North Whitfield County Roadway Corridor Study Report2.pdf · North Whitfield County Roadway Corridor Study Report #2: Unconstrained Alternatives ... North Whitfield County — Roadway

North Whitfield County Roadway Corridor Study

Report #2: Unconstrained Alternatives

MA Project 11501

September 16, 2011

Prepared For: Greater Dalton Metropolitan Planning Organization

Prepared By: Moreland Altobelli Associates, Inc. 2211 Beaver Ruin Road Suite 190 Norcross, GA 30071 (770) 263-5945

© 2011 Greater Dalton Metropolitan Planning Organization (GDMPO). All rights reserved. The contents of this publication reflect the views of the author(s), who is (are) responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The opinions, findings, and conclusions of this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of those of the GDMPO. This publication does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

North Whitfield County — Roadway Corridor Study

16-Sep-11 ii

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................. 4 1.1 Purpose of this report ............................................................................... 4 1.2 Organization of the Report ...................................................................... 4 2.0 Description of Alternatives ..................................................... 6

2.1 Unconstrained Project List ....................................................................... 6 2.1.1 Shoulder Upgrades ................................................................................ 6 2.1.2 Pavement rehabilitation and maintenance ....................................... 6 2.1.3 Restriping Program ................................................................................ 6 2.1.4 Bicycle Elements ................................................................................... 6 2.1.5 Safety Improvements ............................................................................ 7 2.1.6 Major Reconstruction ............................................................................ 7 2.1.7 Road Widening ...................................................................................... 7 3.0 Costs and Benefits ................................................................. 10 3.1 Cost Development Methodology ......................................................... 10 3.2 Benefit Development Methodology ..................................................... 12 3.3 Benefit Cost Ratios ................................................................................. 13 3.4 Level of Service Improvement .............................................................. 13 4.0 Ranked Improvements ......................................................... 15

4.1 Ranked by Benefit Cost ......................................................................... 16 4.2 Ranked by Type and Benefit Cost ........................................................ 17 4.3 Ranked by Level of Service and Capacity Improvement ................. 17 5.0 Funding Programs ................................................................. 20 5.1 Traditional Funding Programs ............................................................... 20 5.1.1 Lump Sum Funding .............................................................................. 20 5.1.2 Funding for improvements not covered by lump sum funding ...... 20 5.2 Innovative, “Non-Traditional”, Funding Mechanisms ......................... 21 6.0 Conclusion ............................................................................. 23 6.1 Next Steps ............................................................................................... 23

Appendix A. Benefit Cost Worksheets ................................................ A

Appendix B – Highway Capacity Analysis Worksheets ....................... B


16-Sep-11 iii

Table of Figures Figure 1: Roadways under Study ............................................................................................... 5 Figure 2: Proposed Improvements ............................................................................................ 9

Table of Tables Table 1: Unconstrained Project Costs ..................................................................................... 11 Table 2: Benefit Cost Ratios ...................................................................................................... 12 Table 3: Level of Service by Proposed Improvement ............................................................ 14 Table 4: Project Ranking by Benefit Cost Ratio ...................................................................... 16 Table 5: Project Ranking by Type and Benefit Cost Ratio ..................................................... 17 Table 6: Ranked by Level of Service Improvement ............................................................... 18 Table 7: Ranked by Capacity Improvement .......................................................................... 19


16-Sep-11 4

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of this report The purpose of this report is to provide the Greater Dalton Metropolitan Planning Organization (GDMPO) a list of projects which will improve the potential capacity of the studied roadways in order to attract development opportunities in northern Whitfield County. The roads have been identified as major corridors for traffic flows to and from Hamilton and Bradley Counties in Tennessee and Catoosa and Murray Counties in Georgia. The impetus for this study is the anticipated growth in traffic along these corridors that will result from the development of major employment centers in Tennessee, such as the Volkswagen Assembly Plant in Hamilton County and the Wacker Manufacturing Plant in Bradley County. The roadways under study are the following: State Route 2 (SR 2), from Murray County to Catoosa County; State Route 201 (SR 201), from State Route 2 to US Highway 41; State Route 71 (SR 71), from N. Dalton Bypass to the GA/TN State line; and US Highway 41 (US 41) from Catoosa county line to Interstate 75. Figure 1: Roadways under Study, illustrates the project study area.

1.2 Organization of the Report Moreland Altobelli Associates, Inc. (MA) developed an existing conditions analysis and created a report entitled North Whitfield County Corridor Study: Existing Conditions, Projections, and Findings. The report was published on July 11, 2011 and reviewed by the GDMPO.

This report is the second in a series of three and will present a series of proposed improvements, their costs, benefits, and rank them by various measures. The report will conclude with a discussion of various traditional and alternative funding mechanisms that may be used to finance the project list.


16-Sep-11 5

Figure 1: Roadways under Study


16-Sep-11 6

2.0 Description of Alternatives 2.1 Unconstrained Project List This section identifies potential projects that address the future needs of the studied roadways as evaluated and observed in the field. Figure 2: Proposed Improvements, shows the proposed projects against the list of studied roadways. Note that projects 3 through 7 are not specifically called out on the figure as they consist of the entire length of their respective roadways.

The various projects are divided into categories by type of improvement. See Section 4.0, Ranked Improvements, for a discussion of the relative merits of each proposed improvement.

2.1.1 Shoulder Upgrades Significant portions of the following roadways are substandard with respect to clear zone and ditch protection. “Clear zone” is a concept developed and maintained by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The basic premise is that the roadside environment should be forgiving of driver error, allowing space and time to recover and bring a vehicle safely to a stop without striking an obstruction or by protecting vehicles from direct contact with obstructions by installing features such as guardrail or barrier to mitigate the forces of impact. Run-off-the-road collisions are the leading cause of injury on rural two-lane roads.

The following projects are recommended for improving the roadside environment.

1) SR 2 – From Deep Springs Road to the Murray County line. Improve shoulders to establish adequate clear zone for vehicular recovery and increase roadway capacity. Project length: 2.55 miles.

2) SR 201 – From Reed Road to SR 2. Improve shoulders to establish adequate clear zone for vehicular recovery and increase roadway capacity. Project length: 2.25 miles.

2.1.2 Pavement rehabilitation and maintenance The roadways are recommended for pavement rehabilitation through resurfacing in the following order, based upon observed field conditions.

3) SR 2 – From Catoosa County line to Murray County line 4) SR 71 – From North Dalton Bypass to Tennessee State line 5) US 41 – From I-75 to Catoosa County line 6) SR 201 – From US 41 to SR 2

2.1.3 Restriping Program The only roadway which seemed to be in need of immediate restriping is listed below. All other roads in the project study area should be included on a regular maintenance routine for restriping.

7) SR 201 – From US 41 to SR 2.

2.1.4 Bicycle Elements US 41 is listed as State Bicycle Route 35. Accordingly, the following improvements are recommended:


16-Sep-11 7

8) US 41 From SR 201 (South) to Catoosa County line. Install and/or retrofit bicycle friendly shoulders. Replace rumble strips with gapped strips for access by cyclists.

2.1.5 Safety Improvements Several corridors and intersections in the project area showed higher frequencies or severities of collisions than would be expected of a similar roadway. To potentially reduce the crash frequencies and maintain consistently operational roadways, the following improvements are recommended.

9) SR 201 and Lees Chapel Road. Realign the SR 201 intersection to provide better sight distance and traffic calming. Alternately, install a roundabout at this location with provisions to handle Major Reconstruction Project #1.

10) SR 201 and Reed Road. Realign Reed Road to intersect with SR 201 at a 90 degree angle.

11) SR 201 at I-75, northbound and southbound ramp terminals. Realign ramp terminals or provide roundabouts to improve intersection sight distance and reduce the potential for crashes. This project has been included in the Transportation Investment Act constrained project list as of August, 2011. The list is currently pending approval by the Regional Roundtable.

12) SR 71 at SR 2, access control and intersection safety improvements. Install raised concrete median to provide for access control and prevent crossing/angle collisions in the near vicinity of the signalized intersection. Install concrete islands and pedestrian elements to upgrade the intersection to full American’s with Disabilities Act compliance and provide cross-intersection pedestrian connectivity, extending the existing sidewalk.

2.1.6 Major Reconstruction A significant reduction in capacity and safety was witnessed on the length of SR 201 between US 41 and Lees Chapel Road, which passes through the City of Tunnel Hill. As the objective of this study is to increase the capacity of the studied roadways for future passenger and freight vehicles, a bypass-type improvement that reduces traffic congestion of the existing SR 201 is recommended.

13) SR 201 – From SR 201/Lees Chapel Road to US 41. New location roadway. This project has been included in the Transportation Investment Act constrained project list as of August, 2011. The list is currently pending approval by the Regional Roundtable. Project length: 0.75 miles.

2.1.7 Road Widening Two sections of existing roadway are currently multi-lane roads but narrow to two lanes before the jurisdictional border of Whitfield County. SR 71 and US 41 both have two lane sections which could be widened to the adjacent border of Tennessee and Catoosa County, respectively for later incorporation into those agencies’ roadway plans. SR 2 and SR 201 are cross-county connectors that serve east-west travelers and should be upgraded for future capacity.

14) SR 71 – From 0.5 miles north of the Old Dalton-Cleveland Highway to the Tennessee State Line. Widen the existing two lane roadway from to four lanes with a flush median. Install 10’ shoulders with rumble strips to match the existing cross section of SR 71 south of the beginning point of this project. This project has been included in


16-Sep-11 8

the Transportation Investment Act constrained project list as of August, 2011. The list is currently pending approval by the Regional Roundtable. Project Length: 1.54 miles

15) US 41 – From Campbell Road north to the Catoosa County Line. Widen from the existing two lane roadway to four lanes with a flush median. Install curb, gutter, and sidewalk to match existing cross section at Campbell Road. Project Length: 1.07 miles.

16) SR 2 – from SR 201 to SR 71 with a realignment of the SR 2/SR 201 intersection. Widen from the existing two lane roadway to four lanes. Install rural shoulder to match existing drainage patterns. Widen and retain existing bridge over railroad near the western terminus of the project. Consider a roundabout for the western intersection with SR 201 to avoid turnover crashes by trucks. This project has been included in the Transportation Investment Act constrained project list as of August, 2011. The list is currently pending approval by the Regional Roundtable. Project Length: 1.75 miles.

