GAI Standard Report Template

Prepared by: GAI Consultants, Inc. Indianapolis Office

6420 Castleway West Drive Indianapolis, Indiana 46250

Prepared for: Indiana Department of Transportation Crawsordsville District.

41 West 300 North Crawfordsville, Indiana 47933

Engineer’s Report

SR 28 Road Rehabilitation Indiana Department of Transportation

Crawfordsville District From US 231 to US 52

Tippecanoe County, Indiana

GAI Project Number: D160355.02 Des No.: 1592968

May 2017

DRAFT

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=indot+logo&um=1&hl=en&safe=strict&sa=N&biw=1440&bih=676&tbm=isch&tbnid=_jtjbNeu1RKe6M:&imgrefurl=http://www.in.gov/indot/div/projects/sr641/&docid=3RnfNKs7Q0brUM&w=306&h=306&ei=R81gTsT8HIPI0AHd1owc&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=0&page=1&tbnh=126&tbnw=126&start=0&ndsp=32&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=50&ty=65

SR 28 Road Rehabilitation

Indiana Department of Transportation Crawfordsville District From US 231 to US 52

Tippecanoe County, Indiana

GAI Project Number: D160355.02 Des No.: 1592968

May 2017

Prepared for: Indiana Department of Transportation

Crawfordsville District 41 West 300 North

Crawfordsville, Indiana 47933

Prepared by: GAI Consultants, Inc. Indianapolis Office

6420 Castleway West Drive Indianapolis, Indiana 46250

Report Authors:

Michael Siffer, PE GAI Consultants, Inc.

Checked By: David A. Vorndran, PE GAI Consultants, Inc.

SR 28 Road Rehabilitation Indiana Department of Transportation From US 231 to US 52, Tippecanoe County, Indiana

Page i

D160355.02 / May 2017

Table of Contents

1.0 Purpose of Report .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Location ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Description ....................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Project Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................... 1

3.0 Existing Facility ...................................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Road History ................................................................................................................ 2 3.2 Pavement Condition ..................................................................................................... 3 3.3 Horizontal and Vertical Alignments ................................................................................ 3 3.4 Intersections ............................................................................................................... 4 3.5 Culvert Inspections ...................................................................................................... 5 3.6 Hydrology .................................................................................................................... 6 3.7 Hydraulic Analysis ........................................................................................................ 8 3.8 Geotechnical Investigation ............................................................................................ 9 3.9 Utilities ........................................................................................................................ 9 3.10 Land Use ................................................................................................................... 10

4.0 Field Check .......................................................................................................................... 10

5.0 Traffic Data .......................................................................................................................... 11

6.0 Crash Data and Analysis ....................................................................................................... 11

7.0 Discussion of Alternatives/ Identification of Proposal .............................................................. 13 7.1 Alternative #1 No Build .............................................................................................. 13 7.2 Alternative #2 Mill and Structural Overlay and Shoulder Widening ................................ 14 7.3 Alternative # 3 Full Depth Reconstruction.................................................................... 15 7.4 Alternative #4 Full Depth Reclamation (DRAFT Preferred Alternate) ........................... 15

8.0 Right of Way Impact ............................................................................................................. 16

9.0 Environmental Issues ........................................................................................................... 16

10.0 Cost Estimate ....................................................................................................................... 17

11.0 Traffic Maitenance ................................................................................................................ 17

12.0 Related Projects, Consistency ................................................................................................ 17

13.0 Coordination, Meetings, Concurrence ..................................................................................... 18

14.0 Changes to Proposal ............................................................................................................. 18

© 2017 GAI CONSULTANTS


Page 1

D160355.02 / May 2017

1.0 Purpose of Report This report is the engineering assessment for the improvements along S.R. 28. It includes the necessary background information and provides conclusions with recommendations that will be used in the development of future phases of the project development.

1.1 Project Location This Pavement Replacement project is located south of the City of Lafayette from just east of U.S. 231 to U.S. 52 (RP 37+47 to RP 47+87). The project is located in Tippecanoe County in the Crawfordsville District. The overall project length is about 55,275 linear feet or 10.47 miles.

The above map and the location maps of Appendices A-1 and A-5 depict the project location.

1.2 Project Description The purpose of the project is to provide improved pavement structure and riding surface and improve safety. The existing pavement, last resurfaced in 2010, has moderate to severe transverse and longitudinal cracking, moderate rutting and raveling, and composite slab rocking/pavement failures. S.R. 28 is currently a 2-lane Rural Minor Arterial on non-NHS route. The facility has a 2015 AADT of 2,540 vehicles per day with 19% trucks.

2.0 Project Purpose and Need No prior studies have been performed on S.R. 28 in the project area.

The purpose and need has defined the pavement condition and the past pavement failures that justify the project.

S.R. 28 Pavement Replacement


Page 2

D160355.02 / May 2017

3.0 Existing Facility S.R. 28 has a single travel lane in each direction. Pavement width is 24 feet consisting of two 11 foot lanes and 1 foot paved shoulder. The useable shoulder width is two to three feet width. Existing side slopes are 4:1 max with roadside ditches that have filled with sediment impeding the flow of culvert pipes under the roadway.

