Geometric Design Practices for Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation (2011)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

9 CHAPTER THREE RESULTS OF STATE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 3. Continue to use previously approved geometric design criteria for nonfreeway 3R projects that are in exist- ing Certification Acceptance or Secondary Road Plan agreements, provided such criteria are consistent with 23 U.S.C. 109 (o). According to the survey responses (see Appendix D, Table D1) and information obtained from the states’ websites, 42 states have a formal 3R policy document, and nearly all of these have been approved by FHWA. A state’s 3R policy documentation can be a separate document, such as a design information bulletin, a chapter of its Roadway Design Man- ual or other similar document, or policy elements contained in several different chapters or sections of the Roadway Design Manual. The self-contained documents or chapters of a design manual range from fewer than 10 pages (sev- eral states) to 92 pages (Indiana). The longer documents are more comprehensive in their coverage, and they tend to be more recently prepared. Two states responded that they are in the process of revising their 3R policies and updating their documents. The policy documents for each of the states that provided them can be seen at http://www.trb.org/Synthesis- Programs/Public/CompilationofStateDesignManuals.aspx. Most states use the term 3R collectively and make no distinction among resurfacing, restoration, or rehabilitation. Some exceptions include California, Colorado, Idaho, Loui- siana, New York, Vermont, and Wyoming. The California DOT (Caltrans) has a Highway Design Manual (HDM) that prescribes design guidance and stan- dards for the design of highways within the California state highway system. Caltrans also issues Design Information Bulletins (DIBs) that provide additional guidance and stan- dards to supplement the HDM. Caltrans issued DIB 79-03, “Design Guidance and Standards for Roadway Rehabilita- tion Project [Pavement Focused (2R) and Resurfacing, Res- toration, and Rehabilitation (3R) Projects] and Certain Other Projects [Storm Drainage, Protective Betterment, Opera- tional Improvement and Safety-funded Projects],” which includes the following key elements: Generally speaking, the purpose and need for 2R and 3R projects is to restore the facility to a state of good repair so that the roadway will be in a condition that only requires minimal maintenance expenditures by the Department. 2R (resurfacing and restoration) projects are programmed as “pavement-focused” projects with BACKGROUND State practices for 3R standards and guidelines were identified in two ways. First, 3R policy documents were searched within the state DOT website. For many states, the documents were easily identified. Other states, however, did not have readily identifiable documents within the state DOT website, and some states did not have documents because the state does not have a specific 3R policy. Although many of the policies were obtained from this effort, a survey was utilized to (1) be cer- tain that the documents obtained from the state DOT website were up-to-date, (2) obtain 3R policy documents from states that have not posted them on their state DOT’s website, and (3) gather other information related to the objectives of the synthesis that was not available within the policy documents. Appendix C contains the survey questionnaire. It was dis- tributed to the mailing list of the AASHTO Subcommittee on Design. Forty-eight states and Puerto Rico responded to the survey. This chapter summarizes the key results from the survey. The complete responses are presented in a series of tables in Appendix D. The state practices cited serve only as examples and are not necessarily the best or recommended practice. For any one item discussed, the practices and procedures followed by many states could have been mentioned. This chapter will discuss state practices with regard to specific geometric design criteria. STATE PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES How Many States Have a Formal 3R Policy? Current federal regulations allow flexibility and local dis- cretion in the geometric design of nonfreeway 3R projects. Each state may choose one or a combination of the following options: 1. Develop and adopt geometric design criteria specifi- cally for nonfreeway 3R projects, 2. Adopt and apply current geometric design criteria for new construction [referenced in 23 CFR 625.4(a)(1)] to nonfreeway 3R projects , and/or

