construction costs

CASE STUDY

FHWA-HRT-23-057 

HRDI-20/05-23(WEB)E

Office of Research, 

Development, and Technology

Office of Infrastructure 

Research and Development

Turner-Fairbank Highway 

Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

https://highways.dot.gov/research

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

infrastructure/

Complete Streets Construction 

Cost Case Study: Resurfacing 

of South Lawrence Boulevard 

(State Road 21), Keystone 

Heights, FL

Location: Keystone Heights, FL (29.78 N, 82.03 W)

Project Length: 6.4 mi

Project Duration: June 2020–March 2021 (9 mo)

Problem Statement

In 2018, officials identified safety and mobility deficiencies in the primary 

roadway serving the Keystone Heights commercial district, State Road 21 

(SR 21). Sidewalks were poorly maintained. Crossing the street, even at 

crosswalks, required crossing four lanes (two travel and two parking lanes), 

which increased pedestrians’ and bicyclists’ exposure to vehicular traffic. 

Visibility at intersections and crosswalks was inadequate because of poor 

lighting and an absence of pedestrian warning devices. The signalized 

intersection lacked a vehicle detection system, signal heads, and pedestrian 

signal devices. Driveways within 10 ft of two unsignalized intersections posed 

a safety hazard for merging traffic. The curb ramps were not compliant with 

the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).(1)

 The roadway surface 

was in fair to poor condition. Existing lighting facilities throughout the project 

area (e.g., crosswalks, intersection) were inadequate.

Project Context 

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) FDOT Context 

Classification Guide provides information about traditional functional 

classifications for roadways as well as context classifications. Context refers to 

the built environment within which the roadway is located. Roadway SR 21, 

traversing the Keystone Heights commercial district, is designated as a rural 

town context (FDOT classification C2T) and the functional classification is 

arterial.(2)

 SR 21 provides access to the local downtown area, shops, a gas 

station, a bank, a childcare facility, and other businesses. 

Modal Focus (check all that apply):

F Pedestrians F Transit users

F Bicyclists F Freight providers

F Micromobility users F Motorists

✓

✓

✓

© 2019 Nui / Adobe Stock.
2

The annual average daily traffic in 2018 ranged from 

6,300 to 10,500 vehicles. The two-lane, undivided 

roadway was designed to accommodate 55 mph travel 

speeds. It consisted of the following elements:

• Two 12-ft travel lanes.

• Two 8.5-ft, on-street parallel parking lanes.

• Curbs and gutters.

• Sidewalks (on each side).

• Five unsignalized intersections.

• One signalized intersection.

Figure 1 presents the project location. Lighting for the 

roadway and sidewalks was every 175 ft along the east 

side of SR 21, between SR 100 and Lakeview Drive. 

Additionally, a light pole was in the southeast quadrant 

of three of the six intersections along SR 21. Crosswalks 

had no lighting. Thus, illumination within the project area 

was inadequate.

Building upon its goal to address pavement deficiencies 

by resurfacing SR 21, the city identified additional 

opportunities to advance downtown revitalization 

and address safety and mobility challenges. Before 

construction, 23 crashes per year occurred along the 

roadway (average from 2013 through 2017), none of 

which resulted in fatalities or involved pedestrians or 

bicyclists. There was some travel-time delay, and a gap 

analysis indicated insufficient time for pedestrian and 

bicyclist crossings.

Community Engagement Summary

The city partnered with FDOT to seek public input 

on proposed improvements to SR 21 and conducted 

community engagement in an open-house format. 

Figure 1. Map. SR 21 project location, 

Keystone Heights.(3)

Original map: © 2022 Google® My MapsTM. 

Modified by FHWA (see Acknowledgement section).

Community feedback indicated a desire for the 

following changes:

• Improved safety.

• Improved lighting.

• Midblock crossings and curb extensions.

• Improved signals and pedestrian infrastructure.

The city incorporated feedback into subsequent designs 

and plans. As the project progressed, the city held 

additional meetings and notified community members 

of project updates through brief presentations. The city 

revised project plans and designs to incorporate feedback.(4)

Project Improvements

Table 1 presents a summary of project improvements. 

Figure 2 and figure 3 present before and after 

improvement photos from a roadway segment on SR 21.

Table 1. Project improvements.

Problem Description of Improvements

Poorly maintained sidewalks. Sidewalks replaced or repaired.

Excessive crossing distance at existing 

crosswalks and inadequate visibility.

• Curb extensions at crosswalks.

• Crosswalk lighting at and throughout the commercial district to enhance 

visibility and safety.

• New midblock crossings marked with Rectangular Rapid Flashing 

Beacons (RRFBs).

• Updated school zone signs to improve visibility.

No vehicle detection system or pedestrian 

signal devices at the signalized intersection.

A new vehicle detection system, signal heads, and pedestrian signal features 

for the signalized intersection at SR 100 and Walker Drive.
3

Table 1. Project improvements (continued).

Problem Description of Improvements

Driveways within 10 ft of two unsignalized 

intersections, posing a safety hazard for 

merging traffic.

Driveways removed close to unsignalized intersections.

Curb ramps not compliant with the ADA. New ADA-compliant curb ramps throughout the project.

Inadequate lighting.

• Lighting improvements (a mix of installing new lights and retrofitting the 

existing system) to meet or exceed illumination levels specified in the 

project design.

