DESIGN SCOPING REPORT

PROJECT

for

Park/Forest/Refuge/etc.

**County**

**State**

**Department**

**Service**

**Federal Highway Administration**

**Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division**

**Sterling, Virginia**

**Month Year**

FORM (REV.6-17-08)

[Note: Delete the "See Appendix #" statements and Appendix Sections
after completing the Design Scoping Report.]{.mark}

**[DESIGN SCOPING REPORT]{.underline}**

I. [PROJECT DESCRIPTION]{.underline}

> A. Narrative Describing Purpose and Need For Project
>
> 1\. Relevant Project History:
>
> 2\. General Project Description and Nature of Work (attach Location
> and Project Map):
>
> []{.mark}

-   Summarize the transportation needs and deficiencies identified
    during the planning and programming phase, if applicable

-   Determine, if necessary, the need to identify and evaluate
    alternatives with engineering analyses.

**See Appendix 1**

> 3\. Major Issues and Concerns:

**See Appendix 2**

> B. Project Identification
>
> Type: New Reconstruction Rehabilitation Resurfacing
>
> Award Fiscal Year:
>
> Partner Agency:
>
> Maintaining Agency:
>
> Park/Forest:
>
> County:
>
> State:
>
> Region:
>
> FOR EACH ROAD INCLUDED:
>
> Road Name/Number:
>
> Length:
>
> Functional Classification: System: (i.e., AASHTO, NPS, FS) Class
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_: NHS [Yes/No]{.underline}
>
> Design Speed:
>
> Any Park Public Transit, Special Road Usage or Road Restrictions:
>
> Terrain: Flat Rolling Mountainous
>
> Number of Lanes: \_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_Divided \_\_\_ Undivided
>
> Shoulders: \_ Full \_Partial \_ None
>
> Shoulder Type: \_Paved \_Unpaved \_Turf

II\. [PROJECT FUNDING]{.underline}

> A. Narrative Describing Basis of Funding:
>
> Check all that apply:
>
> Partner Estimate Available Funds EFLHD Preliminary Design Estimate
>
> Program Eng. Est. Eng. Study Report
>
> B. Breakdown of Funding
>
> [From Programs Engineer]{.underline} [From Project
> Manager]{.underline}
>
> 1\. Contract Incentives = \$
>
> 2\. Contingencies = \$
>
> 3\. Administration = \$
>
> 4\. PE Funds = \$
>
> 5\. CE Funds = \$
>
> 6\. Construction = \$ \< **COMPARE** \> Scoping Review = \$
>
> Funds (EE) \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- Construction EE
>
> (attach copy)
>
> 7\. Total Program = \$
>
> Funds (Sum 1 thru 6)

III\. [AVAILABLE DATA]{.underline}

> A. As-Builts/Reports
>
> 1\. As-Builts exist? Yes No
>
> As-Built Proj. Number(s):
>
> Date Requested:
>
> Source:
>
> 2\. Bridge Inspection Report? Yes No
>
> Report Number(s):
>
> 3\. Engineering Study Report? Yes No
>
> Report Number:
>
> Source:
>
> 4\. Any Misc. Reports/Studies? (Corridor Study, EIS, EA(Draft),
> General Management Plans,
>
> Soils Report, Hydraulics Report, Project Development Report,
>
> Engineering Consultant Report) Yes No
>
> Report Title/Description:
>
> Source:
>
> Report Title/Description:
>
> Source:
>
> B. Traffic Data
>
> 1\. Roadways and Incidental Roads

Posted Speed Limit:

Operating Speed: If applicable. If yes, will a study need to be done?