Roadway ground level photography is shown in Appendix B on pages B-1 to B-35. Culvert pipe ground level photography is shown in Appendix B on pages B-36 to B-123.

The road classification for S.R. 28 between U.S. 231 and U.S. 52 is listed in the table below.

S.R. 28 Roadway Classification

Functional Classification Rural Minor Arterial

Posted Speed 55 mph

Member Road Systems 3R Network National Truck Network

3.1 Road History S.R. 28 was originally built in 1928 as an 18’ wide gravel county road section for 9.69 miles heading east from the intersection with U.S. 231. The road was extended within the project area in 1930 another 0.785 miles as a 9”-7”-9”” concrete section with an 18’ wide pavement by the state (Project No. 166).

The original 9.690 miles was overlaid and widened as a state construction project (Project No. 612) to a 20’ wide pavement section with asphalt in 1935 with a thickness of 1” to a total of 6”.

A maintenance contract (Project No. 1624) in 1938 overlaid the 9.690 mile section with 2” to a total of 7” of asphalt.

In 1953, a maintenance contract (Project No. Unknown) was completed covering the same 9.690 mile section as completed in 1938. The 1” overlay brought the pavement section to a total of 8”.

In 1957, a maintenance contract (Force Account) of bituminous concrete widening was completed on the 0.785 mile long section near U.S. 52. This increased the width of the section from 18’ wide to 22’ wide.

In 1964, a maintenance contract (Project No. 6335) hot asphalt emulsion II resurface and base was completed. This included the 9.690 mile long section and the 0.785 mile long. The 20 foot wide section was treated with 1” overlay for a total of 9 1/2”

In 1968, sealing was completed on 1.970 miles starting from U.S. 231.

In 1983, a bridge contract (Project No. B-13786) completed a bituminous concrete surface and base approaches for a bridge over East Wea Creek. Project length was 0.239 miles and width of 24’.

In 1984, a resurfacing contract (Project No. RS-14923) hot asphalt emulsion resurface was completed over 9.451 miles. This occurred on both sides of the bridge that was constructed in 1983. Also completed under the same contract in 1984, 0.785 miles near U.S. 52 hot asphalt emulsion resurface was completed as well. The 20 foot wide section was treated with 1 3/4” overlay for a total of 10”

In 1995, contract R-22042 reconstructed the pavement with 6 inches of asphalt and 6 inches of aggregate base with two 12 foot lanes and 10 foot paved shoulders from 500 feet west of C.R. 400 E to 1275 feet east of C.R. 400 E.


Page 3

D160355.02 / May 2017

In 2015, a bridge contract (Project No. B-35763) completed a mill and asphalt overlay for the approaches for a bridge over East Wea Creek. Project length was 200 feet and width of 24’ with two 12 foot lanes and 10 foot paved shoulders.

3.2 Pavement Condition At the time of writing this report, subsurface investigation, coring or falling weight deflectometer testing has not taken place. The ground level photography in Appendix B provides documentation of the existing pavement condition.

The existing pavement exhibits locations of moderate raveling, minor rutting, and longitudinal cracks in wheel path and along edge, longitudinal cracking at centerline, alligator cracking, block cracking and transverse cracking at culvert pipes. This is expected based on the length of time since the last contract performed on this roadway.

Raveling is caused by weathering and wheel path traffic of the surface course of the asphalt resulting in exposure of the aggregate in the asphalt. Rutting is caused by traffic compaction or displacement of unstable material in the subgrade consolidating. This is most noticeable in areas of longitudinal cracking in the wheel path.

Longitudinal cracks in the wheel path indicate areas of fatigue failure from heavy vehicle loads. Cracks along the edge indicate insufficient shoulder support.

Alligator cracking indicates failure of the surfacing due to traffic loading and possibly inadequate base or subgrade support. Block cracking is interconnected cracks forming large blocks. These locations are exhibited in the photos (particularly at CR 400 E) but are not widespread.

The transverse cracking at culvert pipes is related to deteriorating joints resulting in infiltration of the pipes.

The PASER rating procedure was applied to the conditions listed above. The PASER procedure was developed by the Transportation Information Center at the University of Wisconsin Madison in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration. The rating procedure can be used as condition data to evaluate road inventory for future improvements. A rating of 4 Fair has been applied to this pavement due to the closely spaced longitudinal cracking in the wheel path. Other conditions are not widespread enough to justify a poor rating.

S.R. 28 Roadway Pavement Cores

Boring Sta. Results

(S) - Shoulder (D) - Driving Lane

3.3 Horizontal and Vertical Alignments S.R. 28 is on a tangent alignment through the project limits from U.S. 231 to U.S. 52. The horizontal alignment is along the respective township and section lines. There are no apparent horizontal curves, only deflections at section corners.

The roadway was developed originally as a gravel road along the existing topography and later paved with asphalt. This leads to an irregular rolling profile with some abrupt changes in vertical curvature.