10 their primary goal being to extend the service life of the pavement structure. 3R (2R plus rehabilitation) projects are additionally programmed to replace and upgrade other highway appurtenances and facilities within the project limits that are failing, worn out or functionally obsolete. The determination of whether a segment of highway is to proceed as either a 2R or 3R project is to be made after Safety Screening has occurred and during the Project Initiation Document (PID) phase. The project development process for roadway rehabilitation projects is described in the Project Development Procedures Manual. The PID typically used for roadway rehabilitation projects is the “Project Scope Summary Report (PSSR) for 3R Projects.” The scope of any project is driven by the purpose and need for the project. The need for pavement improvements comes from the condition data in the Pavement Management System. The need for safety improvements, which will move the project into a 3R, is determined by the Safety Screening. The Safety Screening is undertaken by the District Safety Unit. If the Safety Screening determines that targeted and cost- effective traffic operations strategies are the only needed safety enhancements within the project limits, the project becomes a 2R project. Targeted improvements include the addition of protective devices, such as metal beam guard rail, and cost-effective safety improvements include relatively low cost devices such as signing and striping. If the Safety Screening results in the determination that more extensive safety work is required, then the project will be identified as a 3R project. The safety ‘work’ is usually countermeasures that would not require reconstruction. In Colorado, a 3R project is any project that consists of resurfacing, restoration, and/or rehabilitation, according to the following definitions: • Resurfacing: Placement of additional surfacing mate- rial (1.5 to 6 in. thick) over the existing roadway to improve serviceability and/or provide additional strength. • Restoration and Rehabilitation: – Work required to restore the existing pavement (including shoulders) to a condition of adequate structural support or to a condition adequate for placement of an additional stage of construction. – Work required to widen the lanes and/or shoulders of an existing facility. – Adding acceleration/deceleration, turn, short climb- ing lanes, etc., but not through lanes. – Work required to correct minor structure safety defects or deficiencies. Colorado states that maintenance projects with resurfac- ing depth greater than or equal to 1.5 in. will follow 3R pro- cedures. Also, it states that safety projects do not fall under 3R procedures. New York defines the following for each of the R types: • 1R project—single-course freeway or nonfreeway resurfacing projects; overlays limited to single course with maximum thickness of 2 in. with additional thick- ness for superelevation improvement. • 2R project—multicourse resurfacing that may include milling, superelevation, traffic signals, turn lanes, driveway modifications, roadside work, minor safety work, lane and shoulder widening, drainage work, sidewalk curb ramps, etc. The primary advantage of a 2R project compared with a 3R project is the simplified design approval document. • 3R project—nonfreeway projects designed to preserve and extend the service life of an existing highway, including any cost-effective safety improvements and other safety improvements. 3R projects are “required” to enhance safety. Chapter 7 of the New York State DOT Highway Design Manual provides further information and guidance to deter- mine which type of project is appropriate. In summary, it states— • Projects that include single-course resurfacing with no pavement widening or other work beyond the scope of 1R project can be progressed as a 1R project. • Projects that include multicourse resurfacing or do not meet the 1R requirements should be progressed as 2R if they meet the 2R Screening/Scoping Checklist (see Appendix E) and do not include— – Substantial amounts of reconstruction. – Additional through travel lanes. – New two-way left-turn lanes, additional through lanes, or medians. – Bridge work (other than element-specific eligible bridge work). – Substantial environmental impacts. – Anticipated controversy. – Formal public hearings. – Extensive ROW. • Projects that do not meet all of the screening require- ments of 2R projects should be progressed as a 3R project unless they require— – Substantial amounts of reconstruction. – Additional through travel lanes, except short auxil- iary through lanes to help intersection capacity. This chapter and the next will provide more information on how the states’ 3R policy documents deal with issues related to this synthesis. If a State Does Not Have a Formal 3R Policy, Does It Have Standards or Procedures Similar to 3R? The eight states listed in Table 1 responded that they do not have a formal 3R policy. Their comments as to why