Recent ADT (month/year)

AADT (year/source): SADT (year/source)

Design ADT (20 ): average, seasonal

DHV: **See Appendix 3**

\% Buses: % Trucks: Source(s):

**See Appendix 4**

> 2\. Crash Data available? Yes No
>
> Data Time Frame - Evaluate based on ADT

-   \< 4000 ADT, use latest 10 years of data available

-   4000 -- 20,000 ADT, use latest 5 years of data available

-   \> 20,000 ADT, use latest 3 years of data available

**See Appendix 5**

> Date Requested:
>
> Source:
>
> Comparative Crash Rate Available? Source:
>
> C. Type of Survey: Roadway Stationing Ground Survey Aerial Mapping
>
> Approx. Completion Date:
>
> D. Photographs taken? (attach copies) Yes No
>
> Source(s):
>
> E. Is Visidata video available? Yes No
>
> Source(s):
>
> F. Quad Maps:

IV\. [PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS]{.underline}

> Describe in detail your answers to the following and **cite your
> sources**:
>
> A. [Roadway Alignment/Typical Section]{.underline}
>
> Any realignment or grade changes? If so, why, where, and how much?

**See Appendix 6**

> For each roadway give number of lanes, lane widths, shoulders widths,
> description of medians, ditches, cut and fill slopes, curbs etc.
> (attach sketches for each roadway showing existing and proposed
> sections).

**See Appendix 7**

> Is lane widening required? How much?

**See Appendix 8**

> B. [Special Areas]{.underline}
>
> Are existing parking layouts and configurations suitable for efficient
> traffic circulation? Has a parking study determined inadequacy of
> supply? Will parking lots need to be constructed or reconstructed?
> Describe pavement structure, purpose of parking lot, and any special
> considerations. Will the Partner provide conceptual design plans? If
> so, when?
>
> Will any picnic areas, entrance gates, concession areas, rest areas,
> bus shelters, etc. be required? Describe pavement structure, purpose,
> and any special considerations. Will the Partner provide design plans?
> If so, when?
>
> Is additional wheelchair accessibility warranted? Describe locations
> for proposed ramps, amount of parking spaces.
>
> C. [Safety]{.underline}
>
> Are there considerable reports of traffic failing to comply with
> traffic regulations including speed limits?
>
> Is the project in a high recurring or seasonal traffic area?
>
> Are there pedestrian activities and concerns?
>
> What are the recommended and available Clear-Zone widths?
>
> Are clear zone guidelines met along all roadways within the project
> limits, for adjacent and opposing traffic?

**See Appendix 9**

> Are roadside/median barriers and sign supports crashworthy if located
> within the clear zone?

**See Appendix 10**

> Is there adequate sight distance along the roadway or at
> intersections?

-   stopping, passing, decision, and at intersections

**See Appendix 11**

> Are existing traffic control devices physically adequate, properly
> located, and visible? Are they functionally meeting current and
> anticipated traffic conditions?

**See Appendix 12**

> Are existing pavement edge drop-offs, and future drop-offs created by
> the project, less than 2-inches in height?

**See Appendix 13**

> If the scope of the project is 3-R and the profile of the roadway(s)
> is raised, will roadside and median barriers be the correct height?

**See Appendix 14**

> D. [Aesthetics]{.underline}
>
> Any vistas, vegetation or (historic) structures to be preserved (take
> photos)? Any special architectural or decorative aspects to be
> incorporated in the design (e.g. stone masonry guardwall, stone curb)?
>
> E. [Permanent Traffic Management]{.underline}
>
> Describe any special permanent signing considerations, special signs,
> sign supports, traffic signals required. Are any new permanent traffic
> patterns to be established. Are there adequate safe opportunities for
> vehicle passing?
>
> F. [Temporary Traffic Management]{.underline}
>
> Can the roadway(s) be closed to traffic? Include any restrictions,
> such as seasons when road(s) can be closed.
>
> Is it necessary for one lane of traffic to be closed while work is
> performed? If traffic is to be maintained determine from the cross
> section (as measured in the field or from a survey) and MUTCD Figure
> 6C-1 and Section 6C.06 if there is enough lateral space along the work
> zone activity area to safely accommodate traffic, work space
> (including workers, equipment, and storage), and appropriate
> buffer/protection between them for the work to be performed? If not,
> determine if a road closure is allowed while the work is performed.
>
> Will the road(s) be open to all traffic or can traffic use be
> restricted (e.g. school buses and mail vehicles only)?
>
> Any traffic restrictions for rush hours, weekends and holidays?
>
> Can traffic be detoured on the existing bridge(s) or will traffic need
> to be handled by temporary bridge(s)? Can traffic be detoured onto
> existing roads or will temporary detour road(s) need to be
> constructed? How long will the detour road(s) be?
>
> Would the road work substantially affect traffic operations (access
> and mobility) and/or substantially degrade travel recreation? Should a
> transportation management plan (traffic control/operations/public
> information) be considered?
>
> G. [Adjacent/Previous/Future Projects]{.underline}
>
> Is this project part of a series of projects? Is it a completion of a
> defaulted Contract? Describe any projects, under design or
> construction, by any agency, which may affect this project.
>
> Have there been any construction problems on previous or similar
> projects? Research final construction reports, contract modifications
> and discuss with Construction office.
>
> Describe any future projects or connections made by others, which will
> affect function or traffic volume on the current project. List any
> work items that will be postponed until a future project.
>
> H. [Work Limitations]{.underline}
>
> Any construction activity or time/sequence restrictions (e.g. no
> blasting on weekends, or must complete project in phases)?
>
> Any access restrictions for construction equipment (e.g. limited
> working space, bridge with weight restrictions, no driving on newly
> paved areas, hauling restrictions)? What access is available to either
> end of the project?
>
> []{.mark}