The existing profile was evaluated at ten foot intervals for the entire project in both the eastbound and westbound directions for stopping sight distance utilizing Microstation InRoads. There are 15 locations eastbound and 17 locations westbound where obstructions in the existing profile lead to substandard


Page 4

D160355.02 / May 2017

stopping sight distance. The locations of these obstructions are listed below with the overall length of the obstruction. Reports of the InRoads analysis and graphical checks of the vertical profile evaluation are located in Appendix C.

S.R. 28 Substandard Stopping Sight Distance Locations

Eastbound Station “Crown” Westbound Station “Crown” Length of Obstruction

From To From To

18+95.88 19+17.31 18+82.79 19+23.68 40.89

25+22.71 25+44.83 22.12

53+35.85 53+72.31 53+75.37 54+38.05 102.20

247+99.30 248+65.39 248+68.16 249+64.67 165.37

255+68.80 256+58.56 256+23.35 257+33.47 164.67

310+71.56 311+47.02 311+17.92 312+13.16 141.60

322+57.31 323+00.51 322+70.93 323+33.78 76.47

349+19.50 349+30.26 10.76

361+12.35 361+63.61 361+74.17 362+62.23 149.88

380+28.60 381+08.78 380+65.08 381+23.04 94.44

437+24.97 438+55.03 438+53.39 439+58.51 233.54

469+78.33 471+20.49 470+66.27 472+31.74 253.41

485+34.16 485+92.77 485+74.16 486+11.17 77.01

491+29.73 493+41.25 492+89.72 494+23.44 293.71

509+15.79 509+49.76 510+03.30 510+40.91 125.12

514+48.42 515+00.12 515+05.61 515+81.35 132.93

524+69.10 525+14.91 525+05.89 526+07.08 137.98

Total 2222.10

The length of obstruction shown is a minimum length that would require reconstruction to resolve the sight distance deficiencies. It is likely that during design development further improvements may be required to meet design standards. The 2222.1 linear feet of needed improvements represents about 4% of the overall project length of 55,275 linear feet.

3.4 Intersections The intersections of S.R. 28 with U.S. 231, S 100 E, S 200 E, S 300 E, S 400 E, S 500 E, S 575 E, S 700 E, S 850 E, S 975 E, and U.S. 52 are stop controlled. The descriptions of the intersections are below.

S.R. 28 at U.S. 231: U.S. 231 is 24 feet wide with a single lane in each direction with 5 foot shoulder. Existing radius to S.R. 28 is approximately 90 feet. S.R. 28 is 24 feet wide at this location with an approximately 3 foot wide shoulder.

S.R. 28 at S 100 E: S 100 E is 22 feet wide with a single lane in each direction. Existing radius to S.R. 28 is approximately 32 feet. S.R. 28 is 24 feet wide with approximately 2 foot shoulders at this location.


Page 5

D160355.02 / May 2017




S.R. 28 at S 500 E: S 500 E is 22 feet wide with a single lane in each direction. Existing radius to S.R. 28 is approximately 30 feet. S.R. 28 is 24 feet wide with approximately 3 foot shoulders.



S.R. 28 at S 850 E: S 850 E is 22 feet wide with a single lane in each direction. Existing radius to S.R. 28 is approximately 30 feet. S.R. 28 is 24 feet wide with a single lane in each direction. In the eastbound lane there is a 2 foot shoulder and a 1 foot shoulder in the westbound.

S.R. 28 at S 975 E: S 975 E is 22 feet wide with a single lane in each direction. Existing radii to S.R. 28 are approximately 70 feet to the south and 60 feet to the north. S.R. 28 is 24 feet wide with approximately 2 foot shoulders.

S.R. 28 at U.S. 52: U.S. 52 is a four lane divided highway with two lanes in each direction and a center median. It has a width of 70 feet south of S.R. 28 including a left turn lane for the northbound. A right turn lane is also included in the south bound lanes with a width of 80 feet north of S.R. 28. Existing radii to S.R. 28 are approximately 60 feet to the north and 80 feet to the south. S.R. 28 is 28 feet wide.

3.5 Culvert Inspections Existing culvert pipes less than 48 inches were inspected in accordance with the procedure of the AASHTO Bridge Element Inspection Manual. Items evaluated for steel pipe include corrosion, connections, distortion, settlement, scour and damage. Items evaluated for concrete include delamination, exposed rebar, efflorescence, rust staining, cracking (RC), abrasion / wear (PSC/RC), distortion, settlement, scour and damage.