17) SR 201 – From I-75 Road to SR 2. Widen existing three lane/two lane roadway to four lanes. Improve shoulders to alleviate clear zone deficiencies. Provide logical termini for project number 16. Project length: 4.70 miles. Note that this project is contradictory with widening project #18, safety project #10, and shoulder project #2.

18) SR 201 – From Reed Road to SR 2. Widen to three lanes with attendant shoulder and safety improvements at Reed Road. Project length: 2.25 miles. Note that this project is contradictory with widening project #17, safety project #10, and shoulder project #2.


16-Sep-11 9

Figure 2: Proposed Improvements

Source: Moreland Altobelli Associates, Inc. Note: Projects 3-7 are not shown. They consist of restriping and resurfacing projects which occupy the full length of studied roadways


16-Sep-11 10

3.0 Costs and Benefits Each of the projects listed in Section 2.0, Description of Alternatives. This section describes their anticipated project costs and benefits.

3.1 Cost Development Methodology Each project proposed was analyzed for cost using planning-level costing tools. These included aerial photography, literature review of previous and existing projects in the same area, typical rights of way costs for similar projects in the area, and basic assumptions about the types of construction that would occur with respect to drainage, shoulders, etc. These costs are by no means a detailed project breakdown containing individual design choices. Larger structures such as bridges, culverts, signals, are accounted for using cost per-square-yard and per-intersection cost estimates. In all respects, the costs associated with construction were developed with a conservative estimate in mind; most costs should be high compared to a final concept cost estimate with higher individual knowledge of the roadway in question. All Preliminary Engineering (PE) costs were calculated as 10% of construction cost and all values were rounded up to the nearest thousand dollars for convenience and clarity.

Table 1: Unconstrained Project Costs lists the estimated project design, right of way, utility, and construction costs for each project in the unconstrained list. These are planning-level cost estimates and are based on assumptions concerning average construction costs of various types of roadway facilities.

.


16-Sep-11 11

Table 1: Unconstrained Project Costs

Project Cost (Millions of $) No. Location Type R/W Utilities Construction PE Total

1 SR 2 Shoulder $270,000 $100,000 $1,855,000 $186,000 $2,411,000 2 SR 201 Shoulder $238,000 $100,000 $1,769,000 $177,000 $2,284,000 3 SR 2 Pavement $0 $0 $2,317,000 $232,000 $2,549,000 4 SR 71 Pavement $0 $0 $1,653,000 $166,000 $1,819,000 5 US 41 Pavement $0 $0 $5,829,000 $583,000 $6,412,000 6 SR 201 Pavement $0 $0 $1,553,000 $156,000 $1,709,000 7 SR 201 Restriping $0 $0 $104,000 $11,000 $115,000 8 US 41 Bicycle $0 $0 $235,000 $24,000 $259,000 9 SR 201, Lees Chapel Safety $221,000 $50,000 $1,235,000 $124,000 $1,630,000 10 SR 201, Reed Safety $135,000 $100,000 $1,135,000 $114,000 $1,484,000 11 SR 201, I-75 Safety $140,000 $300,000 $1,143,000 $115,000 $1,698,000 12 SR 71, SR 2 Safety $64,000 $300,000 $914,000 $92,000 $1,370,000 13 SR 201 Major Reconstruction $750,000 $750,000 $2,876,000 $225,000 $4,601,000 14 SR 71 Widening $1,170,000 $100,000 $5,627,000 $563,000 $7,460,000 15 US 41 Widening $883,000 $800,000 $3,009,000 $301,000 $4,993,000 16 SR 2 Widening $847,000 $300,000 $5,950,000 $595,000 $7,692,000 17 SR 201 - 4 lane Widening $3,595,000 $1,000,000 $8,073,000 $808,000 $13,476,000 18 SR 201 - 3 Lane Widening $2,057,000 $200,000 $2,860,000 $286,000 $5,403,000

Source: Moreland Altobelli Associates, Inc, TIA Constrained List


16-Sep-11 12

3.2 Benefit Development Methodology Project benefits were derived from two different areas: the difference in travel time between the no build and build conditions and the calculated reduction in crash frequency due to the proposed improvement.

The travel time reduction value is calculated in vehicle hours (veh-hr) and is a standard output of Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analyses. The reduction in crash frequency is calculated using methods from the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) and uses Federal Highway Administration crash reduction factors to calculate the potential reduction. The reduced frequency is combined with values for property damage, injury, and fatal crashes to generate a median yearly benefit.

The two values, reduction in vehicle hours and crash reduction, are combined to generate the project benefits, measured per year. The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) has a standard spreadsheet for calculating the benefit cost ratio of projects based upon the assumed future value of the dollar and the per-year project benefits. The spreadsheets for each project calculation can be found in the Appendix.

Table 2: Benefit Cost Ratios, shows similar information as Table 1, but it includes the calculated benefit cost ratio for each project. Benefits were derived using GDOT standard methods which include HCM and HSM analysis. For full breakdowns on the benefit calculations, see the Appendix.

Table 2: Benefit Cost Ratios

Project

No. Location Type Project Cost Benefit Cost

Ratio

1 SR 2 Shoulder $2,411,000 0.99 2 SR 201 Shoulder $2,284,000 1.39 3 SR 2 Pavement $2,549,000 n/a 4 SR 71 Pavement $1,819,000 n/a 5 US 41 Pavement $6,412,000 n/a 6 SR 201 Pavement $1,709,000 n/a 7 SR 201 Restriping $115,000 n/a 8 US 41 Bicycle $259,000 n/a

9 SR 201, Lees Chapel Safety $1,630,000 3.13

10 SR 201, Reed Safety $1,484,000 2.94 11 SR 201, I-75 Safety $1,698,000 5.53/2.53† 12 SR 71, SR 2 Safety $1,370,000 2.61

13 SR 201 Major Reconstruction $4,601,000 1.19

14 SR 71 Widening $7,460,000 1.08 15 US 41 Widening $4,993,000 1.34 16 SR 2 Widening $7,692,000 0.79 17 SR 201 - 4 lane Widening $13,476,000 0.98 18 SR 201 - 3 Lane Widening $5,403,000 0.99

Source: Moreland Altobelli Associates, Inc, TIA Constrained List Note: repaving, restriping and enhancement-type projects (such as bicycle-friendly shoulders) are not typically analyzed for benefit-cost † 2.53 benefit cost ratio represents the ratio if benefits derived from fatal collision avoidance is discounted


16-Sep-11 13

3.3 Benefit Cost Ratios Benefit cost analysis is used to determine if the project is financially reasonable. If the total benefits, calculated in dollars, do not exceed the projected costs, then the project would not be cost effective and would be eliminated from a fiscally constrained list. The projected benefits are divided by the projected costs to attain a ratio. If the ratio is greater than 1.0, then the project is not a net loss. This 1.0 cut off point is traditional for deciding if a project should be analyzed in greater detail, and be carried forward into design and construction phases.

A note about benefit cost ratios near 1.0: The reader of this document should note that both the cost development and benefit calculation for the projects described in Section 2.0 are planning-level estimates. This has an impact on the benefit cost ratios that are at or near 1.0. While every effort has been made to make both the costs and benefits of each project as accurate and reasonable as possible, these estimates will still necessarily be not as accurate as a full-blown project concept report. This has an effect on projects that have a benefit cost ratio very close to 1.0. For example, project number 18, shown in Table 2, has a benefit cost ratios of 0.99. This would typically drop it out of contention in a competitive fiscal environment, however as shown in the Appendix, an increase in benefit or a decrease in cost by $4,200 would make it a 1.0 benefit cost ratio. $4,200 is well within the range of cost flexibility that a planning level cost estimate cannot define. For that reason, projects with benefit cost ratios close to 1.0 will be maintained during consideration for implementation.

3.4 Level of Service Improvement Level of Service is a qualitative measurement of a roadways ability to perform at its theoretical design capacity. The levels of service range from LOS A to LOS F. LOS A represents free-flow traffic conditions and LOS F represents extreme delays with stopped traffic conditions. In a rural county such as Whitfield, LOS D is considered to be a failing level of service.

Table 3: Level of Service by Proposed Improvement shows the proposed projects that were analyzed for level of service and the degree to which they improve LOS. Some projects were not analyzed for LOS because there is no methodology for evaluating the effect on the roadway user. Roadway resurfacing and restriping projects are not construction methods that are evaluated by the HCM, and bicycle levels of service are difficult to evaluate without a greater number of cyclists using the facility.

As shown in Table 3: Level of Service by Proposed Improvement, projects numbers 1 and 17 will convert the projected 2035 failing LOS from D to an improved C or A, respectively.


16-Sep-11 14

Table 3: Level of Service by Proposed Improvement

Project 2035 LOS

No. Location Type Project Cost Benefit Cost Ratio

No Build Build

1 SR 2 Shoulder $2,411,000 0.99 D C 2 SR 201 Shoulder $2,284,000 1.39 D D

12 SR 71 & SR 2 Safety $1,370,000 2.61 A A

13 SR 201 Major Reconstruction $4,601,000 1.19 C A

14 SR 71 Widening $7,460,000 1.08 C A 15 US 41 Widening $4,993,000 1.34 A A 16 SR 2 Widening $7,692,000 0.79 C C

17 SR 201 - 4 lane Widening $13,476,000 0.98 D A

18 SR 201 - 3 Lane Widening $5,403,000 0.99 D D

Source: Moreland Altobelli Associates, Inc.


16-Sep-11 15

4.0 Ranked Improvements The purpose of this study is to develop project recommendations to increase the passenger and freight vehicle capacities of the studied roadways in north Whitfield County. There are several ways to approach an analysis of “increased capacity”. The traditional method of increasing capacity is to add lanes to existing roads or build new ones. Another, less used method, is to use the existing footprint of a roadway and make the road more easily drivable and forgiving to driver error. Improving the shoulder of a two lane roadway will increase the average speed of an existing roadway and improve the total throughput of an arterial. A third method for increasing capacity is to reduce the number of unforeseen incidents which reduce or compress the ability of a roadway to carry traffic. That is done by reducing the potential frequency and severity of collisions that occur along the roadway. Safety improvements prevent collisions or reduce the severity of those that occur. This makes the roadway more able to carry its maximum design traffic volume.

