditional”, Funding Mechanisms ......................... 21 6.0 Conclusion ............................................................................. 23 6.1 Next Steps ............................................................................................... 23
Appendix A. Benefit Cost Worksheets ................................................ A
Appendix B – Highway Capacity Analysis Worksheets ....................... B
North Whitfield County — Roadway Corridor Study
16-Sep-11 iii
Table of Figures Figure 1: Roadways under Study ............................................................................................... 5 Figure 2: Proposed Improvements ............................................................................................ 9
Table of Tables Table 1: Unconstrained Project Costs ..................................................................................... 11 Table 2: Benefit Cost Ratios ...................................................................................................... 12 Table 3: Level of Service by Proposed Improvement ............................................................ 14 Table 4: Project Ranking by Benefit Cost Ratio ...................................................................... 16 Table 5: Project Ranking by Type and Benefit Cost Ratio ..................................................... 17 Table 6: Ranked by Level of Service Improvement ............................................................... 18 Table 7: Ranked by Capacity Improvement .......................................................................... 19
North Whitfield County — Roadway Corridor Study
16-Sep-11 4
1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of this report The purpose of this report is to provide the Greater Dalton Metropolitan Planning Organization (GDMPO) a list of projects which will improve the potential capacity of the studied roadways in order to attract development opportunities in northern Whitfield County. The roads have been identified as major corridors for traffic flows to and from Hamilton and Bradley Counties in Tennessee and Catoosa and Murray Counties in Georgia. The impetus for this study is the anticipated growth in traffic along these corridors that will result from the development of major employment centers in Tennessee, such as the Volkswagen Assembly Plant in Hamilton County and the Wacker Manufacturing Plant in Bradley County. The roadways under study are the following: State Route 2 (SR 2), from Murray County to Catoosa County; State Route 201 (SR 201), from State Route 2 to US Highway 41; State Route 71 (SR 71), from N. Dalton Bypass to the GA/TN State line; and US Highway 41 (US 41) from Catoosa county line to Interstate 75. Figure 1: Roadways under Study, illustrates the project study area.
1.2 Organization of the Report Moreland Altobelli Associates, Inc. (MA) developed an existing conditions analysis and created a report entitled North Whitfield County Corridor Study: Existing Conditions, Projections, and Findings. The report was published on July 11, 2011 and reviewed by the GDMPO.
This report is the second in a series of three and will present a series of proposed improvements, their costs, benefits, and rank them by various measures. The report will conclude with a discussion of various traditional and alternative funding mechanisms that may be used to finance the project list.
North Whitfield County — Roadway Corridor Study
16-Sep-11 5
Figure 1: Roadways under Study
North Whitfield County — Roadway Corridor Study
16-Sep-11 6
2.0 Description of Alternatives 2.1 Unconstrained Project List This section identifies potential projects that address the future needs of the studied roadways as evaluated and observed in the field. Figure 2: Proposed Improvements, shows the proposed projects against the list of studied roadways. Note that projects 3 through 7 are not specifically called out on the figure as they consist of the entire length of their respective roadways.
The various projects are divided into categories by type of improvement. See Section 4.0, Ranked Improvements, for a discussion of the relative merits of each proposed improvement.
2.1.1 Shoulder Upgrades Significant portions of the following roadways are substandard with respect to clear zone and ditch protection. “Clear zone” is a concept developed and maintained by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The basic premise is that the roadside environment should be forgiving of driver error, allowing space and time to recover and bring a vehicle safely to a stop without striking an obstruction or by protecting vehicles from direct contact with obstructions by installing features such as guardrail or barrier to mitigate the forces of impact. Run-off-the-road collisions are the leading cause of injury on rural two-lane roads.
The following projects are recommended for improving the roadside environment.
1) SR 2 – From Deep Springs Road to the Murray County line. Improve shoulders to establish adequate clear zone for vehicular recovery and increase roadway capacity. Project length: 2.55 miles.
2) SR 201 – From Reed Road to SR 2. Improve shoulders to establish adequate clear zone for vehicular recovery and increase roadway capacity. Project length: 2.25 miles.
2.1.2 Pavement rehabilitation and maintenance The roadways are recommended for pavement rehabilitation through resurfacing in the following order, based upon observed field conditions.
3) SR 2 – From Catoosa County line to Murray County line 4) SR 71 – From North Dalton Bypass to Tennessee State line 5) US 41 – From I-75 to Catoosa County line 6) SR 201 – From US 41 to SR 2
2.1.3 Restriping Program The only roadway which seemed to be in need of immediate restriping is listed below. All other roads in the project study area should be included on a regular maintenance routine for restriping.
7) SR 201 – From US 41 to SR 2.
2.1.4 Bicycle Elements US 41 is listed as State Bicycle Route 35. Accordingly, the following improvements are recommended:
North Whitfield County — Roadway Corridor Study
16-Sep-11 7
8) US 41 From SR 201 (South) to Catoosa County line. Install and/or retrofit bicycle friendly shoulders. Replace rumble strips with gapped strips for access by cyclists.
2.1.5 Safety Improvements Several corridors and intersections in the project area showed higher frequencies or severities of collisions than would be expected of a similar roadway. To potentially reduce the crash frequencies and maintain consistently operational roadways, the following improvements are recommended.
9) SR 201 and Lees Chapel Road. Realign the SR 201 intersection to provide better sight distance and traffic calming. Alternately, install a roundabout at this location with provisions to handle Major Reconstruction Project #1.
10) SR 201 and Reed Road. Realign Reed Road to intersect with SR 201 at a 90 degree angle.
11) SR 201 at I-75, northbound and southbound ramp terminals. Realign ramp terminals or provide roundabouts to improve intersection sight distance and reduce the potential for crashes. This project has been included in the Transportation Investment Act constrained project list as of August, 2011. The list is currently pending approval by the Regional Roundtable.
12) SR 71 at SR 2, access control and intersection safety improvements. Install raised concrete median to provide for access control and prevent crossing/angle collisions in the near vicinity of the signalized intersection. Install concrete islands and pedestrian elements to upgrade the intersection to full American’s with Disabilities Act compliance and provide cross-intersection pedestrian connectivity, extending the existing sidewalk.
2.1.6 Major Reconstruction A significant reduction in capacity and safety was witnessed on the length of SR 201 between US 41 and Lees Chapel Road, which passes through the City of Tunnel Hill. As the objective of this study is to increase the capacity of the studied roadways for future passenger and freight vehicles, a bypass-type improvement that reduces traffic congestion of the existing SR 201 is recommended.
13) SR 201 – From SR 201/Lees Chapel Road to US 41. New location roadway. This project has been included in the Transportation Investment Act constrained project list as of August, 2011. The list is currently pending approval by the Regional Roundtable. Project length: 0.75 miles.
2.1.7 Road Widening Two sections of existing roadway are currently multi-lane roads but narrow to two lanes before the jurisdictional border of Whitfield County. SR 71 and US 41 both have two lane sections which could be widened to the adjacent border of Tennessee and Catoosa County, respectively for later incorporation into those agencies’ roadway plans. SR 2 and SR 201 are cross-county connectors that serve east-west travelers and should be upgraded for future capacity.
14) SR 71 – From 0.5 miles north of the Old Dalton-Cleveland Highway to the Tennessee State Line. Widen the existing two lane roadway from to four lanes with a flush median. Install 10’ shoulders with rumble strips to match the existing cross section of SR 71 south of the beginning point of this project. This project has been included in
North Whitfield County — Roadway Corridor Study
16-Sep-11 8
the Transportation Investment Act constrained project list as of August, 2011. The list is currently pending approval by the Regional Roundtable. Project Length: 1.54 miles
15) US 41 – From Campbell Road north to the Catoosa County Line. Widen from the existing two lane roadway to four lanes with a flush median. Install curb, gutter, and sidewalk to match existing cross section at Campbell Road. Project Length: 1.07 miles.
16) SR 2 – from SR 201 to SR 71 with a realignment of the SR 2/SR 201 intersection. Widen from the existing two lane roadway to four lanes. Install rural shoulder to match existing drainage patterns. Widen and retain existing bridge over railroad near the western terminus of the project. Consider a roundabout for the western intersection with SR 201 to avoid turnover crashes by trucks. This project has been included in the Transportation Investment Act constrained project list as of August, 2011. The list is currently pending approval by the Regional Roundtable. Project Length: 1.75 miles.
17) SR 201 – From I-75 Road to SR 2. Widen existing three lane/two lane roadway to four lanes. Improve shoulders to alleviate clear zone deficiencies. Provide logical termini for project number 16. Project length: 4.70 miles. Note that this project is contradictory with widening project #18, safety project #10, and shoulder project #2.
18) SR 201 – From Reed Road to SR 2. Widen to three lanes with attendant shoulder and safety improvements at Reed Road. Project length: 2.25 miles. Note that this project is contradictory with widening project #17, safety project #10, and shoulder project #2.
North Whitfield County — Roadway Corridor Study
16-Sep-11 9
Figure 2: Proposed Improvements
Source: Moreland Altobelli Associates, Inc. Note: Projects 3-7 are not shown. They consist of restriping and resurfacing projects which occupy the full length of studied roadways
North Whitfield County — Roadway Corridor Study
16-Sep-11 10
3.0 Costs and Benefits Each of the projects listed in Section 2.0, Description of Alternatives. This section describes their anticipated project costs and benefits.
3.1 Cost Development Methodology Each project proposed was analyzed for cost using planning-level costing tools. These included aerial photography, literature review of previous and existing projects in the same area, typical rights of way costs for similar projects in the area, and basic assumptions about the types of construction that would occur with respect to drainage, shoulders, etc. These costs are by no means a detailed project breakdown containing individual design choices. Larger structures such as bridges, culverts, signals, are accounted for using cost per-square-yard and per-intersection cost estimates. In all respects, the costs associated with construction were developed with a conservative estimate in mind; most costs should be high compared to a final concept cost estimate with higher individual knowledge of the roadway in question. All Preliminary Engineering (PE) costs were calculated as 10% of construction cost and all values were rounded up to the nearest thousand dollars for convenience and clarity.
Table 1: Unconstrained Project Costs lists the estimated project design, right of way, utility, and construction costs for each project in the unconstrained list. These are planning-level cost estimates and are based on assumptions concerning average construction costs of various types of roadway facilities.
.
North Whitfield County — Roadway Corridor Study
16-Sep-11 11
Table 1: Unconstrained Project Costs
Project Cost (Millions of $) No. Location Type R/W Utilities Construction PE Total
1 SR 2 Shoulder $270,000 $100,000 $1,855,000 $186,000 $2,411,000 2 SR 201 Shoulder $238,000 $100,000 $1,769,000 $177,000 $2,284,000 3 SR 2 Pavement $0 $0 $2,317,000 $232,000 $2,549,000 4 SR 71 Pavement $0 $0 $1,653,000 $166,000 $1,819,000 5 US 41 Pavement $0 $0 $5,829,000 $583,000 $6,412,000 6 SR 201 Pavement $0 $0 $1,553,000 $156,000 $1,709,000 7 SR 201 Restriping $0 $0 $104,000 $11,000 $115,000 8 US 41 Bicycle $0 $0 $235,000 $24,000 $259,000 9 SR 201, Lees Chapel Safety $221,000 $50,000 $1,235,000 $124,000 $1,630,000 10 SR 201, Reed Safety $135,000 $100,000 $1,135,000 $114,000 $1,484,000 11 SR 201, I-75 Safety $140,000 $300,000 $1,143,000 $115,000 $1,698,000 12 SR 71, SR 2 Safety $64,000 $300,000 $914,000 $92,000 $1,370,000 13 SR 201 Major Reconstruction $750,000 $750,000 $2,876,000 $225,000 $4,601,000 14 SR 71 Widening $1,170,000 $100,000 $5,627,000 $563,000 $7,460,000 15 US 41 Widening $883,000 $800,000 $3,009,000 $301,000 $4,993,000 16 SR 2 Widening $847,000 $300,000 $5,950,000 $595,000 $7,692,000 17 SR 201 - 4 lane Widening $3,595,000 $1,000,000 $8,073,000 $808,000 $13,476,000 18 SR 201 - 3 Lane Widening $2,057,000 $200,000 $2,860,000 $286,000 $5,403,000
Source: Moreland Altobelli Associates, Inc, TIA Constrained List
North Whitfield County — Roadway Corridor Study
16-Sep-11 12
3.2 Benefit Development Methodology Project benefits were derived from two different areas: the difference in travel time between the no build and build conditions and the calculated reduction in crash frequency due to the proposed improvement.