Page 6

D160355.02 / May 2017

Culvert Inspections

GAI Culvert

No. Culvert ID

Structure Description Comments Recommendation

2 CV-028-079-37.65 10" CMP Substandard size, crack in roadway Replacement 3 CV-028-079-38.18 15" RCP Buried, reinf. exposed, joint

separation Replacement

4 CV-028-079-38.50 15" RCP Buried, spalling Replacement 5 CV-028-079-38.75 15" RCP 75% full of silt & debris Clean & extend 6 CV-028-079-39.78 15" RCP Ends spalling, joints separating Replacement 7 CV-028-079-40.82 15" RCP Pavement repair / settlement, joints

separating Replacement

31 CV-028-079-41.38 Dual 9.75’ x 7’ CMP Pipe Arch Not inspected

10 CV-028-079-41.48 18" CMP Bottom 1/3rd rusting, Replacement 11 CV-028-079-41.71 6" CMP Substandard size Replacement 13 CV-028-079-42.66 18" RCP Ends damaged Clean & extend 14 CV-028-079-42.98 24" RCP Pavement repair / settlement Replacement 15 CV-028-079-43.23 15" CMP Crack in roadway, bottom rusting Replacement 16 CV-028-079-43.25 24" RCP Joints failing, settlement Replacement 17 CV-028-079-43.77 15" RCP Pipe not found Replacement 18 CV-028-079-44.17 15" RCP Broken ends, ¼ filled with debris Clean & extend 19 CV-028-079-44.22 15" RCP VCP extensions, slight settlement Replace VCP &

Extend 20 CV-028-079-44.32 15" CMP Crack in roadway, bottom rusting,

settlement Replacement

21 CV-028-079-44.46 15" CMP Recent install Clean & extend 21A CV-028-079-44.53 15" RCP Ends damaged, little settlement Clean & extend 22 CV-028-079-44.81 12" RCP Joints failing, settlement, substandard

size Replacement

33 CV-028-079-45.44 6’ x 5’ Concrete Box Not inspected

23 CV-028-079-45.88 24" CMP Slight settlement, lining wear Clean & extend 24 CV-028-079-45.96 12" RCP Substandard size, failing joints Replacement 25 CV-028-079-46.35 15" RCP Slight settlement, debris Clean & extend 26 CV-028-079-46.48 15" RCP Slight settlement, cracking Clean & extend 28 CV-028-079-46.66 8’ x 4’ Concrete

Box Not inspected

29 CV-028-079-46.83 12" RCP Substandard size Replacement

30 CV-028-079-47.35 36” x 20" Concrete Box Not inspected

Any pipe that does not meet the minimum size criteria listed in Figure 203-2B are recommended for replacement. Pipes that have visible signs of settlement are also recommended for replacement. Pipes in good condition are recommended for cleaning and extension.

Summary sheets of the inspection are included in Appendix D.

3.6 Hydrology Hydrologic calculations were completed in order to determine the flow rates into each culvert for the 1% exceedance probability (EP) event. The first step was to delineate the watershed. Due to variance in size of each watershed, two methods were used for delineation. For small watersheds less than 200


Page 7

D160355.02 / May 2017

acres, the delineation was completed by hand using statewide lidar data. For large watersheds that are greater than 200 acres, the delineation utilized StreamStats Version 3.0. StreamStats delineations were manually checked for accuracy prior to use. The delineated watersheds yielded 24 drainage areas less than 200 acres and 4 drainage areas greater than 200 acres. Three watershed areas were found to be greater than the one square mile jurisdictional limit for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR).

According to Figure 202-3A of the Indiana Design Manual (Manual), the preferred method for determine the discharge rate for culverts is IDNR coordinated discharge curves. This information is not available the subject culverts. The next preferred method is TR-20/HEC-HMS or the Rational Method. The Rational Method is allowed for urban drainage areas that are less than 100 acres or rural drainage areas that are less than 200 acres. For the remaining watersheds, the SCS Curve Number Method was used within HEC-HMS.

Data used to complete the hydrologic calculations came from a variety of sources. Atlas 14 rainfall depth and intensity tables were used in the time of concentration calculation, to develop hyetographs with Huff rainfall distributions for the Curve Number Method, and to interpolate the required storm intensity for the Rational Method. The National Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey was used to identify the predominant soil types and hydrologic soil groups within the drainage areas.

The time of concentration calculation was completed using the National Resources Conservation Service Technical Release 55 methodology. The longest travel path was established using the same topographic mapping used in the watershed delineation. Multiple flow paths were considered to establish the path that produced the longest travel time as opposed to simply taking the longest path. For the Curve Number Method, multiple storm durations were run in order to establish the critical storm. The results of the hydrologic calculations can be found in Appendix D. The effects of depressional storage within the watersheds was not considered for these preliminary level calculations.


Page 8

D160355.02 / May 2017

Hydrologic Summary

GAI Culvert No. Culvert ID

Structure Description

Drainage Area (acres)

1% EP Flow Rate (cfs)

Legal Drain Status

CIF Permit Needed?