The following sections ranks the proposed improvements based upon several different measures.


16-Sep-11 16

4.1 Ranked by Benefit Cost Ranking projects based upon their benefit cost ratios is a good way to evaluate projects for their projected benefit to the community. These do not necessarily place high importance on capacity-type improvements as crash related injuries and death have high dollar values and can contribute significantly to the anticipated annual benefits of a project.

Table 4: Project Ranking by Benefit Cost Ratio shows the project listed ranked by benefit/cost ratio. Note that project number 11 has two benefit cost ratios; the lower ratio (2.53) is that which is realized if the annualized benefit resulting from fatal collision avoidance is discounted. There was one fatal collision at this intersection during the project study period. The 2.53 benefit cost ratio is shown to demonstrate the value of this project with or without the fatal collision being incorporated in the calculation.

Projects 3 through 8 do not have benefit cost ratios. These projects were not analyzed because there is no common methodology for evaluating their effect on the roadway user. Roadway resurfacing and restriping projects are not construction methods that are evaluated by the HCM, therefore delay variables are not used for evaluation of benefits. The projects are classified as maintenance-type projects

Table 4: Project Ranking by Benefit Cost Ratio

Project


Ratio

11 SR 201, I-75 Safety $1,698,000 5.53/2.53


10 SR 201, Reed Safety $1,484,000 2.94 12 SR 71, SR 2 Safety $1,370,000 2.61

2 SR 201 Shoulder $2,284,000 1.39 15 US 41 Widening $4,993,000 1.34


14 SR 71 Widening $7,460,000 1.08 1 SR 2 Shoulder $2,411,000 0.99

18 SR 201 - 3 Lane Widening $5,403,000 0.99 17 SR 201 - 4 lane Widening $13,476,000 0.98 16 SR 2 Widening $7,692,000 0.79

3 SR 2 Pavement $2,549,000 n/a 4 SR 71 Pavement $1,819,000 n/a 5 US 41 Pavement $6,412,000 n/a 6 SR 201 Pavement $1,709,000 n/a 7 SR 201 Restriping $115,000 n/a 8 US 41 Bicycle $259,000 n/a



16-Sep-11 17

Particular note should be made of project number 2, the SR 201 shoulder improvement project from Reed Road to SR 2. This project, based upon reduction in crashes and improved average roadway speed, will have a benefit cost ratio of 1.39.

4.2 Ranked by Type and Benefit Cost Table 5: Project Ranking by Type and Benefit Cost Ratio shows the proposed improvement list sorted by type of improvement and then by benefit cost ratio. The types of projects more traditionally associated with capacity improvements (widening, new construction) are sorted toward the top of the project list; maintenance improvements are sorted to the bottom. Within each type, the projects are sorted by benefit cost ratio.

Project numbers 15, 14, 13 come in at the top of this list as the US 41 widening to Catoosa County, the SR 71 widening to Tennessee, and the SR 201 new location extension to US 41. Project numbers 18 and 17, both of which are SR 201 widenings, one to three lanes and the other to four, are the next in line. Note that projects 17, 18, and 2 are mutually exclusive. The SR 201 widenings (17 and 18) would incorporate the improvements proposed in project number 2 as a matter of course.

Table 5: Project Ranking by Type and Benefit Cost Ratio

Project


Ratio

15 US 41 Widening $4,993,000 1.34 14 SR 71 Widening $7,460,000 1.08


18 SR 201 - 3 Lane Widening $5,403,000 0.99 17 SR 201 - 4 lane Widening $13,476,000 0.98 16 SR 2 Widening $7,692,000 0.79

2 SR 201 Shoulder $2,284,000 1.39 1 SR 2 Shoulder $2,411,000 0.99

11 SR 201, I-75 Safety $1,698,000 5.53/2.53


10 SR 201, Reed Safety $1,484,000 2.94 12 SR 71, SR 2 Safety $1,370,000 2.61

7 SR 201 Restriping $115,000 n/a 3 SR 2 Pavement $2,549,000 n/a 4 SR 71 Pavement $1,819,000 n/a 5 US 41 Pavement $6,412,000 n/a 6 SR 201 Pavement $1,709,000 n/a 8 US 41 Bicycle $259,000 n/a


4.3 Ranked by Level of Service and Capacity Improvement Table 6: Ranked by Level of Service Improvement shows the project list ranked by the degree to which it improves the level of service of the studied roadways. Level of service is also a


16-Sep-11 18

measure of roadway capacity, or a measure of how well the roadway is able to serve the maximum design capacity. As LOS degrades from C to D and beyond, the ability of a road to service the maximum number of vehicles declines.

The project that best improves LOS in the list is project number 17, the widening of SR 201 to four lanes from I-75 to SR 2. This project has a benefit cost ratio of less than 1.0 (0.98) but that should not be a factor is eliminating it from consideration. See the discussion under Section 3.3 for more details.

The second ranked project is the new alignment extension of SR 201 from Lees Chapel Road to US 41. This project attains the majority of its project benefits by shortening the route between I-75 and US 41 by 0.75 miles and removing the necessity of traversing a dense residential city neighborhood. By both reducing delay and increasing speed, the ability of passengers and freight to move to and from Catoosa County is significantly increased.

Table 6: Ranked by Level of Service Improvement

Project LOS


No Build Build



14 SR 71 Widening $7,460,000 1.08 C A 1 SR 2 Shoulder $2,411,000 0.99 D C 2 SR 201 Shoulder $2,284,000 1.39 D D

12 SR 71, SR 2 Safety $1,370,000 2.61 A A 15 US 41 Widening $4,993,000 1.34 A A 16 SR 2 Widening $7,692,000 0.79 C C


Source: Moreland Altobelli Associates, Inc, TIA Constrained List Note: repaving, restriping and enhancement-type projects (such as bicycle-friendly shoulders) are not typically analyzed for benefit-cost

Table 7: Ranked by Capacity Improvement, shows the list of projects sorted by type of improvement and by LOS improvement. The types of improvements that are most likely to increase capacity for freight and passenger vehicles are widenings and new construction and those are given weight over shoulder and safety improvements. Maintenance improvements are not included on this list.

By this measure, project number 15, the US 41 widening to Catoosa County, is the top ranked project, followed closely by the SR 201 new location extension to US 41.


16-Sep-11 19

Table 7: Ranked by Capacity Improvement

Project LOS


No Build Build

15 US 41 Widening $4,993,000 1.34 A A


14 SR 71 Widening $7,460,000 1.08 C A



16 SR 2 Widening $7,692,000 0.79 C C 2 SR 201 Shoulder $2,284,000 1.39 D D 1 SR 2 Shoulder $2,411,000 0.99 D C

12 SR 71, SR 2 Safety $1,370,000 2.61 A A Source: Moreland Altobelli Associates, Inc, TIA Constrained List Note: repaving, restriping and enhancement-type projects (such as bicycle-friendly shoulders) are not typically analyzed for benefit-cost


16-Sep-11 20

5.0 Funding Programs 5.1 Traditional Funding Programs Federal and State funding programs have been primarily used for road improvements in Whitfield County. Federal and State funding for road improvements for the four roads identified in this corridor study would require approval by the Greater Dalton Metropolitan Planning Organization (GDMPO). After a proposed improvement is included in a Long Range Transportation Plan for Whitfield County approved by the GDMPO, which is updated every five years and which can be amended during the five year period, the proposed improvement can be reviewed and approved for inclusion in the annual Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) by the GDMPO Policy Committee.

The Federal and/or State funds allocated to the proposed improvement are administered by the Georgia Department of Transportation. As determined by GDOT policies, a proposed project may require local matching funds depending on the type of improvement to the road. The following are various funding programs that could provide funds to improvements for the four roads identified in this corridor study.

5.1.1 Lump Sum Funding A portion of the Georgia State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is set aside for projects that do not affect the capacity of the roadway. Federal Surface Transportation Funds and State Funds are used in this funding category. The types of improvements under “lump sum” funding include;

Maintenance measures (existing system only) for bridges, resurfacing, pavement rehabilitation, median work, impact attenuators, signing, fencing, pavement markings, landscaping, walls, guardrail, and shoulder work.

Safety Improvements such as signal installation/upgrades, guardrail installation, sign installation, railroad protection devices, operational improvements, railroad crossing hazard elimination, roadway hazard elimination, and special safety studies and programs.

Preliminary Engineering for planning, management, and consultant design services. Wetland Mitigation for projects already under construction or complete and wetland

banks. Roadway/Interchange Lighting Right-Of-Way purchases for future projects in jeopardy of development and for

hardship acquisition. Transportation Enhancement on a first-come-first served basis within a specific

Fiscal Year allocation of funds. Safe Routes to School projects to enable children to walk and bicycle to school along

routes that are safe and appealing.

5.1.2 Funding for improvements not covered by lump sum funding Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) for MPOs with a population of less

than 200,000. These MPO STP funds are for road improvements that increase the carrying capacity of the roadway and can be used by the GDMPO to widen or make


16-Sep-11 21

alignment or geometric changes that will increase capacity and improve safety for the four roads identified in this corridor study

Federal Interstate Maintenance Funds can be used in the case of US 41, identified in this corridor study, to make improvements at the I-75/US 41 Interchange.

Local Funds from property taxes or other local revenue sources could be used on the four roads identified in this corridor study with the approval of GDOT and the GDMPO since all of the four roads in this corridor study are state routes.

Special Purpose Local Options Sales Tax (SPLOST) in recent years has been used to fund road improvements in Whitfield County. Under this funding mechanism a referendum is held to allow Whitfield County voters to consider the enactment of an additional one cent sales tax to be used for the improvement of a specified list of roads for a period of years (1-5 yrs)

The Georgia Transportation Investment Act (TIA) of 2010, upon approval in a referendum to be held in 2012 for voters within the region of the Northwest Georgia Regional Commission (NWGRC), could be used to make road improvements within Whitfield County through the enactment of an additional one- cent sales tax through out the region. Portions or all of the roads identified in this corridor study are on the draft list of roads to be improved under this act.