The travel time reduction value is calculated in vehicle hours (veh-hr) and is a standard output of Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analyses. The reduction in crash frequency is calculated using methods from the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) and uses Federal Highway Administration crash reduction factors to calculate the potential reduction. The reduced frequency is combined with values for property damage, injury, and fatal crashes to generate a median yearly benefit.
The two values, reduction in vehicle hours and crash reduction, are combined to generate the project benefits, measured per year. The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) has a standard spreadsheet for calculating the benefit cost ratio of projects based upon the assumed future value of the dollar and the per-year project benefits. The spreadsheets for each project calculation can be found in the Appendix.
Table 2: Benefit Cost Ratios, shows similar information as Table 1, but it includes the calculated benefit cost ratio for each project. Benefits were derived using GDOT standard methods which include HCM and HSM analysis. For full breakdowns on the benefit calculations, see the Appendix.
Table 2: Benefit Cost Ratios
Project
No. Location Type Project Cost Benefit Cost
Ratio
1 SR 2 Shoulder $2,411,000 0.99 2 SR 201 Shoulder $2,284,000 1.39 3 SR 2 Pavement $2,549,000 n/a 4 SR 71 Pavement $1,819,000 n/a 5 US 41 Pavement $6,412,000 n/a 6 SR 201 Pavement $1,709,000 n/a 7 SR 201 Restriping $115,000 n/a 8 US 41 Bicycle $259,000 n/a
9 SR 201, Lees Chapel Safety $1,630,000 3.13
10 SR 201, Reed Safety $1,484,000 2.94 11 SR 201, I-75 Safety $1,698,000 5.53/2.53† 12 SR 71, SR 2 Safety $1,370,000 2.61
13 SR 201 Major Reconstruction $4,601,000 1.19
14 SR 71 Widening $7,460,000 1.08 15 US 41 Widening $4,993,000 1.34 16 SR 2 Widening $7,692,000 0.79 17 SR 201 - 4 lane Widening $13,476,000 0.98 18 SR 201 - 3 Lane Widening $5,403,000 0.99
Source: Moreland Altobelli Associates, Inc, TIA Constrained List Note: repaving, restriping and enhancement-type projects (such as bicycle-friendly shoulders) are not typically analyzed for benefit-cost † 2.53 benefit cost ratio represents the ratio if benefits derived from fatal collision avoidance is discounted
North Whitfield County — Roadway Corridor Study
16-Sep-11 13
3.3 Benefit Cost Ratios Benefit cost analysis is used to determine if the project is financially reasonable. If the total benefits, calculated in dollars, do not exceed the projected costs, then the project would not be cost effective and would be eliminated from a fiscally constrained list. The projected benefits are divided by the projected costs to attain a ratio. If the ratio is greater than 1.0, then the project is not a net loss. This 1.0 cut off point is traditional for deciding if a project should be analyzed in greater detail, and be carried forward into design and construction phases.
A note about benefit cost ratios near 1.0: The reader of this document should note that both the cost development and benefit calculation for the projects described in Section 2.0 are planning-level estimates. This has an impact on the benefit cost ratios that are at or near 1.0. While every effort has been made to make both the costs and benefits of each project as accurate and reasonable as possible, these estimates will still necessarily be not as accurate as a full-blown project concept report. This has an effect on projects that have a benefit cost ratio very close to 1.0. For example, project number 18, shown in Table 2, has a benefit cost ratios of 0.99. This would typically drop it out of contention in a competitive fiscal environment, however as shown in the Appendix, an increase in benefit or a decrease in cost by $4,200 would make it a 1.0 benefit cost ratio. $4,200 is well within the range of cost flexibility that a planning level cost estimate cannot define. For that reason, projects with benefit cost ratios close to 1.0 will be maintained during consideration for implementation.
3.4 Level of Service Improvement Level of Service is a qualitative measurement of a roadways ability to perform at its theoretical design capacity. The levels of service range from LOS A to LOS F. LOS A represents free-flow traffic conditions and LOS F represents extreme delays with stopped traffic conditions. In a rural county such as Whitfield, LOS D is considered to be a failing level of service.
Table 3: Level of Service by Proposed Improvement shows the proposed projects that were analyzed for level of service and the degree to which they improve LOS. Some projects were not analyzed for LOS because there is no methodology for evaluating the effect on the roadway user. Roadway resurfacing and restriping projects are not construction methods that are evaluated by the HCM, and bicycle levels of service are difficult to evaluate without a greater number of cyclists using the facility.
As shown in Table 3: Level of Service by Proposed Improvement, projects numbers 1 and 17 will convert the projected 2035 failing LOS from D to an improved C or A, respectively.
North Whitfield County — Roadway Corridor Study
16-Sep-11 14
Table 3: Level of Service by Proposed Improvement
Project 2035 LOS
No. Location Type Project Cost Benefit Cost Ratio
No Build Build
1 SR 2 Shoulder $2,411,000 0.99 D C 2 SR 201 Shoulder $2,284,000 1.39 D D
12 SR 71 & SR 2 Safety $1,370,000 2.61 A A
13 SR 201 Major Reconstruction $4,601,000 1.19 C A
14 SR 71 Widening $7,460,000 1.08 C A 15 US 41 Widening $4,993,000 1.34 A A 16 SR 2 Widening $7,692,000 0.79 C C
17 SR 201 - 4 lane Widening $13,476,000 0.98 D A
18 SR 201 - 3 Lane Widening $5,403,000 0.99 D D
Source: Moreland Altobelli Associates, Inc.
North Whitfield County — Roadway Corridor Study
16-Sep-11 15
4.0 Ranked Improvements The purpose of this study is to develop project recommendations to increase the passenger and freight vehicle capacities of the studied roadways in north Whitfield County. There are several ways to approach an analysis of “increased capacity”. The traditional method of increasing capacity is to add lanes to existing roads or build new ones. Another, less used method, is to use the existing footprint of a roadway and make the road more easily drivable and forgiving to driver error. Improving the shoulder of a two lane roadway will increase the average speed of an existing roadway and improve the total throughput of an arterial. A third method for increasing capacity is to reduce the number of unforeseen incidents which reduce or compress the ability of a roadway to carry traffic. That is done by reducing the potential frequency and severity of collisions that occur along the roadway. Safety improvements prevent collisions or reduce the severity of those that occur. This makes the roadway more able to carry its maximum design traffic volume.
The following sections ranks the proposed improvements based upon several different measures.
North Whitfield County — Roadway Corridor Study
16-Sep-11 16
4.1 Ranked by Benefit Cost Ranking projects based upon their benefit cost ratios is a good way to evaluate projects for their projected benefit to the community. These do not necessarily place high importance on capacity-type improvements as crash related injuries and death have high dollar values and can contribute significantly to the anticipated annual benefits of a project.
Table 4: Project Ranking by Benefit Cost Ratio shows the project listed ranked by benefit/cost ratio. Note that project number 11 has two benefit cost ratios; the lower ratio (2.53) is that which is realized if the annualized benefit resulting from fatal collision avoidance is discounted. There was one fatal collision at this intersection during the project study period. The 2.53 benefit cost ratio is shown to demonstrate the value of this project with or without the fatal collision being incorporated in the calculation.
Projects 3 through 8 do not have benefit cost ratios. These projects were not analyzed because there is no common methodology for evaluating their effect on the roadway user. Roadway resurfacing and restriping projects are not construction methods that are evaluated by the HCM, therefore delay variables are not used for evaluation of benefits. The projects are classified as maintenance-type projects
Table 4: Project Ranking by Benefit Cost Ratio
Project
No. Location Type Project Cost Benefit Cost
Ratio
11 SR 201, I-75 Safety $1,698,000 5.53/2.53
9 SR 201, Lees Chapel Safety $1,630,000 3.13
10 SR 201, Reed Safety $1,484,000 2.94 12 SR 71, SR 2 Safety $1,370,000 2.61
2 SR 201 Shoulder $2,284,000 1.39 15 US 41 Widening $4,993,000 1.34
13 SR 201 Major Reconstruction $4,601,000 1.19
14 SR 71 Widening $7,460,000 1.08 1 SR 2 Shoulder $2,411,000 0.99
18 SR 201 - 3 Lane Widening $5,403,000 0.99 17 SR 201 - 4 lane Widening $13,476,000 0.98 16 SR 2 Widening $7,692,000 0.79
3 SR 2 Pavement $2,549,000 n/a 4 SR 71 Pavement $1,819,000 n/a 5 US 41 Pavement $6,412,000 n/a 6 SR 201 Pavement $1,709,000 n/a 7 SR 201 Restriping $115,000 n/a 8 US 41 Bicycle $259,000 n/a
Source: Moreland Altobelli Associates, Inc, TIA Constrained List Note: repaving, restriping and enhancement-type projects (such as bicycle-friendly shoulders) are not typically analyzed for benefit-cost † 2.53 benefit cost ratio represents the ratio if benefits derived from fatal collision avoidance is discounted
North Whitfield County — Roadway Corridor Study
16-Sep-11 17
Particular note should be made of project number 2, the SR 201 shoulder improvement project from Reed Road to SR 2. This project, based upon reduction in crashes and improved average roadway speed, will have a benefit cost ratio of 1.39.
4.2 Ranked by Type and Benefit Cost Table 5: Project Ranking by Type and Benefit Cost Ratio shows the proposed improvement list sorted by type of improvement and then by benefit cost ratio. The types of projects more traditionally associated with capacity improvements (widening, new construction) are sorted toward the top of the project list; maintenance improvements are sorted to the bottom. Within each type, the projects are sorted by benefit cost ratio.
Project numbers 15, 14, 13 come in at the top of this list as the US 41 widening to Catoosa County, the SR 71 widening to Tennessee, and the SR 201 new location extension to US 41. Project numbers 18 and 17, both of which are SR 201 widenings, one to three lanes and the other to four, are the next in line. Note that projects 17, 18, and 2 are mutually exclusive. The SR 201 widenings (17 and 18) would incorporate the improvements proposed in project number 2 as a matter of course.
Table 5: Project Ranking by Type and Benefit Cost Ratio
Project
No. Location Type Project Cost Benefit Cost
Ratio
15 US 41 Widening $4,993,000 1.34 14 SR 71 Widening $7,460,000 1.08
13 SR 201 Major Reconstruction $4,601,000 1.19
18 SR 201 - 3 Lane Widening $5,403,000 0.99 17 SR 201 - 4 lane Widening $13,476,000 0.98 16 SR 2 Widening $7,692,000 0.79
2 SR 201 Shoulder $2,284,000 1.39 1 SR 2 Shoulder $2,411,000 0.99
11 SR 201, I-75 Safety $1,698,000 5.53/2.53
9 SR 201, Lees Chapel Safety $1,630,000 3.13
10 SR 201, Reed Safety $1,484,000 2.94 12 SR 71, SR 2 Safety $1,370,000 2.61
7 SR 201 Restriping $115,000 n/a 3 SR 2 Pavement $2,549,000 n/a 4 SR 71 Pavement $1,819,000 n/a 5 US 41 Pavement $6,412,000 n/a 6 SR 201 Pavement $1,709,000 n/a 8 US 41 Bicycle $259,000 n/a
Source: Moreland Altobelli Associates, Inc, TIA Constrained List Note: repaving, restriping and enhancement-type projects (such as bicycle-friendly shoulders) are not typically analyzed for benefit-cost † 2.53 benefit cost ratio represents the ratio if benefits derived from fatal collision avoidance is discounted
4.3 Ranked by Level of Service and Capacity Improvement Table 6: Ranked by Level of Service Improvement shows the project list ranked by the degree to which it improves the level of service of the studied roadways. Level of service is also a
North Whitfield County — Roadway Corridor Study
16-Sep-11 18
measure of roadway capacity, or a measure of how well the roadway is able to serve the maximum design capacity. As LOS degrades from C to D and beyond, the ability of a road to service the maximum number of vehicles declines.
The project that best improves LOS in the list is project number 17, the widening of SR 201 to four lanes from I-75 to SR 2. This project has a benefit cost ratio of less than 1.0 (0.98) but that should not be a factor is eliminating it from consideration. See the discussion under Section 3.3 for more details.
The second ranked project is the new alignment extension of SR 201 from Lees Chapel Road to US 41. This project attains the majority of its project benefits by shortening the route between I-75 and US 41 by 0.75 miles and removing the necessity of traversing a dense residential city neighborhood. By both reducing delay and increasing speed, the ability of passengers and freight to move to and from Catoosa County is significantly increased.