[]{.mark}

> Any horizontal or vertical clearance issues?
>
> Give locations of borrow pits, stone quarries or any other material
> sources, and describe any access restrictions to them.
>
> List any partner/owner restrictions or preferences regarding the
> location of staging areas.
>
> List any partner/owner restrictions or preferences regarding the
> location of the project engineer's field office. Is the partner agency
> able to spare office space for the project engineer on smaller
> projects? If internet access available?
>
> I. [Geotechnical]{.underline}
>
> Do we have drilling access to project? Will existing roads or trails
> provide access? Will trees need to be cleared? Will pioneer roads or
> other means of access be necessary? Are any permits, agreements, or
> easements necessary for drilling?
>
> Are there any obvious geological features on the project (sinkholes,
> slides, bogs or muck, standing water, wetlands, etc.)?
>
> Describe pavement condition and distress (take photos). How extensive,
> in percent, is distress? Note any limits of obvious changes in
> affected areas.
>
> J. [Structures]{.underline}
>
> Describe any existing structures (bridges, retaining walls, tunnels
> etc.) on the project (take photos).
>
> Number of existing or proposed bridges or boxes over water? Over
> roadways? Over something else?
>
> Describe any bridges that will need to have the substructure
> constructed or replaced or rehabilitated. Can bridge(s) be replaced on
> existing foundations? Give approximate length and width of the
> bridge(s), number of foundations (existing and/or proposed). Any
> special structural features, unusual loads or unusual span lengths?
>
> Will retaining walls be required? Will any miscellaneous structures
> (tunnels, buildings, etc.) be required?
>
> Existing abutment, pier or channel scour (take photos)?
>
> K. [Hydraulics]{.underline}
>
> Any existing drainage problems or needed improvements (take photos)?
>
> Extensive channel stabilization required? Existing unstable stream
> banks (fallen trees, exposed, sloughing banks etc.) (take photos)?
>
> Any floodplain(s) regulated by FEMA? Floodplain encroached by roadway
> fill? Existing profile grade raising within floodplain?
>
> Any overriding (i.e. superseding our design manual) local or state
> requirements on bridge overtopping, backwater, freeboard, design
> floods, hydrologic methods, erosion control, floodplain regulation,
> etc.?
>
> Identify state erosion control specifications and manuals.
>
> Water quality monitoring program necessary?
>
> Are permanent Storm Water Quality or Storm Water Quantity treatments
> required?"

