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.

55 Table D1 continued on p. 56 APPENDIX D Survey Responses by State Transportation Agencies TABLE D1 STATUS OF STATES’ 3R POLICIES (QUESTIONS 1, 1a, 1b, and 2) State Do you have published design standards/guidelines for 3R projects? What year was your 3R policy reviewed and approved by FHWA? If you answered no, do you have standards or procedures for projects similar to 3R? If so, please explain. AK Yes 2004 AL No Not approved by FHWA We do have a design guide for preventive maintenance and 3R of streets and highways. Our definition of 3R is the work undertaken to extend the service life of an existing highway. This will mainly involve the placement of additional surface materials and other work necessary to return an existing roadway to a condition of structural and functional adequacy. In addition to resurfacing, 3R projects may include pavement structure repair, minor lane and shoulder widening, adding turn lanes, shoulder pavement, upgrading horizontal and vertical alignment, intersection improvements, removing or shielding roadside obstacles, modification of side slopes/ditches, drainage improvements, and signals. AR Yes 1989 AZ Yes Not approved by FHWA CA Yes 2007 CO Yes 2006 CT Yes 1984 DE No Not approved by FHWA FL Yes 1977 GA Yes 2005 HI Yes 1984 IA Yes 1994 ID Yes 2010 IL Yes 1986 IN Yes 1994 KS Yes 1990 KY Yes 1993 LA Yes 2009 MA Yes 2010 We have our Project Development and Design Guide that addresses context sensitivity/complete streets and more flexible design standards. We also have an Engineering Directive E-09-005 that addresses Design Exceptions on 3R NHS projects.

56 Table D1 continued on p. 57 Table D1 continued from p. 55 State Do you have published design standards/guidelines for 3R projects? What year was your 3R policy reviewed and approved by FHWA? If you answered no, do you have standards or procedures for projects similar to 3R? If so, please explain. MD No Not approved by FHWA There are 4 offices that primarily deal with 3R projects. The Office of Highway Development, The Office of Structures, The Office of Materials and Technology, and the 7 District Offices throughout the State of MD. Each office works on projects related to 3R, but none of them have the specific responsibility for all 3R projects. The Office of Materials and Technology deals with the pavement conditions of the highways in the state. They will perform pavement analysis of existing conditions and make recommendations to various design offices responsible to complete the rehabilitation or resurfacing work. The Office of Structures deals with the rehabilitation and resurfacing of existing structures. The Office of Highway Development and the District Offices are responsible to incorporate 3R principals into the projects that are designed or managed in their offices. Each office has guidelines and or procedures for their projects as it relates to design standards and practices, and project management processes. The SHA uses the 2001 AASHTO Green Book as its primary geometric design guideline. ME Yes 1991 MI Yes 1998 MN Yes 2007 MO Yes 2006 MS Yes 2001 MT Yes 2000 NC Yes 1983 ND Yes 2010 NE Yes Not approved by FHWA NH No Not approved by FHWA We use our Highway Design Manual, AASHTO Greenbook and Roadside Design Guide NJ No Not approved by FHWA Prior to 1996, the NJDOT did have 3R standards. At this time, we have do not. Projects are differentiated as Resurfacing, Rehabilitation, Reconstruction, etc. NM No NMDOT does not have a stand-alone manual or standard. We have implemented some design directives that offer guidance and direction on certain design policy issues. NV Yes 2003 NY Yes 2009 OH Yes 1992 OK Yes 1992 OR Yes 1988 PA Yes 2009 PR No Not approved by FHWA We do have specifications to perform several pavements rehabilitation and reconstruction, but we do not have Design Standard or Guidelines for 3R projects.

57 Table D1 continued from p.56 State Do you have published design standards/guidelines for 3R projects? What year was your 3R policy reviewed and approved by FHWA? If you answered no, do you have standards or procedures for projects similar to 3R? If so, please explain. RI No Not approved by FHWA We have constructability reviews at every stage of design to go over problems and materials. SC Yes 2003 SD Yes 1998 TX Yes 2009 during last update UT Yes 2008 VA Yes 1989 VT Yes 2006 WA No WSDOT has separate programs and design guidelines for Improvement and Preservation projects. Within our preservation projects, we do have guidance that allows for spot safety improvements. WI Yes 1989 WY Yes 2008

58 Table D2 continued on p. 59 TABLE D2 HOW 3R POLICIES DIFFER FOR NHS VS. NON-NHS AND FEDERAL VS NON- FEDERAL AID (RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS 3 AND 4) State 3R policies same for National Highway Systems (NHS) projects and for non-NHS projects? If “No,” Please explain 3R policies non-NHS projects the same for both federal-aid and state-aid projects? If “No,” please explain AK No Yes AL Yes Yes AR Yes Yes AZ No We are not doing design exceptions for non-NHS 3R (pavement preservation) projects. Yes CA Yes Applies to all roads on the State Highway System. Yes Applies to all roads on the State Highway System. CO Yes Yes CT Yes Yes DE No Delaware does not have a formal 3R program. No Delaware does not have a formal 3R program. FL No No New section on railroad crossings upgrades in or near the project apply to federal-aid but not state- funded. GA No Table 1 in GDOT’s 3R guidelines defines the different design standards. Yes HI Yes Yes IA No Our 3R agreement is very old and there is quite a bit of confusion over how it is applied. We have been working on a new one for several years, but it is difficult to agree on criteria. Yes ID No See Design Manual sections A.10—3R IMPROVEMENT— NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM, section A.15— STATE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR NON-NHS, and A.20— REHABILITATION (1R) STANDARDS Yes IL Yes Yes IN Yes Yes KS Yes Yes KY No We sometime do things differently on non-NHS routes. No

59 Table D2 continued on p. 60 Table D2 continued from p. 58 State 3R policies same for National Highway Systems (NHS) projects and for non-NHS projects? If “No,” Please explain 3R policies non-NHS projects the same for both federal-aid and state-aid projects? If “No,” please explain LA No Our 3R only apply to non- Interstate NHS. Our state guidelines apply to all but Interstate. Our state guidelines do not refer to speed where the 3R guidelines do refer to posted speed based on requirements of FHWA. No 3R in our state only applies to NHS routes. But our state guidelines are the same for federal vs. state projects and also apply to NHS routes. (A state-funded NHS route would follow both the state guidelines and 3R guidelines.) MA No MassDOT Engineering Directive E-09-005 discusses this. Yes MD Yes Yes ME No Maine DOT has a set of “State Standards” for non- NHS highways Yes MI No Yes MN No For Mn/DOT, 3R or preservation standards are the same BUT the criteria is different for NHS and non-NHS highways. 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 when the thickness of new pavement is more. Yes MO Yes Yes MS No No MT No Explained in guidelines. No Explained in guidelines. NC Yes Yes ND Yes Yes NE No Yes We use the same 3R guidelines for non-NHS projects regardless of funding source. NH Yes Yes NJ NM Yes Yes NV No Yes NY Yes Yes

60 Table D2 continued from p. 59 State 3R policies same for National Highway Systems (NHS) projects and for non-NHS projects? If “No,” Please explain 3R policies non-NHS projects the same for both federal-aid and state-aid projects? If “No,” please explain OH Yes ODOT also uses a Resurfacing Accident Analysis for non-NHS, non-freeway facilities. See Section 106 here: http://www.dot.state.oh.us /Divisions/ProdMgt/Road way/roadwaystandards/Lo cation%20and%20Design %20Manual/100- oct09.pdf Yes OK Yes Yes OR Yes Yes PA Yes Yes PR Yes We design pavement rehabilitation projects “independently” if it is on an NHS or non-NHS. No RI Yes We adhere to the Green Book, experience, technical experience. Yes SC Yes Yes SD No See follow-up e-mail. Yes TX Yes Yes UT Yes Yes VA Yes Yes VT No Examples included in the document are separate categories for vertical curves/lane widths. Yes WA No We do not use the 3R approach. WSDOT has separate design levels for NHS and non-NHS routes. Yes WI No WisDOT has adopted Programmatic Exception to Standards process, which allows substandard geometric features to stay in place based on the results of a safety screening analysis. This can’t be applied to certain features on NHS routes. Yes WY Yes Yes