11 As listed in Table 1, Washington State does not have a formal 3R policy but does have “Modified Design Level,” which “preserves and improves existing roadway geomet- rics, safety and operational elements.” Chapter 1130 of the Washington State design manual provides the design criteria for this type of improvement. Are 3R Standards/Guidelines the Same for National Highway Systems Projects and for Non-NHS Projects? Appendix D, Table D2 provides the responses from all of the states. Of the 48 states that responded to this question, 27 (56%) answered yes, and 21 (44%) answered no. Some of the explanations for not having the same standards were as follows: • Our state guidelines do not refer to speed where the 3R guidelines do refer to posted speed based on the requirements of FHWA. (Louisiana) • We have adopted a Programmatic Exception to Standards process that allows substandard geometric features to stay in place based on the results of a safety screening analysis. This cannot be applied to certain features on NHS routes. (Wisconsin) • We are not requiring design exceptions for non-NHS 3R (pavement preservation) projects. (Arizona) • For non-NHS highways, preservation standards apply if the overlay increases the road profile by more than 2 in.; for NHS highways, preservation standards apply if the thickness of the new pavement is greater than 2 in., regardless of the final pavement elevation. (Note: Minnesota uses the term “preservation” for 3R proj- ects.) (Minnesota) One example of how 3R standards and guidelines differ between NHS and non-NHS routes is that of West Virginia. The West Virginia DOT (WVDOT) has two separate “Design Directives” for Non-NHS (DD-606) and Non-Freeway NHS (DD-604) RRR policy. Table 2 shows how the guidelines differ for these two road types for several of the geometric design criteria. The WVDOT guidelines also discuss “Safety Enhance- ments” with the guidance for NHS routes to refer to the NCHRP 500 series (11) and the application of the Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM). IHSDM is a suite of software analysis tools for evaluating safety and opera- tional effects of geometric design decisions on highways (for more information, see http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/ihsdm/ ihsdm.htm). IHSDM can be used to predict the net safety performance of a proposed improvement to the project. Road Safety Audits (RSAs) (see http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ rsa/) can also be used on multilane 3R projects. For non- NHS routes, the designer is also referred to the NCHRP 500 series, but there is no reference to IHSDM or RSA. they do not have a formal policy have been included where available. TABLE 1 STATES THAT DO NOT HAVE FORMAL 3R POLICY State Reasons Provided Alabama None provided Delaware Have pavement resurfacing projects only milling and filling and patchwork. Are required to improve curb ramps to meet ADA; otherwise, make no safety improvements Maryland 3R type projects are dealt with by 4 offic- es—(1) Highway Development; (2) the 7 District Offices—responsible for incorporating 3R prin- ciples into their projects; (3) Office of Struc- tures—rehab and resurfacing of structures; (4) Office of Materials and Technology—deals with pavement condition and makes recommendations to design offices Minnesota Have preservation projects New Hampshire None provided New Jersey Prior to 1996 had 3R standards, but are no lon- ger followed; projects are differentiated as one of the Rs Rhode Island Have constructability reviews at every stage of design Washington Has separate programs and design guidelines for improvement and preservation projects Minnesota has “Preservation” projects for roads, but not bridges. Preservation projects are those that (1) do not meet the definition for New Construction/Reconstruction, (2) do not fit in the Exempt category, and (3) are not on freeways. Examples of Preservation projects would include the following: • Non-NHS bituminous overlays with increased pave- ment thickness greater than 2 in. • NHS bituminous overlays greater than 2 in. • Channelization for turn lanes. • Shoulder replacement. • Shoulder widening. The Preservation standard is the existing condition or the New Construction/Reconstruction standard, whichever is less, for each of the 13 controlling design elements. Exempt projects include Pavement Preventive Maintenance projects, which apply where the pavement is in good condition with significant remaining service life. Preventive Maintenance projects do not significantly increase structural capacity, but use surface or near-surface treatments to structurally sound pavements to prevent deterioration of the pavement.

12 the two responses. Only the states that answered at least the first question are included, and they are listed in order of the highest to lowest for the number of 3R projects. If a state responded with a range, such as “20 to 30,” then the mid- value was used for this table. Responding states had a wide range in the values for number of projects and miles treated. Many states indi- cated that 10 or fewer 3R projects were implemented each year. At the high end of the range were Michigan, Geor- gia, Alabama, and Wisconsin, which responded that they implemented about 600, 550, 500, and 400 projects annu- ally, respectively. Similar results were observed for lane- mileage. On the low side, mileages of 30 or fewer miles were reported; on the high side, Michigan reported 7,000 miles (12 miles per project), Missouri reported 6,000 miles (24 miles per project), and Texas reported 5,000 miles (25 miles per project). An analysis was performed to determine if this variation reflected the number of miles under the respective state control; that is, would a state whose jurisdiction includes most of the highway mileage within its borders tend to have more