L.  [Environmental]{.underline}

+----------------------------------+--------+----------+---------------+
| **TASK**                         | **REQU | **C      | **CONTACT     |
|                                  | IRED** | OMPLETED | PERSON(S) &   |
|                                  |        | BY:**    | PHONE \#**    |
|                                  |        |          |               |
|                                  |        | (Pa      |               |
|                                  |        | rtnering |               |
|                                  |        | Agency   |               |
|                                  |        | or with  |               |
|                                  |        | as       |               |
|                                  |        | sistance |               |
|                                  |        | from     |               |
|                                  |        | EFLHD)   |               |
+==================================+========+==========+===============+
| [NEPA Document]{.underline}      | CE     | EFLHD    | Kevin Rose    |
|                                  |        |          |               |
| (Please circle expected type of  | EA     |          | Environmental |
| document)                        |        |          | Team Lead     |
|                                  | EIS    |          |               |
| Who made the determination?      |        |          | \(571\)       |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_                     |        |          | 434-1541      |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |        |          |               |
|                                  |        |          |               |
| If EFLHD is doing the NEPA       |        |          |               |
| document, who will be doing the  |        |          |               |
| resource survey for us (field    |        |          |               |
| review to determine if any       |        |          |               |
| endangered species are located   |        |          |               |
| within the project area)?        |        |          |               |
+----------------------------------+--------+----------+---------------+
| [FWS - Section 7                 | Yes/No | EFLHD    | Kevin Rose    |
| Concurrence]{.underline}         |        |          |               |
|                                  |        |          | Environmental |
| Are there any                    |        |          | Team Lead     |
| threatened/endangered species in |        |          |               |
| the project area?                |        |          | \(571\)       |
|                                  |        |          | 434-1541      |
+----------------------------------+--------+----------+---------------+
| [SHPO - 106                      | Yes/No | EFLHD    |               |
| Concurrence]{.underline}         |        | and TO   |               |
|                                  | Yes    | BE       |               |
| Are any items within the project | /No    | DE       |               |
| area on or eligible for listing  |        | TERMINED |               |
| on the National Historic         |        |          |               |
| Register?                        |        |          |               |
|                                  |        |          |               |
| Is a Cultural Resource Survey    |        |          |               |
| required?                        |        |          |               |
+----------------------------------+--------+----------+---------------+
| Is any work occurring in a       | Yes/No | TO BE    | Kevin Rose    |
| 100-year floodplain?             |        | DE       |               |
|                                  | Yes/No | TERMINED | Environmental |
| If there is a bridge structure,  |        |          | Team Lead     |
| does it cross navigable waters?  | Yes/No |          |               |
| If so do boats longer than 21'   |        |          | (571)434-1541 |
| utilize the waterway             | Yes/No |          |               |
|                                  |        |          |               |
| Are we installing any pipes or   | Yes/No |          |               |
| doing any work in a stream       |        |          |               |
| designated with a blue line on a | Yes/No |          |               |
| quad map?                        |        |          |               |
|                                  | Yes/No |          |               |
| Are we placing any riprap        |        |          |               |
| adjacent to a flowing stream or  | Yes/No |          |               |
| river?                           |        |          |               |
|                                  |        |          |               |
| Will there be any work in        |        |          |               |
| streams?                         |        |          |               |
|                                  |        |          |               |
| Will there be any work in        |        |          |               |
| wetlands?                        |        |          |               |
|                                  |        |          |               |
| Will we be placing any material  |        |          |               |
| within a 100-year floodplain?    |        |          |               |
|                                  |        |          |               |
| Will riprap be placed in a       |        |          |               |
| defined channel?                 |        |          |               |
+----------------------------------+--------+----------+---------------+
| Will more than 1 acre of ground  | Yes/   |          |               |
| be disturbed?                    | No     |          |               |
+----------------------------------+--------+----------+---------------+
| Are we adding any new impervious | Yes/No | TO BE    | Kevin Rose    |
| areas (pavement) or changing the |        | DE       |               |
| existing roadway drainage (e.g.  | Yes/No | TERMINED | Environmental |
| adding curb where curb did not   |        |          | Team Lead     |
| previously exist                 |        |          |               |
|                                  |        |          | \(571\)       |
| Other:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\        |        |          | 434-1541      |
| _\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_(RR |        |          |               |
| Permit, Construction signs)      |        |          |               |
+----------------------------------+--------+----------+---------------+
| Is there any known or possible   | Yes/   |          |               |
| [hazardous waste]{.underline} on | No     |          |               |
| the project? (lead paint,        |        |          |               |
| asbestos, underground storage    |        |          |               |
| tanks, unidentified 55 gallon    |        |          |               |
| barrels, abandoned buildings,    |        |          |               |
| etc.)                            |        |          |               |
|                                  |        |          |               |
| Type:                            |        |          |               |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_                     |        |          |               |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |        |          |               |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |        |          |               |
+----------------------------------+--------+----------+---------------+
| Do [Section 4(f) DOT             | Yes/   |          |               |
| Requirements]{.underline} apply? | No     |          |               |
+----------------------------------+--------+----------+---------------+