61 Table D3 continued on p. 62 TABLE D3 HOW 3R PROJECTS ARE INITIALLY DETERMINED (RESPONSES TO QUESTION 8) State How are 3R projects initially determined? If “Other,” please explain AK Other Generally, it is a combination of pavement condition and safety analysis. AL Condition of pavement AR Safety analysis identifying as a problem location We also use 3R Guidelines as the design criteria for our Passing Lane projects. AZ Condition of pavement CA Condition of pavement CO Safety analysis identifying as a problem location CT Other We don’t have a formal 3R program. Projects are initiated to address a specific need. Once the scope of the project is established, it is determined whether the 3R guidelines would be applicable. FL Condition of pavement HI Condition of pavement IA Condition of pavement ID Condition of pavement IL Condition of pavement IN Other See Indiana Design Manual, Sections 55-1.0 and 55-2.0 KS Other Other includes pavement condition as well as structure (usually small bridge or culvert) condition. KY Condition of pavement LA Other Pavement conditions, PMS recommendations, public input, funding, and maintenance costs all play an important part in the districts’ selection of projects. MA Condition of pavement MD Other The initial determination can be made by safety analysis or condition of pavement. It depends on the type of project that you are considering. ME Condition of pavement MI Condition of pavement MN Condition of pavement MO Condition of pavement MS Other Both safety and condition of pavement are considered when identifying 3R projects. MT Condition of pavement NC Condition of pavement ND Other Condition of pavement, need for widening. NE Condition of pavement NH Condition of pavement NJ NM Condition of pavement

62 Table D3 continued from p. 61 State How are 3R projects initially determined? If “Other,” please explain NV Other Our 3R program is based on a pavement life cycle: Interstate and Freeways—8-year cycle, NHS or ADT > 10,000—10-year cycle, 1,600 < ADT < 10,000—12 years, 500 < ADT < 1600—15 years. Additional roadway segments are added to the initial list using data provided by the Pavement Management System (PMS). The PMS data allow us to capture roads not living up to the expected life cycle for the type of roadway. The initial list of roadway segments is then field reviewed to determine the need and type of strategy. The projects are then prioritized by type, volume, and condition. NY Condition of pavement OH Condition of pavement OK Condition of pavement OR Condition of pavement PA Condition of pavement PR Other Condition of pavement and political pressure (majors, public). RI Other Communities request highways to be placed on the transportation improvement program for selection. SC Safety analysis identifying as a problem location SD Condition of pavement TX Other Both pavement and safety. UT Condition of pavement

63 Table D4 continued on p. 64 TABLE D4 SAFETY ANALYSIS IN PREPARATION OF DEVELOPING PROJECT SCOPE FOR 3R PROJECTS (RESPONSE TO QUESTION 12) State Do you perform safety analyses/risk assessment (e.g., road safety audits, benefit/cost analysis) in preparation of developing project scope and design for 3R projects? If “Yes,” please explain type of analyses. AK Yes 1. Actual vs. predicted accident rates using TRB 214 formulas and methods; 2. B/C analysis to see if an improvement is cost-effective; 3. Accident analysis to identify accident clusters and then see if clusters are related to a specific geometry or intersection issue. 4. Speed studies to determine the 85th percentile driver speeds. AL Yes Reviews and analyses of the existing geometric and physical conditions, crash history, and field survey are performed. For 2- to 4-lane conversions, an evaluation of existing and new lane alignment or any other improvements that will affect rights-of-way are accounted for. AR No AZ No CA Yes A “Safety Screening” as defined in policy document DIB 79-03 CO Yes Please refer to sections 7.10, 7.10.2, and 7.10.4.3 of CDot’s 3R guidelines. CT No FL Yes Roadside safety audits and often B/C analysis. GA Yes HI Yes A traffic accident analysis is prepared to determine if the project limits contain an area of concern. IA Yes A certain amount of our 3R budget is devoted to safety projects that get a full safety analysis. All other projects get some analysis depending on the project. ID Yes Accident history is looked at to see if clusters can be associated with roadway features. IL Yes A safety analysis is performed on each 3R project. IN Yes Analysis process may include any of the above. See IDM Section 55-2.0 for additional considerations. KS No KY No LA Yes Just beginning to perform Road Safety Audits if crash history exists. MA Yes RSAs. MD No Roadside Safety Audits, Safety Analysis and Cost/Benefit Analysis are performed to help develop scope of a project. However, traditional system preservation projects (areawide resurfacing projects) do not go through such analysis. ME Yes We systematically look at out network and do risk assessment on these projects to review whether or not our scope is correct. This has gotten more difficult in recent years due to less funding, more needs, and our falling behind in capital improvement projects. MI Yes Safety analysis of crash types as related to geometric element in question and operational analysis. Risk assessments are not undertaken.

64 Table D4 continued from p. 63 Table D4 continued on p. 65 State Do you perform safety analyses/risk assessment (e.g., road safety audits, benefit/cost analysis) in preparation of developing project scope and design for 3R projects? If “Yes,” please explain type of analyses. MN No Project development goes through Project Safety Review. It is a process used to determine potential safety improvements for a given section of roadway. It is usually done during scoping phase and it strives to come up with a list of safety improvements and their relative safety effectiveness. MO Yes Missouri has a fledgling RSA process and not all 3R projects are analyzed today. A great deal of analysis goes into the design of roadside safety because of the severity of roadway departure crashes and because upgrades are cost-effective within the 3R environment. MS Yes MT Yes Accident analysis includes a reporting of the number, rate, and severity of crashes in the project corridor, along with an analysis of the trends and crash clusters. Recommendations are given in the analysis as well. We also look at guardrails and discuss other safety issues with Maintenance representatives (snow drifting areas, roadkill/animal–vehicle collisions, etc.). NC No ND Yes Use RSAP for cost-benefit analysis. NE Yes We review the crash history for possible corrective measures to mitigate crashes during the scope phase. We use RSAP as a benefit/cost analysis at spot locations during the design phase. NH No NM Yes Evaluation of crash data and prioritizing facilities based on highest usage and need. NV Yes Department conducts road safety audits on all 3R projects on the Interstate. If time and resources permit, other 3R projects also have road safety audits. In addition to the road safety audits, the Department does a roadside safety review focusing on clear zone issues and standards compliance. NY Yes Road Safety Assessments (i.e., audits) are performed. B/C analyses are performed for proposed safety enhancements/counter measures. OH Yes Safety analysis to determine crash hot spots. OK Yes An accident analysis by type and location is correlated with existing geometric features and physical constraints. This is used to determine where specific safety improvements are needed. OR Yes Usually do a b/c analysis to justify not meeting a design standard on a 3R project. PA Yes All projects are reviewed by our District (Regional) Office Safety Review Committees. PR Yes We evaluate accident reports and perform construction cost analysis for several rehabilitation alternatives. In addition, we consider traffic impact. RI Yes We look at guardrails, mail boxes, sight distances, sidewalk conditions, accidents reports, and encroachments. SC No SD Yes Highway Safety Manual analysis on section for crash prediction. Benefit/cost analysis conducted as needed to help determine what work types should be done with current 3R project, deferred to later date, or not done at all. TX Yes Benefit/cost, safety indices.

