Meade County Transportation Plan

Transcription

MEADE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Prepared for:
Meade County
Department of Equalization and Planning
1425 Sherman Street
Sturgis, South Dakota 57785
Prepared by:
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600
Centennial, Colorado 80111
(303) 721-1440
Project Manager: Lyle E. DeVries, PE, PTOE
FHU Reference No. 07-043
November 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VIII.
Page
INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1
A.
Background --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
B.
Purpose of the Transportation Plan--------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
C.
Elements of the Transportation Plan ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
D.
Critical Issues ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1
EXISTING COUNTY PLAN AND PROCEDURES ----------------------------------------------------------- 2
A.
Existing Ordinances ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
B.
Roadway Network ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
C.
Roadway Design Standards ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2
D.
Access Management Policy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2
E.
Roadway Maintenance Funding ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
F.
Capital Improvement Funding---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS--------------------------------------------------------------- 3
A.
Roadway Conditions---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
B.
Traffic Volumes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
C.
Traffic Safety ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
FUTURE TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS ---------------------------------------------------------------- 9
A.
Future Growth Rates --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
B.
Future Growth Areas --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
C.
Traffic Volume Projections -------------------------------------------------------------------------------10
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION-------------------------------------------------------------------------------14
A.
Federal and State Highways ----------------------------------------------------------------------------14
B.
Arterial Roads -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14
C.
Collector Roads---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14
D.
Local Roads -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14
E.
I-90 Service Roads-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14
F.
Local Jurisdiction Functional Classification----------------------------------------------------------14
ROADWAY DESIGN STANDARDS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------21
A.
Proposed Roadway Cross Sections -------------------------------------------------------------------21
B.
Access Management Basis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------21
C.
Access Management Guidelines -----------------------------------------------------------------------23
D.
Roadway Surfacing Decisions --------------------------------------------------------------------------24
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS / FINANCING---------------------------------------------------------------25
A.
Assessment of Development Impacts-----------------------------------------------------------------25
B.
Financing Tools ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------25
ROADWAY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ------------------------------------------------------26
IX.
TRANSPORTATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STEPS-------------------------------------------------26
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1.
Meade County Road Map ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------4
Figure 2.
Roadway Surface Types -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------5
Figure 3a.
Year 2007 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Sturgis Area -----------------------------------------------6
Figure 3b.
Year 2007 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) I-90 Corridor Between Sturgis and Peidmont ----7
Figure 3c.
Year 2007 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) North of Rapid City --------------------------------------8
Figure 4.
Future Growth Areas -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
Figure 5a.
Year 2030 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Sturgis Area --------------------------------------------- 11
Figure 5b.
Year 2030 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) I-90 Corridor Between Sturgis and Peidmont -- 12
Figure 5c.
Year 2030 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) North of Rapid City ------------------------------------ 13
Figure 6.
3-Mile Platting Jurisdictions Along I-90 Corridor --------------------------------------------------- 15
Figure 7a.
Roadway Functional Classification – Meade County --------------------------------------------- 16
Figure 7b.
Roadway Functional Classification – Sturgis Area ------------------------------------------------ 17
Figure 7c.
Roadway Functional Classification – I-90 Corridor between Exit 32 and Exit 40---------- 18
Figure 7d.
Roadway Functional Classification – Black Hawk/Summerset/Piedmont Area ------------ 19
Figure 7e.
Roadway Functional Classification – Box Elder Area -------------------------------------------- 20
Figure 8.
Typical Roadway Sections – Arterials ---------------------------------------------------------------- 22
Figure 9.
Typical Roadway Sections – Collectors-------------------------------------------------------------- 22
Figure 10.
Roadway Improvement Project Location Map------------------------------------------------------ 28
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Existing Meade County Functional Classification Roadway Definitions -----------------------2
Table 2.
SDDOT State Highway Growth Rates ------------------------------------------------------------------9
Table 3.
2004 Corridor Preservation Study – I-90 Interchange Growth Rates---------------------------9
Table 4.
Meade County Growth Rates -----------------------------------------------------------------------------9
Table 5
Traffic Volume Thresholds for Turn Lane Installation -------------------------------------------- 25
Table 6.