5.2 Innovative, “Non-Traditional”, Funding Mechanisms Traditional funding mechanisms listed above have been through the use of gasoline taxes, property taxes and motor vehicle excise taxes. At the federal level, Congress has funded transportation infrastructure through grants from the Highway Trust Fund, with revenues almost entirely from gasoline tax revenues. Innovative or “non-traditional” funding includes measures designed to leverage resources, funds management techniques, and institutional arrangements. The use of innovative financing techniques on the state level depends on that state's enabling statutes. To use innovative transportation finance programs, state and local governments must first enact enabling legislation to the programs and govern the way in which they work.

The primary purposes of innovative financing are to:

Maximize the ability of states, local governments, and other project sponsors to leverage Federal capital for needed investment in the nation's transportation system.

Utilize existing funds more effectively Move improvement projects into construction more quickly than under traditional

financing mechanisms Implement major transportation improvements that might not otherwise receive

financing.

Various innovative financing mechanisms that might be able to be used for the four roads identified in this corridor study are described below:

Public-Private Initiatives Acts or legislations by state or local governments could be enacted to establish partnerships or “joint developments” with private developers or project supporters that will provide benefits to participating parties. For example, if a major industrial or commercial developer has an interest in properties along one of the roads identified in this corridor study, legislation could be approved to enable the


16-Sep-11 22

developer and the local/state governments to both provide resources for a road improvement.

A State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) can provide many types of financial assistance, ranging from loans to credit enhancements. Forms of assistance may include interest subsidies, letters of credit, capital reserves for construction loans, bond financing, and purchase and lease agreements for transportation improvement projects.

Tax Increment Financing (TIF) allows cities and counties to create special districts (tax increment areas) and to make public improvements within those districts that will generate private-sector development. During the development period, the tax base is frozen at the predevelopment level. Property taxes continue to be paid, but taxes derived from increases in assessed values (the tax increment) resulting from new development either go to leverage future growth in the district or increase financially a special fund created to retire bonds issued to establish and support the development.

Bonds of various types are authorized, sold, and repaid by state and local governments to finance transportation improvements.

Impact Fees could be enacted by local and/or state governments that provide one-time charges to developers of properties along the road that would pay for transportation improvements and benefit the developer through growth generated by the improvement.

Special Assessments could be levied on special property taxing districts, self-imposed by property owners to support transportation improvements. The costs of the improvements are paid by the property owners who will benefit from the improvement.

Development Contributions, also known as exactions could be land donations or construction or provisions of public services related to the transportation project. Exactions are negotiated and agreed on as part of the permitting process of the development along the road.

More details concerning these innovative funding mechanisms can be found in the Project Finance Primer, published by the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. This publication can be found at www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/finance/resources/general/index.htm.


16-Sep-11 23

6.0 Conclusion 6.1 Next Steps This is the conclusion of Task 3. The next step is to recommend a particular slate of improvements and an implementation plan for their construction or incorporation into the county transportation program.

.


16-Sep-11 A

Appendix A. Benefit Cost Worksheets

GD

OT

Ben

efi

t C

os

t C

alc

ula

tor

ente

r in

form

ation in g

reen c

ells

Pro

ject

Info

rmati

on

ID C

osts

Description

Tota

l cost

2,4

09,4

22

$

Annualiz

ed c

ost

142,2

66

$

Co

st

Esti

mate

Date

of

estim

ate

9/1

0/1

1 A

uto

Dela

y C

osts

PE

cost

185,4

67

$

Nobuild

951,3

14

$

RO

W c

ost

269,2

80

$

Build

869,1

67

$

UT

ILIT

Y c

ost

100,0

00

$

Auto

dela

y s

avin

gs

82,1

47

$

CS

T c

ost

1,8

54,6

75

$

Tota

l2,4

09,4

22

$

T

ruck D

ela

y C

osts

Tra

ffic

in

2035

Nobuild

685,4

18

$

Sourc

e o

f tr

aff

ic d

ata

Build

626,2

31

$

Tru

ck d

ela

y s

avin

gs

59,1

87

$

Without

pro

ject

(nobuild

)

Annual V

MT

Fu

el

Co

sts

Annual V

HT

78,6

21

N

obuild

-$

Avera

ge s

peed (

mph)

0

B

uild

-$

Fuel cost

savin

gs

-$

With p

roje

ct

(build

)

Annual V

MT

C

han

ge i

n G

SP

N

A

Annual V

HT

71,8

32

A

uto

dela

y c

ost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Avera

ge s

peed (

mph)

0

T

ruck d

ela

y c

ost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Fuel cost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Para

mete

rsD

efa

ult

Overr

ide

Used

Tota

l benefit

adju

stm

ent

NA

Analy

sis

year

2035

2035

2035

Dis

count

rate

7.0

%7%

B

en

efi

ts i

n 2

035

141,3

33

$

Desig

n life (

years

)25

20

20

Base y

ear

of

cost

estim

ate

N/A

2011

2011

B

en

efi

t-C

ost

Rati

o0.9

9

Curr

ent

CS

T p

rogra

m y

ear

N/A

2015

2015

Fuel price (

$/g

allo

n)

3.2

23.2

2

Fuel econom

y (

mpg)

18.0

318.0

3N

ote

s

Valu

e o

f auto

tra

vel ($

/hr)

13.7

513.7

5

Valu

e o

f tr

uck t

ravel ($

/hr)

72.6

572.6

5

Perc

ent

trucks

12%

12%

Inclu

de G

SP

benefits

No

No

SR

2 S

hould

er

Wid

enin

g

Vehic

le h

ours

tra

vele

d d

erived f

rom

HC

S+

com

parisons o

f befo

re a

fter

should

er

constr

uction,

and

an a

ssum

ption o

f 6 h

ours

of

benefit

GD

OT

Ben

efi

t C

os

t C

alc

ula

tor

ente

r in

form

ation in g

reen c

ells

Pro

ject

Info

rmati

on

ID C

osts

Description

Tota

l cost

2,2

82,6

20

$

Annualiz

ed c

ost

134,7

79

$

Co

st

Esti

mate

Date

of

estim

ate

9/1

0/1

1 A

uto

Dela

y C

osts

PE

cost

176,8

20

$

Nobuild

1,2

24,2

54

$

RO

W c

ost

237,6

00

$

Build

1,1

15,6

08

$

UT

ILIT

Y c

ost

100,0

00

$

Auto

dela

y s

avin

gs

108,6

46

$

CS

T c

ost

1,7

68,2

00

$

Tota

l2,2

82,6

20

$

T

ruck D

ela

y C

osts

Tra

ffic

in

2035

Nobuild

882,0

70

$

Sourc

e o

f tr

aff

ic d

ata

Build

803,7

91

$

Tru

ck d

ela

y s

avin

gs

78,2

79

$

Without

pro

ject

(nobuild

)

Annual V

MT

Fu

el

Co

sts

Annual V

HT

101,1

78

Nobuild

-$

Avera

ge s

peed (

mph)

0

B

uild

-$

Fuel cost

savin

gs

-$

With p

roje

ct

(build

)

Annual V

MT

C

han

ge i

n G

SP

N

A

Annual V

HT

92,1

99

A

uto

dela

y c

ost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Avera

ge s

peed (

mph)

0

T

ruck d

ela

y c

ost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Fuel cost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Para

mete

rsD

efa

ult

Overr

ide

Used

Tota

l benefit

adju

stm

ent

NA

Analy

sis

year

2035

2035

2035

Dis

count

rate

7.0

%7%

B

en

efi

ts i

n 2

035

186,9

25

$

Desig

n life (

years

)25

20

20

Base y

ear

of

cost

estim

ate

N/A

2011

2011

B

en

efi

t-C

ost

Rati

o1.3

9

Curr

ent

CS

T p

rogra

m y

ear

N/A

2015

2015

Fuel price (

$/g

allo

n)

3.2

23.2

2

Fuel econom

y (

mpg)

18.0

318.0

3N

ote

s

Valu

e o

f auto

tra

vel ($

/hr)

13.7

513.7

5

Valu

e o

f tr

uck t

ravel ($

/hr)

72.6

572.6

5

Perc

ent

trucks

12%

12%

Inclu

de G

SP

benefits

No

No

SR

201 S

hould

er

Wid

enin

g

Vehic

le h

ours

tra

vele

d d

erived f

rom

HC

S+

com

parisons o

f befo

re a

fter

should

er

constr

uction,

and

an a

ssum

ption o

f 6 h

ours

of

benefit

GD

OT

Ben

efi

t C

os

t C

alc

ula

tor

ente

r in

form

ation in g

reen c

ells

Pro

ject

Info

rmati

on

ID C

osts

Description

Tota

l cost

1,6

28,6

36

$

Annualiz

ed c

ost

96,1

64

$

Co

st

Esti

mate

Date

of

estim

ate

9/1

0/1

1

PE

cost

123,4

44

$

-$

RO

W c

ost

220,7

50

$

-$

UT

ILIT

Y c

ost

50,0

00

$

C

rash S

avin

gs

301,0

00

$

CS

T c

ost

1,2

34,4

42

$

Tota

l1,6

28,6

36

$

T

ruck D

ela

y C

osts

Tra

ffic

in

2035

Nobuild

-$

Sourc

e o

f tr

aff

ic d

ata

Build

-$

Tru

ck d

ela

y s

avin

gs

-$

Without

pro

ject

(nobuild

)

Annual V

MT

Fu

el

Co

sts

Annual V

HT

Nobuild

-$

Avera

ge s

peed (

mph)

#D

IV/0

!

B

uild

-$

Fuel cost

savin

gs

-$

With p

roje

ct

(build

)

Annual V

MT

C

han

ge i

n G

SP

N

A

Annual V

HT

Auto

dela

y c

ost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Avera

ge s

peed (

mph)

#D

IV/0

!