miles of 3R projects? Although the data are not shown, there did not appear to be any correlation. Since there was such a wide variation in the number of projects, a few of the states were contacted to better under- stand these statistics. Several indicated that the values pro- vided were estimates or even guesses. Only one of the five persons interviewed was able to identify the number of proj- ects from a database that identified projects by type, includ- ing 3R. TABLE 2 3R GUIDELINES FOR NHS AND NON-NHS IN WEST VIRGINIA Design Element Nonfreeway NHS Non-NHS Design Speed Use existing speed limit Speed study to determine Horizontal Curvature/Superelevation Consider variety of nongeometric changes; refer to Vol. 7 of NCHRP 500 Same Vertical Alignment Review for possible reconstruction if safety deficiencies and if cost-effective Same but also adds condition that ADT > 2,000 Lane and Shoulder Width Specific values for divided and undivided arterials Refers to NCHRP Report 362; widen only if accident rate can be reduced; mini- mum values are less than NHS Cross Slope and Superelevation Cross slope minimum of 1.6%; meet AASHTO standards if crash history Same as NHS Vertical Clearance 14 ft 13 ft 6 in. Clear Zone Multilane highways refer to RDG; specific values for 2-lane based on ADT and speed Only general guidance Bridge Structural Capacity HS-20 threshold HS-15 threshold Bridge Width Specific values for divided and undivided arterials Specific values based on ADT and Speed; lower than NHS Are 3R Standards/Guidelines for Non-NHS Projects the Same for Both Federal-Aid and State-Aid Projects? The complete responses to this question are found in Appen- dix D, Table D2. Only 7 of the 48 states indicated that their standards are different for non-NHS projects, depending on the funding source. However, reviewing the reasons and comments provided by these states reveals only minor variations. For example, one state responded that a new sec- tion on railroad crossing upgrades in or near a 3R project applies to federal-aid but not state-aid projects. Another state responded “no,” but commented that its 3R policy applies to all roads in the state highway system. How Many 3R Projects Are Implemented Each Year and How Many Lane-miles Are Treated by 3R Projects? These two questions asked for information on the number of 3R projects implemented annually: one asked how many projects are implemented and the other asked how many lane-miles are treated. Only 31 states provided data on these related questions. Presumably, states that did not answer these questions did not have this information in a database for easy retrieval, or if it was available in a database, the responder was not aware of its existence. Ideally, it would be useful for a state to have this information as an integral component of a management information system. Table 3 shows the results of these two questions. The information provided includes the number of 3R projects and the number of lane-miles treated by a 3R project, as well as the miles treated per project, which is calculated from

13 It may not be realistic to expect states to keep a database that would record when a project was first considered and when construction actually was started and then completed. Table 4 shows the answers from the 34 states that did respond to this question. The answers that were provided are likely approximations based on the experiences of the responder, which was confirmed by follow-up calls to several states. TABLE 4 AVERAGE TIME (MONTHS) TO IMPLEMENT A 3R PROJECT State Time to Progress 3R Projects (months) Alabama 9 Arkansas 12 to 15 California 48 Florida 36 Idaho 24 Illinois 24 Indiana 12 to 24 Iowa 24 Kansas 36 Kentucky About 12 Louisiana 12 Maine 9 Maryland 12 Michigan 12 Minnesota 22 Missouri 20 Nebraska 30 Nevada 12 New Hampshire 16 to 24 New Mexico 18 New York 30 North Dakota 24 Ohio 12 Oklahoma 9 Oregon 30 Pennsylvania 8 Rhode Island 12 South Dakota 12 to 24 Texas 14 Utah 2 Vermont 24 to 60 Virginia 8 to 30 Wisconsin 24 to 48 Wyoming 36 TABLE 3 NUMBER OF 3R PROJECTS AND LANE MILEAGE PER YEAR State Average Number 3R Projects Each Year Average Lane-Miles Treated Each Year Average Lane-Miles per Project Michigan 600 7,000 12 Georgia 550 1,300 2 Alabama 500 4,800 10 Wisconsin 400 1,500 4 Missouri 250 6,000 24 Maryland 200 1,000 5 Texas 200 5,000 25 Louisiana 165 1,450 9 Florida 150 2,000 13 South Dakota 130 no response N/A Minnesota 88 521 6 Idaho 80 160 2 Indiana 75 200 3 Nebraska 70 1,240 18 Utah 48 no response N/A Iowa 35 400 11 Pennsylvania 35 150 4 New York 12 210 18 Oregon 12 400 33 New Mexico 10 100 10 Wyoming 10 40 4 Illinois 9 25 3 Arkansas 7 7 1 Kentucky 5 100 20 North Dakota 5 50 10 New Hampshire 4 75 19 Ohio 3 30 10 Puerto Rico 3 40 13 Rhode Island 3 5 2 Kansas 2 8 4 Vermont 2 5 3 N/A = not available. What Is the Average Duration to Progress a 3R Project from Conception to Start of Construction? The purpose of this question was to establish how much time it typically takes to implement a 3R project once it is planned. Many states did not provide an answer, presumably because they did not have that information readily available.