**NOTE:** List contact person(s) and phone number(s) in the Principal
Contacts section of the scoping report.

> M. [Right-of-Way]{.underline}
>
> List the ROW contact person(s) and phone number(s) in the Principal
> Contacts section of the scoping report.
>
> Are right-of-way or easements needed? Have they been acquired? When?
> If not acquired, list the agency(s) who obtains, who coordinates, and
> who pays for ROW. If known, list the expected date(s) of any
> acquisition(s).
>
> Are there any existing ROW plans? Obtain any existing ROW
> plans/documents and list source of plans (including contact and phone
> number) in the Available Data, Misc. Reports/Studies section of the
> scoping report. If ROW plans need to be prepared, list agency
> responsible for preparation (EFLHD or other) and list which agency\'s
> format they should follow (obtain sample set of ROW plans in agency\'s
> format).
>
> N. [Utilities]{.underline}
>
> List the utility contact person(s) and phone number(s) in the
> Principal Contacts section of the scoping report. Try to obtain any
> existing utility plans and list source of plans (including contact and
> phone number) in the Available Data, Misc. Reports/Studies section of
> the scoping report. Does the partner have an agreement in place with a
> locating service to locate underground utilities?
>
> Will any utilities need to be relocated or avoided? If so, describe
> location and type of utility, list the owner of the utility, the
> agency responsible for utility coordination, and the agency which will
> pay for the utility work. If known, list the expected date(s) of any
> relocation(s).
>
> Any special considerations regarding utilities (i.e. any hazardous or
> environmentally-sensitive situations, any time restrictions on the
> interruption of utility service, any security-sensitive utilities,
> etc.)?
>
> Any existing utility agreements between roadway owner and utility
> owner? Who has prior rights?
>
> O. [Applicable Design Standards/Regulations]{.underline}
>
> For each roadway, identify the applicable highway design standard in
> accordance with Section 4.4 and 9.1.2 of the FLH Project Development
> and Design Manual.
>
> Identify other applicable design manuals such as NPS Park Road
> Standards; AASHTO Greenbook; AASHTO Roadside Design Guide; FLH BARRIER
> GUIDE For Low Volume and Low Speed Roads; and the MUTCD.
>
> Will local or state design procedures be used on this project? If so,
> request the latest local or state design manual and sample plans.
>
> P. [Technology Delivery (TD)]{.underline}
>
> Identify or recommend potential highway engineering (eg., construction
> materials) TD items to be incorporated in this project. Are any items
> or products eligible for funding under the Coordinated Technology
> Implementation Program (CTIP)?
>
> Identify or recommend potential highway operational (eg., ITS
> technologies) TD items to be incorporated in this project. Are any
> items or products eligible for funding under the Coordinated
> Technology Implementation Program (CTIP) or other special category
> funding, e.g., PRP Category III?