Table 6: Ranked by Level of Service Improvement
Project LOS
No. Location Type Project Cost Benefit Cost Ratio
No Build Build
17 SR 201 - 4 lane Widening $13,476,000 0.98 D A
13 SR 201 Major Reconstruction $4,601,000 1.19 C A
14 SR 71 Widening $7,460,000 1.08 C A 1 SR 2 Shoulder $2,411,000 0.99 D C 2 SR 201 Shoulder $2,284,000 1.39 D D
12 SR 71, SR 2 Safety $1,370,000 2.61 A A 15 US 41 Widening $4,993,000 1.34 A A 16 SR 2 Widening $7,692,000 0.79 C C
18 SR 201 - 3 Lane Widening $5,403,000 0.99 D D
Source: Moreland Altobelli Associates, Inc, TIA Constrained List Note: repaving, restriping and enhancement-type projects (such as bicycle-friendly shoulders) are not typically analyzed for benefit-cost
Table 7: Ranked by Capacity Improvement, shows the list of projects sorted by type of improvement and by LOS improvement. The types of improvements that are most likely to increase capacity for freight and passenger vehicles are widenings and new construction and those are given weight over shoulder and safety improvements. Maintenance improvements are not included on this list.
By this measure, project number 15, the US 41 widening to Catoosa County, is the top ranked project, followed closely by the SR 201 new location extension to US 41.
North Whitfield County — Roadway Corridor Study
16-Sep-11 19
Table 7: Ranked by Capacity Improvement
Project LOS
No. Location Type Project Cost Benefit Cost Ratio
No Build Build
15 US 41 Widening $4,993,000 1.34 A A
13 SR 201 Major Reconstruction $4,601,000 1.19 C A
14 SR 71 Widening $7,460,000 1.08 C A
18 SR 201 - 3 Lane Widening $5,403,000 0.99 D D
17 SR 201 - 4 lane Widening $13,476,000 0.98 D A
16 SR 2 Widening $7,692,000 0.79 C C 2 SR 201 Shoulder $2,284,000 1.39 D D 1 SR 2 Shoulder $2,411,000 0.99 D C
12 SR 71, SR 2 Safety $1,370,000 2.61 A A Source: Moreland Altobelli Associates, Inc, TIA Constrained List Note: repaving, restriping and enhancement-type projects (such as bicycle-friendly shoulders) are not typically analyzed for benefit-cost
North Whitfield County — Roadway Corridor Study
16-Sep-11 20
5.0 Funding Programs 5.1 Traditional Funding Programs Federal and State funding programs have been primarily used for road improvements in Whitfield County. Federal and State funding for road improvements for the four roads identified in this corridor study would require approval by the Greater Dalton Metropolitan Planning Organization (GDMPO). After a proposed improvement is included in a Long Range Transportation Plan for Whitfield County approved by the GDMPO, which is updated every five years and which can be amended during the five year period, the proposed improvement can be reviewed and approved for inclusion in the annual Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) by the GDMPO Policy Committee.
The Federal and/or State funds allocated to the proposed improvement are administered by the Georgia Department of Transportation. As determined by GDOT policies, a proposed project may require local matching funds depending on the type of improvement to the road. The following are various funding programs that could provide funds to improvements for the four roads identified in this corridor study.
5.1.1 Lump Sum Funding A portion of the Georgia State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is set aside for projects that do not affect the capacity of the roadway. Federal Surface Transportation Funds and State Funds are used in this funding category. The types of improvements under “lump sum” funding include;
Maintenance measures (existing system only) for bridges, resurfacing, pavement rehabilitation, median work, impact attenuators, signing, fencing, pavement markings, landscaping, walls, guardrail, and shoulder work.
Safety Improvements such as signal installation/upgrades, guardrail installation, sign installation, railroad protection devices, operational improvements, railroad crossing hazard elimination, roadway hazard elimination, and special safety studies and programs.
Preliminary Engineering for planning, management, and consultant design services. Wetland Mitigation for projects already under construction or complete and wetland
banks. Roadway/Interchange Lighting Right-Of-Way purchases for future projects in jeopardy of development and for
hardship acquisition. Transportation Enhancement on a first-come-first served basis within a specific
Fiscal Year allocation of funds. Safe Routes to School projects to enable children to walk and bicycle to school along
routes that are safe and appealing.
5.1.2 Funding for improvements not covered by lump sum funding Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) for MPOs with a population of less
than 200,000. These MPO STP funds are for road improvements that increase the carrying capacity of the roadway and can be used by the GDMPO to widen or make
North Whitfield County — Roadway Corridor Study
16-Sep-11 21
alignment or geometric changes that will increase capacity and improve safety for the four roads identified in this corridor study
Federal Interstate Maintenance Funds can be used in the case of US 41, identified in this corridor study, to make improvements at the I-75/US 41 Interchange.
Local Funds from property taxes or other local revenue sources could be used on the four roads identified in this corridor study with the approval of GDOT and the GDMPO since all of the four roads in this corridor study are state routes.
Special Purpose Local Options Sales Tax (SPLOST) in recent years has been used to fund road improvements in Whitfield County. Under this funding mechanism a referendum is held to allow Whitfield County voters to consider the enactment of an additional one cent sales tax to be used for the improvement of a specified list of roads for a period of years (1-5 yrs)
The Georgia Transportation Investment Act (TIA) of 2010, upon approval in a referendum to be held in 2012 for voters within the region of the Northwest Georgia Regional Commission (NWGRC), could be used to make road improvements within Whitfield County through the enactment of an additional one- cent sales tax through out the region. Portions or all of the roads identified in this corridor study are on the draft list of roads to be improved under this act.
5.2 Innovative, “Non-Traditional”, Funding Mechanisms Traditional funding mechanisms listed above have been through the use of gasoline taxes, property taxes and motor vehicle excise taxes. At the federal level, Congress has funded transportation infrastructure through grants from the Highway Trust Fund, with revenues almost entirely from gasoline tax revenues. Innovative or “non-traditional” funding includes measures designed to leverage resources, funds management techniques, and institutional arrangements. The use of innovative financing techniques on the state level depends on that state's enabling statutes. To use innovative transportation finance programs, state and local governments must first enact enabling legislation to the programs and govern the way in which they work.
The primary purposes of innovative financing are to:
Maximize the ability of states, local governments, and other project sponsors to leverage Federal capital for needed investment in the nation's transportation system.
Utilize existing funds more effectively Move improvement projects into construction more quickly than under traditional
financing mechanisms Implement major transportation improvements that might not otherwise receive
financing.
Various innovative financing mechanisms that might be able to be used for the four roads identified in this corridor study are described below:
Public-Private Initiatives Acts or legislations by state or local governments could be enacted to establish partnerships or “joint developments” with private developers or project supporters that will provide benefits to participating parties. For example, if a major industrial or commercial developer has an interest in properties along one of the roads identified in this corridor study, legislation could be approved to enable the
North Whitfield County — Roadway Corridor Study
16-Sep-11 22
developer and the local/state governments to both provide resources for a road improvement.
A State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) can provide many types of financial assistance, ranging from loans to credit enhancements. Forms of assistance may include interest subsidies, letters of credit, capital reserves for construction loans, bond financing, and purchase and lease agreements for transportation improvement projects.
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) allows cities and counties to create special districts (tax increment areas) and to make public improvements within those districts that will generate private-sector development. During the development period, the tax base is frozen at the predevelopment level. Property taxes continue to be paid, but taxes derived from increases in assessed values (the tax increment) resulting from new development either go to leverage future growth in the district or increase financially a special fund created to retire bonds issued to establish and support the development.
Bonds of various types are authorized, sold, and repaid by state and local governments to finance transportation improvements.
Impact Fees could be enacted by local and/or state governments that provide one-time charges to developers of properties along the road that would pay for transportation improvements and benefit the developer through growth generated by the improvement.
Special Assessments could be levied on special property taxing districts, self-imposed by property owners to support transportation improvements. The costs of the improvements are paid by the property owners who will benefit from the improvement.
Development Contributions, also known as exactions could be land donations or construction or provisions of public services related to the transportation project. Exactions are negotiated and agreed on as part of the permitting process of the development along the road.
More details concerning these innovative funding mechanisms can be found in the Project Finance Primer, published by the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. This publication can be found at www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/finance/resources/general/index.htm.
North Whitfield County — Roadway Corridor Study
16-Sep-11 23
6.0 Conclusion 6.1 Next Steps This is the conclusion of Task 3. The next step is to recommend a particular slate of improvements and an implementation plan for their construction or incorporation into the county transportation program.
.
North Whitfield County — Roadway Corridor Study
16-Sep-11 A
Appendix A. Benefit Cost Worksheets
GD
OT
Ben
efi
t C
os
t C
alc
ula
tor
ente
r in
form
ation in g
reen c
ells
Pro
ject
Info
rmati
on
ID C
osts
Description
Tota
l cost
2,4
09,4
22
$
Annualiz
ed c
ost
142,2
66
$
Co
st
Esti
mate
Date
of
estim
ate
9/1
0/1
1 A
uto
Dela
y C
osts
PE
cost
185,4
67
$
Nobuild
951,3
14
$
RO
W c
ost
269,2
80
$
Build
869,1
67
$
UT
ILIT
Y c
ost
100,0
00
$
Auto
dela
y s
avin
gs
82,1
47
$
CS
T c
ost
1,8
54,6
75
$
Tota
l2,4
09,4
22
$
T
ruck D
ela
y C
osts
Tra
ffic
in
2035
Nobuild
685,4
18
$
Sourc
e o
f tr
aff
ic d
ata
Build
626,2
31
$
Tru
ck d
ela
y s
avin
gs
59,1
87
$
Without
pro
ject
(nobuild
)
Annual V
MT
Fu
el
Co
sts
Annual V
HT
78,6
21
N
obuild
-$
Avera
ge s
peed (
mph)
0
B
uild
-$
Fuel cost
savin
gs
-$
With p
roje
ct
(build
)
Annual V
MT
C
han
ge i
n G
SP
N
A
Annual V
HT
71,8
32
A
uto
dela
y c
ost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Avera
ge s
peed (
mph)
0
T
ruck d
ela
y c
ost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Fuel cost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Para
mete
rsD
efa
ult
Overr
ide
Used
Tota
l benefit
adju
stm
ent
NA
Analy
sis
year
2035
2035
2035
Dis
count
rate
7.0
%7%
B
en
efi
ts i
n 2
035
141,3
33
$
Desig
n life (
years
)25
20
20
Base y
ear
of
cost
estim
ate
N/A
2011
2011
B
en
efi
t-C
ost
Rati
o0.9
9
Curr
ent
CS
T p
rogra
m y
ear
N/A
2015
2015
Fuel price (
$/g
allo
n)
3.2
23.2
2
Fuel econom
y (
mpg)
18.0
318.0
3N
ote
s
Valu
e o
f auto
tra
vel ($
/hr)
13.7
513.7
5
Valu
e o
f tr
uck t
ravel ($
/hr)
72.6
572.6
5
Perc
ent
trucks
12%
12%
Inclu
de G
SP
benefits
No
No
SR
2 S
hould
er
Wid
enin
g
Vehic
le h
ours
tra
vele
d d
erived f
rom
HC
S+
com
parisons o
f befo
re a
fter
should
er
constr
uction,
and
an a
ssum
ption o
f 6 h
ours
of
benefit
GD
OT
Ben
efi
t C
os
t C
alc
ula
tor
ente
r in
form
ation in g
reen c
ells
Pro
ject
Info
rmati
on
ID C
osts
Description
Tota
l cost
2,2
82,6
20
$
Annualiz
ed c
ost
134,7
79
$
Co
st
Esti
mate
Date
of
estim
ate
9/1
0/1
1 A
uto
Dela
y C
osts
PE
cost
176,8
20
$
Nobuild
1,2
24,2
54
$
RO
W c
ost
237,6
00
$
Build
1,1
15,6
08
$
UT
ILIT
Y c
ost
100,0
00
$
Auto
dela
y s
avin
gs
108,6
46
$
CS
T c
ost
1,7
68,2
00
$
Tota
l2,2
82,6
20
$
T
ruck D
ela
y C
osts
Tra
ffic
in
2035
Nobuild
882,0
70
$
Sourc
e o
f tr
aff
ic d
ata
Build
803,7
91
$
Tru
ck d
ela
y s
avin
gs
78,2
79
$
Without
pro
ject
(nobuild
)
Annual V
MT
Fu
el
Co
sts
Annual V
HT
101,1
78
Nobuild
-$
Avera
ge s
peed (
mph)
0
B
uild
-$
Fuel cost
savin
gs
-$
With p
roje
ct
(build
)
Annual V
MT
C
han
ge i
n G
SP
N
A
Annual V
HT
92,1
99
A
uto
dela
y c
ost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Avera
ge s
peed (
mph)
0
T
ruck d
ela
y c
ost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Fuel cost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Para
mete
rsD
efa
ult
Overr
ide
Used
Tota
l benefit
adju
stm
ent
NA
Analy
sis
year
2035
2035
2035
Dis
count
rate
7.0
%7%
B
en
efi
ts i
n 2
035
186,9
25
$
Desig
n life (
years
)25
20
20
Base y
ear
of
cost
estim
ate
N/A
2011
2011
B
en
efi
t-C
ost
Rati
o1.3
9
Curr
ent
CS
T p
rogra
m y
ear
N/A
2015
2015
Fuel price (
$/g
allo
n)
3.2
23.2
2
Fuel econom
y (
mpg)
18.0
318.0
3N
ote
s
Valu
e o
f auto
tra
vel ($
/hr)
13.7
513.7
5
Valu
e o
f tr
uck t
ravel ($
/hr)
72.6
572.6
5
Perc
ent
trucks
12%
12%
Inclu
de G
SP
benefits
No
No
SR
201 S
hould
er
Wid
enin
g
Vehic
le h
ours
tra
vele
d d
erived f
rom
HC
S+
com
parisons o
f befo
re a
fter
should
er
constr
uction,
and
an a
ssum
ption o
f 6 h
ours
of
benefit
GD
OT
Ben
efi
t C
os
t C
alc
ula
tor
ente
r in
form
ation in g
reen c
ells
Pro
ject
Info
rmati
on
ID C
osts
Description
Tota
l cost
1,6
28,6
36
$
Annualiz
ed c
ost
96,1
64
$
Co
st
Esti
mate
Date
of
estim
ate
9/1
0/1
1
PE
cost
123,4
44
$
-$
RO
W c
ost
220,7
50
$
-$
UT
ILIT
Y c
ost
50,0
00
$
C
rash S
avin
gs
301,0
00
$
CS
T c
ost
1,2
34,4
42
$
Tota
l1,6
28,6
36
$
T
ruck D
ela
y C
osts
Tra
ffic
in
2035
Nobuild
-$
Sourc
e o
f tr
aff
ic d
ata
Build
-$
Tru
ck d
ela
y s
avin
gs
-$
Without
pro
ject
(nobuild
)
Annual V
MT
Fu
el
Co
sts
Annual V
HT
Nobuild
-$
Avera
ge s
peed (
mph)
#D
IV/0
!
