woo-199-27.97 - roundabout at roachton nominations... · web viewcopying and pasting of formatted...
TRANSCRIPT
ODOT/ACEC Partnering AwardExcellence in Highway Design
2018 Nomination Template
Project Nomination Deadline: March 5, 2018District Capital Program Administrator Final Submission Deadline:
March 23, 2018
transportation.ohio.gov www.acecohio.org
Please direct any additional questions to: Mat Mauger | Office of Consultant Services | 614-644-0623 | M at . M a u g e r @ d o t.o h i o . g ov
The nomination process has two steps:1) Consultants and/or ODOT Employees complete a draft nomination using this Word template
o Draft nominations (in MS Word format) are to be emailed to the respective ODOT District Capital Program Administrator (see the map and table below) by Monday, March 5, 2018
Please save this file using unique name(s) for your nomination(s) to avoid confusion and overwriting issues. Completed document should be no more than 25 total pages, maximum (not including the embedded picture
pages). All requested images should be included using the Picture fields available with the specific questions. Do not submit hard copies of any nomination materials, attach additional documents and do not send CD-
ROMs. Many entry fields in this form accept ‘Rich Text’ formatted material, but reformatting directly in the fields is
limited/restricted due to the templated nature of this presentation. Copying and pasting of formatted text, including bulleted text, indents, font size, etc., from other unrestricted Word files or other documents is possible and acceptable.
2) District Capital Program Administrators use this portal link (ODOT Intranet Only) to submit pre-screened/completed nomination Word format document(s) by Friday, March 23, 2018
o Please save file(s) using unique name(s) for each nomination to avoid confusion and overwriting issues.o Each district may submit a maximum of two (2) submissions per category for final review
Please direct any additional questions to: Mat Mauger | Office of Consultant Services | 614-644-0623 | M at . M a u g e r @ d o t.o h i o . g ov
ODO
T DISTRICT
D-1: Chris Hughes(419) 999-6901
D-2: Mike Gramza(419) 373-4466
D-3: Bob Weaver(419) 207-7158
b o b . w e a v e r@ d o t . oh i o . g ov
D-4: Gery Noirot(330) 786-2270
[email protected]: Jason Sturgeon
(740) 323-5100j as o n .s t u r ge o n @ d o t . o h io . gov
D-6: Thom Slack(740) 833-8340
th o m .sla c k @ d o t . o h i o .g o v D-7: Matt Parrill(937) 497-6802
m a t t. par r i l l @ d o t . o h io. gov
D-8: Stefan Spinosa(513) 933-6639
st e f a n .s p i nos a @ d o t. o h i o .g o v D-9: Christopher
Pridemore(740) 774-9067
D-10: Eric Reed(740) 568-3951
[email protected]: Nick Susich
(330) [email protected]
D-12: Greg Kronstain(216) 584-2166
Project Nomination Form
Project Name: WOO-SR199-27.97 Roundabout @ Roachton
Project PID: 96355
Consultant Agreement No.: 17836
County or Municipality: Wood County
ODOT District: ODOT District 2
Consultant Name: Mead & Hunt
Category for which project is being nominated Category 1: Construction Value - $0 to $5,000,000
Construction Value $1,196,613
Construction Project Number 164004
Dates of PS&E, Letting and Construction Completion
PS&E to Columbus: 1/25/2016Letting (Sale) date: 05/05/2016Const. Compl date: 10/01/2017
Name of Organization Submitting Mead & Hunt
Contact person for award-related material/submittal (Name, email, phone,
Michael Ciotola, [email protected], 614-607-52444700 Lakehurst Court, Suite 110, Dublin, Ohio 43016
1
mailing address)
Region Contact Person and their role Michael Ciotola, PE, Assoc. DBIA/Department Manager
Project Personnel and their roles, including significant players from bureaus
(e.g. Structures), agencies, consultants, etc.