Q.  [Risk Management]{.underline}

> Identify both negative (threats) and positive (opportunities) risks
> for later qualitative analysis of impacts. Note that negative risks
> are events or conditions that can have adverse impacts to project
> design or construction, scope, cost, schedule, and as a result,
> quality. Positive risks identify opportunities to lower project design
> or construction costs, shorten schedules, and enhance the scope and
> quality of the finished project. For the scoping process, identify
> only the high, level risks. High level risks are those risks
> identified by review of the site's existing conditions and through
> discussion with Partner Agency representatives and other stakeholders
> participating in the scoping process. After identification and listing
> in the Design Scoping Report document, these risks can then be more
> thoroughly analyzed for their impacts and mitigation strategies using
> procedures defined by Federal Lands Highway Project Risk Management
> Policy.
>
> Examples of negative risks may include political and legal concerns;
> expected materials shortages; difficult construction access, staging,
> and material stockpile storage; finding replacement materials for
> historical or aesthetic features such as stone walls, drainage swales,
> etc.; unidentified underground utilities and their location; the
> potential need for ROW or easement acquisition; potentially impacted
> property owners; any compensatory work regarding impacted property,
> and any public opposition to the project; the potential existence of
> historical and archaeological features to be avoided, and their need
> for identification and monitoring; the potential existence of
> unexploded ordinances and hazardous waste, and buried fuel containers;
> the existence of wetlands, sinkholes and other Karst features, rock
> and soft soils, muck and presence of springs and seeps; required work
> within floodplains or their need for determination; the existence of
> threatened or endangered species and need for avoidance in disturbing;
> existing complex and high temporary traffic management requirements
> for design and during construction; federal, state, county and local
> agency review requirements, especially any determined to have
> difficulty in providing timely reviews and response, or overly
> restrictive policies affecting timely acquisition of permits;
> restraints in acquiring of needed survey such as restriction on aerial
> flights, thick vegetation, or difficult terrain; the need for complex
> technical design for which experienced and trained staff are lacking;
> unique construction requirements for which specialty contractors may
> need to be identified; and any potentially dangerous situations to
> EFLHD employees.
>
> Examples of positive risk would be the potential for use of new
> technology and construction materials; opportunity for use of new
> design tools and strategies for reduced design time and increase in
> quality; a unique project to showcase and market FLH abilities and
> qualities; the development of a new partnership for future work
> opportunities; an environmental improvement by increase of wetlands,
> protection and consideration of species such as wildlife crossings,
> etc.; an increased FLH program; a unique project for exploring new
> construction funding opportunities; and identification as a project
> for increasing in-house experience knowledge base and increasing
> employee morale.

V. [PRINCIPAL CONTACTS]{.underline}

> List below any principal contacts including: NPS Regional Contact,
> NPS-DSC Project Manager, FS Engineer, FS Ranger, FWS Regional Contact,
> Refuge Manager, FHWA Area Engineer, State or Partner ROW Officer,
> Utility Contacts, etc.
>
> Contact and Title:
>
> Agency:
>
> Phone Number:
>
> Email Address:
>
> Contact and Title:
>
> Agency:
>
> Phone Number:
>
> Email Address:

VI\. [CERTIFICATION]{.underline}

> Written By:
>
> Date
>
> Reviewed and
>
> Submitted By:
>
> Project Manager Date
>
> Approved By:
>
> Highway Design Engineer Date

Upon final approval of this report, Scoping Report Updates may be
submitted at any time up to award of the project. **As a minimum**,
provide Scoping Report Updates at the following times:

> 1\) Initial Preliminary Plan Distribution / Initial Conceptual Design
> Distribution (A&E)
>
> 2\) Final Preliminary Plan Distribution / Final Conceptual Design
> Distribution (A&E)
>
> 3\) Plan-in-Hand Distribution (70% Complete)
>
> 4\) Internal Review Distribution (95% Complete)
>
> 5\) External Review Distribution (100% Complete)
>
> 6\) Project Advertisement
>
> 7\) Project Award

Following the award of the project, forward the scoping report with
Updates to Construction for attachment to the Final Construction Report.

Appendix 1

Statements providing direction to the designer concerning safety will go
here. An example might be the statement "Evaluate bridge wingwalls to
determine if outside the clear zone or protection against crashes
through use of guardrail, etc." Another statement might say "Evaluate
permanent signing for retroreflectivity and use of crashworthy sign
supports that necessitate replacement".

Appendix 2

Statements relative to any observed safety concerns could go here

Appendix 3

Should be derived from actual AADT as about 50% of the 5 to 10 highest
hours projected to design year; or as a percent of AADT from other
similar seasonal use roads.