Listing of County Roadway Improvement Projects ------------------------------------------------ 27
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A CITY AND TOWN FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MAP
APPENDIX B TECHNICAL BRIEF-SDDOT LOCAL PAVING REPORT
I.
INTRODUCTION
A.
Background
Located in the southwest portion of the state of South Dakota, Meade County has recently experienced
increasing growth and development. This growth is expected to continue. While current activity and future
growth expectations are concentrated within the Interstate 90 (I-90) Corridor, the County seeks to provide for
the transportation needs of both its rural and urban residents. In an effort to plan and prepare in advance for
future growth and its associated travel demands, the County has undertaken a process to develop a
transportation plan.
A Transportation Plan is a useful tool for many reasons. It defines the function (a combination of mobility
and access) that roadways within a system should be planned to provide. A transportation plan also
provides the design characteristics (cross-section and geometric standards) which roadways should exhibit
given their function and it defines the right-of-way which should be preserved to ultimately construct the
roadway. Generally, the plan is a tool that provides direction for a roadway improvement program as well
as identifying current deficiencies, future needs, and prioritization thereof.
C.
The elements of the plan include:
The primary purpose of the County transportation system is to move people and goods in a safe and efficient
manner. A variety of different travel demands need to be considered in order to fulfill this purpose, including
travel within the County, passing through the County, and between rural parts of the County and the County’s
cities. The County roadway system is currently the key element of the transportation system in that it
accommodates the majority of the travel needs outside city limits. It is important to develop a transportation
plan which will enable the County to maintain a system that will satisfy the travel needs of County residents.
The County roadway network has historically been designed and constructed to serve rural and regional
needs. Arterial and local roads were constructed in conjunction with low density development patterns
resulting in a disjointed transportation network. Ongoing growth and development in the County is creating
an increase in traffic demands on this roadway network that is not easily accommodated. The Annual
Sturgis Motorcycle Rally further heightens travel demand in the southwest portion of the County and strains
the capacity of the existing roadway network.
The County’s ability to construct roads is constrained due to lack of funding. A majority of the County’s
roads and bridge budget is currently used for maintenance and repair of existing roads. These
maintenance costs are directly attributable to the high number of road miles serving a large geographic
area of somewhat low density and scattered developments.
B.
Purpose of the Transportation Plan
It is the goal of the County to achieve a safe, efficient, and convenient transportation system that is well
coordinated with existing land use activities occurring throughout Meade County and to allow for future
planned growth.
Accordingly, the main purposes of this transportation plan are to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Inventory and functionally classify the existing transportation network,
Identify roadway improvements to be made in the future,
Develop design standards for roadway improvements including access management, roadway
surface, and typical sections,
Identify funding sources for roadway improvements, and
Coordinate existing and proposed developments with the future transportation needs of the County.
Elements of the Transportation Plan
a review of current Meade County transportation planning practices,
a compilation of existing traffic volumes,
identification of future growth areas,
development of a roadway classification system,
layout of roadway cross-sectional standards,
a comprehensive roadway access management policy, and
a prioritized list of future roadway improvements.
The process which has been undertaken to develop these plan components includes a review of the
County’s current practices in each of these areas, a cursory review of standards and planning documents
for the local jurisdictions, an assessment of future conditions throughout the County relative to potential
growth and traffic loadings on the County road system, and a series of meetings with representatives of the
various public entities to allow for coordination with the local County municipalities.
D.
Critical Issues
The project team has identified a number of key issues to be addressed in the Transportation Plan:
Guidelines for making the decision to pave an unpaved roadway
How to enlist developer assistance for funding roadway improvements and maintenance (i.e.
concurrency management or other alternative practices), given the County’s limited authority to tax
Identifying improvements that would help to lessen Sturgis Rally-related traffic congestion without
overbuilding the network for more typical traffic conditions
Addressing the need for improvements in future growth areas before that growth renders the
roadway network obsolete
Identifying locations where improvements will catalyze additional growth
Addressing the highway needs of rural residents of Meade County
Identifying areas where right-of-way should be purchased or reserved to preserve land for future
roadway improvements.
Page 1
II. EXISTING COUNTY PLAN AND PROCEDURES
A.