65 Table D4 continued from p. 64 State Do you perform safety analyses/risk assessment (e.g., road safety audits, benefit/cost analysis) in preparation of developing project scope and design for 3R projects? If “Yes,” please explain type of analyses. UT Yes One purpose of a 3R improvement is to correct an existing or potential safety problem. Weigh the cost of any improvements against potential accident reduction. In a number of circumstances it is necessary to provide a safety benefit-cost analysis of the potential improvements including but not be limited to the following: 1. Skid resistance, 2. Pavement edge drop-off, 3. Drainage, 4. Bicycle access, 5. Rumble strips, 6. Delineation, 7.Channelization, 8. Approach grade, 9. Alignment, 10. Bridge rail improvements (new bridge rail or bridge retrofit). VA Yes All projects utilizing 3R standards are reviewed to validate that the impacts of areas with high accidents, traffic speed is compatible with design speed, and the geometrics of the proposed design will help to increase safety. VT Yes Not a formal RSA or cost analysis, rather cost estimation, review of crash data and, when necessary, more in-depth review of alternative and/or safety issues. WA No WSDOT is currently piloting the use of RSAs on developing the scope of safety improvement projects. WI Yes Safety Screening Analysis [described in WisDOT’s Facilities Development Manual (FDM) Procedure 11-1-4]. WY No

66 Ta bl e D 5 co nt in ue d on p . 6 7 T A B L E D 5 FI V E M O ST F R E Q U E N T S A FE T Y I M PR O V E M E N T S IN C L U D E D I N 3 R P R O JE C T S (R E SP O N SE S T O Q U E ST IO N 1 4) T he F iv e M os t F re qu en t Sa fe ty I m pr ov em en ts I nc lu de d in a 3 R P ro je ct St at e #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 A K U pg ra de o f gu ar dr ai l e nd tr ea tm en ts L an e ed ge a nd c en te rl in e ru m bl e st ri ps O bs ta cl e/ ha za rd s hi el di ng o r re m ov al H or iz on ta l c ur ve fl at te ni ng R oa dw ay e dg e de li ne at io n A L R oa dw ay w id en in g C ro ss s lo pe S up er el ev at io n S co ri ng p av ed s ho ul de rs G ua rd ra il A R L an e w id th s S ho ul de r w id th s S up er el ev at io n C le ar z on es H or iz on ta l a nd v er ti ca l g eo m et ry A Z G ua rd ra il u pg ra de s C ul ve rt e xt en si on s S tr ip in g an d de li ne at io n S lo pe f la tt en in g B ri dg e ra il u pg ra de s C A S ho ul de r w id en in g S up er el ev at io n co rr ec ti on C ur ve r ad iu s im pr ov em en t S ig ht d is ta nc e im pr ov em en t C le ar r ec ov er y zo ne im pr ov em en t C O A D A c ur b ra m ps a nd si de w al ks P ed es tr ia n cr os si ng C li m bi ng la ne s P av em en t r es ur fa ci ng S ig na li ze d in te rs ec ti on C T G ui de ra il u pg ra de s A li gn m en t m od if ic at io ns D ra in ag e im pr ov em en ts In te rs ec ti on d es ig n P ed es tr ia n ac ce ss ib il it y F L A dd in g 5 ft -w id e pa ve d sh ou ld er s R em ov in g ob je ct s fr om th e cl ea r zo ne R e- es ta bl is hi ng d es ig n su pe re le va ti on R e- es ta bl is hi ng d es ig n cr os s sl op e U pg ra di ng b ar ri er s an d ra il s G A S up er el ev at io n C ro ss s lo pe G ua rd ra il u pg ra de s Im pr ov ed s ig na ge B ar ri er w al ls H I N ew s ig ns R um bl e st ri ps C ul ve rt e xt en si on s G ua rd ra il e nd tr ea tm en ts B ri dg e ra il in gs IA P av in g of s om e w id th o f th e sh ou ld er M il le d ru m bl e st ri ps G ua rd ra il u pd at es , r ep la ci ng in st al la ti on s w it h ne w m at er ia ls , ad di ng g ua rd ra il a s ne ed ed T ur n la ne s F la tt en in g en tr an ce s lo pe s an d fo re sl op es ID R um bl e st ri ps S af et y ed ge /s lo pe sh oe /s lo pe d pa ve m en t e dg e A dd re ss in g su bs ta nd ar d gu ar dr ai l is su es A dd re ss in g ro ad si de si gn in g S ur fa ce r es to ra ti on IL D el in ea ti on , s uc h as st ri pi ng , s ig ni ng , a nd gu ar dr ai l T ra ff ic c on tr ol im pr ov em en ts In te rs ec ti on r ad iu s im pr ov em en ts A ux il ia ry la ne a dd it io ns S id e ro ad a nd e nt ra nc e im pr ov em en ts IN L an e w id th s— W id en if ne ed ed a nd p os si bl e S ho ul de r w id th s— In cr ea se w id th a nd im pr ov e su rf ac e S up er el ev at io n— Im pr ov e ra te s (h ig he r or lo w er ) P av em en t s ur fa ce — Im pr ov e or r ep ai r In te rs ec ti on I m pr ov em en ts — A dd au xi li ar y la ne s, e tc . K S E dg e dr op -o ff S ho ul de r w id th F or es lo pe s D es ig n sp ee d G ua rd ra il K Y U pg ra de g ua rd ra il e nd T re at m en ts U pg ra de g ua rd ra il A dd g ua rd ra il to b ri dg es if po ss ib le S af et y he ad w al ls /f la tt en sl op es B ri dg e ba rr ie rs L A S tr ip in g, r ep la ci ng de fi ci en t s ig ns , a dd in g sh ou ld er m at er ia l L an e w id en in g C ro ss s lo pe c or re ct io ns S ho ul de r w ed ge R um bl e st ri ps M A Im pr ov e pa ve m en t co nd it io n Im pr ov e in te rs ec ti on ge om et ry G ua rd ra il u pg ra de s S ho ul de r w id en in g W he el ch ai r ra m ps