• Roadway lighting on 35-ft concrete light poles spaced at 100-ft intervals in 

a staggered configuration within the project area. The concrete light poles 

are nonstandard—octagonal, with decorative acorn-style arms, skirted 

luminaires, and a power service point elevated 13 ft above ground level.

• Light poles added at the new midblock crosswalks (immediately before and 

after) to ensure an adequately illuminated crossing area.

• Two new concrete light poles with arms and luminaries added at the Pecan 

Street and SR 100 (East Walker Drive) intersection, and a retrofit of the 

existing lighting system.

Figure 2. Photo. A roadway segment on SR 21 

before improvement.

© 2023 FDOT.

Figure 3. Photo. A roadway segment on SR 21 

after improvement.

© 2023 FDOT.

Project Results

The city has conducted limited monitoring of performance 

metrics since construction was completed in the past year, 

but initial observations from the 6 mo after construction 

indicate no crashes, minimal travel-time delay, and 

sufficient time for pedestrian and bicyclist crossings. 

Midblock crosswalks improved pedestrian connectivity, 

community walkability, and safety.

Project Funding Sources

• Federal: Surface Transportation Block 

Grant (STBG) program.(5)

• State:

○ District Dedicated Revenue (DDR).(6)

○ District 2 Funds.(7)

Project Delivery Mechanism

F Alliance 

contracting/ 

integrated project 

delivery (IPD)

F Construction manager/

general contractor 

(CM/GC)

F Progressive 

design-build (PBD)

F Public-private 

partnership (P3)

F Design-build (D-B) F Project bundling

F Design-bidbuild (D-B-B)F Indefinite delivery/

indefinite quantity (IDIQ) 

✓

These images are intended to be examples of real-world, existing conditions; 

the conditions shown in the photos are not limited to best practices, approved 

designs, or approved behaviors, and may reflect conditions that are 

not recommended.

These images are intended to be examples of real-world, existing conditions; 

the conditions shown in the photos are not limited to best practices, approved 

designs, or approved behaviors, and may reflect conditions that are 

not recommended.
4

Acknowledgment

The map in figure 1 was modified by the authors to mark 

the SR 21 project location in Keystone Heights, FL. 

The original map is the copyright property of Google® 

My MapsTM and can be accessed at https://www.google.

com/maps/place/29%C2%B046’48.0%22N+82%C2%B0

01’48.0%22W/@29.783329,-82.0317273,17z.

(3)

References

1. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 1990. Public 

Law 101-336. 108th Congress, 2nd session. https://www.

govinfo.gov/app/details/CREC-2002-01-29/CREC-2002-

01-29-pt1-PgS222, last accessed February 6, 2023.

2. FDOT. 2020. FDOT Context Classification Guide. 

Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Transportation. 

https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/

default-source/roadway/completestreets/files/fdot-contextclassification.pdf, last accessed February 9, 2023.

3. Google®. 2022. Google® My MapsTM, Mountain View, 

CA, obtained from https://www.google.com/maps/d/, 

last accessed September 13, 2022.

4. FDOT. “State Road 21 (South Lawrence Blvd.) 

Improvements” (web page). https://nflroads.com/

ProjectDetails?p=5230, last accessed June 10, 2022.

5. FHWA. n.d. “Federal-Aid Programs and Special 

Funding: Surface Transportation Block Grant Program 

(STBG)” (web page). https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

specialfunding/stp/, last accessed February 8, 2023.

6. Florida Office of Work Program and Budget. n.d. 

Schedule A—Work Program Fund Allocation Process: 

An Appendix to Work Program Instructions. Tallahassee, 

FL: Florida Office of Work Program and Budget. https://

www.fdot.gov/docs/default-source/workprogram/

development/ScheduleA/A8-ScheduleAProcess.pdf, 

last accessed February 9, 2023.

7. FDOT. n.d. Florida Department of Transportation 

Locally Administered State Funded Grant Programs. 

Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Transportation. 

https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/

default-source/programmanagement/lp/state-fundedgrants-brochure.pdf, last accessed February 9, 2023.

Project Costs*

Total Project Costs – $6,913,040

Construction – $5,824,118

• Mobilization – $560,241

• Traffic control (upgrade signal 

and detection) – $111,134

• Roadway construction and related 

activities – $4,467,027

• Lighting (furnish and install street lighting 

and accessories) – $413,565 (15,906 each)

• Concrete sidewalk – $276,796 ($45 per sq yd)

• Curb ramps (with detectable warning 

surface) – $24,564 ($37 per sq ft)

• Pedestrian beacons (RRFBs) – $163,173 

(12 units at $13,597 per unit)

• Pedestrian crossing improvements – $49,472

• Road diet (lane striping and markings) – $216,733

• Drainage – $482,250

• Landscaping – $148,084

Preliminary Engineering

$1,074,816

Utility Adjustments

$14,106

Right-of-Way

$0

Project Website

https://nflroads.com/ProjectDetails?p=5230(4)

Recommended citation: Federal Highway Administration, Complete Streets Construction Cost Case Study: Resurfacing 

of South Lawrence Boulevard (State Road 21), Keystone Heights, FL (Washington, DC: 2023) https://doi.org/10.21949/1522002.

*Project costs include improvements that benefit mobility in general and may have been necessary regardless of any safety improvements.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this document only because they are considered essential to the objective 

of the document. They are included for informational purposes only and are not intended to reflect a preference, approval, or endorsement of any one product or entity. 

Except for the statutes and regulations cited, the contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the States or the public in any way. This document 

is intended only to provide information regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.