Existing Ordinances
Meade County Ordinance 10 provides street and roadway information. The original Ordinance 10 was
adopted in 1989 and provides information on roads designated to be maintained by Meade County.
Ordinance 10 was updated in 2008. Ordinance 20, the County’s subdivision ordinance, was first adopted in
1998 and its 9th and most recent revision occurred in June of 2007. It provides regulations for the
subdivision of land, development, and improvements.
The following sections summarize the historic practices of Meade County within the components of the
plan. It is important to note that the current Meade County ordinances related to roadways were being
revised as this plan was written and the information in this plan will be used to refine the ordinances.
B.
Roadway Network
Ordinance 20 (http://www.meadecounty.org/FileGallery/444.pdf) historically defined a street as “…a tract of
land dedicated to public use, which affords the primary means of access to the abutting property, but excluding
private driveways serving only one (1) parcel of land.” The ordinance further defined five street classifications
as outlined in Table 1.
Table 1.
Existing Meade County Functional Classification Roadway Definitions
Roadway
Classification
Thoroughfare
Collector
Marginal Access
Minor
Private
Previous Ordinance 20 Definition
Arterial streets used primarily for heavy traffic and serve as an arterial traffic way.
Streets that carry traffic from minor streets to the major systems, thoroughfares,
highways, and the principal entrance streets of high density residential and commercial
lots.
Streets which are parallel and adjacent to thoroughfares and highways and which provide
access to abutting properties and protection from through traffic.
Ordinance 10 also provides classifications for maintenance purposes, identifying maintenance priority
levels for County Highways, County Secondary Highways, Local Feeder Roads, and Special Use Roads.
C.
Roadway Design Standards
Meade County currently cites the South Dakota Department of Transportation Roadway Design Standards
as applicable to County roads.
D.
Access Management Policy
In the Year 2006, Ordinance 20 added a statement that an Approach Permit must be obtained from the
Meade County Department of Equalization and Planning for all approaches. Those interested in acquiring
roadway access must submit an Application for Approach Permit. Permits are received and reviewed by
the County and access is granted or denied on a case-by-case basis.
E.
Roadway Maintenance Funding
The County currently includes road operations and maintenance as a line item in its annual budgeting
process. Some homeowner groups form road districts that maintain their own roadways. Ordinance 10
provides a process by which a roadway may be included in the County roadway system.
F.
Capital Improvement Funding
Funding for capital roadway improvements comes from a variety of sources, including private developers.
Developers will typically make improvements within the development area to provide access to the
adjacent roadway network.
Minor streets are those which are used primarily for access to abutting properties.
Private right-of-way affording access by pedestrian and vehicles and not dedicated to
public use.
Characteristics such as roadway continuity, service between major origins/destinations, relative trip length,
intersection spacing, and daily traffic are typically used to define roadway functional classification. These
elements were partially addressed in the Ordinance 20 definitions. Additional detail would serve to clarify
Meade County roadway classifications.
Though County Ordinance 20 had previously defined the functional classifications in Table 1, there was no
formal functional classification plan in place. Such a plan assigns each roadway a functional classification.
Page 2
III. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
A.
Roadway Conditions
There are currently 2,034 roadway lane-miles within Meade County. The roadway network includes a
portion of Interstate 90 and South Dakota State Highways 79, 34, 73. United States Highway (US) 212
extends east-west along the north edge of the County and US Highway 14A extends west from Sturgis.
The Interstate 90 (I-90) Corridor extends generally north-south within the southwest portion of the County,
between the Cities of Sturgis and Black Hawk. A roadway map of Meade County is shown on Figure 1.
Travel Lanes
The majority of roads within Meade County provide 2 travel lanes (one in each direction). Interstate 90 is a
4-lane roadway and a 4-lane segment exists along State Highway 34 east of Sturgis.
Roadway Surface Types
Figure 2 illustrates the surface conditions (paved versus unpaved) of the Meade County roadway network,
as well as the roadway width ranges for the paved roadways. All State Highways in the County are paved.
The majority of the County roads in the urban areas are paved, while many of the rural and mountainous
roads are unpaved. Overall, approximately 25 percent of the roadway miles in the County are paved.
B.