Dan Barnhart, PE – Roadway Design, Mead & Hunt: Tiffany Elchert, PE – Lead Engineer, Mead & Hunt; Ed Davis – MOT Design, Mead & HuntDan Kaseman, Project Manager, plan review and coordination, ODOT D-2Michael Stormer, MOT review, ODOT D-2
Award Ceremony Information:
Person(s) accepting award at ceremony (Name, Email, phone)
Michael Ciotola, [email protected], 614-607-5244
Names to show on certificate, up to 6 persons and their
companies or roles
Michael Ciotola, PE, Assoc. DBIA – Principal, Mead & Hunt, Tiffany Elchert, PE – Lead Engineer, Mead & Hunt, Alex Monda – Design Engineer, Mead & HuntDan Kaseman, Project Manager, ODOT D-2Michael Stormer, Planning Engineer, ODOT D-2
One JPG image to be used on certificate
2
Executive Summary:
Overall purpose, goals, and design methodology
The intersection at SR 199 and Roachton Road in Wood County was determined to be a high-crash location (#32 for rural intersections in FY 2013) and prioritized on the Ohio Department of Transportation's (ODOT) Strategic Highway Safety Plan. 71% of crashes were angle crashes with 53% resulting in injuries. Short-term countermeasures including stop-ahead and intersection-ahead signs installed in 2009 were ineffective. ODOT District 2 staff worked hand-in-hand with Mead & Hunt staff to ultimately construct a much safer and efficient intersection by installing a roundabout to reduce the conflict points and eliminate angle crashes. To determine the best location for the new roundabout, Mead & Hunt completed an alternatives evaluation report (AER) that investigated two alternatives. The AER was provided to ODOT for consideration and a roundabout offset directly west of the existing intersection was selected to move forward to design and construction. The roundabout was designed with an inscribed diameter of 130’ with a 20’ circulating width with a 17’ truck apron. The project included roundabout design, culvert and ditch drainage design, survey, right-of-way plans, traffic control, environmental field studies and documentation, as well as LED lighting for the new roundabout. Traffic was maintained on SR 199 with part-width construction and Roachton Road traffic was detoured.
Highlight any unique aspects of the project
An offset alignment was selected to avoid a residential property in the northeast quadrant and a major utility pole in the northwest quadrant. Due to the rural nature of the intersection, the splitter islands were designed to accommodate a 15’ (outside tire to outside tire) farming combine. By reducing the splitter island width to 4’ and using mountable curb, the combines will be able to safely maneuver through the splitter islands.
3
Judging Criteria:
A. Project Development Process
1 Project development schedule maintained
a. Consultant completion schedule, scoped vs. actual
All milestone submittals were met.
2 Effective comment and conflict resolution process
The project schedule was maintained due to frequent communication between Tiffany Elchert (Mead & Hunt Lead Engineer) and the District 2 Project Manager (Dan Kaseman). Design questions were resolved promptly, resulting in minimal review comments during design development.
3 Cooperative and effective project management
The project schedule was maintained due to frequent communication between Tiffany Elchert (Mead & Hunt Lead Engineer) and the District 2 Project Manager (Dan Kaseman). Design questions were resolved promptly, resulting in minimal review comments during design development.
4 CES Score for project 65/70
5 Consultant Contract Historya. Prime Agreement – Scope and Fee The project was authorized in parts with VAR-STW-Safety Design Task Order. Part 1
= $74,047 (Feasibility/Alternatives Evaluation); Part 2 = $168,808 (Stage 1/2 Plans, R/W plans, environmental studies and CE); Part 3 = $33,248 (Ecological Survey Report); Part 4 = $35,013 (Stage 3 and Tracings)
b. Modifications – Scope and Fee Mod 1 = $965 (R/W revisions)
B. Plan and Contract Quality
1 Project bid cost relative to budget estimates as a measure of fiscal planning
Bid Cost $1,404,282/Budget $1,430,000 =98.2%
4
2 Quantity variationsa. Total number of bid items on
project(s)114
b. Number of items for which the final quantity was within 2% of the quantity as let
61
3 Contract Change Ordersa. Number and value of change orders.
Explain why changes were neededNumber=10; Value=-$207,669.A major non-performance change order # 3 was for the plan overestimated erosion control quantity item 31. Due to long lead time for light poles, it was decided to open project to traffic with temporary traffic light (CO # 6).
b. Number of design related changes. Explain why changes were needed
One design related change was needed. Wooden post did not exist in the field in the proper location as was shown in the plan. A new wooden post was erected in the proper location.
c. Dollar change from “as let” cost due to CCO's and quantity revisions
-$207,669
d. Cost change as percentage of as let cost
-14.78%
4 Addendaa. Number of addenda issued prior to
letting4
b. General nature and change in construction cost for each addenda
Updated plan sheets and answered/ clarified pre-bid questions.
C. Alignment and Location Design
5
1 Alternativesa.
Number and general nature of alternative alignments including relationship to location of existing roadway
Two potential roundabout locations were evaluated for the intersection at SR 199 and Roachton Road. Due to the rural nature of the intersection, the roundabout was designed to accommodate WB-50 vehicles and combines. AutoTurn software was used to check the truck turning movements and was also used for combines, with an overhang of slightly more than 4’ on each side. The features for each potential location are described below.
Alternative 1 – Roundabout southwest of the existing intersectionThe proposed roundabout is located southwest of the existing intersection. The project extends 1117’ along SR 199 and 1262’ along Roachton Road. The splitter islands were designed to be 200’ long on all four legs. The roundabout location and design was evaluated with two critical areas of concern.