T

ruck d

ela

y c

ost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Fuel cost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Para

mete

rsD

efa

ult

Overr

ide

Used

Tota

l benefit

adju

stm

ent

NA

Analy

sis

year

2035

2035

2035

Dis

count

rate

7.0

%7%

B

en

efi

ts i

n 2

035

301,0

00

$

Desig

n life (

years

)25

20

20

Base y

ear

of

cost

estim

ate

N/A

2011

2011

B

en

efi

t-C

ost

Rati

o3.1

3

Curr

ent

CS

T p

rogra

m y

ear

N/A

2015

2015

Fuel price (

$/g

allo

n)

3.2

23.2

2

Fuel econom

y (

mpg)

18.0

318.0

3N

ote

s

Valu

e o

f auto

tra

vel ($

/hr)

13.7

513.7

5

Valu

e o

f tr

uck t

ravel ($

/hr)

72.6

572.6

5

Perc

ent

trucks

12%

12%

Inclu

de G

SP

benefits

No

No

SR

201 &

Lees C

hapel R

oad S

afe

ty I

mpro

vem

ent

GD

OT

Ben

efi

t C

os

t C

alc

ula

tor

ente

r in

form

ation in g

reen c

ells

Pro

ject

Info

rmati

on

ID C

osts

Description

Tota

l cost

1,4

82,9

30

$

Annualiz

ed c

ost

87,5

61

$

Co

st

Esti

mate

Date

of

estim

ate

9/1

0/1

1

PE

cost

113,4

48

$

-$

RO

W c

ost

135,0

00

$

-$

UT

ILIT

Y c

ost

100,0

00

$

Cra

sh S

avin

gs

257,5

00

$

CS

T c

ost

1,1

34,4

82

$

Tota

l1,4

82,9

30

$

T

ruck D

ela

y C

osts

Tra

ffic

in

2035

Nobuild

-$

Sourc

e o

f tr

aff

ic d

ata

Build

-$

Tru

ck d

ela

y s

avin

gs

-$

Without

pro

ject

(nobuild

)

Annual V

MT

Fu

el

Co

sts

Annual V

HT

Nobuild

-$

Avera

ge s

peed (

mph)

#D

IV/0

!

B

uild

-$

Fuel cost

savin

gs

-$

With p

roje

ct

(build

)

Annual V

MT

C

han

ge i

n G

SP

N

A

Annual V

HT

Auto

dela

y c

ost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Avera

ge s

peed (

mph)

#D

IV/0

!

T

ruck d

ela

y c

ost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Fuel cost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Para

mete

rsD

efa

ult

Overr

ide

Used

Tota

l benefit

adju

stm

ent

NA

Analy

sis

year

2035

2035

2035

Dis

count

rate

7.0

%7%

B

en

efi

ts i

n 2

035

257,5

00

$

Desig

n life (

years

)25

20

20

Base y

ear

of

cost

estim

ate

N/A

2011

2011

B

en

efi

t-C

ost

Rati

o2.9

4

Curr

ent

CS

T p

rogra

m y

ear

N/A

2015

2015

Fuel price (

$/g

allo

n)

3.2

23.2

2

Fuel econom

y (

mpg)

18.0

318.0

3N

ote

s

Valu

e o

f auto

tra

vel ($

/hr)

13.7

513.7

5

Valu

e o

f tr

uck t

ravel ($

/hr)

72.6

572.6

5

Perc

ent

trucks

12%

12%

Inclu

de G

SP

benefits

No

No

SR

201 &

Reed R

oad S

afe

ty I

mpro

vem

ent

GD

OT

Ben

efi

t-C

os

t C

alc

ula

tor

ente

r in

form

ation in g

reen c

ells

Pro

ject

Info

rmati

on

ID C

osts

Description

Tota

l cost

1,3

69,2

49

$

Annualiz

ed c

ost

80,8

48

$

Co

st

Esti

mate

Date

of

estim

ate

9/1

4/1

1C

rash

Savin

gs

PE

cost

91,3

86

$

-

$

RO

W c

ost

64,0

00

$

-

$

UT

ILIT

Y c

ost

300,0

00

$

Cra

sh S

avin

gs

210,9

37

$

CS

T c

ost

913,8

63

$

Tota

l1,3

69,2

49

$

T

ruck D

ela

y C

osts

Tra

ffic

in

2035

Nobuild

-$

Sourc

e o

f tr

aff

ic d

ata

Build

-$

Tru

ck d

ela

y s

avin

gs

-$

Without

pro

ject

(nobuild

)

Annual V

MT

Fu

el

Co

sts

Annual V

HT

Nobuild

-$

Avera

ge s

peed (

mph)

#D

IV/0

!

B

uild

-$

Fuel cost

savin

gs

-$

With p

roje

ct

(build

)

Annual V

MT

C

han

ge i

n G

SP

N

A

Annual V

HT

Auto

dela

y c

ost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Avera

ge s

peed (

mph)

#D

IV/0

!

T

ruck d

ela

y c

ost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Fuel cost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Para

mete

rsD

efa

ult

Overr

ide

Used

Tota

l benefit

adju

stm

ent

NA

Analy

sis

year

2035

2035

2035

Dis

count

rate

7.0

%7%

B

en

efi

ts i

n 2

035

210,9

37

$

Desig

n life (

years

)25

20

20

Base y

ear

of

cost

estim

ate

N/A

2011

2011

B

en

efi

t-C

ost

Rati

o2.6

1

Curr

ent

CS

T p

rogra

m y

ear

N/A

2015

2015

Fuel price (

$/g

allo

n)

3.2

23.2

2

Fuel econom

y (

mpg)

18.0

318.0

3N

ote

s

Valu

e o

f auto

tra

vel ($

/hr)

13.7

513.7

5

Valu

e o

f tr

uck t

ravel ($

/hr)

72.6

572.6

5

Perc

ent

trucks

12%

12%

Inclu

de G

SP

benefits

No

No

SR

2 &

SR

71 S

afe

ty I

mpro

vem

ents

Only

rele

vant

Benefit

info

rmation u

sed f

or

this

pro

ject

was t

he a

nnual savin

gs in c

rash r

ela

ted d

am

age a

nd

inju

ries.

This

was input

directly into

the s

pre

adsheet

to

take a

dvanta

ge o

f th

e d

evelo

ped d

iscouting f

orm

ula

s.

GD

OT

Ben

efi

t C

os

t C

alc

ula

tor

ente

r in

form

ation in g

reen c

ells

Pro

ject

Info

rmati

on

ID C

osts

Description

Tota

l cost

4,6

00,0

00

$

Annualiz

ed c

ost

271,6

10

$

Co

st

Esti

mate

Date

of

estim

ate

9/1

0/1

1 A

uto

Dela

y C

osts

PE

cost

224,6

63

$

Nobuild

656,4

25

$

RO

W c

ost

750,0

00

$

Build

468,8

75

$

UT

ILIT

Y c

ost

750,0

00

$

Auto

dela

y s

avin

gs

187,5

50

$

CS

T c

ost

2,8

75,3

37

$

Tota

l4,6

00,0

00

$

T

ruck D

ela

y C

osts

Tra

ffic

in

2035

Nobuild

472,9

52

$

Sourc

e o

f tr

aff

ic d

ata

Build

337,8

23

$

Tru

ck d

ela

y s

avin

gs

135,1

29

$

Without

pro

ject

(nobuild

)

Annual V

MT

Fu

el

Co

sts

Annual V

HT

54,2

50

N

obuild

-$

Avera

ge s

peed (

mph)

0

B

uild

-$

Fuel cost

savin

gs

-$

With p

roje

ct

(build

)

Annual V

MT

C

han

ge i

n G

SP

N

A

Annual V

HT

38,7

50

A

uto

dela

y c

ost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Avera

ge s

peed (

mph)

0

T

ruck d

ela

y c

ost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Fuel cost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Para

mete

rsD

efa

ult

Overr

ide

Used

Tota

l benefit

adju

stm

ent

NA

Analy

sis

year

2035

2035

2035

Dis

count

rate

7.0

%7%

B

en

efi

ts i

n 2

035

322,6

79

$

Desig

n life (

years

)25

20

20

Base y

ear

of

cost

estim

ate

N/A

2011

2011

B

en

efi

t-C

ost

Rati

o1.1

9

Curr

ent

CS

T p

rogra

m y

ear

N/A

2015

2015

Fuel price (

$/g

allo

n)

3.2

23.2

2

Fuel econom

y (

mpg)

18.0

318.0

3N

ote

s

Valu

e o

f auto

tra

vel ($

/hr)

13.7

513.7

5

Valu

e o

f tr

uck t

ravel ($

/hr)

72.6

572.6

5

Perc

ent

trucks

12%

12%

Inclu

de G

SP

benefits

No

No

SR

201 M

ajo

r R

econstr

uction

Assum

es N

O d

iffe

rence in s

peed (

45 M

PH

) betw

een

build

and n

o b

uild

, w

hic

h is a

n e

xtr

em

em

ly

conserv

ative a

ssum

ption.

Actu

al B

C r

atio w

ill b

e

hig

her.