2 CV-028-079-37.65 10" CMP 4.14 10.2 No 3 CV-028-079-38.18 15" RCP 17.30 36.8 No 4 CV-028-079-38.50 15" RCP 26.76 41.0 No 5 CV-028-079-38.75 15" RCP 115.65 154.3 Yes No 6 CV-028-079-39.78 15" RCP 52.54 114.7 Yes No 7 CV-028-079-40.82 15" RCP 28.36 63.1 No

31 CV-028-079-41.38 Dual 9.75’ x 7’ CMP Pipe Arch 1,166.72 539.3 Yes Yes

10 CV-028-079-41.48 18" CMP 1.26 3.8 No 11 CV-028-079-41.71 6" CMP 9.54 25.0 No 13 CV-028-079-42.66 18" RCP 38.36 76.6 Yes No 14 CV-028-079-42.98 24" RCP 23.01 48.9 No 15 CV-028-079-43.23 15" CMP 22.27 42.5 No 16 CV-028-079-43.25 24" RCP 353.92 220.6 Yes No 17 CV-028-079-43.77 15" RCP 58.41 90.2 Yes No 18 CV-028-079-44.17 15" RCP 7.11 15.5 Yes No 19 CV-028-079-44.22 15" RCP 89.53 131.0 No 20 CV-028-079-44.32 15" CMP 24.36 46.9 No 21 CV-028-079-44.46 15" CMP 0.71 2.6 Yes No 21A CV-028-079-44.53 15" RCP 5.39 12.5 No 22 CV-028-079-44.81 12" RCP 31.79 62.4 No 33 CV-028-079-45.44 6’ x 5’ Concrete Box 1,320.32 454.8 Yes Yes 23 CV-028-079-45.88 24" CMP 21.64 47.7 Yes No 24 CV-028-079-45.96 12" RCP 61.55 114.3 No 25 CV-028-079-46.35 15" RCP 12.10 24.9 No 26 CV-028-079-46.48 15" RCP 12.24 25.8 No 28 CV-028-079-46.66 8’ x 4’ Concrete Box 1,683.2 743.4 Yes Yes 29 CV-028-079-46.83 12" RCP 46.85 79.9 Yes No

30 CV-028-079-47.35 36” x 20" Concrete Box 102.92 156.4 Yes No

3.7 Hydraulic Analysis A culvert inspection was completed on March 9, 2017 for the existing pipes under S.R. 28. Inspection notes were used to indicate existing culvert shapes, materials, inlet configurations and current conditions. Survey data was used to indicate the existing culvert lengths, invert elevations, tail water geometry, and roadway data.

Per Section 203-2.02(14) of the Manual, culverts may be extended if the proposed condition headwater elevation does not exceed the existing headwater elevation, or if the proposed headwater stays contained within INDOT right-of-way or the upstream channel. Each culvert was analyzed for conformance with this criteria using HY-8, version 7.2. Those culverts that cannot match the existing headwater or are too damaged to be extended will need to be further analyzed. Such culverts may need to be lined or replaced.


Page 9

D160355.02 / May 2017

Hydraulic Summary

GAI Culvert No. Culvert ID

Structure Description

1% EP Headwater Elevation Culvert Extension Feasible?

Existing Proposed

2 CV-028-079-37.65 10" CMP 3 CV-028-079-38.18 15" RCP 4 CV-028-079-38.50 15" RCP 5 CV-028-079-38.75 15" RCP 6 CV-028-079-39.78 15" RCP 7 CV-028-079-40.82 15" RCP

31 CV-028-079-41.38 Dual 9.75’ x 7’ CMP Pipe Arch

10 CV-028-079-41.48 18" CMP 11 CV-028-079-41.71 6" CMP 13 CV-028-079-42.66 18" RCP 14 CV-028-079-42.98 24" RCP 15 CV-028-079-43.23 15" CMP 16 CV-028-079-43.25 24" RCP 17 CV-028-079-43.77 15" RCP 18 CV-028-079-44.17 15" RCP 19 CV-028-079-44.22 15" RCP 20 CV-028-079-44.32 15" CMP 21 CV-028-079-44.46 15" CMP 21A CV-028-079-44.53 15" RCP 22 CV-028-079-44.81 12" RCP

33 CV-028-079-45.44 6’ x 5’ Concrete Box

23 CV-028-079-45.88 24" CMP 24 CV-028-079-45.96 12" RCP 25 CV-028-079-46.35 15" RCP 26 CV-028-079-46.48 15" RCP

28 CV-028-079-46.66 8’ x 4’ Concrete Box

29 CV-028-079-46.83 12" RCP

30 CV-028-079-47.35 36” x 20" Concrete Box

3.8 Geotechnical Investigation Further geotechnical study is recommended to determine more information on the subgrade.

3.9 Utilities Below is a list of utilities that exist within the project area obtained from IUPPS. It is not anticipated that any relocations would be reimbursable.


Page 10

D160355.02 / May 2017

S.R. 28 Utility Information

Utility Company Contact Phone Number Email Address

Sanitary Frankfort Sewer Department

Ed Laflen (765) 654-8343 [email protected]

Water Frankfort Water Works

Wesley Hyden (765) 654-5556 [email protected]

Electric Frankfort, City Light & Power

Steve Miller (765) 659-3362 [email protected]

Communications Centurylink (CTLQN)

James White (937) 498-5185 [email protected]

Communications Frontier Communications of Indiana

Joe Sarll (260) 461-3324 [email protected]

Communications Indiana Dataline Corp.

Not Listed

Communications MCI/Verizon Business

Chris Fowler (317) 685-8050 [email protected]

Communications Purdue I-Light

Ronald Lehman (765) 496-7914 [email protected]

Communications Windstream Jeff Taylor (309) 838-0788 [email protected]

Cable TV Comcast Jay Castello (847) 789-1039 [email protected]

Telephone Tri-County Telephone Co., Inc.