B
uild
-$
Fuel cost
savin
gs
-$
With p
roje
ct
(build
)
Annual V
MT
C
han
ge i
n G
SP
N
A
Annual V
HT
Auto
dela
y c
ost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Avera
ge s
peed (
mph)
#D
IV/0
!
T
ruck d
ela
y c
ost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Fuel cost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Para
mete
rsD
efa
ult
Overr
ide
Used
Tota
l benefit
adju
stm
ent
NA
Analy
sis
year
2035
2035
2035
Dis
count
rate
7.0
%7%
B
en
efi
ts i
n 2
035
301,0
00
$
Desig
n life (
years
)25
20
20
Base y
ear
of
cost
estim
ate
N/A
2011
2011
B
en
efi
t-C
ost
Rati
o3.1
3
Curr
ent
CS
T p
rogra
m y
ear
N/A
2015
2015
Fuel price (
$/g
allo
n)
3.2
23.2
2
Fuel econom
y (
mpg)
18.0
318.0
3N
ote
s
Valu
e o
f auto
tra
vel ($
/hr)
13.7
513.7
5
Valu
e o
f tr
uck t
ravel ($
/hr)
72.6
572.6
5
Perc
ent
trucks
12%
12%
Inclu
de G
SP
benefits
No
No
SR
201 &
Lees C
hapel R
oad S
afe
ty I
mpro
vem
ent
GD
OT
Ben
efi
t C
os
t C
alc
ula
tor
ente
r in
form
ation in g
reen c
ells
Pro
ject
Info
rmati
on
ID C
osts
Description
Tota
l cost
1,4
82,9
30
$
Annualiz
ed c
ost
87,5
61
$
Co
st
Esti
mate
Date
of
estim
ate
9/1
0/1
1
PE
cost
113,4
48
$
-$
RO
W c
ost
135,0
00
$
-$
UT
ILIT
Y c
ost
100,0
00
$
Cra
sh S
avin
gs
257,5
00
$
CS
T c
ost
1,1
34,4
82
$
Tota
l1,4
82,9
30
$
T
ruck D
ela
y C
osts
Tra
ffic
in
2035
Nobuild
-$
Sourc
e o
f tr
aff
ic d
ata
Build
-$
Tru
ck d
ela
y s
avin
gs
-$
Without
pro
ject
(nobuild
)
Annual V
MT
Fu
el
Co
sts
Annual V
HT
Nobuild
-$
Avera
ge s
peed (
mph)
#D
IV/0
!
B
uild
-$
Fuel cost
savin
gs
-$
With p
roje
ct
(build
)
Annual V
MT
C
han
ge i
n G
SP
N
A
Annual V
HT
Auto
dela
y c
ost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Avera
ge s
peed (
mph)
#D
IV/0
!
T
ruck d
ela
y c
ost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Fuel cost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Para
mete
rsD
efa
ult
Overr
ide
Used
Tota
l benefit
adju
stm
ent
NA
Analy
sis
year
2035
2035
2035
Dis
count
rate
7.0
%7%
B
en
efi
ts i
n 2
035
257,5
00
$
Desig
n life (
years
)25
20
20
Base y
ear
of
cost
estim
ate
N/A
2011
2011
B
en
efi
t-C
ost
Rati
o2.9
4
Curr
ent
CS
T p
rogra
m y
ear
N/A
2015
2015
Fuel price (
$/g
allo
n)
3.2
23.2
2
Fuel econom
y (
mpg)
18.0
318.0
3N
ote
s
Valu
e o
f auto
tra
vel ($
/hr)
13.7
513.7
5
Valu
e o
f tr
uck t
ravel ($
/hr)
72.6
572.6
5
Perc
ent
trucks
12%
12%
Inclu
de G
SP
benefits
No
No
SR
201 &
Reed R
oad S
afe
ty I
mpro
vem
ent
GD
OT
Ben
efi
t-C
os
t C
alc
ula
tor
ente
r in
form
ation in g
reen c
ells
Pro
ject
Info
rmati
on
ID C
osts
Description
Tota
l cost
1,3
69,2
49
$
Annualiz
ed c
ost
80,8
48
$
Co
st
Esti
mate
Date
of
estim
ate
9/1
4/1
1C
rash
Savin
gs
PE
cost
91,3
86
$
-
$
RO
W c
ost
64,0
00
$
-
$
UT
ILIT
Y c
ost
300,0
00
$
Cra
sh S
avin
gs
210,9
37
$
CS
T c
ost
913,8
63
$
Tota
l1,3
69,2
49
$
T
ruck D
ela
y C
osts
Tra
ffic
in
2035
Nobuild
-$
Sourc
e o
f tr
aff
ic d
ata
Build
-$
Tru
ck d
ela
y s
avin
gs
-$
Without
pro
ject
(nobuild
)
Annual V
MT
Fu
el
Co
sts
Annual V
HT
Nobuild
-$
Avera
ge s
peed (
mph)
#D
IV/0
!
B
uild
-$
Fuel cost
savin
gs
-$
With p
roje
ct
(build
)
Annual V
MT
C
han
ge i
n G
SP
N
A
Annual V
HT
Auto
dela
y c
ost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Avera
ge s
peed (
mph)
#D
IV/0
!
T
ruck d
ela
y c
ost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Fuel cost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Para
mete
rsD
efa
ult
Overr
ide
Used
Tota
l benefit
adju
stm
ent
NA
Analy
sis
year
2035
2035
2035
Dis
count
rate
7.0
%7%
B
en
efi
ts i
n 2
035
210,9
37
$
Desig
n life (
years
)25
20
20
Base y
ear
of
cost
estim
ate
N/A
2011
2011
B
en
efi
t-C
ost
Rati
o2.6
1
Curr
ent
CS
T p
rogra
m y
ear
N/A
2015
2015
Fuel price (
$/g
allo
n)
3.2
23.2
2
Fuel econom
y (
mpg)
18.0
318.0
3N
ote
s
Valu
e o
f auto
tra
vel ($
/hr)
13.7
513.7
5
Valu
e o
f tr
uck t
ravel ($
/hr)
72.6
572.6
5
Perc
ent
trucks
12%
12%
Inclu
de G
SP
benefits
No
No
SR
2 &
SR
71 S
afe
ty I
mpro
vem
ents
Only
rele
vant
Benefit
info
rmation u
sed f
or
this
pro
ject
was t
he a
nnual savin
gs in c
rash r
ela
ted d
am
age a
nd
inju
ries.
This
was input
directly into
the s
pre
adsheet
to
take a
dvanta
ge o
f th
e d
evelo
ped d
iscouting f
orm
ula
s.
GD
OT
Ben
efi
t C
os
t C
alc
ula
tor
ente
r in
form
ation in g
reen c
ells
Pro
ject
Info
rmati
on
ID C
osts
Description
Tota
l cost
4,6
00,0
00
$
Annualiz
ed c
ost
271,6
10
$
Co
st
Esti
mate
Date
of
estim
ate
9/1
0/1
1 A
uto
Dela
y C
osts
PE
cost
224,6
63
$
Nobuild
656,4
25
$
RO
W c
ost
750,0
00
$
Build
468,8
75
$
UT
ILIT
Y c
ost
750,0
00
$
Auto
dela
y s
avin
gs
187,5
50
$
CS
T c
ost
2,8
75,3
37
$
Tota
l4,6
00,0
00
$
T
ruck D
ela
y C
osts
Tra
ffic
in
2035
Nobuild
472,9
52
$
Sourc
e o
f tr
aff
ic d
ata
Build
337,8
23
$
Tru
ck d
ela
y s
avin
gs
135,1
29
$
Without
pro
ject
(nobuild
)
Annual V
MT
Fu
el
Co
sts
Annual V
HT
54,2
50
N
obuild
-$
Avera
ge s
peed (
mph)
0
B
uild
-$
Fuel cost
savin
gs
-$
With p
roje
ct
(build
)
Annual V
MT
C
han
ge i
n G
SP
N
A
Annual V
HT
38,7
50
A
uto
dela
y c
ost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Avera
ge s
peed (
mph)
0
T
ruck d
ela
y c
ost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Fuel cost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Para
mete
rsD
efa
ult
Overr
ide
Used
Tota
l benefit
adju
stm
ent
NA
Analy
sis
year
2035
2035
2035
Dis
count
rate
7.0
%7%
B
en
efi
ts i
n 2
035
322,6
79
$
Desig
n life (
years
)25
20
20
Base y
ear
of
cost
estim
ate
N/A
2011
2011
B
en
efi
t-C
ost
Rati
o1.1
9
Curr
ent
CS
T p
rogra
m y
ear
N/A
2015
2015
Fuel price (
$/g
allo
n)
3.2
23.2
2
Fuel econom
y (
mpg)
18.0
318.0
3N
ote
s
Valu
e o
f auto
tra
vel ($
/hr)
13.7
513.7
5
Valu
e o
f tr
uck t
ravel ($
/hr)
72.6
572.6
5
Perc
ent
trucks
12%
12%
Inclu
de G
SP
benefits
No
No
SR
201 M
ajo
r R
econstr
uction
Assum
es N
O d
iffe
rence in s
peed (
45 M
PH
) betw
een
build
and n
o b
uild
, w
hic
h is a
n e
xtr
em
em
ly
conserv
ative a
ssum
ption.
Actu
al B
C r
atio w
ill b
e
hig
her.