14 the pavement. For example, Mississippi’s design manual states that “3R projects are often programmed because of a significant deterioration of the pavement structure. The extent of the deterioration will influence the decision on whether a project should be designed using the 3R design criteria or whether it should be designed using reconstruc- tion criteria.” Illinois has a nearly identical statement, but goes on to state, Whenever the proposed pavement improvement is major, it may be practical to include significant geometric improvements (e.g., lane and shoulder widening) in the project design. However, the proper level of geometric improvements is often determined by many additional factors other than the extent of pavement improvement. These include available right of way, environmental studies, traffic volumes, crash experience, and available funds for the project. Therefore it may be appropriate for the 3R project to include, for example, full-depth pavement reconstruction and minimal geometric improvement if supported by safety studies and the operational objectives of the 3R program. Only three states responded that safety issues initially determine the need for a 3R project. Of the 15 that said “other,” 7 states responded that the need for a 3R project was based on both the condition of the pavement and safety needs. Some “other” factors included small bridge or culvert condition, political pressure, and community requests. Some states provide guidelines to determine if a project is to be a 3R project. Ohio provides a flow chart (see Figure 1) to determine if a project is to qualify as 3R. FIGURE 1 Flow chart to determine use of 3R values (Ohio). Given that a typical 3R project is usually limited in scope, it could be expected that the time to initiation of construction would be relatively short. However, the results do not bear out this hypothesis. Table 4 shows that answers varied widely, from as short as 2 months (Utah) to as long as 60 months (Vermont); the more typical range was 12 to 24 months. This wide variation is likely the result of the scope of the 3R project (e.g., simple resurfacing versus a more complex project involving several upgrades to geometric and road- side features). It also could reflect the need for environmental reviews or public vetting. This was confirmed by at least one state, Nebraska. A follow-up call revealed that National Envi- ronmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation, which can be required even for resurfacing projects, can extend the time by as much as 12 months. One responder stated that there is a need to streamline the implementation of 3R projects. New York State DOT (NYSDOT) provided an explana- tion of its timeframe, which may be similar to those of other states. The NYSDOT resurfacing program involves differ- ent categories designated as 1R, 2R, and 3R, based on the pavement and nonpavement scope. Development periods vary. The 1R projects involve routine maintenance activi- ties and can be delivered in as little as 4 months. The 2R projects, which involve more extensive pavement work (e.g., multiple layer overlay) and other potential improvements (e.g., cross-section improvements), can often be delivered in 12 months. The 3R projects often entail substantial pave- ment improvements, including sections of reconstruction, and geometric improvements. The development process may be complicated (e.g., substantial ROW, public involve- ment) and generally requires 2 to 3 years to complete. For several other agencies, the resurfacing program is devel- oped from project identification through construction in 12 months or less. How Are Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation Projects Initially Determined? The states were asked to indicate how a 3R project is initially determined and were given three options: (1) condition of the pavement, (2) safety problem, (3) other and to explain. The results are shown in Table 5 (see Appendix D, Table D3 for the responses by state). TABLE 5 HOW 3R PROJECTS ARE DETERMINED How Determined No. of Responses Pavement Condition 28 Safety Analysis 3 Other 15 As shown by the table, a majority of the states responded that a 3R project is initially determined by the condition of

15 or soon after, construction. During project scoping, one or more licensed professional experts from Traffic, Design, and Maintenance, and any other experts as deemed appropriate, form a safety assessment team. This team is required to— • Perform a simple analysis of site-related computerized accident data. • Examine the sites selected. • Make recommendations for low-cost safety work based on the safety assessment and the selected pave- ment treatment. • Complete the Resurfacing Safety Assessment Form (shown in Appendix D) that summarizes the safety related items that need to be documented. This encour- ages the consideration of low-cost safety and other operational improvements. Colorado’s policy is that the Headquarters Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch must perform a safety evalua- tion for all 3R projects. The safety evaluation is to consider all 13 geometric design criteria for the entire project and complete design exception variance requests as needed. Figure 2 shows Colorado’s process for addressing safety requirements on 3R projects. Does the State Perform Safety Analysis or Risk Assessment to Develop Project Scope for 3R Projects? The purpose of this question was to ascertain to what extent states conduct a safety analysis in developing a 3R project. Thirty-five states replied “yes” and 11 replied “no” (see Table D4 in Appendix D). Those who responded “yes” were asked to explain the type of analyses performed. The following are some of the common responses: • Review of crash data, • Benefit/cost analysis, • Road safety audits, • Roadside safety review, and • Safety screening. New York is one state that routinely conducts a safety analysis as part of determining the scope of a 3R project. NYSDOT’s Safety Appurtenance Program (SAFETAP) ensures that safety considerations are incorporated into the department’s maintenance paving projects. SAFETAP requires a project review of paving sites by a team of quali- fied department staff for the purpose of deciding the low- cost safety work to be implemented before, at the time of, FIGURE 2 Process for addressing safety requirements on 3R projects in Colorado.