67 Ta bl e D 5 co nt in ue d fr om p . 6 6 Ta bl e D 5 co nt in ue d on p . 6 8 T he F iv e M os t F re qu en t Sa fe ty I m pr ov em en ts I nc lu de d in a 3 R P ro je ct St at e #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 M D P av em en t/ sk id a na ly si s D ra in ag e S ig ht d is ta nc e G ua rd ra il /r um bl e st ri ps P ed es tr ia n/ bi ke a cc om m od at io ns M E D es ig n sp ee d G eo m et ri cs S ig ht d is ta nc e R es to ri ng c ro ss s lo pe P ro pe r su pe re le va ti on M I In te rs ec ti on im pr ov em en ts L an e w id th w it h cr us h an d sh ap e w or k S up er el ev at io n/ cr os s sl op e P av ed s ho ul de r w id th R oa ds id e sa fe ty M N S ho ul de r ru m bl e st ri ps R oa ds id e ha rd w ar e up da te (e .g ., up da ti ng tw is te d- en d gu ar dr ai ls ) S ig ni ng a nd d el in ea ti on ( e. g. , ch ev ro ns ) P av em en t e dg e dr op -o ff co rr ec ti on ( e. g. , a gg re ga te sh ou ld er in g) S ho ul de r pa vi ng M O U pg ra de s of e nd te rm in al s C le ar z on e m ai nt en an ce P av em en t e dg e dr op -o ff co rr ec ti on P av em en t s ur fa ce co rr ec ti on P av em en t m ar ki ng u pg ra de s M S S ho ul de r w id en in g S id e sl op es G ua rd ra il C le ar in g tr ee s R es ur fa ci ng M T G ua rd ra il u pg ra de s S id e sl op e fl at te ni ng R um bl e st ri ps F en ci ng S ig ni ng u pg ra de s N C P av em en t e dg es P av ed s ho ul de rs S ho ul de r re co ns tr uc ti on N D G ua rd ra il P ip e ex te ns io ns S te ep s lo pe s S ig ns B re ak aw ay h ar dw ar e N E U pg ra di ng g ua rd ra il P ro vi di ng th e pr op er su pe re le va ti on N ew p av em en t m ar ki ng /d el in ea to rs /c he vr on s M il le d ru m bl e st ri ps S ur fa ce d tu rn ou ts f or m ai lb ox es N H S ig ht d is ta nc e C le ar z on e S ig ni ng G ua rd ra il im pr ov em en t P av em en t c on di ti on N M G ua rd ra il S ho ul de rs D ra in ag e L an e w id th A li gn m en t ( ho ri zo nt al a nd ve rt ic al ) N V S lo pe f la tt en in g G ua rd ra il a nd e nd tr ea tm en t up gr ad es to b ri ng u p to cu rr en t s ta nd ar ds in cl ud in g le ng th o f ne ed R ep la ce s ig ns to e ns ur e re fl ec ti vi ty M ed ia n ba rr ie r ra il P ip e ex te ns io ns a nd s af et y en d se ct io n in st al la ti on N Y C le ar z on e G ui de r ai l ( i.e ., gu ar dr ai l) S up er el ev at io n T ur n la ne s W id en s ho ul de r O H S ig ni ng S up er el ev at io n co rr ec ti on S ho ul de r w id th L an e w id th B ri dg e w id th O K L an e an d/ or s ho ul de r w id en in g. C or re ct io n of m in or v er ti ca l al ig nm en t p ro bl em s C or re ct io n of s up er el ev at io n E xt en si on o f dr ai na ge st ru ct ur es to c le ar z on e U pg ra de s af et y ap pu rt en an ce s O R L ef t- tu rn la ne a dd ed B ar ri er s ys te m a dd ed In te rs ec ti on im pr ov em en t S tr ip in g R um bl e st ri ps P A G ui de r ai l a nd e nd tr ea tm en ts P av em en t m ar ki ng s an d de li ne at io ns L an e w id th s S ho ul de r w id th s O bs tr uc ti on r em ov al P R G ua rd ra il - up gr ad e/ in st al la ti on P av em en t m ar ki ng s an d m ar ke rs E nd tr ea tm en ts L ig ht in g S ig ni ng R I S id ew al k im pr ov em en t T ra ff ic s ig na l i m pr ov em en t S tr ip in g S ig na ge P av em en t r eh ab il it at io n S C Im pr ov e ro ad si de s af et y by a dd in g gu ar dr ai l Im pr ov in g cl ea r zo ne Im pr ov in g ho ri zo nt al a li gn m en t Im pr ov in g si gh t d is ta nc es Im pr ov in g op er at io ns ( ad di ng tu rn la ne s)

68 Ta bl e D 5 co nt in ue d fr om p . 6 7 T he F iv e M os t F re qu en t Sa fe ty I m pr ov em en ts I nc lu de d in a 3 R P ro je ct St at e #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 S D S ho ul de r w id th R um bl e st ri ps o r st ri pe s S ig ni ng G ua rd ra il P ip e/ bo x cu lv er t e xt en si on . 6 ) In sl op e or a pp ro ac h sl op e fl at te ni ng T X Im pr ov ed p av em en t co nd it io n S tr uc tu ra l c om po ne nt s R oa dw ay w id th if d ef ic ie nt U T S ki d re si st an ce P av em en t e dg e dr op -o ff D ra in ag e R um bl e st ri ps A pp ro ac h gr ad e V A Im pr ov in g sh ou ld er s R em ov al o r pr ot ec ti on o f ro ad si de o bs ta cl es R ep ai rs to r es to re b ri dg e st ru ct ur al in te gr it y, in st al la ti on o f de ck p ro te ct iv e sy st em s, a nd up gr ad in g su bs ta nd ar d br id ge r ai l R es ur fa ci ng (n on m ai nt en an ce ac ti vi ti es ) R oa ds id e ha za rd r em ov al a nd gu ar dr ai l i ns ta ll at io n V T S ig ht d is ta nc e P av em en t m ar ki ng s S ig na ge L an e/ sh ou ld er w id th R oa ds id e ha za rd s W A B ar ri er te rm in al s S ig ht d is ta nc e im pr ov em en t R um bl e st ri ps S ig ni ng u pd at in g D el in ea ti on W I A dd o r w id en p av ed sh ou ld er s U pg ra de b ea m -g ua rd te rm in al s S ig ni ng a nd p av em en t m ar ki ng R e- al ig n ho ri zo nt al cu rv es In te rs ec ti on im pr ov em en ts W Y S up er el ev at io n co rr ec ti on S id e sl op e co rr ec ti on G ua rd ra il u pg ra de S ig ni ng u pg ra de B ri dg e ra il u pg ra de

69 Table D6 continued on p. 70 TABLE D6 RANKING OF 13 CONTROLLING CRITERIA (RESPONSE TO QUESTION 9) Ranking of 13 controlling criteria from 1 (most) to 13 (least) as to how important each is for 3R projects State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 AK LW SW HA DS SSD BW SC VA HC GR CS SUP VC AL SC CS SUP LW SW DS VC BW HC SSD HA VA GR AR DS HA VA GR LW SW HC SUP CS VC BW SC SSD AZ DS SSD HA VA LW SW SUP BW GR CS VC SC HC CA DS HA SSD LW SW BW SUP VC VA HC GR SC CS CO HA DS HC LW SSD SW CS VA SUP GR BW SC VC FL SSD SC SW SUP VC HC BW LW CS HA VA DS GR GA SUP CS SC VC HC DS HA VA SSD GR BW LW SW HI DS LW SSD SW HA VA BW SC SUP VC HC GR CS IA DS LW SW HA SUP CS VC SC VA BW GR HC SSS ID DS SSD SW LW BW VA SC HA SUP GR CS HC VC IL DS HA VA SSD SUP LW SW BW GR CS HC VC SC IN DS LW SSD SUP BW SC SW HA VA CS GR VC HC KS DS LW SC SW BW HA SUP SSD VA GR CS HC VC KY SC VC SW BW HC CS SUP SSD LW GR DS VA HA LA LS SW CS SUP HC VC DS SSD HA VA BW GR SC MA SW LW BW VC SC DS SSD HA VA GR CS SUP HC MD SC SSD CS SUP DS BW HC HA LW SW VA VC GR ME DS GR VA HA CS SUP LS SSD SW BW SC HC VC MI VC SC BW DS LW SUP SSD CS SW HC HA GR VA MN SW CS VC LW SSD VA GR SUP DS HC HA BW SC MO HC SC CS SUP VC DS SSD LW BW SW HA VA GR MS LW SW SSD DS BW SC HA VA GR CS SUP HC VC MT DS LW SW BW SC HA SSD VA GR CS SUP HC VC NC DS VC HC LW BW SC SW HA VA GR SSD CS SUP ND SSD DS LW SW BW SC SUP CS HA VA GR HC VC NE LW SW SSD BW SC DS CS SUP HA VA VC GR HC NH DS SSD HC LW SW SC CS SUP BW HA VA GR VC NJ DS LW SW CS HA VA SSD HC VC SUP BW GR SC NM DS SC HA LW SW BW VA GR SSD SUP VC HC CS NV SC SW VC HC DS SSD BW LW HA VA CS SUP GR NY DS LW SW SUP HC SSD CS HA BW VA GR SC VC OH SSD HA SUP SW LW VA BW CS HC GR VC SC DS OK SC DS LW SW HA SUP VA SSD GR BW VC HC CS OR DS SUP LW BW CS VA SSD HA VC SW SC GR HC PA LW BW SUP CS SW SSD HA VA GR HC VC SC DS PR SC VC VA HC LW SW HA SUP GR CS SSD BW DS RI LW SC BW DS SW GR HA VA SSD VC HC CS SUP SC HA VA SSD LW SW SU GR DS SC BW CS HC VC