Appendix 4

Information relative to design and posted speed limits, ADT, and
percentage of buses and trucks is used to evaluate safety in addition to
other items such as geometric requirements, pavement section, etc.

Appendix 5

This information is also used to evaluate safety, particularly specific
accident problem areas for evaluation during design for improving
conditions.

Appendix 6

The evaluation of existing roadway horizontal alignment, grades, and
sight distance is safety related. Sudden curves or hidden sags that
limit the driver's ability to judge curvature and allow seeing oncoming
vehicles or hidden hazards in the roadway will be evaluated during
design. If the roadway geometry is found to be substandard,
reconstruction changes are evaluated when considering risk , project
scope, and resource impacts and preservation needs. Proposed mitigation
of risk on geometric design exceptions may involve lower cost safety
improvements (for example, enhanced traffic control devices and
delineation.

Appendix 7

Existing roadways with inadequate lane and shoulder widths, and steep
cut and fill slopes may be listed here with a proposed section
improvement width to improve safety. Generally speaking, existing
roadway elements become a safety problem when increase in ADT (Average
Daily Traffic) and changes in predominant vehicle use (for example more
trucks relative to cars) predominant as compared to the original design
intent.

Appendix 8

For curved roadways a vehicle needs more roadway width than on tangent
(straight) sections. This is caused by off tracking, where the front
wheels take a different path than the rear. Widening of the pavement
through the curves, by transitioning the required width leading into the
curve with the full additional width applied through the curves, is
applied. The amount of widening is a function of curvature, existing
lane width, and vehicle type using the roadway.

Appendix 9

Comment: clear-zones are not controlling criteria nor should they be
considered absolute values. It may be best to identify a project
specific recommended clear zone upon review of traffic characteristics
and identifiable safety problems, and then to identify instances where
roadside features warrant treatment.

The clear zone is an area adjacent to the roadway pavement (travel lane)
that is available for the safe recovery of an errant vehicle, to get
back onto the pavement. The clear zone principle is based on the premise
that if adequate clear zone distance is available, there is a reasonable
expectation that most drivers of vehicles that leave the roadway will
have enough room to regain control and return to the pavement without a
serious crash occurring. Some degree of risk is acceptable in the
interest of economy and the desirable clear zone will not provide
sufficient space for all vehicle departures. It is established based on
limited empirical data for a wide range of conditions, with suggested
clear zone ranges determined primarily from the traffic volume (ADT),
speed and roadside geometry characteristics of a roadway. AASHTO
provides guidance on recommended clear zone ranges for various speeds,
ADT, and sideslope configuration. Recognizing that many federal lands
projects experience lower traffic speeds and volumes, FLH developed a
Barrier Guide for Low-Volume and Low-Speed Roads as a tool, along with
engineering judgment, for designers to better select, locate, and design
traffic barriers and other roadside hardware under these conditions.
Speed (primary predictor of crash severity), and ADT (primary predictor
of crash frequency) typically govern how much clear zone may be
required, in that statistically the more traffic the more probable the
occurrences of run off the road crashes, and higher speeds increase the
difficulty in regaining control of an errant vehicle. Also, the slope of
the area adjacent to the pavement plays a significant role. The steeper
the slope, the more difficult it is for a vehicle to recover. For very
steep fill slopes having side-slopes steeper than 3:1, vehicles cannot
recover and will travel to the bottom and hence, additional clear zone
is generally required at the bottom of these slopes; not so much as to
get back onto the pavement as slow down to a stop before crashing into a
tree or similar hazardous fixed object.