GD
OT
Ben
efi
t C
os
t C
alc
ula
tor
ente
r in
form
ation in g
reen c
ells
Pro
ject
Info
rmati
on
ID C
osts
Description
Tota
l cost
7,4
58,6
00
$
Annualiz
ed c
ost
440,3
98
$
Co
st
Esti
mate
Date
of
estim
ate
9/1
0/1
1 A
uto
Dela
y C
osts
PE
cost
562,6
74
$
Nobuild
656,4
25
$
RO
W c
ost
1,1
69,1
84
$
B
uild
511,2
25
$
UT
ILIT
Y c
ost
100,0
00
$
Auto
dela
y s
avin
gs
145,2
00
$
CS
T c
ost
5,6
26,7
42
$
Tota
l7,4
58,6
00
$
T
ruck D
ela
y C
osts
Tra
ffic
in
2035
Nobuild
472,9
52
$
Sourc
e o
f tr
aff
ic d
ata
Build
368,3
36
$
Tru
ck d
ela
y s
avin
gs
104,6
16
$
Without
pro
ject
(nobuild
)
Annual V
MT
Annual V
HT
54,2
50
-
$
Avera
ge s
peed (
mph)
0-
$
Cra
sh S
avin
gs
226,2
50
$
With p
roje
ct
(build
)
Annual V
MT
C
han
ge i
n G
SP
N
A
Annual V
HT
42,2
50
A
uto
dela
y c
ost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Avera
ge s
peed (
mph)
0
T
ruck d
ela
y c
ost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Fuel cost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Para
mete
rsD
efa
ult
Overr
ide
Used
Tota
l benefit
adju
stm
ent
NA
Analy
sis
year
2035
2035
2035
Dis
count
rate
7.0
%7%
B
en
efi
ts i
n 2
035
476,0
66
$
Desig
n life (
years
)25
20
20
Base y
ear
of
cost
estim
ate
N/A
2011
2011
B
en
efi
t-C
ost
Rati
o1.0
8
Curr
ent
CS
T p
rogra
m y
ear
N/A
2015
2015
Fuel price (
$/g
allo
n)
3.2
23.2
2
Fuel econom
y (
mpg)
18.0
318.0
3N
ote
s
Valu
e o
f auto
tra
vel ($
/hr)
13.7
513.7
5
Valu
e o
f tr
uck t
ravel ($
/hr)
72.6
572.6
5
Perc
ent
trucks
12%
12%
Inclu
de G
SP
benefits
No
No
SR
71 W
idenin
g
GD
OT
Ben
efi
t C
os
t C
alc
ula
tor
ente
r in
form
ation in g
reen c
ells
Pro
ject
Info
rmati
on
ID C
osts
Description
Tota
l cost
4,9
91,6
38
$
Annualiz
ed c
ost
294,7
34
$
Co
st
Esti
mate
Date
of
estim
ate
9/1
0/1
1 A
uto
Dela
y C
osts
PE
cost
300,8
33
$
Nobuild
1,3
03,7
75
$
RO
W c
ost
882,4
80
$
Build
1,1
67,6
50
$
UT
ILIT
Y c
ost
800,0
00
$
Auto
dela
y s
avin
gs
136,1
25
$
CS
T c
ost
3,0
08,3
25
$
Tota
l4,9
91,6
38
$
T
ruck D
ela
y C
osts
Tra
ffic
in
2035
Nobuild
939,3
65
$
Sourc
e o
f tr
aff
ic d
ata
Build
841,2
87
$
Tru
ck d
ela
y s
avin
gs
98,0
78
$
Without
pro
ject
(nobuild
)
Annual V
MT
Annual V
HT
107,7
50
-$
Avera
ge s
peed (
mph)
0-
$
Cra
sh S
avin
gs
161,2
50
$
With p
roje
ct
(build
)
Annual V
MT
C
han
ge i
n G
SP
N
A
Annual V
HT
96,5
00
A
uto
dela
y c
ost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Avera
ge s
peed (
mph)
0
T
ruck d
ela
y c
ost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Fuel cost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Para
mete
rsD
efa
ult
Overr
ide
Used
Tota
l benefit
adju
stm
ent
NA
Analy
sis
year
2035
2035
2035
Dis
count
rate
7.0
%7%
B
en
efi
ts i
n 2
035
395,4
53
$
Desig
n life (
years
)25
20
20
Base y
ear
of
cost
estim
ate
N/A
2011
2011
B
en
efi
t-C
ost
Rati
o1.3
4
Curr
ent
CS
T p
rogra
m y
ear
N/A
2015
2015
Fuel price (
$/g
allo
n)
3.2
23.2
2
Fuel econom
y (
mpg)
18.0
318.0
3N
ote
s
Valu
e o
f auto
tra
vel ($
/hr)
13.7
513.7
5
Valu
e o
f tr
uck t
ravel ($
/hr)
72.6
572.6
5
Perc
ent
trucks
12%
12%
Inclu
de G
SP
benefits
No
No
US
41 W
idenin
g
GD
OT
Ben
efi
t C
os
t C
alc
ula
tor
ente
r in
form
ation in g
reen c
ells
Pro
ject
Info
rmati
on
ID C
osts
Description
Tota
l cost
-$
Annualiz
ed c
ost
-$
Co
st
Esti
mate
Date
of
estim
ate
9/1
0/1
1 A
uto
Dela
y C
osts
PE
cost
Nobuild
-$
RO
W c
ost
Build
-$
UT
ILIT
Y c
ost
Auto
dela
y s
avin
gs
-$
CS
T c
ost
Tota
l-
$
Tru
ck D
ela
y C
osts
Tra
ffic
in
2035
Nobuild
-$
Sourc
e o
f tr
aff
ic d
ata
Build
-$
Tru
ck d
ela
y s
avin
gs
-$
Without
pro
ject
(nobuild
)
Annual V
MT
Fu
el
Co
sts
Annual V
HT
Nobuild
-$
Avera
ge s
peed (
mph)
#D
IV/0
!
B
uild
-$
Fuel cost
savin
gs
-$
With p
roje
ct
(build
)
Annual V
MT
C
han
ge i
n G
SP
N
A
Annual V
HT
Auto
dela
y c
ost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Avera
ge s
peed (
mph)
#D
IV/0
!
T
ruck d
ela
y c
ost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Fuel cost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Para
mete
rsD
efa
ult
Overr
ide
Used
Tota
l benefit
adju
stm
ent
NA
Analy
sis
year
2035
2035
2035
Dis
count
rate
7.0
%7%
B
en
efi
ts i
n 2
035
-$
Desig
n life (
years
)25
20
20
Base y
ear
of
cost
estim
ate
N/A
2011
2011
B
en
efi
t-C
ost
Rati
o#D
IV/0
!
Curr
ent
CS
T p
rogra
m y
ear
N/A
2015
2015
Fuel price (
$/g
allo
n)
3.2
23.2
2
Fuel econom
y (
mpg)
18.0
318.0
3N
ote
s
Valu
e o
f auto
tra
vel ($
/hr)
13.7
513.7
5
Valu
e o
f tr
uck t
ravel ($
/hr)
72.6
572.6
5
Perc
ent
trucks
12%
12%
Inclu
de G
SP
benefits
No
No
SR
2 W
idenin
g
GD
OT
Ben
efi
t C
os
t C
alc
ula
tor
ente
r in
form
ation in g
reen c
ells
Pro
ject
Info
rmati
on
ID C
osts
Description
Tota
l cost
13,4
73,9
69
$
Annualiz
ed c
ost
795,5
79
$
Co
st
Esti
mate
Date
of
estim
ate
9/1
0/1
1 A
uto
Dela
y C
osts
PE
cost
807,2
26
$
Nobuild
2,6
65,0
25
$
RO
W c
ost
3,5
94,4
80
$
B
uild
2,3
62,5
25
$
UT
ILIT
Y c
ost
1,0
00,0
00
$
A
uto
dela
y s
avin
gs
302,5
00
$
CS
T c
ost
8,0
72,2
63
$
Tota
l13,4
73,9
69
$
Tru
ck D
ela
y C
osts
Tra
ffic
in
2035
Nobuild
1,9
20,1
40
$
Sourc
e o
f tr
aff
ic d
ata
Build
1,7
02,1
90
$
Tru
ck d
ela
y s
avin
gs
217,9
50
$
Without
pro
ject
(nobuild
)
Annual V
MT
Annual V
HT
220,2
50
-$
Avera
ge s
peed (
mph)
0-
$
Cra
sh S
avin
gs
257,5
00
$
With p
roje
ct
(build
)
Annual V
MT
C
han
ge i
n G
SP
N
A
Annual V
HT
195,2
50
Auto
dela
y c
ost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Avera
ge s
peed (
mph)
0
T
ruck d
ela
y c
ost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Fuel cost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Para
mete
rsD
efa
ult
Overr
ide
Used
Tota
l benefit
adju
stm
ent
NA
Analy
sis
year
2035
2035
2035
Dis
count
rate
7.0
%7%
B
en
efi
ts i
n 2
035
777,9
50
$
Desig
n life (
years
)25
20
20
Base y
ear
of
cost
estim
ate
N/A
2011
2011
B
en
efi
t-C
ost
Rati
o0.9
8
Curr
ent
CS
T p
rogra
m y
ear
N/A
2015
2015
Fuel price (
$/g
allo
n)
3.2
23.2
2
Fuel econom
y (
mpg)
18.0
318.0
3N
ote
s
Valu
e o
f auto
tra
vel ($
/hr)
13.7
513.7
5
Valu
e o
f tr
uck t
ravel ($
/hr)
72.6
572.6
5
Perc
ent
trucks
12%
12%
Inclu
de G
SP
benefits
No
No
SR
201 W
idenin
g 4
Lane
GD
OT
Ben
efi
t C
os
t C
alc
ula
tor
ente
r in
form
ation in g
reen c
ells
Pro
ject
Info
rmati
on
ID C
osts
Description
Tota
l cost
5,4
01,4
81
$
Annualiz
ed c
ost
318,9
34
$
Co
st
Esti
mate
Date
of
estim
ate
9/1
0/1
1 A
uto
Dela
y C
osts
PE
cost
285,9
16
$
Nobuild
1,2
49,3
25
$
RO
W c
ost
2,0
56,4
00
$
B
uild
1,2
16,0
50
$
UT
ILIT
Y c
ost
200,0
00
$
Auto
dela
y s
avin
gs
33,2
75
$
CS
T c
ost
2,8
59,1
65
$
Tota
l5,4
01,4
81
$
T
ruck D
ela
y C
osts
Tra
ffic
in
2035
Nobuild
900,1
34
$
Sourc
e o
f tr
aff
ic d
ata
Build
876,1
59
$
Tru
ck d
ela
y s
avin
gs
23,9
75
$
Without
pro
ject
(nobuild
)
Annual V
MT
Annual V
HT
103,2
50
-$
Avera
ge s
peed (
mph)
0-
$
Cra
sh S
avin
gs
257,5
00
$
With p
roje
ct
(build
)
Annual V
MT
C
han
ge i
n G
SP
N
A
Annual V
HT
100,5
00
Auto
dela
y c
ost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Avera
ge s
peed (
mph)
0
T
ruck d
ela
y c
ost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Fuel cost
adju
stm
ent
NA
Para
mete
rsD
efa
ult
Overr
ide
Used
Tota
l benefit
adju
stm
ent
NA
Analy
sis
year
2035
2035
2035
Dis
count
rate
7.0
%7%
B
en
efi
ts i
n 2
035
314,7
50
$
Desig
n life (
years
)25
20
20
Base y
ear
of
cost
estim
ate
N/A
2011
2011
B
en
efi
t-C
ost
Rati
o0.9
9
Curr
ent
CS
T p
rogra
m y
ear
N/A
2015
2015
Fuel price (
$/g
allo
n)
3.2
23.2
2
Fuel econom
y (
mpg)
18.0
318.0
3N
ote
s
Valu
e o
f auto
tra
vel ($
/hr)
13.7
513.7
5
Valu
e o
f tr
uck t
ravel ($
/hr)
72.6
572.6
5
Perc
ent
trucks
12%
12%
Inclu
de G
SP
benefits
No
No
SR
201 W
idenin
g 3
Lane
Whitfield County
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
Non-Construction Costs
A. Right-of-Way $269,280
B. Reimbursable Utilities $100,000
Construction Costs
C. Major Structures $0
D. Grading and Earthwork $249,333
E. Drainage $171,770
F.. Base and Paving $794,864
H. Signing and Striping $84,784
I. Guardrail $101,800
J. Traffic Control & Mobilization $200,000
K. Landscaping and Erosion Control $207,123
L. Miscellaneous Construction Items $45,000
Construction Cost Subtotal $1,854,675
Engineering & Contingencies; 10% $185,467
Total Construction Cost $2,040,142
Total Project Costs $2,409,422
SR 2 Shoulder Improvements
From Deep Springs Road to Murray County
Whitfield County
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
Non-Construction Costs
A. Right-of-Way $237,600
B. Reimbursable Utilities $100,000
Construction Costs
C. Major Structures $0
D. Grading and Earthwork $220,000
E. Drainage $235,270
F.. Base and Paving $701,351
H. Signing and Striping $75,280
I. Guardrail $101,800
J. Traffic Control & Mobilization $200,000
K. Landscaping and Erosion Control $189,499
L. Miscellaneous Construction Items $45,000
Construction Cost Subtotal $1,768,200
Engineering & Contingencies; 10% $176,820
Total Construction Cost $1,945,020
Total Project Costs $2,282,620
SR 201 Shoulder Improvements
From Reed Road to SR 2
Whitfield County
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
Non-Construction Costs
A. Right-of-Way $0
B. Reimbursable Utilities $0
Construction Costs
C. Major Structures $0
D. Grading and Earthwork $0
E. Drainage $0
F.. Base and Paving $1,932,153
H. Signing and Striping $239,488
I. Guardrail $0
J. Traffic Control & Mobilization $100,000
K. Landscaping and Erosion Control $0
L. Miscellaneous Construction Items $45,000
Construction Cost Subtotal $2,316,641
Engineering & Contingencies; 10% $231,664
Total Construction Cost $2,548,305
Total Project Costs $2,548,305
SR 2 Widening
From Catoosa Co. to Murray Co.