70 Table D6 continued from p. 69 Ranking of 13 controlling criteria from 1 (most) to 13 (least) as to how important each is for 3R projects State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 SD LW SW SSD SC SUP CS VC HC BW GR HA VA DS TX SC DS LW SW BW HA VA GR SSD CS SUP HC VC UT CS GR SSD SW HA SUP VA LW HC DS SC BW VC VA SSD DS HA VA LW SW SC BW SUP CS HC VC GR VT DS LW SW SUP CS SSD HA VA SC GR BW HC VC WA LW SW SSD VC HC CS DS SUP BW HA VA GR SC WY DS LW HA VA SW SSD SUP CS SC BW VC GR HC Key: DS design speed VA vertical alignment LW lane width SUP superelevation SW shoulder width CS cross slope BW bridge width GR grades SC structural capacity HC horizontal clearance SSD stopping sight distance VC vertical clearance HA horizontal alignment

71 Table D7 continued on p. 72 TABLE D7 REASONS FOR THREE HIGHEST RANKED CRITERIA (RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS 10 AND 11) State Considering the three design criteria that you ranked highest, why do you consider them more important than the others? List other design elements that should be considered for 3R projects. AK Highest correlation with safety and accidents. Traffic volume. Skid resistance. Signage. Driveways. Economics. AL The roadway needs to be able to handle the current traffic and % trucks throughout pavement life. The cross slope and superelevation mitigates run-off-the-road accidents and helps with drainage AR If you do not have the 3R criteria met for horizontal and vertical alignment and grades, the 3R criteria cannot be used and AASHTO Guidelines override the 3R criteria for design speed of the facility. I believe the design elements we currently use are sufficient. AZ The most impact on safety. Intersection sight distance CA Directly related to safety of the roadway. Pavement design life, safety improvements CO 3R projects address safety and other issues on existing facilities. It is generally typical for the safety deficiencies to be related to horizontal alignment, design speed, and horizontal clearances. CT A ranking of the items above was not performed. The engineer needs to weigh these items on a project-specific basis. ISD, clear zone, pedestrian access, ADA and to a lesser extent bicycle access FL Florida is a “flat” state with many bodies of water adjacent to our roads. Thus, we want to first be sure we provide immediate safety to motorists on the road (stopping sight distance) as well those who stray off it (shoulder width). Finally, deficiencies in structural capacity could be catastrophic with higher rates of serious injuries and fatalities. Crashworthy roadside features. GA 1 and 2 are more generally easily corrected with this type of project. 3 is an absolute value the bridge either can or can’t handle the required loading. Guardrail and side barrier upgrade. HI Design speed is important as it determines the recommended design figures for various other roadway elements. Lane width should be considered as it contributes to driver perception of roadway conditions (“implied” safe speed, proximity to adjacent cars, etc.) and affects behavior. Stopping sight distance is critical because it is the allowance incorporated into the roadway design to allow drivers to react to hazards or uncertainties.

72 Table D7 continued from p. 71 Table D7 continued on p. 73 State Considering the three design criteria that you ranked highest, why do you consider them more important than the others? List other design elements that should be considered for 3R projects. IA The design speed is in this list because it controls so many of the others; changing it can hide other problems. Lane width is important because it is the main area the cars use. We try to maintain full lane widths. Safety is impacted with edge rut problems, run-off-road crashes, cross centerline crashes, etc. Shoulder width is related to lane width and can influence crashes similar to narrow lane width. Clear zone and guardrail updates, ADA requirements, safety enhancements (milled rumble strips, paved shoulders, improved signing) operational and capacity aspects of intersections (turn and auxiliary lanes). ID Design speed because it dictates rest of standards associated with roadway. Sight distance because of its effect on drivers’ perception of the roadway. Shoulder/lane widths for consistency of section. Pavement edge—should be sloped to avoid edge drop offs. IL 1. Design speed governs all other criteria. 2. Horizontal alignment is often related to safety issues. 3. Vertical alignment affects stopping and passing sight distances. Traffic volumes, combinations of curves, roadside features, pavement conditions, intersection conditions, and traffic control conditions IN Design Speed—Many design elements are speed-sensitive. Lane Width—Adequate lane width is essential to provide maneuvering space for the predominate type of user vehicle. Stopping Sight Distance—Important consideration in preventing rear-end crashes that occur frequently and also involves vertical and horizontal alignment. See Indiana Design Manual (IDM) Section 55-2.01 KS They relate to traffic operations, safety, and preservation of the roadway function. Drainage and overtopping frequency KY Generally, our trigger for doing 3R type projects on Interstates and parkways are driven by ride, pavement conditions, and safety features. None LA To be considered a “3R”-type project, the work typically remains within the existing crown and cannot require additional right-of- way. 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 right-of-way and utility adjustments and would then fall under the reconstruction category and not eligible for this program. ADT, percentage of trucks MA Safe accommodation of all users; pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists. MD The top three are safety driven measures. Pedestrian safety, bicycle compatibility, ADA compliance ME Typically on 3R we try to establish the best possible highway standards practical while realizing we cannot fix everything. Design year traffic volumes, level of service, traffic data, capacity analysis MI Bridges are fixed, more costly, longer service life, and less flexible in alternative repairs than road facilities. Roadside safety

73 Table D7 continued from p. 72 Table D7 continued on p. 74 State Considering the three design criteria that you ranked highest, why do you consider them more important than the others? List other design elements that should be considered for 3R projects. MN They are the most commonly degraded or improved elements by 3R projects. Roadside hardware (e.g., guardrails, signing, lighting); pavement markings; and general sight distance (e.g., trimming overgrown vegetation to improve sight distance). MO Horizontal clearance is critical given the severity of roadway departure crashes. Structural capacity is closely monitored, although it’s generally analyzed outside of the 3R process. Structures are rarely resurfaced during 3R. Cross slopes and superelevations aren’t nearly as critical as the previous two factors, but can be readily corrected within the 3R environment. Given the rehabilitative nature of 3R work, the scope doesn’t usually include a great deal of work requiring design. MT Design Speed. An accurate selection of the design speed is essential to determining the best values for the other design elements. Lane and Shoulder Widths. The greatest safety improvements are achieved by providing adequate lane and shoulder widths. Whether the lane or shoulder width is more critical is dependent on the existing widths, traffic volumes, congestion issues, and an assessment of accident characteristics. Clear zones, intersection sight distance NC Design speed. Guardrail, pavement edge drop-offs. ND Adequate sight distance appears to be factor when developing safety projects. On a 3R project, normally we will be moving dirt. It is an opportune time to address stopping sight distance. Design speed is the main control for calculating many of the design elements. Appropriate roadway width is usually obtained by widening the roadway for a 3R project. Traffic operations—such as turn lanes; typical section— foreslope, ditch bottom, and backslope; pavement slough treatment; environmental impacts, cultural impacts; right- of-way impacts; safety review; corridor consistency; pedestrian impacts NE Criteria 1–5 are listed in the Nebraska Board of Public Roads Classifications & Standards Minimum Design Standards and must be met or a design exception is required. Clear zones. Surfaced shoulder widths. NH Safety Drainage condition, guardrail condition and length of need, pavement condition, and slopes along the corridor NJ Design speed affects many of the other criteria. Lane and shoulder widths play a major role in driver comfort and safety. Curb face height, guide rail NM I do not necessarily consider them more important. Importance of design criteria should be project-specific.