Not Listed

Electric Duke Energy Tim Umbaugh (812) 375-5828 [email protected]

Electric Tipmont R.E.M.C. Joe Kline (765) 339-3246 [email protected]

Gas Vectren Energy

Holly Columbia (317) 718-3639 [email protected]

3.10 Land Use Land use in the project corridor is predominantly AA Select Agricultural and AW Agricultural and Wooded with a small area on the south side of S.R. 28 east of U.S. 281 that is zoned R1 Single Family Residential. See zoning map in Appendix E.

4.0 Field Check TBD

Meeting minutes are included in Appendix F.


Page 11

D160355.02 / May 2017

5.0 Traffic Data INDOT provided AADT traffic along S.R. 28 at U.S. 231 is shown below.

S.R. 28 Traffic Forecast Summary

Year AADT

2015 2,540

2017 2,600

2020 2,700

2025 2,860

2030 3,020

2040 3,340

DHV (2040) (9%) 9%

Commercial Vehicles

AADT 19%

DHV 18%

Peak Hour 3:00 pm

Directional Distribution 47.70% Positive EB

Growth Rate Used 1.26%

6.0 Crash Data and Analysis INDOT Crawfordsville District provided crash data for the years 2012 through 2016. Data for a total of 92 accidents was provided. A summary was provided to exclude the crashes at the U.S. 231 and U.S. 52 intersections. The following is a summary of the remaining 51 crashes that have occurred during the period in the project limits.


Page 12

D160355.02 / May 2017

S.R. 28 Accident Summary

Type of Crash

# of Property Damage

Only Crashes

# of Injury

Crashes

# of Incapacitating

Injury Crashes

# of Fatal Injury

Crashes

Percent of Total

Crashes

Rear End 1 0 0 0 2% Head On 0 0 2 0 4%

Same Direction Sideswipe 0 0 0 0 0%

Opposite Direction Sideswipe 3 0 1 0 8%

Right Angle 7 6 0 0 25% Animal/Object 15 0 0 0 29%

Left/Right Turn 0 1 0 0 2%

Ran Off Road 6 4 4 0 27%

Other 1 0 0 0 2% Total 33 11 7 0

Most of the accidents (29%) on this rural stretch of road involve collision with an animal or object, mostly deer. The next highest percentage (27%) are Ran Off Road crashes to the right involving oversteering or overcorrecting. Narrow shoulder width is a contributing factor to these crashes as a wider shoulder would provide more area for a driver to correct his or her path. The limited stopping sight distance is also a contributing factor for the need to overcorrect for oncoming traffic. Stopping sight distance is a factor for the Opposite Direction Sideswipe (8%) and Head On (4%) crashes.

When looking at crashes attributed to intersections, the highest number of crashes occur at CR 700 E (44%) and CR 975 E (31%). Each of these locations also has substandard stopping sight distance within 245 feet west of CR 700 E and 280 feet west of CR 975 E. These are also attributed to the large percentage of Right Angle (25%) crashes.

Crash Location

# of Property Damage

Only Crashes

# of Injury

Crashes

# of Incapacitating

Injury Crashes

# of Fatal Injury

Crashes

Percent of Total

Crashes

CR 100 E 2 1 0 0 19%

CR 200 E 0 0 1 0 6%

CR 700 E 3 4 0 0 44% CR 975 E 3 3 0 0 31%

Total 8 7 1 0

The intersections of S.R. 28 with C.R. 700 E and C.R. 975 E each have crosses marked at the intersection denoting past fatalities. At C.R. 975 E the cross is marked with the date September 19, 2010.


Page 13

D160355.02 / May 2017

In accordance with the process published in the Intersection Decision Guide, 51 crashes were converted to Property Damage Equivalent crashes by assigning fatal and incapacitating injuries a factor of 58 and non-incapacitating injuries a factor of 6.

𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 = 58ℎ + 6𝑦𝑦 + 𝑧𝑧 The crashes for the S.R.28 corridor were converted to a Property Damage Equivalent of 505 for the 5 years of study. This converts to an annual rate of 101 property damage equivalent crashes per year.

Improving the shoulders to 6 feet paved and 8 feet usable based on the criteria from IDM Figure 53-2 Note 3b. The Crash Reduction Factor ID 6359 for property damage only crashes of fixed object, head on, run off the road and opposite direction sideswipe is 25. The annual property damage equivalent crashes was calculated for those crashes only is 91. The expected crash reduction is calculated with the following equation.

𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = 𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑥𝑥𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶100

The crash reduction is 23.

Improving the vertical curvature of the crest vertical curves would result in a further reduction in crashes. The Crash Reduction Factor ID 720 for all crashes is 20.

Multiple crash modification factors (up to three) can be combined to establish a composite crash modification factor.

𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 = 100 𝑥𝑥 { 1 − [ 100 − 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑛𝑛]/100 𝑥𝑥 [100 − 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶]/100} Combining the two crash reduction factors results in a composite crash reduction factor of 40.