GD

OT

Ben

efi

t C

os

t C

alc

ula

tor

ente

r in

form

ation in g

reen c

ells

Pro

ject

Info

rmati

on

ID C

osts

Description

Tota

l cost

7,4

58,6

00

$

Annualiz

ed c

ost

440,3

98

$

Co

st

Esti

mate

Date

of

estim

ate

9/1

0/1

1 A

uto

Dela

y C

osts

PE

cost

562,6

74

$

Nobuild

656,4

25

$

RO

W c

ost

1,1

69,1

84

$

B

uild

511,2

25

$

UT

ILIT

Y c

ost

100,0

00

$

Auto

dela

y s

avin

gs

145,2

00

$

CS

T c

ost

5,6

26,7

42

$

Tota

l7,4

58,6

00

$

T

ruck D

ela

y C

osts

Tra

ffic

in

2035

Nobuild

472,9

52

$

Sourc

e o

f tr

aff

ic d

ata

Build

368,3

36

$

Tru

ck d

ela

y s

avin

gs

104,6

16

$

Without

pro

ject

(nobuild

)

Annual V

MT

Annual V

HT

54,2

50

-

$

Avera

ge s

peed (

mph)

0-

$

Cra

sh S

avin

gs

226,2

50

$

With p

roje

ct

(build

)

Annual V

MT

C

han

ge i

n G

SP

N

A

Annual V

HT

42,2

50

A

uto

dela

y c

ost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Avera

ge s

peed (

mph)

0

T

ruck d

ela

y c

ost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Fuel cost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Para

mete

rsD

efa

ult

Overr

ide

Used

Tota

l benefit

adju

stm

ent

NA

Analy

sis

year

2035

2035

2035

Dis

count

rate

7.0

%7%

B

en

efi

ts i

n 2

035

476,0

66

$

Desig

n life (

years

)25

20

20

Base y

ear

of

cost

estim

ate

N/A

2011

2011

B

en

efi

t-C

ost

Rati

o1.0

8

Curr

ent

CS

T p

rogra

m y

ear

N/A

2015

2015

Fuel price (

$/g

allo

n)

3.2

23.2

2

Fuel econom

y (

mpg)

18.0

318.0

3N

ote

s

Valu

e o

f auto

tra

vel ($

/hr)

13.7

513.7

5

Valu

e o

f tr

uck t

ravel ($

/hr)

72.6

572.6

5

Perc

ent

trucks

12%

12%

Inclu

de G

SP

benefits

No

No

SR

71 W

idenin

g

GD

OT

Ben

efi

t C

os

t C

alc

ula

tor

ente

r in

form

ation in g

reen c

ells

Pro

ject

Info

rmati

on

ID C

osts

Description

Tota

l cost

4,9

91,6

38

$

Annualiz

ed c

ost

294,7

34

$

Co

st

Esti

mate

Date

of

estim

ate

9/1

0/1

1 A

uto

Dela

y C

osts

PE

cost

300,8

33

$

Nobuild

1,3

03,7

75

$

RO

W c

ost

882,4

80

$

Build

1,1

67,6

50

$

UT

ILIT

Y c

ost

800,0

00

$

Auto

dela

y s

avin

gs

136,1

25

$

CS

T c

ost

3,0

08,3

25

$

Tota

l4,9

91,6

38

$

T

ruck D

ela

y C

osts

Tra

ffic

in

2035

Nobuild

939,3

65

$

Sourc

e o

f tr

aff

ic d

ata

Build

841,2

87

$

Tru

ck d

ela

y s

avin

gs

98,0

78

$

Without

pro

ject

(nobuild

)

Annual V

MT

Annual V

HT

107,7

50

-$

Avera

ge s

peed (

mph)

0-

$

Cra

sh S

avin

gs

161,2

50

$

With p

roje

ct

(build

)

Annual V

MT

C

han

ge i

n G

SP

N

A

Annual V

HT

96,5

00

A

uto

dela

y c

ost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Avera

ge s

peed (

mph)

0

T

ruck d

ela

y c

ost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Fuel cost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Para

mete

rsD

efa

ult

Overr

ide

Used

Tota

l benefit

adju

stm

ent

NA

Analy

sis

year

2035

2035

2035

Dis

count

rate

7.0

%7%

B

en

efi

ts i

n 2

035

395,4

53

$

Desig

n life (

years

)25

20

20

Base y

ear

of

cost

estim

ate

N/A

2011

2011

B

en

efi

t-C

ost

Rati

o1.3

4

Curr

ent

CS

T p

rogra

m y

ear

N/A

2015

2015

Fuel price (

$/g

allo

n)

3.2

23.2

2

Fuel econom

y (

mpg)

18.0

318.0

3N

ote

s

Valu

e o

f auto

tra

vel ($

/hr)

13.7

513.7

5

Valu

e o

f tr

uck t

ravel ($

/hr)

72.6

572.6

5

Perc

ent

trucks

12%

12%

Inclu

de G

SP

benefits

No

No

US

41 W

idenin

g

GD

OT

Ben

efi

t C

os

t C

alc

ula

tor

ente

r in

form

ation in g

reen c

ells

Pro

ject

Info

rmati

on

ID C

osts

Description

Tota

l cost

-$

Annualiz

ed c

ost

-$

Co

st

Esti

mate

Date

of

estim

ate

9/1

0/1

1 A

uto

Dela

y C

osts

PE

cost

Nobuild

-$

RO

W c

ost

Build

-$

UT

ILIT

Y c

ost

Auto

dela

y s

avin

gs

-$

CS

T c

ost

Tota

l-

$

Tru

ck D

ela

y C

osts

Tra

ffic

in

2035

Nobuild

-$

Sourc

e o

f tr

aff

ic d

ata

Build

-$

Tru

ck d

ela

y s

avin

gs

-$

Without

pro

ject

(nobuild

)

Annual V

MT

Fu

el

Co

sts

Annual V

HT

Nobuild

-$

Avera

ge s

peed (

mph)

#D

IV/0

!

B

uild

-$

Fuel cost

savin

gs

-$

With p

roje

ct

(build

)

Annual V

MT

C

han

ge i

n G

SP

N

A

Annual V

HT

Auto

dela

y c

ost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Avera

ge s

peed (

mph)

#D

IV/0

!

T

ruck d

ela

y c

ost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Fuel cost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Para

mete

rsD

efa

ult

Overr

ide

Used

Tota

l benefit

adju

stm

ent

NA

Analy

sis

year

2035

2035

2035

Dis

count

rate

7.0

%7%

B

en

efi

ts i

n 2

035

-$

Desig

n life (

years

)25

20

20

Base y

ear

of

cost

estim

ate

N/A

2011

2011

B

en

efi

t-C

ost

Rati

o#D

IV/0

!

Curr

ent

CS

T p

rogra

m y

ear

N/A

2015

2015

Fuel price (

$/g

allo

n)

3.2

23.2

2

Fuel econom

y (

mpg)

18.0

318.0

3N

ote

s

Valu

e o

f auto

tra

vel ($

/hr)

13.7

513.7

5

Valu

e o

f tr

uck t

ravel ($

/hr)

72.6

572.6

5

Perc

ent

trucks

12%

12%

Inclu

de G

SP

benefits

No

No

SR

2 W

idenin

g

GD

OT

Ben

efi

t C

os

t C

alc

ula

tor

ente

r in

form

ation in g

reen c

ells

Pro

ject

Info

rmati

on

ID C

osts

Description

Tota

l cost

13,4

73,9

69

$

Annualiz

ed c

ost

795,5

79

$

Co

st

Esti

mate

Date

of

estim

ate

9/1

0/1

1 A

uto

Dela

y C

osts

PE

cost

807,2

26

$

Nobuild

2,6

65,0

25

$

RO

W c

ost

3,5

94,4

80

$

B

uild

2,3

62,5

25

$

UT

ILIT

Y c

ost

1,0

00,0

00

$

A

uto

dela

y s

avin

gs

302,5

00

$

CS

T c

ost

8,0

72,2

63

$

Tota

l13,4

73,9

69

$

Tru

ck D

ela

y C

osts

Tra

ffic

in

2035

Nobuild

1,9

20,1

40

$

Sourc

e o

f tr

aff

ic d

ata

Build

1,7

02,1

90

$

Tru

ck d

ela

y s

avin

gs

217,9

50

$

Without

pro

ject

(nobuild

)

Annual V

MT

Annual V

HT

220,2

50

-$

Avera

ge s

peed (

mph)

0-

$

Cra

sh S

avin

gs

257,5

00

$

With p

roje

ct

(build

)

Annual V

MT

C

han

ge i

n G

SP

N

A

Annual V

HT

195,2

50

Auto

dela

y c

ost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Avera

ge s

peed (

mph)

0

T

ruck d

ela

y c

ost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Fuel cost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Para

mete

rsD

efa

ult

Overr

ide

Used

Tota

l benefit

adju

stm

ent

NA

Analy

sis

year

2035

2035

2035

Dis

count

rate

7.0

%7%

B

en

efi

ts i

n 2

035

777,9

50

$

Desig

n life (

years

)25

20

20

Base y

ear

of

cost

estim

ate

N/A

2011

2011

B

en

efi

t-C

ost

Rati

o0.9

8

Curr

ent

CS

T p

rogra

m y

ear

N/A

2015

2015

Fuel price (

$/g

allo

n)

3.2

23.2

2

Fuel econom

y (

mpg)

18.0

318.0

3N

ote

s

Valu

e o

f auto

tra

vel ($

/hr)

13.7

513.7

5

Valu

e o

f tr

uck t

ravel ($

/hr)

72.6

572.6

5

Perc

ent

trucks

12%

12%

Inclu

de G

SP

benefits

No

No

SR

201 W

idenin

g 4

Lane

GD

OT

Ben

efi

t C

os

t C

alc

ula

tor

ente

r in

form

ation in g

reen c

ells

Pro

ject

Info

rmati

on

ID C

osts

Description

Tota

l cost

5,4

01,4

81

$

Annualiz

ed c

ost

318,9

34

$

Co

st

Esti

mate

Date

of

estim

ate

9/1

0/1

1 A

uto

Dela

y C

osts

PE

cost

285,9

16

$

Nobuild

1,2

49,3

25

$

RO

W c

ost

2,0

56,4

00

$

B

uild

1,2

16,0

50

$

UT

ILIT

Y c

ost

200,0

00

$

Auto

dela

y s

avin

gs

33,2

75

$

CS

T c

ost

2,8

59,1

65

$

Tota

l5,4

01,4

81

$

T

ruck D

ela

y C

osts

Tra

ffic

in

2035

Nobuild

900,1

34

$

Sourc

e o

f tr

aff

ic d

ata

Build

876,1

59

$

Tru

ck d

ela

y s

avin

gs

23,9

75

$

Without

pro

ject

(nobuild

)

Annual V

MT

Annual V

HT

103,2

50

-$

Avera

ge s

peed (

mph)

0-

$

Cra

sh S

avin

gs

257,5

00

$

With p

roje

ct

(build

)

Annual V

MT

C

han

ge i

n G

SP

N

A

Annual V

HT

100,5

00

Auto

dela

y c

ost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Avera

ge s

peed (

mph)