74 Table D7 continued from p. 73 Table D7 continued on p. 75 State Considering the three design criteria that you ranked highest, why do you consider them more important than the others? List other design elements that should be considered for 3R projects. NV We consider the main purpose of the 3R program to be pavement maintenance. Our repair strategies are impacted by the existing structural capacity of the pavement. The type of repair done and the thickness of the overlay are impacted by it. Safety is also a priority of the Department. We have portions of the NHS in the rural sections of the state that have substandard shoulder width. We are taking the opportunity when funding allows to bring the shoulder widths up to standards. The vertical clearance is considered to ensure that our repair strategies do not reduce the existing clearances. In some cases, the strategy is modified to get additional clearance under existing structures. Clear zone—achieving or maintaining recoverable slopes, meeting length of the need on guardrail, etc. ADA compliance in urban areas, sidewalk ramps, pedestrian signal buttons, etc. NY Design speed sets the criteria for most of the other elements. Lane and shoulder width can have the greatest impact the operation, safety, and ability to accommodate other users (bicyclists and pedestrians). Pedestrian accessibility. OH More common, not necessarily more important. OK Structural Capacity—the state of Oklahoma has made replacement of load posted bridges a priority. Design Speed—This is a core design element; most design criteria are determined based on the design speed. Lane Width/Shoulder Width—this is usually one of the easiest elements to improve that yields substantial safety benefits. Flattening of side slopes, clear zone adjustments, drainage improvements, adjustment of driveway locations and spacing, intersection improvements, upgrading safety appurtenances, etc. OR Design speed defines a significant number of other design criteria. Superelevation and lane width affect the overall safety of the project for the users. Intersection sight distance, left-turn lanes, right-turn lanes PA It should be noted that the most important design feature should be assessed on a project-by-project basis, based on the unique problems that have been experienced at specific locations. These elements, as well as others, on safety and operations of the roadway. Pedestrian accommodations. PR The structural capacity of the existing pavement is the start point to evaluate what type of rehabilitation the pavement needs. Vertical clearance and vertical alignment control pavement rehabilitation options. Budget, MOT (traffic), safety, drainage. RI RI has very old roadways with limited ROW. Bridges are ranked 49 out of 50 states and need replacing. Pavement make-up, soils, historical issues, environmental issues. RI has coastal and many wetlands. SC These three are directly related to the safety and operations of the facility. Roadside safety and clear zone, available right-of-way, environmental impacts, intersection sight distance, pedestrians, ADA accessibility, bicyclists SD Safety and LOS impacts N/A TX Their impacts to safety Pavement condition and crash history

75 Table D7 continued from p. 74 State Considering the three design criteria that you ranked highest, why do you consider them more important than the others? List other design elements that should be considered for 3R projects. UT These elements are not considered more important than the others, but they are elements that can typically be addressed as part of a 3R project. Other items farther down the list are important but are less likely to be brought to standard through a maintenance type project. Clear zone, intersection sight distance, ramp terminal sight distance, shoulder/travelway (gutter pan), curb configuration, rumble strips VA The three highest ranked items have a higher level of safety risk associated with them. Accident rates, pavement deterioration, ADT VT This ranking is difficult, because all criteria need to be taken into consideration. However, of our top three, our projects follow our State Design standards. These criteria are used to set the footprint of the project and accommodate to the best our ability all users of the highway while always considering safety. WA WSDOT does not use the 3R approach to projects. WSDOT separates out Preservation and Improvement projects. WSDOT places these criteria higher because they are safety related and there is a potential of correcting these criteria on preservation type projects. Barrier and intersection related criteria. WI WisDOT has never explicitly ranked the design criteria. It is somewhat of a subjective question and could be answered differently depending on how “importance” is defined. Intersection sight distance, bridge rails, roadside safety and design (e.g., clear zone, side slopes, barriers), curb ramps, intersection geometry, pavement marking and signing WY Believe they significantly impact safety.

76 Table D8 continued on p. 77 TABLE D8 RESPONSES TO QUESTION 13 State How often are safety improvements considered in a 3R project (please check one)? AK Routinely considered AL Routinely considered AR Routinely considered AZ Routinely considered CA Routinely considered CO Routinely considered CT Routinely considered FL Routinely considered GA Routinely considered HI Routinely considered IA Routinely considered ID Routinely considered IL Routinely considered IN Routinely considered KS Routinely considered KY Not normally considered LA Routinely considered MA Routinely considered MD Routinely considered ME Routinely considered MI Routinely considered MN Not considered unless safety problem identified MO Routinely considered MS Routinely considered MT Routinely considered NC Not considered unless safety problem identified ND Routinely considered NE Routinely considered NH Routinely considered NM Routinely considered NV Routinely considered NY Routinely considered OH Routinely considered OK Routinely considered OR Not considered unless safety problem identified PA Not considered unless safety problem identified PR Routinely considered SC Routinely considered SD Routinely considered

77 Table D8 continued from p. 76 State How often are safety improvements considered in a 3R project (please check one)? TX Routinely considered UT Routinely considered VA Routinely considered VT Routinely considered WA Routinely considered WI Routinely considered WY Routinely considered

78 Table D9 continued on p. 79 TABLE D9 IS CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLIST IN 3R PROJECTS? (RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS 15 AND 16) State Consideration given to pedestrians? If “Yes,” please describe Consideration given to bicyclists? If “Yes,” please describe AK No No AL Yes For existing pedestrian facilities we look for compliance to ADA Yes For existing bicyclist facilities we look for compliance to ADA AR Yes Only in urban areas No AZ Yes Sidewalk ramps are reviewed for ADA compliance. Yes Pavement treatments accommodate bicycle travel. Local requests for additional width for bicycle travel are considered. CA Yes Sidewalks are considered. ADA is addressed. Yes If part of a designated bike route, shoulders are designed accordingly. If bikes are allowed but not part of a designated bike route, shoulders are provided when practical. CO Yes Considerations are given for pedestrian crossings at intersections or mid- bock on a given facility and sidewalks. Yes Wherever applicable considerations are given for bicycle lanes adjacent to edge of travel or shoulder CT Yes Yes FL Yes By Florida Statute 335.065 we must fully consider bicycle and pedestrian ways into every transportation project, especially those in or within one mile of an urban area. http://www.dot.state.fl. us/rddesign/PPMManu al/2010/Volume1/Chap 08.pdf Yes See #15 above. GA Yes Consideration is given to appropriateness of crosswalks. All ramps are upgraded or installed to comply with the ADA. Yes HI Yes Pedestrians are considered in 3R projects as ADA improvements and guardrail placement is designed to accommodate a useable path. No

79 Table D9 continued from p. 78 Table D9 continued on p. 80 State Consideration given to pedestrians? If “Yes,” please describe Consideration given to bicyclists? If “Yes,” please describe IA Yes ADA upgrades are made. Yes Milled shoulder rumble strip policy was developed with bicyclists to allow them to ride on paved shoulders when possible. ID Yes ADA issues are looked at and addressed in urban situations. Particularly related to curb cuts and ramps. Yes Shoulders are commonly looked at for bicycle accommodations. Some minor widening is performed where appropriate that will enhance bicycle accommodations. IL Yes Each 3R project considers pedestrians. See http://www.dot.il.gov/d esenv/BDE%20Manua l/BDE/pdf/chap17.pdf. Yes Each 3R project considers bicyclists. See http://www.dot.il.gov/desenv/BDE %20Manual/BDE/pdf/chap17.pdf. IN Yes See Question No. 17 response. Yes Where bicycle traffic is high, lane or shoulder widening or separate bicycle lanes or facilities may be provided if space or funds are available and there is public interest in such facilities. KS Yes Pedestrian activity is reviewed and accommodated to the extent practicable. Yes Check if there is bicycle demand and accommodate to the extent practicable. KY No No LA Yes If curb ramps, crosswalks, and signals exist, they are updated as applicable. Yes If bicycle lanes and striping exist, they will be updated if applicable. MA Yes Accommodation for pedestrians with ADA sidewalks, wheelchair ramps, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, etc. Yes Accommodation for bicyclists with adequate shoulder width, signing, pavement markings, signals, etc. MD Yes Continuity of pedestrian movements (filling in the gaps of sidewalks), ADA compliance—ramps, sidewalk width, accessible pedestrian signals, bus stop relocations Yes On road bicycle compatible lanes/shoulders, signage, drainage improvements ME No No MI Yes ADA upgrades and incorporation of sidewalks Yes Shared usage of paved shoulder width with nonmotorized, earth buffer width to sidewalks MN Yes Shoulder and crosswalk improvements are considered on 3R projects. Yes In rural areas, paving shoulders are considered for 3R projects. In urban areas, providing bike lanes is considered.