16 TABLE 6 LIST OF SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS FOR 3R PROJECTS BY NUMBER OF RESPONSES Safety Improvement No. of Responses Barrier/Guardrail 30 Shoulder Addition/Widening 15 Clear Zone Obstacle Removal/Shielding 12 Intersection Improvements 12 Signs 11 Superelevation Correction 11 Rumble Strips 10 Pavement Rehabilitation 10 Pavement Markings and Delineation 9 Lane Width Widening 9 Horizontal Alignment 8 Slope Flattening 7 Cross Slope Corrections 7 Sight Distance 6 Drainage 6 Pavement Edge Drop Off 5 Bridge Barriers 5 Culvert Extensions 2 ADA Curb Ramps 2 Structures 2 Pedestrian and Bike Accommodations 2 Improvements to the clear zone and intersections were tied as the third-most-listed improvements. The types of clear zone improvements mentioned were removing or shielding road- side obstacles and removing trees. Intersection improvements mentioned included signal upgrades, curb radius increase, and additional turn lanes. Other safety improvements men- tioned by 10 or more states include the following: • Signs, which could be due to loss of retroreflectiv- ity, damage to the sign or post, or not being needed or in compliance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). • Superelevation correction, which would apply to curved sections and is sometimes needed with resurfacing. • Rumble strips, a treatment for centerlines (on two-lane roads) and/or shoulders that is now being used by more states owing to its effectiveness in reducing crashes. • Pavement rehabilitation. Because most 3R projects include pavement resurfacing, this designation may indicate a pavement improvement project more sub- stantial than just resurfacing. In West Virginia’s non-freeway NHS 3R policy, safety enhancement is considered essential. Several years of acci- dent data must be analyzed for each selected 3R project route segment. The designer is to coordinate with the district traffic engineer to determine if the project includes locations with known safety issues, based on the Division of High- way’s tracking system prioritized safety improvements list. The 3R policy directs the designer to the NHCRP Report 500 series and the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan (as of the preparation of its 3R policy, West Virginia had not yet prepared its own Strategic Highway Safety Plan). West Virginia makes the connection of the 3R projects with safety improvements. The policy also recommends the use of IHSDM and Road Safety Audits in determining safety improvements. South Dakota was the only state that acknowledged the recently released Highway Safety Manual (12) by responding “Highway Safety Manual analysis on sec- tion for crash prediction.” Appendix F provides more information on the use of Highway Safety Manual in determining safety improvements. No states indicated using the SafetyAnalyst software package, which is designed to help guide the decision-making process to identify safety improvement needs and develop a system- wide program of site-specific improvement projects. (More information is available at www.safetyanalyst.org/.) Safety Improvements Included in 3R Projects The states were asked to list the five most frequent safety improvements included in a 3R project. Table 6 shows the results of this question (see Appendix D, Table D5 for all responses). The table lists from highest to lowest the num- ber of times an improvement was listed. Only those with at least two responses are included. Improvements made to barriers or guardrails were the most frequently listed, more than double that of the next highest improvement. Adding or improving bridge barriers and rails was listed five times, and this number could be added to the overall number for bar- riers. Barriers are cost-effective safety devices that do not require working beyond the ROW, and therefore are often included in a 3R project. The second most frequently mentioned improvement was shoulder improvement, with 15 responses. This improve- ment includes adding, widening, and/or paving the shoul- der. Although not confirmed with the responding states, it is likely that these improvements were made within the ROW. Improving the shoulder was more frequently mentioned than widening the lane width.