0

T

ruck d

ela

y c

ost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Fuel cost

adju

stm

ent

NA

Para

mete

rsD

efa

ult

Overr

ide

Used

Tota

l benefit

adju

stm

ent

NA

Analy

sis

year

2035

2035

2035

Dis

count

rate

7.0

%7%

B

en

efi

ts i

n 2

035

314,7

50

$

Desig

n life (

years

)25

20

20

Base y

ear

of

cost

estim

ate

N/A

2011

2011

B

en

efi

t-C

ost

Rati

o0.9

9

Curr

ent

CS

T p

rogra

m y

ear

N/A

2015

2015

Fuel price (

$/g

allo

n)

3.2

23.2

2

Fuel econom

y (

mpg)

18.0

318.0

3N

ote

s

Valu

e o

f auto

tra

vel ($

/hr)

13.7

513.7

5

Valu

e o

f tr

uck t

ravel ($

/hr)

72.6

572.6

5

Perc

ent

trucks

12%

12%

Inclu

de G

SP

benefits

No

No

SR

201 W

idenin

g 3

Lane

Whitfield County

SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS

Non-Construction Costs

A. Right-of-Way $269,280

B. Reimbursable Utilities $100,000

Construction Costs

C. Major Structures $0

D. Grading and Earthwork $249,333

E. Drainage $171,770

F.. Base and Paving $794,864

H. Signing and Striping $84,784

I. Guardrail $101,800

J. Traffic Control & Mobilization $200,000

K. Landscaping and Erosion Control $207,123

L. Miscellaneous Construction Items $45,000

Construction Cost Subtotal $1,854,675

Engineering & Contingencies; 10% $185,467

Total Construction Cost $2,040,142

Total Project Costs $2,409,422

SR 2 Shoulder Improvements

From Deep Springs Road to Murray County

Whitfield County





Construction Costs















From Reed Road to SR 2

Whitfield County



A. Right-of-Way $0

B. Reimbursable Utilities $0

Construction Costs


D. Grading and Earthwork $0

E. Drainage $0

F.. Base and Paving $1,932,153


I. Guardrail $0


K. Landscaping and Erosion Control $0






SR 2 Widening

From Catoosa Co. to Murray Co.

Whitfield County



A. Right-of-Way $0


Construction Costs



E. Drainage $0



I. Guardrail $0








SR 71 Resurfacing

From North Dalton Bypass to Tennessee

Whitfield County



A. Right-of-Way $0


Construction Costs



E. Drainage $0



I. Guardrail $0








US 41 Resurfacing

From I-75 to Catoosa Co.

Whitfield County



A. Right-of-Way $0


Construction Costs



E. Drainage $0



I. Guardrail $0








SR 201 Resurfacing

From US 41 to SR 2

Whitfield County



A. Right-of-Way $0


Construction Costs



E. Drainage $0

F.. Base and Paving $0


I. Guardrail $0



L. Miscellaneous Construction Items $0

Construction Cost Subtotal $103,440


Total Construction Cost $113,784

Total Project Costs $113,784


From US 41 to SR 2

Whitfield County



A. Right-of-Way $0


Construction Costs



E. Drainage $0


H. Signing and Striping $0

I. Guardrail $0



L. Miscellaneous Construction Items $0


Engineering & Construction; 10% $23,488

Total Construction Cost $258,372

Total Project Costs $258,372

US 41 Shoulder

From SR 201 (South) to Catoosa County line

Whitfield County





Construction Costs














SR 2 & Lees Chapel Road

Whitfield County





Construction Costs














SR 201 & Reed Road

Whitfield County





Construction Costs














SR 201 & I-75

Whitfield County





Construction Costs



E. Drainage $85,449











SR 2 & SR 71

Whitfield County



A. Right-of-Way $1,169,184


Construction Costs


D. Grading and Earthwork $1,129,333












US 71 Widening

From North of Old Dalton-Cleveland Highway to Tennessee

Whitfield County





Construction Costs











Engineering & Construction; 10% $300,833



US 41 Widening

From Campbel Road to Catoosa County

Whitfield County





Construction Costs

C. Major Structures $864,000













SR 2 Widening

From SR 201 to SR 71

Whitfield County




B. Reimbursable Utilities $1,000,000

Construction Costs














SR 201 Widening

From I-75 to SR 2

Whitfield County





Construction Costs














SR 201 Shoulder Widening & Safety Improvements

From Reed Road to SR 2

16-Sep-11 B

Appendix B – Highway Capacity Analysis Worksheets

HCS+: Two-Lane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-Mail: ___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________ Analyst William Ruhsam Agency/Co. Moreland Altobelli Date Performed 7/11/11 Analysis Time Period Highway SR 2 From/To Eastern Leg Jurisdiction Whitfield County Analysis Year 2009 Description North Whitfield County Corridor Study ___________________________________Input Data_________________________________ Highway class Class 1 Shoulder width 1.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 12 % Segment length 6.0 mi % Recreational vehicles 0 % Terrain type Rolling % No-passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 8 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 656 veh/h Directional split 60 / 40 % ____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.93 PCE for trucks, ET 1.9 PCE for RVs, ER 1.1 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.903 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 868 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 521 pc/h Free-Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free-Flow Speed: Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 4.2 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 2.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS 53.8 mi/h Adjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 47.1 mi/h

__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.94 PCE for trucks, ET 1.5 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.943 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 822 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 493 Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 51.4 % Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 0.0 Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 51.4 % ________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________ Level of service, LOS C Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.27 Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 1093 veh-mi Peak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 3936 veh-mi Peak 15-min total travel time, TT15 23.2 veh-h ______________________________________________________________________________ Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.


__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00 PCE for trucks, ET 1.0 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 1.000 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 1073 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 644 Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 61.1 % Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 0.0 Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 61.1 % ________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________ Level of service, LOS D Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.36 Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 1610 veh-mi Peak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 5796 veh-mi Peak 15-min total travel time, TT15 35.9 veh-h ______________________________________________________________________________ Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.

HCS+: Two-Lane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-Mail: ___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________ Analyst William Ruhsam Agency/Co. Moreland Altobelli Date Performed 7/11/11 Analysis Time Period Highway SR 2 From/To Middle Leg Jurisdiction Whitfield County Analysis Year 2009 Description North Whitfield County Corridor Study ___________________________________Input Data_________________________________ Highway class Class 1 Shoulder width 1.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 12 % Segment length 6.0 mi % Recreational vehicles 0 % Terrain type Rolling % No-passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 8 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 379 veh/h Directional split 60 / 40 % ____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.93 PCE for trucks, ET 1.9 PCE for RVs, ER 1.1 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.903 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 502 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 301 pc/h Free-Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free-Flow Speed: Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 4.2 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 2.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS 53.8 mi/h Adjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 49.9 mi/h




HCS+: Two-Lane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-Mail: ___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________ Analyst William Ruhsam Agency/Co. Moreland Altobelli Date Performed 7/11/11 Analysis Time Period Highway SR 2 From/To Western Leg Jurisdiction Whitfield County Analysis Year 2009 Description North Whitfield County Corridor Study ___________________________________Input Data_________________________________ Highway class Class 1 Shoulder width 1.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 12 % Segment length 6.0 mi % Recreational vehicles 0 % Terrain type Rolling % No-passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 8 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 173 veh/h Directional split 60 / 40 % ____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.71 PCE for trucks, ET 2.5 PCE for RVs, ER 1.1 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.847 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 319 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 191 pc/h Free-Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free-Flow Speed: Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 4.2 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 2.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS 53.8 mi/h Adjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 51.3 mi/h

__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.77 PCE for trucks, ET 1.8 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.912 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 274 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 164 Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 21.4 % Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 1.2 Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 22.6 % ________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________ Level of service, LOS B Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.10 Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 288 veh-mi Peak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 1038 veh-mi Peak 15-min total travel time, TT15 5.6 veh-h ______________________________________________________________________________ Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.


__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.77 PCE for trucks, ET 1.8 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.912 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 406 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 244 Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 30.0 % Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 0.5 Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 30.5 % ________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________ Level of service, LOS B Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.15 Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 428 veh-mi Peak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 1542 veh-mi Peak 15-min total travel time, TT15 8.5 veh-h ______________________________________________________________________________ Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.








__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00 PCE for trucks, ET 1.0 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 1.000 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 1320 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 792 Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 68.7 % Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 0.0 Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 68.7 % ________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________ Level of service, LOS D Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.44 Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 1980 veh-mi Peak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 7128 veh-mi Peak 15-min total travel time, TT15 46.2 veh-h ______________________________________________________________________________ Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.





HCS+: Multilane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-mail: ______________________________PLANNING ANALYSIS________________________________ Analyst: William Ruhsam Agency/Co: Moreland Altobelli Date: 7/11/11 Analysis Period: 2009 Highway: SR 71 From/To: Northern Leg Jurisdiction: Whitfield County Analysis Year: 2009 Project ID: North Whitfield County Corridor Study _________________________________INPUT DATA____________________________________ Total AADT volume, AADT 4040 vpd Proportion AADT during peak hour, K 0.09 Percent peak-hour traffic in heaviest direction, D 60 % Trucks 12 % Terrain type Rolling Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mph ___________________________________ANALYSIS____________________________________ DDHV = AADT x D x K DDHV = 4040 x 0.60 x 0.09 = 218 Volume for : LOS 4-lane highway = 218 vph/2 lanes = 109 vphpl A 6-lane highway = 218 vph/3 lanes = 72 vphpl A ________________________________LEVEL OF SERVICE_______________________________ Free-Flow Speed = 60 mph Free-Flow Speed = 50 mph Percent Trucks Percent Trucks LOS 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Terrain Level A 560 550 530 520 510 440 430 420 410 400 B 920 900 870 850 840 710 700 680 660 650 C 1310 1280 1250 1220 1190 1030 1000 980 960 940 D 1680 1640 1600 1570 1530 1350 1320 1290 1260 1230 E 1870 1820 1780 1740 1700 1610 1570 1530 1500 1460 Rolling A 560 520 490 460 430 440 410 380 360 340 B 920 850 800 750 710 710 660 620 580 550 C 1310 1220 1140 1070 1010 1030 960 900 840 790 D 1680 1570 1470 1380 1300 1350 1260 1180 1100 1040 E 1870 1740 1620 1520 1440 1610 1500 1400 1310 1240 Mountain A 560 480 420 370 330 440 370 320 290 260