80 Table D9 continued from p. 79 Table D9 continued on p.81 State Consideration given to pedestrians? If “Yes,” please describe Consideration given to bicyclists? If “Yes,” please describe MO Yes MoDOT considers the needs of its pedestrians (particularly those with disabilities) on all projects. Remedial ADA action is taken in keeping with the published transition plan. Yes MoDOT considers the needs of its bicyclists on all projects. However, 3R work rarely warrants significant upgrades. MS Yes In urban areas, sidewalks will be added where needed. Yes Shoulders may be paved where needed MT Yes ADA upgrades are included in urban projects. Pedestrian crossings are considered with striping upgrades. Yes Accommodations are included if practicable depending on the scope of work. Resurfacing projects may include delineating bike lanes. Major rehabilitations may provide additional shoulder width to enhance bicycle usage. NC No No ND Yes Try to bring existing facilities up to current ADA and MUTCD standards. If there is a pedestrian plan, this is considered. Look at crosswalks. Yes Update existing bicycle facilities. Consider installation of new facilities where an overall plan exists. NE Yes By Nebraska Statues, municipalities are responsible for everything outside of the driving lanes. See 17 below. Yes We do not place milled rumble strips on surfaced shoulders less than 6 ft wide. NH Yes If involved in sidewalks we replace sidewalk corners with tip-downs and truncated domes. Yes Investigate if segment is on a bike route and try to accommodate an acceptable shoulder width with the scope of the project. NM Yes Only when deemed necessary (urban and semi-urban). NM is mostly rural. Yes With 6 ft shoulders or “Share the Road” 14 ft outside lanes.

81 Table D9 continued from p. 80 Table D9 continued on p. 82 State Consideration given to pedestrians? If “Yes,” please describe Consideration given to bicyclists? If “Yes,” please describe NV Yes Existing sidewalk is evaluated and improved to ensure it meets current ADA standards, when feasible. Improvements may include replacing substandard sidewalk ramps and installing or updating pedestrian buttons on traffic signals. In some cases, where short sections of sidewalk are missing, new sidewalks may be added to close the gap. Pedestrian movements during construction are considered during the development of the traffic control. Yes Projects in the urban Clark County area are stripped to provide a wider outside lane to better allow a shared use of that lane with bicyclists. In addition, the established bicycle plan covering the project is referenced to determine the type of facility planned for the road. Striping and signing is adjusted where appropriate to accommodate the plan. We generally do no widening on a 3R project to provide for bike lanes or routes. NY Yes New sidewalks are considered where there are pedestrian generators. On arterials and collectors, a minimum 4 ft shoulder is used in rural areas to provide for the occasional pedestrian. Yes On arterials and collectors, a minimum 4 ft shoulder is used in rural areas to provide for the bicyclists. On arterials and collectors, a minimum 5 ft shoulder is used in urban areas adjacent to curb to provide for the bicyclists. OH Yes Pedestrians are considered by ODOT policy 20-004(P). Yes Bicycles are considered by ODOT policy 20-004(P). OK Yes If a 3R project disturbs a sidewalk, the sidewalk is replaced. Existing sidewalks may be resurfaced if necessary. Where sidewalk does not currently exist, the need for a sidewalk is evaluated. Yes This would be very unusual, but if a bicycle route has been identified it would be included in the project. OR Yes Address pedestrian access routes. Evaluate current ADA accommodations. Yes Bike lanes or paved shoulders are provided in 3R projects. All projects accommodate bicyclists. PA Yes PennDOT utilizes a Bike/Ped checklist for all projects to ensure needs are considered in project development. Yes PennDOT utilizes a Bike/Ped checklist for all projects to ensure needs are considered in project development. PR Yes When applicable Yes When the need is “obvious.” RI Yes Most 3Rs are in urban areas of the state where sidewalks are in poor condition, intersections are obsolete. Yes In RI bikes are considered a vehicle. We have an extensive bike network and we try to connect bike routes to bike routes.

82 Table D9 continued from p. 81 State Consideration given to pedestrians? If “Yes,” please describe Consideration given to bicyclists? If “Yes,” please describe SC Yes Sidewalk may be reconstructed or added as part of the scope of the project. Yes Additional paved shoulder width is a betterment to bicyclists. We attempt to add a minimum of 4 ft of paved shoulder on roadways identified as part of a state bicycle route. SD Yes Providing ADA- accessible curb ramps as per ADA guidelines Yes Review shoulder width and rumble strip/stripe installation. TX Yes Improvements are made for pedestrian traffic including signals, crosswalks, and signing. Yes Additional pavement width and signing at appropriate locations UT Yes Consideration given to accessible curb ramps and walkway slopes and drainage. Yes Consideration given to bike accessibility. VA Yes All projects are reviewed for the purposes of including new facilities for pedestrians or upgrading current facilities. Yes All projects are reviewed for the purposes of including new facilities for bicyclists or upgrading current facilities. VT Yes All aspects associated with pedestrian safety and mobility are considered, whether it be ADA accessibility, crosswalks, delineation, signal timing, etc. Yes All aspects associated with bicycle safety and mobility are considered, whether it be shoulder width, pavement markings, signage, etc. WA Yes ADA curb ramps and crosswalks are reviewed and updated if needed to bring them into compliance. Also, pedestrian detours are provided during construction. Yes Consideration is given to bicyclists regarding how the incorporation of any safety item may affect them. For example if considering the installation of rumble strips, bike use is considered. WI Yes Curb ramp policy in FDM Procedure 11-25-30 Yes Traversable drainage grates and wider paved shoulders WY No No

83 Table D11 continued on p. 84 TABLE D11 IS CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO ADA REQUIREMENTS FOR 3R PROJECTS? (RESPONSES TO QUESTION 17) State Consideration given to ADA requirements, such as accessible curb ramps and walkway slopes? If “Yes,” please describe. AK Yes Upgrades of curb ramps and walkways are required to meet ADA requirements. AL Yes We adhere to the ADA standards for accessible design. AR Yes Only in urban areas. AZ Yes Sidewalk ramps are reviewed for ADA compliance. CA Yes ADA improvements are within the scope of a 3R project. CO Yes Curb ramps and curb cuts at pedestrian crossings are constructed/retrofitted to be ADA accessible and in compliance with federal and FHWA guidance and requirements. CT Yes ADA-compliant sidewalks and curb ramps are provided, except where it is technically not feasible. FL Yes See Plans Preparation Manual Chapter 8, Section 8.3.2. GA Yes Curb ramps are always considered. Walkway cross slopes may be included. HI Yes If within the projects limits, ADA improvements are typically absorbed into a 3R project, as a policy. IA Yes We make all required ADA upgrades with our projects. ID Yes See pedestrian considerations. IL Yes Current ADA requirements are considered on each 3R project. See http://www.dot.il.gov/desenv/BDE%20Manual/BDE/pdf/chap58.pdf. IN Yes All ADA requirements are addressed. KS Yes If the surfacing is modified, curb ramps and sidewalks should be updated as well. KY No LA Yes All projects, with exception of preventive maintenance, must meet ADA requirements for curb ramps. MA Yes All wheelchair ramps must be in brought into compliance. MD Yes If ramps or sidewalk are present, we will ensure that they meet the latest SHA guidelines for ADA. If not, they will be reconstructed. If sidewalk is present, but there is a need, we will include it in the project and ensure that all logical connections are being made to complete the pedestrian network. SHA has guidelines that can be forwarded to you for additional information pertaining to this subject. ME Yes If we make any adjustments to a sidewalk we are required by policy to make it ADA compliant. MI Yes With surfacing > ¾ in. (two-course overlay). MN Yes Installing truncated domes and curb ramp retrofits are considered on 3R projects. MO Yes Remedial ADA action is taken in keeping with the published transition plan. Moreover, regardless of any published requirement, MoDOT takes a “do the right thing” approach to ADA. MS Yes All sidewalks are brought up to ADA compliance. MT Yes Resurfacing projects include ADA upgrades to ensure that existing curb ramps are accessible. Some sidewalk repair may be included if practicable. New curb ramps may be included if a need is identified. NC Yes ADA upgrades are required for all resurfacing projects. ND Yes We update curb ramps and review other ADA requirements.