The shoulder crash reduction factor applies to property damage only (PDO), fixed object, head on, run off road and sideswipe crashes. The vertical curve crash reduction factor applies to all crashes. The crash types most impacted by the improvement of the vertical curve are also the types improved by improving the shoulder. Therefore, the composite crash reduction factor is applied to only the remainder of the Property Damage Equivalent crashes (101 – 91). This results in a further crash reduction of 4. The total crash reduction would be the sum of 23 and 4, a total of 27.

Crash Summary and calculations are included in Appendix G.

7.0 Discussion of Alternatives/ Identification of Proposal Four alternatives were considered, three Build Alternatives and the No-Build.

The purpose and need of the project as described in Part 3 of this report reads as follows:

The purpose of the project is to provide improved pavement structure and riding surface and improve safety. The existing pavement, last resurfaced in 2010, has moderate to severe transverse and longitudinal cracking, moderate rutting and raveling, and composite slab rocking/pavement failures. S.R. 28 is currently a 2-lane Rural Minor Arterial on non-NHS route. The facility has a 2015 AADT of 2,540 vehicles per day with 19% trucks.

The allocated budget for this original project description is $12,715,000.00 in FY 2020 dollars.

7.1 Alternative #1 No Build The No Build Alternative involves no inconvenience to the travelling public and no additional cost. The No-Build Alternative does not address the project’s essential need and purpose since the deterioration


Page 14

D160355.02 / May 2017

of the pavement will not be addressed and the safety defects will remain in place. The No-Build Alternative is not recommended because it does not meet any of the needs of the project.

7.2 Alternative #2 Mill and Structural Overlay and Shoulder Widening S.R. 28 is part of the 3R network and the National Truck Network. The design will be based on the criteria from Indiana Design Manual Figure 55-3A (two lane).

The project will be designed under the four principles of the INDOT Open Roads policy stressing sound engineering judgment, "Design Up" philosophy starting with the existing condition, adherence to the Purpose and Need of this report, and emphasis on safety of the system. The anticipated scope of work for this alternate would be as follows:

This alternative consists of full depth patching of deteriorated sections and a mill and structural overlay of the two travel lanes 12 feet wide and the construction of 8 feet shoulders with 6 feet paved.

The pavement section estimated is as follows.

165#/SYD QC/QA HMA Surface, 9.5mm on

220#/SYD QC/QA HMA Intermediate, 12.5mm on

Milling, Asphalt, 2”

The pavement patching is estimated to be approximately 15 percent of the overall pavement area to repair longitudinal cracking and alligator cracking. This patching includes the necessary improvements to resolve the deficiencies in stopping sight distance documented in this report.

In order to address the purpose and need with this option, the anticipated scope of work for this alternate would be as follows:

1. Close S.R. 28 to through traffic and detour traffic north on U.S. 231 to S.R. 25 to U.S. 52.

2. Mill the existing pavement 2 inches to remove the deterioration documented in this report.

3. Excavate areas of failed pavement and substandard sight distance. For purposes of this estimate, 15 percent of the pavement will be removed.

4. Perform appropriate subgrade treatment as determined by geotechnical investigation to the depth of the existing subgrade.

5. Install underdrains

6. Install full depth patch with a build up the same as the full depth replacement in option 3 consisting of 5 inches of asphalt and 5 inches of compacted aggregate.

7. Install improved shoulders and recoverable ditches to improve roadside safety and drainage and the integrity of the existing pavement.

8. Maintain existing horizontal alignment and intersection radii.

9. Provide transition milling and overlay of public road approaches.

10. Replace or extend existing culvert pipes as required.

Design exceptions are not anticipated unless horizontal stopping sight distance for vertical curvature is not repaired. At a minimum, the stopping sight distance issues should be resolved adjacent to intersections.


Page 15

D160355.02 / May 2017

7.3 Alternative # 3 Full Depth Reconstruction S.R. 28 is part of the 3R network and the National Truck Network. The design will be based on the criteria from Indiana Design Manual Figure 55-3A (two lane).

The roadway will have two travel lanes 12 feet wide, and 8 feet wide shoulders and a paved shoulder of 6 feet. The resulting pavement is 36 feet wide.




5" Compacted Aggregate, No. 53, Base on

Subgrade Treatment Type 1B.



2. Excavate existing pavement.

3. Perform appropriate subgrade treatment as determined by geotechnical investigation to the depth of the existing subgrade.


5. Install full depth replacement consisting of an estimated 5 inches of asphalt and 5 inches of compacted aggregate.

6. Grade recoverable ditches to improve roadside safety and drainage and the integrity of the existing pavement.




Design exceptions are not anticipated.

7.4 Alternative #4 Full Depth Reclamation (DRAFT Preferred Alternate) S.R. 28 is part of the 3R network and the National Truck Network. The design will be based on the criteria from Indiana Design Manual Figure 55-3A (two lane).

Full depth reclamation is a process that rebuilds worn out asphalt pavements by recycling 100% of the existing roadway and preserving the original investment. The existing asphalt is enhanced with cement and additional aggregate as required. The reclaimed asphalt is then graded and compacted and cured. Intermediate and surface courses of asphalt are added for wearing course.