Whitfield County
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
Non-Construction Costs
A. Right-of-Way $0
B. Reimbursable Utilities $0
Construction Costs
C. Major Structures $0
D. Grading and Earthwork $0
E. Drainage $0
F.. Base and Paving $5,101,104
H. Signing and Striping $582,688
I. Guardrail $0
J. Traffic Control & Mobilization $100,000
K. Landscaping and Erosion Control $0
L. Miscellaneous Construction Items $45,000
Construction Cost Subtotal $5,828,792
Engineering & Contingencies; 10% $582,879
Total Construction Cost $6,411,672
Total Project Costs $6,411,672
SR 71 Resurfacing
From North Dalton Bypass to Tennessee
Whitfield County
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
Non-Construction Costs
A. Right-of-Way $0
B. Reimbursable Utilities $0
Construction Costs
C. Major Structures $0
D. Grading and Earthwork $0
E. Drainage $0
F.. Base and Paving $1,123,750
H. Signing and Striping $284,051
I. Guardrail $0
J. Traffic Control & Mobilization $100,000
K. Landscaping and Erosion Control $0
L. Miscellaneous Construction Items $45,000
Construction Cost Subtotal $1,552,801
Engineering & Contingencies; 10% $155,280
Total Construction Cost $1,708,081
Total Project Costs $1,708,081
US 41 Resurfacing
From I-75 to Catoosa Co.
Whitfield County
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
Non-Construction Costs
A. Right-of-Way $0
B. Reimbursable Utilities $0
Construction Costs
C. Major Structures $0
D. Grading and Earthwork $0
E. Drainage $0
F.. Base and Paving $1,356,897
H. Signing and Striping $150,573
I. Guardrail $0
J. Traffic Control & Mobilization $100,000
K. Landscaping and Erosion Control $0
L. Miscellaneous Construction Items $45,000
Construction Cost Subtotal $1,652,470
Engineering & Contingencies; 10% $165,247
Total Construction Cost $1,817,717
Total Project Costs $1,817,717
SR 201 Resurfacing
From US 41 to SR 2
Whitfield County
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
Non-Construction Costs
A. Right-of-Way $0
B. Reimbursable Utilities $0
Construction Costs
C. Major Structures $0
D. Grading and Earthwork $0
E. Drainage $0
F.. Base and Paving $0
H. Signing and Striping $93,440
I. Guardrail $0
J. Traffic Control & Mobilization $10,000
K. Landscaping and Erosion Control $0
L. Miscellaneous Construction Items $0
Construction Cost Subtotal $103,440
Engineering & Contingencies; 10% $10,344
Total Construction Cost $113,784
Total Project Costs $113,784
SR 201 Shoulder Improvements
From US 41 to SR 2
Whitfield County
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
Non-Construction Costs
A. Right-of-Way $0
B. Reimbursable Utilities $0
Construction Costs
C. Major Structures $0
D. Grading and Earthwork $0
E. Drainage $0
F.. Base and Paving $209,883
H. Signing and Striping $0
I. Guardrail $0
J. Traffic Control & Mobilization $25,000
K. Landscaping and Erosion Control $0
L. Miscellaneous Construction Items $0
Construction Cost Subtotal $234,883
Engineering & Construction; 10% $23,488
Total Construction Cost $258,372
Total Project Costs $258,372
US 41 Shoulder
From SR 201 (South) to Catoosa County line
Whitfield County
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
Non-Construction Costs
A. Right-of-Way $220,750
B. Reimbursable Utilities $50,000
Construction Costs
C. Major Structures $0
D. Grading and Earthwork $100,000
E. Drainage $118,593
F.. Base and Paving $591,533
H. Signing and Striping $38,000
I. Guardrail $20,350
J. Traffic Control & Mobilization $200,000
K. Landscaping and Erosion Control $120,966
L. Miscellaneous Construction Items $45,000
Construction Cost Subtotal $1,234,442
Engineering & Contingencies; 10% $123,444
Total Construction Cost $1,357,886
Total Project Costs $1,628,636
SR 2 & Lees Chapel Road
Whitfield County
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
Non-Construction Costs
A. Right-of-Way $135,000
B. Reimbursable Utilities $100,000
Construction Costs
C. Major Structures $0
D. Grading and Earthwork $100,000
E. Drainage $118,593
F.. Base and Paving $504,554
H. Signing and Striping $42,000
I. Guardrail $15,650
J. Traffic Control & Mobilization $200,000
K. Landscaping and Erosion Control $108,685
L. Miscellaneous Construction Items $45,000
Construction Cost Subtotal $1,134,482
Engineering & Contingencies; 10% $113,448
Total Construction Cost $1,247,930
Total Project Costs $1,482,930
SR 201 & Reed Road
Whitfield County
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
Non-Construction Costs
A. Right-of-Way $140,000
B. Reimbursable Utilities $300,000
Construction Costs
C. Major Structures $0
D. Grading and Earthwork $100,000
E. Drainage $118,593
F.. Base and Paving $518,360
H. Signing and Striping $42,000
I. Guardrail $11,900
J. Traffic Control & Mobilization $200,000
K. Landscaping and Erosion Control $106,446
L. Miscellaneous Construction Items $45,000
Construction Cost Subtotal $1,142,299
Engineering & Contingencies; 10% $114,230
Total Construction Cost $1,256,529
Total Project Costs $1,696,529
SR 201 & I-75
Whitfield County
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
Non-Construction Costs
A. Right-of-Way $64,000
B. Reimbursable Utilities $300,000
Construction Costs
C. Major Structures $0
D. Grading and Earthwork $44,444
E. Drainage $85,449
F.. Base and Paving $324,740
H. Signing and Striping $56,000
I. Guardrail $11,900
J. Traffic Control & Mobilization $200,000
K. Landscaping and Erosion Control $146,330
L. Miscellaneous Construction Items $45,000
Construction Cost Subtotal $913,863
Engineering & Contingencies; 10% $91,386
Total Construction Cost $1,005,249
Total Project Costs $1,369,249
SR 2 & SR 71
Whitfield County
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
Non-Construction Costs
A. Right-of-Way $1,169,184
B. Reimbursable Utilities $100,000
Construction Costs
C. Major Structures $0
D. Grading and Earthwork $1,129,333
E. Drainage $219,520
F.. Base and Paving $3,541,442
H. Signing and Striping $203,149
I. Guardrail $60,050
J. Traffic Control & Mobilization $200,000
K. Landscaping and Erosion Control $228,248
L. Miscellaneous Construction Items $45,000
Construction Cost Subtotal $5,626,742
Engineering & Contingencies; 10% $562,674
Total Construction Cost $6,189,416
Total Project Costs $7,458,600
US 71 Widening
From North of Old Dalton-Cleveland Highway to Tennessee
Whitfield County
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
Non-Construction Costs
A. Right-of-Way $882,480
B. Reimbursable Utilities $800,000
Construction Costs
C. Major Structures $0
D. Grading and Earthwork $523,111
E. Drainage $344,183
F.. Base and Paving $1,697,985
H. Signing and Striping $92,394
I. Guardrail $32,400
J. Traffic Control & Mobilization $100,000
K. Landscaping and Erosion Control $173,253
L. Miscellaneous Construction Items $45,000
Construction Cost Subtotal $3,008,325
Engineering & Construction; 10% $300,833
Total Construction Cost $3,309,158
Total Project Costs $4,991,638
US 41 Widening
From Campbel Road to Catoosa County
Whitfield County
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
Non-Construction Costs
A. Right-of-Way $846,800
B. Reimbursable Utilities $300,000
Construction Costs
C. Major Structures $864,000
D. Grading and Earthwork $1,283,333
E. Drainage $279,020
F.. Base and Paving $2,697,336
H. Signing and Striping $229,760
I. Guardrail $101,800
J. Traffic Control & Mobilization $200,000
K. Landscaping and Erosion Control $249,576
L. Miscellaneous Construction Items $45,000
Construction Cost Subtotal $5,949,825
Engineering & Contingencies; 10% $594,983
Total Construction Cost $6,544,808
Total Project Costs $7,691,608
SR 2 Widening
From SR 201 to SR 71
Whitfield County
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
Non-Construction Costs
A. Right-of-Way $3,594,480
B. Reimbursable Utilities $1,000,000
Construction Costs
C. Major Structures $0
D. Grading and Earthwork $1,102,933
E. Drainage $485,520
F.. Base and Paving $5,173,293
H. Signing and Striping $214,528
I. Guardrail $101,800
J. Traffic Control & Mobilization $400,000
K. Landscaping and Erosion Control $549,188
L. Miscellaneous Construction Items $45,000
Construction Cost Subtotal $8,072,263
Engineering & Contingencies; 10% $807,226
Total Construction Cost $8,879,489
Total Project Costs $13,473,969
SR 201 Widening
From I-75 to SR 2
Whitfield County
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
Non-Construction Costs
A. Right-of-Way $2,056,400
B. Reimbursable Utilities $200,000
Construction Costs
C. Major Structures $0
D. Grading and Earthwork $396,000
E. Drainage $314,020
F.. Base and Paving $1,467,270
H. Signing and Striping $107,040
I. Guardrail $101,800
J. Traffic Control & Mobilization $200,000
K. Landscaping and Erosion Control $228,035
L. Miscellaneous Construction Items $45,000
Construction Cost Subtotal $2,859,165
Engineering & Contingencies; 10% $285,916
Total Construction Cost $3,145,081
Total Project Costs $5,401,481
SR 201 Shoulder Widening & Safety Improvements
From Reed Road to SR 2
16-Sep-11 B
Appendix B – Highway Capacity Analysis Worksheets
HCS+: Two-Lane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-Mail: ___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________ Analyst William Ruhsam Agency/Co. Moreland Altobelli Date Performed 7/11/11 Analysis Time Period Highway SR 2 From/To Eastern Leg Jurisdiction Whitfield County Analysis Year 2009 Description North Whitfield County Corridor Study ___________________________________Input Data_________________________________ Highway class Class 1 Shoulder width 1.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 12 % Segment length 6.0 mi % Recreational vehicles 0 % Terrain type Rolling % No-passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 8 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 656 veh/h Directional split 60 / 40 % ____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.93 PCE for trucks, ET 1.9 PCE for RVs, ER 1.1 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.903 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 868 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 521 pc/h Free-Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free-Flow Speed: Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 4.2 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 2.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS 53.8 mi/h Adjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 47.1 mi/h
__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.94 PCE for trucks, ET 1.5 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.943 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 822 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 493 Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 51.4 % Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 0.0 Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 51.4 % ________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________ Level of service, LOS C Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.27 Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 1093 veh-mi Peak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 3936 veh-mi Peak 15-min total travel time, TT15 23.2 veh-h ______________________________________________________________________________ Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.
HCS+: Two-Lane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-Mail: ___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________ Analyst William Ruhsam Agency/Co. Moreland Altobelli Date Performed 7/11/11 Analysis Time Period Highway SR 2 From/To Eastern Leg Jurisdiction Whitfield County Analysis Year 2035 Description North Whitfield County Corridor Study ___________________________________Input Data_________________________________ Highway class Class 1 Shoulder width 1.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 12 % Segment length 6.0 mi % Recreational vehicles 0 % Terrain type Rolling % No-passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 8 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 966 veh/h Directional split 60 / 40 % ____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.99 PCE for trucks, ET 1.5 PCE for RVs, ER 1.1 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.943 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 1149 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 689 pc/h Free-Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free-Flow Speed: Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 4.2 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 2.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS 53.8 mi/h Adjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 44.9 mi/h
__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00 PCE for trucks, ET 1.0 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 1.000 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 1073 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 644 Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 61.1 % Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 0.0 Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 61.1 % ________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________ Level of service, LOS D Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.36 Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 1610 veh-mi Peak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 5796 veh-mi Peak 15-min total travel time, TT15 35.9 veh-h ______________________________________________________________________________ Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.