For the Park Service, EFLHD takes into account factors such as the
traveler will not be a commuter but instead be more focused on the
surroundings (they are generally there to see the sights) and judge
where hazards may exist, or take note of the direction of the road
ahead. Of course, some views can be a distraction and lead the traveler
astray by focusing attention away from the road. Other factors such as
consistent roadside vegetation, rock cuts, ditch lines, etc., gives the
driver a sense of the roadway prism limits, commonly referred to as
"driver expectancy". It is important to note that driver inattention is
frequently cited as a contributing cause of crashes, and many NPS
roadways have sharp horizontal curvature, steep grades, and narrower
travel lanes and shoulder widths. As mentioned above, the primary
guideline for evaluating clear zones and the warranting, selection, and
design of a barrier is the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide. Since many park
roads have speeds and traffic volumes lower than what is shown in
AASHTO, FLH developed the Barrier Guide for Low-Volume and Low-Speed
Roads for projects with existing traffic volumes below 2000 vehicles per
day and/or speeds of 45 mph and lower. In most cases the clear zone
established along roadway corridors and within project limits, in
cooperation with the Park, is less than what is suggested in AASHTO's
Tables in the Roadside Design Guide.

Appendix 10

Guidelines for establishing clear zone is explained above. However, what
goes in that clear zone in the way of sign posts, light posts, power
poles, and traffic barriers must meet performance standards for
crashworthiness. Crashworthiness is a term that indicates the feature
has been successfully crash tested under NCHRP Report 350 safety
performance criteria, or if it was accepted through analysis by FHWA
based on similarity to other crashworthy features. Impact condition
tests are performed at defined speeds (nominally 30, 45, and 60 mph) and
angle of approach to match the expected service level of different types
of roadways (i.e. rural local roads vs. freeways) to determine if the
object causes adverse harm or damage to the vehicle and occupant when
struck. For example, barriers must be (1) structurally adequate to
contain and redirect the errant vehicle; (2) must not cause undue
occupant risk (detached hardware elements do not penetrate occupant
compartment; errant vehicle remains upright; and impact velocities and
ridedown accelerations are within acceptable limits); and (3) the
post-impact vehicle trajectory is acceptable and redirected in a
controlled manner, not intruding into adjacent travel lanes. Many tests
are performed to establish a detail design that is acceptable. Because
striking a barrier still causes damage to the vehicle and can cause some
bodily injury to the occupant, it is only used for cases where more harm
and damage will occur should the barrier not be there at all.

Appendix 11

This is a safety review task to determine if the driver, either while
driving along the main road, or at an intersection at another road, has
adequate vision ahead to determine if an object, another vehicle, or
what the road ahead is doing in order to react and avoid crashes or
running into something. Designers will evaluate required stopping,
decision, and intersection sight distances vs. available conditions to
determine potential mitigating measures.

Appendix 12

A safety review to determine if sign panels meet current retro
reflective visibility standards is performed for every project,
including evaluating the use of crashworthy sign supports. In addition
the signs are reviewed to determine if the signs are properly placed
both in height and distance from the roadway edge of pavement and
distance from the specific location the warning is intended for, to
allow proper reaction and speed reduction by the driver. Signs are
reviewed to ensure the correct message is conveyed and in conformance
with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). This
includes font and letter height, etc. The size and visibility of the
message can be important for older drivers to see and comprehend.

Appendix 13

Drop-offs can be a serious safety hazard, particularly at locations
where narrow, steep shoulders exist next to steep fill slopes, and where
hazards such as trees, boulders, etc., exist near to the road's edge.
Drivers who slip off a paved road onto an unimproved (turf) shoulder are
likely to lose control as they attempt to climb onto the roadway. The
pavement edge creates a "scrubbing" condition that must be overcome
through over-steering. As drivers over-steer to reenter the roadway,
they are prone to lose control of the vehicle. Compounding the danger,
the rear wheel may catch the edge of the shoulder, swinging the car
around. These actions may cause the vehicle to veer into the adjacent
lane, where it may collide or sideswipe oncoming cars, overturn, or run
off the road and crash. FHWA and AASHTO research has found that the loss
of vehicle control can occur at pavement edge drop-offs greater than
2-inches and at speeds greater than 30 MPH.

Appendix 14

For most roadside barriers, the top of the guardrail / guardwall is to
be 27 inches above the pavement or ground immediately below the face of
the rail. Crash tests have shown that the height is critical to prevent
roll-over by a passenger vehicle or small truck. In addition to the
height, the slope of the ground or pavement (shoulder) between the lane
and rail is critical, and ideally should not exceed a ratio of 1:10,
though 1:6 is acceptable for lower speeds.