17 • Nineteen states listed design speed as the most impor- tant, or at least within the top three criteria. They noted that an accurate selection of design speed is essential to determining the best values for the other design elements. • Some states replied that the highest ranking criteria are most directly related to the safety of the roadway. Some feel that the greatest safety improvements are achieved by providing adequate lane and shoulder widths. Whether the lane or shoulder width is more critical depends on the existing widths, traffic volumes, and congestion issues, as well as an assessment of accident characteristics. • Some states mentioned that they based their ranking on what changes were more common to 3R projects, not necessarily the most important ones. For example, to be considered a 3R project, the work typically remains within the existing crown and cannot require addi- tional ROW. The top four selected criteria can typically be adjusted within the existing crown and may improve safety by making small adjustments. If alignments, grades, and bridges are to be modified, the project typically requires ROW and utility adjustments, and therefore would fall under the reconstruction category and would not be eligible for the 3R program. We consider the main purpose of the 3R program to be pavement maintenance. The existing structural capacity of the pavement affects the repair strategies, including the type of repair done and the thickness of the overlay. These ele- ments are not considered more important than the others, but they are elements that typically can be addressed as part of a 3R project. Other items further down the list are impor- TABLE 7 RANKING OF CONTROLLING DESIGN ELEMENTS Design Criteria Number of Times Ranked From 1 to 13 Average Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Lane Width 9 11 4 9 6 1 1 4 2 0 0 1 0 3.8 Shoulder Width 3 8 8 7 8 5 3 0 2 3 0 0 1 4.6 Design Speed 19 5 0 4 2 5 3 1 1 1 1 2 4 4.6 Stopping Sight Distance 4 4 9 1 4 5 7 5 4 1 2 0 2 5.8 Horizontal Alignment 2 4 7 2 4 3 6 7 4 3 5 0 1 6.4 Structural Capacity 7 5 2 1 3 6 3 2 3 1 3 7 5 7.0 Superelevation 1 1 3 7 3 6 4 6 5 2 3 3 2 7.1 Bridge Width 0 1 3 4 8 4 4 4 6 5 6 3 0 7.4 Vertical Alignment 0 1 4 5 0 6 4 8 6 5 4 4 1 7.7 Cross Slopes 1 3 3 2 3 4 4 4 2 8 7 2 5 8.1 Horizontal Clearance 1 0 3 2 5 1 2 2 4 4 5 13 6 9.3 Vertical Clearance 1 3 2 3 2 1 3 1 2 4 7 4 15 9.3 Grades 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 4 7 11 5 9 6 9.9 The FHWA report Good Practices: Incorporating Safety into Resurfacing and Restoration Projects (13) is a good resource for how states can include low-cost safety improve- ments in their 3R projects. The types of improvements were identified through a scan tour conducted in Colorado, Iowa, New York, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Washington. During the scan, numerous good practices were observed; they are classified as either institutional or technical good prac- tices. Appendix G provides some key excerpts from that report, which can be accessed at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ roadway_dept/strat_approach/fhwasa07001/. Ranking the Importance of Design Criteria for 3R Projects The states were asked to rank the 13 controlling design cri- teria from 1 (most) to 13 (least) important for a 3R project. Appendix D, Table D6 provides the responses from each state. The summary results are presented in Table 7, which shows how many times each design criterion was ranked from 1 to 13 and then the average ranking. Design criteria are listed from most important to least important. Based on the average ranking, the three most important were lane width, shoulder width, and design speed, in that order. The three least important were horizontal clearance, vertical clearance, and grades. The three design criteria that were most frequently ranked as the most important were design speed, lane width, and structural capacity. The states were asked to explain why they considered the three highest ranking design criteria more important than the other ten criteria. The state responses are provided in Appendix D, Table D7, but some are highlighted here.

18 TABLE 8 OTHER DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR 3R PROJECTS Other Design Elements No. of Responses Clear Zone 9 Intersection Sight Distance 6 Intersection Elements 5 Pavement Condition 5 ADA 4 Guardrail/Barrier Upgrades 4 Traffic Volume 4 Pedestrian Access 4 Drainage 4 Side Slopes 4 Crashworthy Roadside Features 3 Environmental Impacts 2 Bicycle Access 2 Pavement Edge Drop-Off 2 Of the 37 states that provided answers to the three questions, • Thirty-four responded that consideration is given to pedestrians, • Thirty-three responded that consideration is given to bicyclists, and • All 37 consider ADA requirements as part of their 3R projects. For pedestrians, the frequent descriptions were providing sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. For bicycle accommodations, several states mentioned widening lanes or more often widening shoulders to accommodate a bike lane or path. However, this type of improvement is dependent upon a designated bike route and/or significant bike demand, and at least two states noted that 3R projects rarely warrant significant upgrades for bicyclists. For ADA requirements, nearly all states mentioned the need to install curb ramps and other design changes to accommodate pedestrians with disabilities at intersection crossings. Most Unanswered Issue Regarding 3R Projects The last question on the survey solicited information on potentially unanswered issues for 3R projects. The intent was to have the states identify gaps in the guidance for effectively implementing their 3R programs. The complete responses are found in Appendix D, Table D10. Listed here are comments condensed into phrases and grouped into sev- eral themes that reflect the range of responses