HCS+: Two-Lane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-Mail: ___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________ Analyst William Ruhsam Agency/Co. Moreland Altobelli Date Performed 7/11/11 Analysis Time Period Highway SR 2 From/To Middle Leg Jurisdiction Whitfield County Analysis Year 2009 Description North Whitfield County Corridor Study ___________________________________Input Data_________________________________ Highway class Class 1 Shoulder width 1.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 12 % Segment length 6.0 mi % Recreational vehicles 0 % Terrain type Rolling % No-passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 8 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 379 veh/h Directional split 60 / 40 % ____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.93 PCE for trucks, ET 1.9 PCE for RVs, ER 1.1 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.903 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 502 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 301 pc/h Free-Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free-Flow Speed: Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 4.2 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 2.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS 53.8 mi/h Adjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 49.9 mi/h
__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.77 PCE for trucks, ET 1.8 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.912 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 599 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 359 Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 40.9 % Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 0.0 Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 40.9 % ________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________ Level of service, LOS C Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.16 Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 632 veh-mi Peak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 2274 veh-mi Peak 15-min total travel time, TT15 12.7 veh-h ______________________________________________________________________________ Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.
HCS+: Two-Lane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-Mail: ___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________ Analyst William Ruhsam Agency/Co. Moreland Altobelli Date Performed 7/11/11 Analysis Time Period Highway SR 2 From/To Middle Leg Jurisdiction Whitfield County Analysis Year 2035 Description North Whitfield County Corridor Study ___________________________________Input Data_________________________________ Highway class Class 1 Shoulder width 1.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 12 % Segment length 6.0 mi % Recreational vehicles 0 % Terrain type Rolling % No-passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 8 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 558 veh/h Directional split 60 / 40 % ____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.93 PCE for trucks, ET 1.9 PCE for RVs, ER 1.1 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.903 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 739 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 443 pc/h Free-Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free-Flow Speed: Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 4.2 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 2.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS 53.8 mi/h Adjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 48.1 mi/h
__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.94 PCE for trucks, ET 1.5 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.943 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 699 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 419 Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 45.9 % Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 0.0 Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 45.9 % ________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________ Level of service, LOS C Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.23 Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 930 veh-mi Peak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 3348 veh-mi Peak 15-min total travel time, TT15 19.3 veh-h ______________________________________________________________________________ Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.
HCS+: Two-Lane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-Mail: ___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________ Analyst William Ruhsam Agency/Co. Moreland Altobelli Date Performed 7/11/11 Analysis Time Period Highway SR 2 From/To Western Leg Jurisdiction Whitfield County Analysis Year 2009 Description North Whitfield County Corridor Study ___________________________________Input Data_________________________________ Highway class Class 1 Shoulder width 1.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 12 % Segment length 6.0 mi % Recreational vehicles 0 % Terrain type Rolling % No-passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 8 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 173 veh/h Directional split 60 / 40 % ____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.71 PCE for trucks, ET 2.5 PCE for RVs, ER 1.1 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.847 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 319 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 191 pc/h Free-Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free-Flow Speed: Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 4.2 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 2.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS 53.8 mi/h Adjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 51.3 mi/h
__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.77 PCE for trucks, ET 1.8 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.912 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 274 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 164 Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 21.4 % Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 1.2 Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 22.6 % ________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________ Level of service, LOS B Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.10 Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 288 veh-mi Peak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 1038 veh-mi Peak 15-min total travel time, TT15 5.6 veh-h ______________________________________________________________________________ Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.
HCS+: Two-Lane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-Mail: ___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________ Analyst William Ruhsam Agency/Co. Moreland Altobelli Date Performed 7/11/11 Analysis Time Period Highway SR 2 From/To Western Leg Jurisdiction Whitfield County Analysis Year 2035 Description North Whitfield County Corridor Study ___________________________________Input Data_________________________________ Highway class Class 1 Shoulder width 1.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 12 % Segment length 6.0 mi % Recreational vehicles 0 % Terrain type Rolling % No-passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 8 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 257 veh/h Directional split 60 / 40 % ____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.71 PCE for trucks, ET 2.5 PCE for RVs, ER 1.1 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.847 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 475 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 285 pc/h Free-Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free-Flow Speed: Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 4.2 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 2.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS 53.8 mi/h Adjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 50.1 mi/h
__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.77 PCE for trucks, ET 1.8 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.912 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 406 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 244 Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 30.0 % Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 0.5 Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 30.5 % ________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________ Level of service, LOS B Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.15 Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 428 veh-mi Peak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 1542 veh-mi Peak 15-min total travel time, TT15 8.5 veh-h ______________________________________________________________________________ Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.
HCS+: Two-Lane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-Mail: ___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________ Analyst William Ruhsam Agency/Co. Moreland Altobelli Date Performed 7/11/11 Analysis Time Period Highway SR 201 From/To Eastern Leg Jurisdiction Whitfield County Analysis Year 2009 Description North Whitfield County Corridor Study ___________________________________Input Data_________________________________ Highway class Class 1 Shoulder width 1.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 12 % Segment length 6.0 mi % Recreational vehicles 0 % Terrain type Rolling % No-passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 8 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 487 veh/h Directional split 60 / 40 % ____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.93 PCE for trucks, ET 1.9 PCE for RVs, ER 1.1 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.903 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 645 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 387 pc/h Free-Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free-Flow Speed: Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 4.2 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 2.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS 53.8 mi/h Adjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 48.8 mi/h
__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.94 PCE for trucks, ET 1.5 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.943 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 610 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 366 Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 41.5 % Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 0.0 Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 41.5 % ________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________ Level of service, LOS C Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.20 Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 812 veh-mi Peak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 2922 veh-mi Peak 15-min total travel time, TT15 16.6 veh-h ______________________________________________________________________________ Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.
HCS+: Two-Lane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-Mail: ___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________ Analyst William Ruhsam Agency/Co. Moreland Altobelli Date Performed 7/11/11 Analysis Time Period Highway SR 201 From/To Eastern Leg Jurisdiction Whitfield County Analysis Year 2035 Description North Whitfield County Corridor Study ___________________________________Input Data_________________________________ Highway class Class 1 Shoulder width 1.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 12 % Segment length 6.0 mi % Recreational vehicles 0 % Terrain type Rolling % No-passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 8 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 717 veh/h Directional split 60 / 40 % ____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.93 PCE for trucks, ET 1.9 PCE for RVs, ER 1.1 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.903 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 949 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 569 pc/h Free-Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free-Flow Speed: Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 4.2 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 2.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS 53.8 mi/h Adjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 46.4 mi/h
__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.94 PCE for trucks, ET 1.5 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.943 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 898 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 539 Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 54.6 % Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 0.0 Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 54.6 % ________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________ Level of service, LOS C Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.30 Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 1195 veh-mi Peak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 4302 veh-mi Peak 15-min total travel time, TT15 25.7 veh-h ______________________________________________________________________________ Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.
HCS+: Two-Lane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-Mail: ___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________ Analyst William Ruhsam Agency/Co. Moreland Altobelli Date Performed 7/11/11 Analysis Time Period Highway SR 201 From/To Middle Leg Jurisdiction Whitfield County Analysis Year 2009 Description North Whitfield County Corridor Study ___________________________________Input Data_________________________________ Highway class Class 1 Shoulder width 1.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 12 % Segment length 6.0 mi % Recreational vehicles 0 % Terrain type Rolling % No-passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 8 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 806 veh/h Directional split 60 / 40 % ____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.93 PCE for trucks, ET 1.9 PCE for RVs, ER 1.1 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.903 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 1067 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 640 pc/h Free-Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free-Flow Speed: Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 4.2 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 2.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS 53.8 mi/h Adjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 45.5 mi/h
__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.94 PCE for trucks, ET 1.5 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.943 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 1010 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 606 Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 58.8 % Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 0.0 Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 58.8 % ________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________ Level of service, LOS C Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.33 Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 1343 veh-mi Peak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 4836 veh-mi Peak 15-min total travel time, TT15 29.5 veh-h ______________________________________________________________________________ Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.
HCS+: Two-Lane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-Mail: ___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________ Analyst William Ruhsam Agency/Co. Moreland Altobelli Date Performed 7/11/11 Analysis Time Period Highway SR 201 From/To Middle Leg Jurisdiction Whitfield County Analysis Year 2035 Description North Whitfield County Corridor Study ___________________________________Input Data_________________________________ Highway class Class 1 Shoulder width 1.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 12 % Segment length 6.0 mi % Recreational vehicles 0 % Terrain type Rolling % No-passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 8 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 1188 veh/h Directional split 60 / 40 % ____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.99 PCE for trucks, ET 1.5 PCE for RVs, ER 1.1 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.943 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 1413 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 848 pc/h Free-Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free-Flow Speed: Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 4.2 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 2.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS 53.8 mi/h Adjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 42.8 mi/h
__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00 PCE for trucks, ET 1.0 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 1.000 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 1320 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 792 Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 68.7 % Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 0.0 Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 68.7 % ________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________ Level of service, LOS D Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.44 Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 1980 veh-mi Peak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 7128 veh-mi Peak 15-min total travel time, TT15 46.2 veh-h ______________________________________________________________________________ Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.
HCS+: Two-Lane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-Mail: ___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________ Analyst William Ruhsam Agency/Co. Moreland Altobelli Date Performed 7/11/11 Analysis Time Period Highway SR 201 From/To Western Leg Jurisdiction Whitfield County Analysis Year 2009 Description North Whitfield County Corridor Study ___________________________________Input Data_________________________________ Highway class Class 1 Shoulder width 1.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 12 % Segment length 6.0 mi % Recreational vehicles 0 % Terrain type Rolling % No-passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 8 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 274 veh/h Directional split 60 / 40 % ____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.71 PCE for trucks, ET 2.5 PCE for RVs, ER 1.1 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.847 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 506 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 304 pc/h Free-Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free-Flow Speed: Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 4.2 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 2.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS 53.8 mi/h Adjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 49.9 mi/h
__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.77 PCE for trucks, ET 1.8 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.912 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 433 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 260 Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 31.7 % Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 0.4 Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 32.1 % ________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________ Level of service, LOS C Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.16 Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 457 veh-mi Peak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 1644 veh-mi Peak 15-min total travel time, TT15 9.2 veh-h ______________________________________________________________________________ Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.
HCS+: Two-Lane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-Mail: ___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________ Analyst William Ruhsam Agency/Co. Moreland Altobelli Date Performed 7/11/11 Analysis Time Period Highway SR 201 From/To Western Leg Jurisdiction Whitfield County Analysis Year 2035 Description North Whitfield County Corridor Study ___________________________________Input Data_________________________________ Highway class Class 1 Shoulder width 1.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 12 % Segment length 6.0 mi % Recreational vehicles 0 % Terrain type Rolling % No-passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 8 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 404 veh/h Directional split 60 / 40 % ____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.93 PCE for trucks, ET 1.9 PCE for RVs, ER 1.1 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.903 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 535 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 321 pc/h Free-Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free-Flow Speed: Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 4.2 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 2.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS 53.8 mi/h Adjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 49.6 mi/h
__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.94 PCE for trucks, ET 1.5 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.943 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 506 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 304 Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 35.9 % Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 0.2 Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 36.1 % ________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________ Level of service, LOS C Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.17 Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 673 veh-mi Peak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 2424 veh-mi Peak 15-min total travel time, TT15 13.6 veh-h ______________________________________________________________________________ Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.