B 920 780 680 600 540 710 610 530 470 420 C 1310 1120 970 860 770 1030 880 760 680 610 D 1680 1430 1250 1100 990 1350 1150 1000 890 800 E 1870 1590 1380 1220 1100 1610 1370 1190 1050 950 Assumptions: highway with 60 mi/h FFS has 8 access points/mi; highway with 50 mi/h FFS has 25 access points/mi; lane width = 12 ft; shoulder width > 6 ft; divided highway; PHF = 0.88; all heavy vehicles are trucks and regular commuters

HCS+: Multilane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-mail: ______________________________PLANNING ANALYSIS________________________________ Analyst: William Ruhsam Agency/Co: Moreland Altobelli Date: 7/11/11 Analysis Period: 2035 Highway: SR 71 From/To: Northern Leg Jurisdiction: Whitfield County Analysis Year: 2035 Project ID: North Whitfield County Corridor Study _________________________________INPUT DATA____________________________________ Total AADT volume, AADT 6600 vpd Proportion AADT during peak hour, K 0.09 Percent peak-hour traffic in heaviest direction, D 60 % Trucks 12 % Terrain type Rolling Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mph ___________________________________ANALYSIS____________________________________ DDHV = AADT x D x K DDHV = 6600 x 0.60 x 0.09 = 356 Volume for : LOS 4-lane highway = 356 vph/2 lanes = 178 vphpl A 6-lane highway = 356 vph/3 lanes = 118 vphpl A ________________________________LEVEL OF SERVICE_______________________________ Free-Flow Speed = 60 mph Free-Flow Speed = 50 mph Percent Trucks Percent Trucks LOS 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Terrain Level A 560 550 530 520 510 440 430 420 410 400 B 920 900 870 850 840 710 700 680 660 650 C 1310 1280 1250 1220 1190 1030 1000 980 960 940 D 1680 1640 1600 1570 1530 1350 1320 1290 1260 1230 E 1870 1820 1780 1740 1700 1610 1570 1530 1500 1460 Rolling A 560 520 490 460 430 440 410 380 360 340 B 920 850 800 750 710 710 660 620 580 550 C 1310 1220 1140 1070 1010 1030 960 900 840 790 D 1680 1570 1470 1380 1300 1350 1260 1180 1100 1040 E 1870 1740 1620 1520 1440 1610 1500 1400 1310 1240 Mountain A 560 480 420 370 330 440 370 320 290 260


HCS+: Multilane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-mail: ______________________________PLANNING ANALYSIS________________________________ Analyst: William Ruhsam Agency/Co: Moreland Altobelli Date: 7/11/11 Analysis Period: 2009 Highway: SR 71 From/To: Southern Leg Jurisdiction: Whitfield County Analysis Year: 2009 Project ID: North Whitfield County Corridor Study _________________________________INPUT DATA____________________________________ Total AADT volume, AADT 9440 vpd Proportion AADT during peak hour, K 0.09 Percent peak-hour traffic in heaviest direction, D 60 % Trucks 12 % Terrain type Rolling Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mph ___________________________________ANALYSIS____________________________________ DDHV = AADT x D x K DDHV = 9440 x 0.60 x 0.09 = 510 Volume for : LOS 4-lane highway = 510 vph/2 lanes = 255 vphpl A 6-lane highway = 510 vph/3 lanes = 170 vphpl A ________________________________LEVEL OF SERVICE_______________________________ Free-Flow Speed = 60 mph Free-Flow Speed = 50 mph Percent Trucks Percent Trucks LOS 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Terrain Level A 560 550 530 520 510 440 430 420 410 400 B 920 900 870 850 840 710 700 680 660 650 C 1310 1280 1250 1220 1190 1030 1000 980 960 940 D 1680 1640 1600 1570 1530 1350 1320 1290 1260 1230 E 1870 1820 1780 1740 1700 1610 1570 1530 1500 1460 Rolling A 560 520 490 460 430 440 410 380 360 340 B 920 850 800 750 710 710 660 620 580 550 C 1310 1220 1140 1070 1010 1030 960 900 840 790 D 1680 1570 1470 1380 1300 1350 1260 1180 1100 1040 E 1870 1740 1620 1520 1440 1610 1500 1400 1310 1240 Mountain A 560 480 420 370 330 440 370 320 290 260


HCS+: Two-Lane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-Mail: ___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________ Analyst William Ruhsam Agency/Co. Moreland Altobelli Date Performed 7/11/11 Analysis Time Period Highway US 41 From/To Northern Leg Jurisdiction Whitfield County Analysis Year 2009 Description North Whitfield County Corridor Study ___________________________________Input Data_________________________________ Highway class Class 1 Shoulder width 1.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 9 % Segment length 1.0 mi % Recreational vehicles 0 % Terrain type Rolling % No-passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 8 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 404 veh/h Directional split 60 / 40 % ____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.93 PCE for trucks, ET 1.9 PCE for RVs, ER 1.1 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.925 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 522 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 313 pc/h Free-Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free-Flow Speed: Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 4.2 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 2.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS 53.8 mi/h Adjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 49.7 mi/h


HCS+: Two-Lane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-Mail: ___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________ Analyst William Ruhsam Agency/Co. Moreland Altobelli Date Performed 7/11/11 Analysis Time Period Highway US 41 From/To Northern Leg Jurisdiction Whitfield County Analysis Year 2035 Description North Whitfield County Corridor Study ___________________________________Input Data_________________________________ Highway class Class 1 Shoulder width 1.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 9 % Segment length 1.0 mi % Recreational vehicles 0 % Terrain type Rolling % No-passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 8 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 594 veh/h Directional split 60 / 40 % ____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________ Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.93 PCE for trucks, ET 1.9 PCE for RVs, ER 1.1 Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.925 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 767 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 460 pc/h Free-Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free-Flow Speed: Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 4.2 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 2.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS 53.8 mi/h Adjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 47.8 mi/h


HCS+: Multilane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-mail: ______________________________PLANNING ANALYSIS________________________________ Analyst: William Ruhsam Agency/Co: Moreland Altobelli Date: 7/11/11 Analysis Period: 2009 Highway: US 41 From/To: I-75 to Tunnell Hill Jurisdiction: Whitfield County Analysis Year: 2009 Project ID: North Whitfield County Corridor Study _________________________________INPUT DATA____________________________________ Total AADT volume, AADT 21720 vpd Proportion AADT during peak hour, K 0.09 Percent peak-hour traffic in heaviest direction, D 60 % Trucks 9 % Terrain type Rolling Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mph ___________________________________ANALYSIS____________________________________ DDHV = AADT x D x K DDHV = 21720 x 0.60 x 0.09 = 1173 Volume for : LOS 4-lane highway = 1173 vph/2 lanes = 586 vphpl B 6-lane highway = 1173 vph/3 lanes = 391 vphpl A ________________________________LEVEL OF SERVICE_______________________________ Free-Flow Speed = 60 mph Free-Flow Speed = 50 mph Percent Trucks Percent Trucks LOS 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Terrain Level A 560 550 530 520 510 440 430 420 410 400 B 920 900 870 850 840 710 700 680 660 650 C 1310 1280 1250 1220 1190 1030 1000 980 960 940 D 1680 1640 1600 1570 1530 1350 1320 1290 1260 1230 E 1870 1820 1780 1740 1700 1610 1570 1530 1500 1460 Rolling A 560 520 490 460 430 440 410 380 360 340 B 920 850 800 750 710 710 660 620 580 550 C 1310 1220 1140 1070 1010 1030 960 900 840 790 D 1680 1570 1470 1380 1300 1350 1260 1180 1100 1040 E 1870 1740 1620 1520 1440 1610 1500 1400 1310 1240 Mountain A 560 480 420 370 330 440 370 320 290 260


HCS+: Multilane Highways Release 5.2 Phone: Fax: E-mail: ______________________________PLANNING ANALYSIS________________________________ Analyst: William Ruhsam Agency/Co: Moreland Altobelli Date: 7/11/11 Analysis Period: 2009 Highway: US 41 From/To: I-75 to Tunnell Hill Jurisdiction: Whitfield County Analysis Year: 2009 Project ID: North Whitfield County Corridor Study _________________________________INPUT DATA____________________________________ Total AADT volume, AADT 31990 vpd Proportion AADT during peak hour, K 0.09 Percent peak-hour traffic in heaviest direction, D 60 % Trucks 9 % Terrain type Rolling Base free-flow speed, BFFS 60.0 mph ___________________________________ANALYSIS____________________________________ DDHV = AADT x D x K DDHV = 31990 x 0.60 x 0.09 = 1727 Volume for : LOS 4-lane highway = 1727 vph/2 lanes = 863 vphpl C 6-lane highway = 1727 vph/3 lanes = 575 vphpl B ________________________________LEVEL OF SERVICE_______________________________ Free-Flow Speed = 60 mph Free-Flow Speed = 50 mph Percent Trucks Percent Trucks LOS 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Terrain Level A 560 550 530 520 510 440 430 420 410 400 B 920 900 870 850 840 710 700 680 660 650 C 1310 1280 1250 1220 1190 1030 1000 980 960 940 D 1680 1640 1600 1570 1530 1350 1320 1290 1260 1230 E 1870 1820 1780 1740 1700 1610 1570 1530 1500 1460 Rolling A 560 520 490 460 430 440 410 380 360 340 B 920 850 800 750 710 710 660 620 580 550 C 1310 1220 1140 1070 1010 1030 960 900 840 790 D 1680 1570 1470 1380 1300 1350 1260 1180 1100 1040 E 1870 1740 1620 1520 1440 1610 1500 1400 1310 1240 Mountain A 560 480 420 370 330 440 370 320 290 260


Documents

North Whitfield County Roadway Corridor Study Report2.pdf · North Whitfield County Roadway Corridor Study Report #2: Unconstrained Alternatives ... North Whitfield County — Roadway