The roadway will have two travel lanes 12 feet wide, and 8 feet wide shoulders and a paved shoulder of 6 feet. The resulting pavement is 36 feet wide.




Page 16

D160355.02 / May 2017


10” FDR.



2. Scarify and pulverize existing pavement as required.

3. Add water as required

4. Spread chemical additives

5. Mix, grade and compact the reclaimed asphalt mixture.


7. Install an estimated 4 inches of asphalt on the 10 inches full depth reclaimed asphalt.

8. Grade recoverable ditches to improve roadside safety and drainage and the integrity of the existing pavement.




Design exceptions are not anticipated.

8.0 Right of Way Impact Original information for the S.R. 28 corridor from Tippecanoe County has recorded 40 feet of right of way.

Contract plans of improvements to the bridge over Wea Creek in 1981 (B-13786) and the 1995 intersection improvement to the west at C.R. 400 E (R-22042) indicate an existing right of way on S.R. 28 of 60 feet (30 feet each side). Each of these projects dedicated additional right of way.

The R-22042 project has a similar typical section to what is proposed in this report. Acquisitions required in that project had an additional 15 to 20 feet right of way acquisition. That would be anticipated as part of the project for work on S.R. 28. It is possible that there may be parcels that need reacquired. This will be determined during right of way engineering. Title and encumbrance reports for the parcels along the project limits will be used to confirm the limits of the existing right-of-way.

For estimating purposes, a 15 foot wide take for the length of the project on each side of the road will be acquired. Deducting for previous projects at structures and 50 feet of right of way at each cross street the estimated land acquisition required is approximately 36 acres. A cost of $8,000 per acre will be used for a total right of way acquisition cost of $288,000.

9.0 Environmental Issues This project will require permits and approvals from several regulatory agencies, including the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), the Indiana Department of Natural Resources,


Page 17

D160355.02 / May 2017

Division of Water (DNR), the US Army Corps of Engineers, and the Tippecanoe County Drainage Board. An IDEM Rule 5 permit with a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be required due to the anticipated disturbance of more than one acre of soil. Work below the ordinary high water mark of streams or wetlands will require an Army Corps of Engineers 404 Discharge of Dredge or Fill Material Permit and may also require an IDEM 401 Water Quality Certification, depending on the type of permit issued by the Corps. For work on culverts with drainage areas greater than one square mile, a DNR Construction in a Floodway Permit will be required if the scope of work does not qualify for a general license, the rural bridge exemption, or the INDOT-DNR Memorandum of Understanding. According to the Tippecanoe County Surveyor’s Office, many of the culverts serve as a regulated drain; therefore, County Drainage Board approval may also be required for work within the easements of these drains.

Based on more than 10 acres of anticipated right-of-way acquisition, this project is expected to require a Level 3 Categorical Exclusion.

10.0 Cost Estimate S.R. 28 Cost Summary

Alternative #2 Full Depth Repair with

Mill and Resurface

Alternative #3 Full Depth

Reconstruction

Alternative #4 Full Depth

Reclamation DRAFT

Preferred Alternate

Road Construction $9,773,932 $13,592,769 $10,135,911

Contingency 15% $1,324,466 $1,900,930 $1,378,763

Construction Subtotal $11,098,398 $15,493,699 $11,514,674

Right of Way $288,000 $288,000 $288,000

Preliminary Engineering (10%) $1,109,840 $1,549,370 $1,151,467

Construction Engineering (12.5%) $1,387,300 $1,936,712 $1,439,334

Total $13,883,538 $19,267,781 $14,393,476

Cost estimates are in Appendix H.

11.0 Traffic Maintenance It is anticipated that this project will be constructed under a full closure with local traffic maintained since S.R. 28 has a low ADT. A detour would utilize U.S. 231 to S.R. 25 to U.S. 52. The length of detour is about 24 miles. Local detour would utilize adjacent county roads.

Duration of the project is estimated to be 6 months.

12.0 Related Projects, Consistency A review of new adjoining projects will be ongoing throughout the design for compatibility with the proposed work.


Page 18

D160355.02 / May 2017

13.0 Coordination, Meetings, Concurrence Field Check Meeting

Refer to Appendix F for Meeting Minutes.

14.0 Changes to Proposal The Project Manager shall be consulted if deviation from the proposal is determined to be necessary during a later phase of project development. The person initiating the change shall formally resubmit the revision for review and approval through the same process as required for the approval of the original engineering assessment. The revised document shall also be signed by the original parties who reviewed and approved the original assessment. Upon approval, the revised document must be attached to the original assessment to ensure historical integrity of the scope of the project. Proposed changes should include justification for the change and the estimated cost difference in accordance with Indiana Design Manual, Section 5-2.10(02)


Page 1

D160355.02 / May 2017

Concurrence

___________________________________________

Mike Eubank (Scoping Manager)

___________________________________________

Travis Kohl (Project Manager)

Documents

GAI Standard Report Template