received. tant but are less likely to be brought to standard through a maintenance-type project. A few states did not rank the criteria, and a few com- mented why they did not: • A ranking of the items above was not performed. The engineer needs to weigh these items on a project spe- cific basis. • I do not necessarily consider them more impor- tant. Importance of design criteria should be project specific. • This ranking is difficult, because all criteria need to be taken into consideration. • It should be noted that the most important design fea- ture should be assessed on a project-by-project basis, based on the unique problems that have been experi- enced at specific locations. Other Design Elements That Should Be Considered for 3R Projects States were asked if additional design elements should be considered for 3R projects beyond the 13 controlling design criteria. The full list of suggested elements from the states that responded to this question is found in Appendix D, Table D7. Collectively, 27 design elements and other features were suggested. Table 8 shows elements or features that were mentioned by at least two states. The design element that was mentioned the most (nine responses) was clear zones. Adding the responses involving roadside safety features that relate to clear zones—guardrail upgrades (seven responses), side slopes (four responses), and crashworthy roadside fea- tures (three responses)—would increase that number to 26. The second highest design element was intersection sight distance, mentioned by six states. Given that stopping sight distance is one of the 13 design criteria, presumably the respondents were referring to the corner sight triangle dis- tances need for turning left or right or crossing the intersec- tion. Adding the five states that mentioned other intersection design elements (five responses) would increase intersec- tions design criteria to 11 responses. State 3R Policies for Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and ADA Requirements One of the specific objectives of this synthesis was to ascer- tain how states are considering pedestrians, bicyclists, and the needs of the disabled users in their 3R policies. Three separate questions were asked for this purpose. The com- plete responses to these questions are in Appendix D, Table D8, for pedestrians and bicyclists and Table D9 for ADA requirements.

19 Specific Design Issues • What do states do when resurfacing a roadway that was originally built with recoverable slopes in which the resurfacing results in a significant grade rise: nar- row the shoulders, regrade the foreslopes, tie in steeper slopes as quickly as possible? • A 3R project should not degrade the existing road design. However, resurfacing will sometimes raise the road profile. This can result in negative effects on the cross section design: narrowing the shoulder, steepen- ing the shoulder cross-slope, steepening the sideslope, degrading the clear zone. How much degradation is acceptable; how should the trade-offs be determined; when should it not be allowed? • At what values are the lack of design superelevation most critical and when is it really cost-effective to reconstruct to correct superelevation? Pedestrian, Bicycle, and ADA Requirements • When are projects exempt from improving bicycle and pedestrian accommodations? • To what extent beyond signalized pedestrian cross- ings should such facilities be upgraded for ADA compliance? • Accommodations for pedestrians, ADA, and bicyclists are encouraged; however, funding is never adequate. Funding is a huge issue for the three elements that if not incorporated into a project, the project’s 3R aspect is dead. Funding • Projects are becoming more expensive because of fed- eral and state requirements. • It would be nice to have greater flexibility with using the federal funding that we get. We struggle with get- ting the most bang for our buck in regard to the pave- ment condition while balancing the other needs of the system, such as safety, ADA, other improvements. General 3R Policy Issues • The appropriate degree of improvement and the pitfalls of inaction. • The constraints of accomplishing as much as possible within the ROW footprint. • Level of safety required in system (pavement) preser- vation projects. • Prioritizing upgrades to address geometric deficiencies when all cannot be met. • The extent to which 3R projects, developed to enhance safety, have actually done so and the level of cost-ef- fectiveness reached in that effort in these projects. • The design criteria are very complicated. Is there a simpler list of criteria that will maximize safety and minimize cost? • Lack of a national standard to determine the mini- mum design criteria that can be applied to a 3R proj- ect. Many times, engineers are reluctant to go below the minimum standards without definitive guidance to support the deviation. Development of national 3R design standards would provide a baseline from which an engineer could make a judgment call. • Better examples of what types of projects do not qualify for 3R standards based on the language in TRB SR 214. • Where is the line between new construction and 3R? Should a PCC (portland cement concrete) overlay of 8 in. get different criteria than a new pavement that is not much thicker? Many of our roadways will never be recon- structed because they are low volume and overlays are sufficient. Do we ever need to consider major upgrades on the geometrics and cross section? Currently we focus on safety upgrades that don’t require substantial ROW. • At what level does a restoration become an improve- ment/betterment and someone has to answer why the roadway was not reconstructed to full standards. At what point is the only reason a project was not brought to full standards because simply not enough money was budgeted for the project? • Too much time is spent on NEPA for 3R projects. Can it be streamlined?