84 Table D11 continued from p. 83 State Consideration given to ADA requirements, such as accessible curb ramps and walkway slopes? If “Yes,” please describe. NE Yes If a 3R project includes any work in a marked or unmarked crosswalk having curb or other barrier to entry from a walkway, and where accessible on-street parking is provided, we construct ADA-compliant curb ramps, building new sidewalks only as required to match into the existing sidewalk. NH Yes If involved with sidewalks we include work to incorporate curb ramps with tip- downs and truncated domes. NM Yes Always considered using AASHTO guidelines. NV Yes All ramps are brought up to current standards. Sidewalks are reviewed to ensure the widths meet standards. Usually, any improvements that can be completed within the right-of-way are incorporated into the project. Those outside of the right-of-way are further evaluated to determine the feasibility of making the improvements. NY Yes All curb ramps and existing sidewalks are brought into conformance with ADA. OH Yes Curb ramps are required to be built to standard either before project start or done concurrently with a resurfacing project. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/policy/PoliciesandSOPs/Policies/519-002(P).pdf. OK Yes Accessible ramps and walkway slopes are included when relevant. OR Yes Accessible route check on projects along with all of the ADA features that are installed or required. PA Yes All projects are reviewed for ADA compliance. PR Yes Our design standards provide ADA requirements and we include it where it is needed. RI Yes Always. If we touch a roadway, we improve the sidewalk. SC Yes We routinely replace curb ramps and correct improper driveway designs when the cross slopes do not adhere to our current guidelines. SD Yes Curb ramps are upgraded so they are ADA accessible. TX Yes Curb ramps are added and slopes evaluated. UT Yes ADA requirements must be met on 3R projects. VA Yes All projects must meet the applicable ADA requirements. VT Yes Always. WA Yes Curb ramps and crosswalks are brought into compliance with current requirements. Also, traffic control plans are developed to accommodate pedestrians during construction. WI Yes FDM 11-25-30: “Curb ramps with detectable warnings shall be installed on all state or federally funded projects with sidewalks (including resurfacing, SHRM, and Preventative Maintenance projects) where curb ramps do not exist.” WY Yes Upgrade ADA curb ramps.

85 Table D12 continued on p. 86 TABLE D12 MOST UNANSWERED ISSUE REGARDING 3R PROJECT DESIGN (RESPONSE TO QUESTION 18) State What do you believe is the most unanswered issue regarding 3R project design? AK For Alaska, it is that we have not split out Preventative Maintenance (1R) projects from 3R projects yet. PM (1R) projects are burdened with our full 3R procedures at this time. AR No response thought of. AZ At what values are the lack of design superelevations most critical and when is it really cost-effective to reconstruct to correct. CO ADA requirements for existing sidewalks, pedestrian crossings along existing facilities. To what extent beyond signalized pedestrian crossings should such facilities be upgraded for ADA compliance? CT What is the appropriate degree of improvement (what are the pitfalls of inaction)? FL Balancing the level of surveying necessary during design and included in the plans (especially to accurately portray cross-slope and supereleveation corrections) with ever-increasing need to reduce project costs. GA The need to process Design Exceptions for the work being performed. IA Where is the line between new construction and 3R? Should a PCC overlay of 8 in. get different criteria than a new pavement that is not much thicker? Many of our roadways will never be reconstructed 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. ID Tort liability. At what level does a restoration become an improvement/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? IL 3R projects are intended to extend the service life of the existing facility and to return its features to a condition of structural or functional adequacy; to incorporate cost-effective, practical improvements to the geometric design of the existing facility, and to enhance highway safety. It is unclear to many the extent to which the 3R concept has succeeded in the last objective, and the level of cost-effectiveness reached in that effort in these projects. IN How to achieve wider shoulders or flatter side slopes within the existing ROW since ROW acquisition is typically minimal on a 3R project. KS Long-term benefit/cost. This could include such things as design life, safety performance, and legal liability. MA When are projects exempt from improving bicycle and pedestrian accommodation. MD Level of safety required in system (pavement) preservation projects. ME Consistency of application. MI Prioritizing upgrades to address geometric deficiencies when all cannot be met. MN When to make location-specific geometric improvements that are proactive in addressing safety. In other words, when and whether to apply the recommendations in the TRB SR 214. MO N/A MT None I can think of. The federal guidance for improving accessibility is somewhat confusing in that it notes that alterations that require improvements to accessibility are “projects that could affect the structure.” The same guidance indicates that thin overlays are considered maintenance even though they do increase the structure of the road surface. What constitutes a maintenance thin-lift overlay? LOS? NC Superelevation. NE What do states do when resurfacing a roadway that was originally built with recoverable slopes in which the resurfacing results in a significant grade raise? Narrow the shoulders? Regrade the foreslopes? Tie in steeper slopes as quickly as possible? NH Need to be flexible with design standards when you can’t meet the minimums due to type of work. Scope of work does not permit addressing all controlling design elements, and requires solid engineering judgment to develop cost-effective solutions to maximize highway and roadside safety. NM 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. NV Funding. We struggle with getting the most bang for our buck in regard to the pavement condition while balancing the other needs of the system, such as safety, ADA, other improvements. It would be nice to have greater flexibility with using the federal funding that we get, safety and bridge funds. NY The design criteria are very complicated. Is there a simpler list of criteria that will maximize safety and minimize cost? Too much time is spent on NEPA for 3R projects. Can it be streamlined?

86 Table D11 continued from p. 85 State What do you believe is the most unanswered issue regarding 3R project design? OH Our 3R is based off of the old guidelines and it needs to be updated, and it needs to include other facility types. OK Are 3R projects more susceptible to tort claims? OR Lack of funding for upgrades to the system. Surface treatment takes most of the dollars and all other features are generally ignored. This is the same issue identified in TRB Special Report 214 in 1987. (See 4th paragraph of Executive Summary on page 1.) PA Clear zone obstructions. PR Since the Agency does not have a policy established for 3R projects, the most unanswered issue in PR is the need of a published Design Process or Guidelines for 3R projects instead of performing cold milling and overlays without analysis and design. RI Money; projects are becoming more expensive because of federal and state requirements. SC Specifying a project as 3R occurs on a case-by-case basis and I am not aware of any national standards that determine the minimum design criteria that can be applied to a 3R project. 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. TX None. VA Better examples of what types of projects do not qualify for 3R standards based upon the language in Special Report 214. VT In Vermont the link between “maintaining and/or rehabilitation” on existing alignment and the significant impact of project timeline/delivery based on environmental permitting considerations. WI 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, steepening the shoulder cross-slope, steepening the sideslope, degrading the clear zone. How much degradation is acceptable; how should the tradeoffs be determined; when should it not be allowed? Another issue is the lack of guidance on WZTC provisions for pedestrians on urban 3R projects. WY What maximum design life is appropriate for a 3R project?