These areas were the residence located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection and a major utility pole in the northwest quadrant. Major impacts to the residence in the northeast quadrant have been avoided in the design presented, however some earthwork and grading will be required. The pole in the northwest quadrant can only be avoided if barrier protection is provided.
Safety grading and barrier grading options were evaluated. Ideally, safety grading would be utilized, however barrier grading was shown as well to help reduce Right of Way impacts to the adjacent properties.
Alternative 2 – Roundabout west of the existing intersectionThe second alternative was developed after additional discussions with the District. The District requested the alignment of the originally submitted roundabout (Alternative 1) to be placed directly west of the existing intersection, as well as some variations to the Location & Design Manual Volume 1 preferred design standards.
6
This alternative was evaluated to the extent to obtain project costs allowing a reasonable comparison to Alternative 1.
Based on discussions with the District, only safety grading was used in determining potential project costs and limits for this alternative. The location was selected to keep the majority of the proposed improvements on the existing roadway alignments, potentially reducing project limits and costs.
Alternative 2’s project limits include 1171’ along SR 199 and 809’ along Roachton Road, approximately 400’ less than Alternative 1 limits.
2 Alignment fita.
Efforts to fit to topography thereby minimizing cuts and fills, allowing flatter backslopes, more gradual driveway slopes, etc.
The vertical alignments were designed using design speeds described above for SR 199 and Roachton Road. The design speed for the vertical curve adjacent to the roundabout in the curb and gutter section used a design speed of 35 mph, consistent with the design speed of the splitter islands. The vertical alignment of the roundabout meets a design speed of 20 – 25 mph. The profile grades are flatter than generally preferred to help minimize impacts to adjacent property owners.
3 Design practicesa.
Safety and maintenance-related considerations incorporated into design. (Improving vision, raising grade through marshes, etc.)
A roundabout was chosen to reduce intersection conflict points and angle crashes at the SR 199 and Roachton Road intersection.
D. Cost-Effective Design
1 Safety and maintenance-related considerations. Identify this impact in terms of ODOT construction cost, cost to traveling public, or cost to entire public
Based on the crash and economic analysis completed during the safety study process in 2013 and the 2014 Economic Analysis, the roundabout improvement will have a significant benefit to the public by reducing the number of injury crashes and crashes by 71-87%. The rate of return is 22% with an Annual Average Benefit of over $200,000 per year.
7
Assuming a 20 year service life, the average annual benefits = $216,243.
2 Project Maintainability ODOT will maintain the roundabout which was designed for minimal maintenance efforts
E. Complexity of Design
1 Unusual, non-standard, or innovative design features and practices
Among the variances from the preferred standards was the reduction of the approach splitter islands from 200’ to 100’. Appropriate horizontal deflections were included to ensure that the reduction from the preferred 200’ rural approach splitter islands would result in a safe and effective roundabout.
2 New technology and products used AutoTurn software was used to check the truck turning movements and was also used for combines, with an overhang of slightly more than 4’ on each side.
3 Degree of coordination and timing Coordinated funding for this project through the safety funding and ranking programs.
4 Number and type of controls governing Minimize impacts to existing homeowners located within the project footprint.
5 Number of traffic control stages 3 stages for maintenance of traffic.
F. Community Sensitive Design
1 Mitigation of Adverse Impact on Public During Construction
Maintenance of traffic and construction sequencing was coordinated with a nearby project. Frequent communication and coordination with adjacent property owners was required to minimize and mitigate property impacts, including avoiding disturbance of drive pipes and field tiles.
2 Preservation of Natural Areas Minimize impacts to natural areas.
3 Reestablishment of Natural Vegetation or Wetlands
All areas were restored.
8
4 Preservation of Historical and Archeological Features
None impacted.
5 Enhancement of Cultural Resources None impacted.
6 Community Sensitive Design Design was very sensitive to impacts to community.
7 Overall Aesthetic Appeal The project included a landscape/planting plan and stamped concrete for the center island.
Location Map(s)
At least one high-level location map. Please attach an IMAGE FILE of your map here (take and upload a snapshot or screen capture image if the original map is only available as a PDF or other non-compatible image file format)
9
10
Photographs
Use the Picture boxes below to add up to 10 digital photos (.JPG or other compatible format) suitable for large-screen display. Before-and-after photos are encouraged. Please use the caption field to provide details on each image.
4 legged intersection
(photo - 11)
Roundabout Constructed
(photo - 12)
Zoomed in Photo of the roundabout
(photo - 13)
Close up photo of roundabout
(photo - 14)
Photo 5 Caption.
(photo - 15)
Photo 6 Caption.
(photo - 16)
Photo 7 Caption.
(photo - 17)
Photo 8 Caption.
(photo - 18)
Photo 9 Caption.
(photo - 19)
Photo 10 Caption.
(photo - 20)