HCS+: Multilane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-mail: ______________________________PLANNING ANALYSIS________________________________ Analyst: William Ruhsam Agency/Co: Moreland Altobelli Date: 7/11/11 Analysis Period: 2009 Highway: SR 71 From/To: Northern Leg Jurisdiction: Whitfield County Analysis Year: 2009 Project ID: North Whitfield County Corridor Study _________________________________INPUT DATA____________________________________ Total AADT volume, AADT 4040 vpd Proportion AADT during peak hour, K 0.09 Percent peak-hour traffic in heaviest direction, D 60 % Trucks 12 % Terrain type Rolling Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mph ___________________________________ANALYSIS____________________________________ DDHV = AADT x D x K DDHV = 4040 x 0.60 x 0.09 = 218 Volume for : LOS 4-lane highway = 218 vph/2 lanes = 109 vphpl A 6-lane highway = 218 vph/3 lanes = 72 vphpl A ________________________________LEVEL OF SERVICE_______________________________ Free-Flow Speed = 60 mph Free-Flow Speed = 50 mph Percent Trucks Percent Trucks LOS 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Terrain Level A 560 550 530 520 510 440 430 420 410 400 B 920 900 870 850 840 710 700 680 660 650 C 1310 1280 1250 1220 1190 1030 1000 980 960 940 D 1680 1640 1600 1570 1530 1350 1320 1290 1260 1230 E 1870 1820 1780 1740 1700 1610 1570 1530 1500 1460 Rolling A 560 520 490 460 430 440 410 380 360 340 B 920 850 800 750 710 710 660 620 580 550 C 1310 1220 1140 1070 1010 1030 960 900 840 790 D 1680 1570 1470 1380 1300 1350 1260 1180 1100 1040 E 1870 1740 1620 1520 1440 1610 1500 1400 1310 1240 Mountain A 560 480 420 370 330 440 370 320 290 260
B 920 780 680 600 540 710 610 530 470 420 C 1310 1120 970 860 770 1030 880 760 680 610 D 1680 1430 1250 1100 990 1350 1150 1000 890 800 E 1870 1590 1380 1220 1100 1610 1370 1190 1050 950 Assumptions: highway with 60 mi/h FFS has 8 access points/mi; highway with 50 mi/h FFS has 25 access points/mi; lane width = 12 ft; shoulder width > 6 ft; divided highway; PHF = 0.88; all heavy vehicles are trucks and regular commuters
HCS+: Multilane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-mail: ______________________________PLANNING ANALYSIS________________________________ Analyst: William Ruhsam Agency/Co: Moreland Altobelli Date: 7/11/11 Analysis Period: 2035 Highway: SR 71 From/To: Northern Leg Jurisdiction: Whitfield County Analysis Year: 2035 Project ID: North Whitfield County Corridor Study _________________________________INPUT DATA____________________________________ Total AADT volume, AADT 6600 vpd Proportion AADT during peak hour, K 0.09 Percent peak-hour traffic in heaviest direction, D 60 % Trucks 12 % Terrain type Rolling Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mph ___________________________________ANALYSIS____________________________________ DDHV = AADT x D x K DDHV = 6600 x 0.60 x 0.09 = 356 Volume for : LOS 4-lane highway = 356 vph/2 lanes = 178 vphpl A 6-lane highway = 356 vph/3 lanes = 118 vphpl A ________________________________LEVEL OF SERVICE_______________________________ Free-Flow Speed = 60 mph Free-Flow Speed = 50 mph Percent Trucks Percent Trucks LOS 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Terrain Level A 560 550 530 520 510 440 430 420 410 400 B 920 900 870 850 840 710 700 680 660 650 C 1310 1280 1250 1220 1190 1030 1000 980 960 940 D 1680 1640 1600 1570 1530 1350 1320 1290 1260 1230 E 1870 1820 1780 1740 1700 1610 1570 1530 1500 1460 Rolling A 560 520 490 460 430 440 410 380 360 340 B 920 850 800 750 710 710 660 620 580 550 C 1310 1220 1140 1070 1010 1030 960 900 840 790 D 1680 1570 1470 1380 1300 1350 1260 1180 1100 1040 E 1870 1740 1620 1520 1440 1610 1500 1400 1310 1240 Mountain A 560 480 420 370 330 440 370 320 290 260
B 920 780 680 600 540 710 610 530 470 420 C 1310 1120 970 860 770 1030 880 760 680 610 D 1680 1430 1250 1100 990 1350 1150 1000 890 800 E 1870 1590 1380 1220 1100 1610 1370 1190 1050 950 Assumptions: highway with 60 mi/h FFS has 8 access points/mi; highway with 50 mi/h FFS has 25 access points/mi; lane width = 12 ft; shoulder width > 6 ft; divided highway; PHF = 0.88; all heavy vehicles are trucks and regular commuters
HCS+: Multilane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-mail: ______________________________PLANNING ANALYSIS________________________________ Analyst: William Ruhsam Agency/Co: Moreland Altobelli Date: 7/11/11 Analysis Period: 2009 Highway: SR 71 From/To: Southern Leg Jurisdiction: Whitfield County Analysis Year: 2009 Project ID: North Whitfield County Corridor Study _________________________________INPUT DATA____________________________________ Total AADT volume, AADT 9440 vpd Proportion AADT during peak hour, K 0.09 Percent peak-hour traffic in heaviest direction, D 60 % Trucks 12 % Terrain type Rolling Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mph ___________________________________ANALYSIS____________________________________ DDHV = AADT x D x K DDHV = 9440 x 0.60 x 0.09 = 510 Volume for : LOS 4-lane highway = 510 vph/2 lanes = 255 vphpl A 6-lane highway = 510 vph/3 lanes = 170 vphpl A ________________________________LEVEL OF SERVICE_______________________________ Free-Flow Speed = 60 mph Free-Flow Speed = 50 mph Percent Trucks Percent Trucks LOS 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Terrain Level A 560 550 530 520 510 440 430 420 410 400 B 920 900 870 850 840 710 700 680 660 650 C 1310 1280 1250 1220 1190 1030 1000 980 960 940 D 1680 1640 1600 1570 1530 1350 1320 1290 1260 1230 E 1870 1820 1780 1740 1700 1610 1570 1530 1500 1460 Rolling A 560 520 490 460 430 440 410 380 360 340 B 920 850 800 750 710 710 660 620 580 550 C 1310 1220 1140 1070 1010 1030 960 900 840 790 D 1680 1570 1470 1380 1300 1350 1260 1180 1100 1040 E 1870 1740 1620 1520 1440 1610 1500 1400 1310 1240 Mountain A 560 480 420 370 330 440 370 320 290 260
B 920 780 680 600 540 710 610 530 470 420 C 1310 1120 970 860 770 1030 880 760 680 610 D 1680 1430 1250 1100 990 1350 1150 1000 890 800 E 1870 1590 1380 1220 1100 1610 1370 1190 1050 950 Assumptions: highway with 60 mi/h FFS has 8 access points/mi; highway with 50 mi/h FFS has 25 access points/mi; lane width = 12 ft; shoulder width > 6 ft; divided highway; PHF = 0.88; all heavy vehicles are trucks and regular commuters
HCS+: Two-Lane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-Mail: ___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________ Analyst William Ruhsam Agency/Co. Moreland Altobelli Date Performed 7/11/11 Analysis Time Period Highway US 41 From/To Northern Leg Jurisdiction Whitfield County Analysis Year 2009 Description North Whitfield County Corridor Study ___________________________________Input Data_________________________________ Highway class Class 1 Shoulder width 1.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 9 % Segment length 1.0 mi % Recreational vehicles 0 % Terrain type Rolling % No-passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 8 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 404 veh/h Directional split 60 / 40 % ____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.93 PCE for trucks, ET 1.9 PCE for RVs, ER 1.1 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.925 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 522 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 313 pc/h Free-Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free-Flow Speed: Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 4.2 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 2.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS 53.8 mi/h Adjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 49.7 mi/h
__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.94 PCE for trucks, ET 1.5 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.957 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 499 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 299 Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 35.5 % Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 0.3 Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 35.8 % ________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________ Level of service, LOS C Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.16 Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 112 veh-mi Peak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 404 veh-mi Peak 15-min total travel time, TT15 2.3 veh-h ______________________________________________________________________________ Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.
HCS+: Two-Lane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-Mail: ___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________ Analyst William Ruhsam Agency/Co. Moreland Altobelli Date Performed 7/11/11 Analysis Time Period Highway US 41 From/To Northern Leg Jurisdiction Whitfield County Analysis Year 2035 Description North Whitfield County Corridor Study ___________________________________Input Data_________________________________ Highway class Class 1 Shoulder width 1.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 9 % Segment length 1.0 mi % Recreational vehicles 0 % Terrain type Rolling % No-passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 8 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 594 veh/h Directional split 60 / 40 % ____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.93 PCE for trucks, ET 1.9 PCE for RVs, ER 1.1 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.925 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 767 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 460 pc/h Free-Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free-Flow Speed: Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 4.2 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 2.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS 53.8 mi/h Adjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 47.8 mi/h
__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.94 PCE for trucks, ET 1.5 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.957 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 734 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 440 Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 47.5 % Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 0.0 Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 47.5 % ________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________ Level of service, LOS C Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.24 Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 165 veh-mi Peak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 594 veh-mi Peak 15-min total travel time, TT15 3.4 veh-h ______________________________________________________________________________ Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.
HCS+: Multilane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-mail: ______________________________PLANNING ANALYSIS________________________________ Analyst: William Ruhsam Agency/Co: Moreland Altobelli Date: 7/11/11 Analysis Period: 2009 Highway: US 41 From/To: I-75 to Tunnell Hill Jurisdiction: Whitfield County Analysis Year: 2009 Project ID: North Whitfield County Corridor Study _________________________________INPUT DATA____________________________________ Total AADT volume, AADT 21720 vpd Proportion AADT during peak hour, K 0.09 Percent peak-hour traffic in heaviest direction, D 60 % Trucks 9 % Terrain type Rolling Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mph ___________________________________ANALYSIS____________________________________ DDHV = AADT x D x K DDHV = 21720 x 0.60 x 0.09 = 1173 Volume for : LOS 4-lane highway = 1173 vph/2 lanes = 586 vphpl B 6-lane highway = 1173 vph/3 lanes = 391 vphpl A ________________________________LEVEL OF SERVICE_______________________________ Free-Flow Speed = 60 mph Free-Flow Speed = 50 mph Percent Trucks Percent Trucks LOS 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Terrain Level A 560 550 530 520 510 440 430 420 410 400 B 920 900 870 850 840 710 700 680 660 650 C 1310 1280 1250 1220 1190 1030 1000 980 960 940 D 1680 1640 1600 1570 1530 1350 1320 1290 1260 1230 E 1870 1820 1780 1740 1700 1610 1570 1530 1500 1460 Rolling A 560 520 490 460 430 440 410 380 360 340 B 920 850 800 750 710 710 660 620 580 550 C 1310 1220 1140 1070 1010 1030 960 900 840 790 D 1680 1570 1470 1380 1300 1350 1260 1180 1100 1040 E 1870 1740 1620 1520 1440 1610 1500 1400 1310 1240 Mountain A 560 480 420 370 330 440 370 320 290 260
B 920 780 680 600 540 710 610 530 470 420 C 1310 1120 970 860 770 1030 880 760 680 610 D 1680 1430 1250 1100 990 1350 1150 1000 890 800 E 1870 1590 1380 1220 1100 1610 1370 1190 1050 950 Assumptions: highway with 60 mi/h FFS has 8 access points/mi; highway with 50 mi/h FFS has 25 access points/mi; lane width = 12 ft; shoulder width > 6 ft; divided highway; PHF = 0.88; all heavy vehicles are trucks and regular commuters
HCS+: Multilane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-mail: ______________________________PLANNING ANALYSIS________________________________ Analyst: William Ruhsam Agency/Co: Moreland Altobelli Date: 7/11/11 Analysis Period: 2009 Highway: US 41 From/To: I-75 to Tunnell Hill Jurisdiction: Whitfield County Analysis Year: 2009 Project ID: North Whitfield County Corridor Study _________________________________INPUT DATA____________________________________ Total AADT volume, AADT 31990 vpd Proportion AADT during peak hour, K 0.09 Percent peak-hour traffic in heaviest direction, D 60 % Trucks 9 % Terrain type Rolling Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mph ___________________________________ANALYSIS____________________________________ DDHV = AADT x D x K DDHV = 31990 x 0.60 x 0.09 = 1727 Volume for : LOS 4-lane highway = 1727 vph/2 lanes = 863 vphpl C 6-lane highway = 1727 vph/3 lanes = 575 vphpl B ________________________________LEVEL OF SERVICE_______________________________ Free-Flow Speed = 60 mph Free-Flow Speed = 50 mph Percent Trucks Percent Trucks LOS 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Terrain Level A 560 550 530 520 510 440 430 420 410 400 B 920 900 870 850 840 710 700 680 660 650 C 1310 1280 1250 1220 1190 1030 1000 980 960 940 D 1680 1640 1600 1570 1530 1350 1320 1290 1260 1230 E 1870 1820 1780 1740 1700 1610 1570 1530 1500 1460 Rolling A 560 520 490 460 430 440 410 380 360 340 B 920 850 800 750 710 710 660 620 580 550 C 1310 1220 1140 1070 1010 1030 960 900 840 790 D 1680 1570 1470 1380 1300 1350 1260 1180 1100 1040 E 1870 1740 1620 1520 1440 1610 1500 1400 1310 1240 Mountain A 560 480 420 370 330 440 370 320 290 260
B 920 780 680 600 540 710 610 530 470 420 C 1310 1120 970 860 770 1030 880 760 680 610 D 1680 1430 1250 1100 990 1350 1150 1000 890 800 E 1870 1590 1380 1220 1100 1610 1370 1190 1050 950 Assumptions: highway with 60 mi/h FFS has 8 access points/mi; highway with 50 mi/h FFS has 25 access points/mi; lane width = 12 ft; shoulder width > 6 ft; divided highway; PHF = 0.88; all heavy vehicles are trucks and regular commuters