Crash Types
Angle – Intersection
Rear End
Head-on
Sideswipe same
Sideswipe opposite
Angle
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Animal
Fxd. object off road
Overturn on road
Overturn off road
Other
Total
2004
2005
2006
Total
7
8
4
1
0
3
0
18
37
7
40
3
7
5
3
0
1
2
0
20
38
8
31
9
10
4
1
0
1
3
0
23
46
12
35
11
24
17
8
1
2
8
0
61
121
27
106
23
128
124
146
398
Traffic Volumes
A series of traffic counts were conducted on roadways within the County during the summer of 2007 with a
focus on the more densely developed southwest portion of the County and I-90 Corridor. The daily traffic
volumes are shown by area on Figures 3a through 3c. As shown, traffic volumes throughout the County
range between approximately 100 and 2,000 vehicles per day (vpd). The upper range of traffic volumes
occur along roadway segments nearer to I-90 and Rapid City.
Also shown on Figures 3a and 3b are traffic counts recorded during the Annual Sturgis Motorcycle Rally.
Held in August, the Rally attracts more than 500,000 visitors to the Black Hills area within a one week time
span. As shown, the Rally can increase typical traffic along County roadways by up to 5-6 times.
C.
Summary of Meade County Crash Statistics, 2004-2006
Traffic Safety
The following provides a summary of key statistics related to the 398 traffic crashes that occurred in Meade
County between the Years 2004 and 2006. In addition to these statistics, it is noteworthy that 13 percent of
crashes were influenced by alcohol or drugs, 20 percent of crashes were intersection-related and 72
crashes involved motorcycles. Of a typical 24-hour period, the most crashes occurred during the hour
between 6:00pm and 7:00pm. Crashes that happened at night along unlighted roadway segments
comprised approximately 37 percent of all collisions.
Crashes by Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
37
19
28
21
26
26
27
85
24
32
34
39
398
Page 3
IV. FUTURE TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
A.
Future Growth Rates
Table 3.
Interchange
Annual Growth
Rate / Range
#34
2.0%
#37
3.0%
#40
3.0%
#44
2.0% - 4.0%
#46
3.0% - 6.0%
#48
3.0% - 6.0%
A number of resources were consulted to develop appropriate future growth rates to apply to existing
County traffic volumes. These are briefly summarized below:
County Population
A review of Meade County population growth between 1990 and 2005 indicated an annual growth rate of
approximately 0.8 percent (www.city-data.com/county/Meade_County-SD.html). This rate is roughly
consistent with the issuance of new County building permits over the same time period.
South Dakota Department Of Transportation (SDDOT) Growth Rates
The SDDOT provides 20-year growth factors for all state highways. Information for Meade County (updated
in the Year 2006) is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2.
SDDOT State Highway Growth Rates
State Highway
Annual Growth rate
SD 73
SD 79
SD 34
I-90
1.7 %
1.3 %
1.7%
2.4%
I-90 Corridor Preservation Study (Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, 2004)
2004 Corridor Preservation Study – I-90 Interchange Growth Rates
Considerations
Area surrounding interchange largely developed. If SD 79
connects here, growth rate would increase
Future Growth likely to be consistent with recent history. If SD
79 connects here, growth rate would increase
Area surrounding Exit 40 similar to Exit 37
Increased development expected south of the interchange
Significant residential growth proposed north of interchange.
Area south of interchange limited by topography.
Summerset growth south of the interchange
Annual growth rates from these sources varied between 1 percent and 6 percent.
Based on growth rate source information and conversation within the Transportation Committee, it was
determined that a range of future annual growth rates between 1 and 4 percent would be used to develop
future traffic forecasts for the Meade County Transportation Plan. High, Medium and Low Growth areas
were designated based on anticipated development and activity patterns. Table 4 summarizes the annual
growth rates used for each area type. The table also includes growth factors applied to Year 2007 traffic
counts to develop Year 2030 daily traffic forecasts. The Year 2030 was chosen as a future scenario to
provide a typical 20-year planning time horizon.
Table 4.
This study included growth projections for interchanges 34-48 along I-90. The growth rates were based on
growth in traffic observed between 1998 and 2003, then adjusted based on future expectations. Rates are
summarized in Table 3. In addition to the information in Table 3, historical traffic counts indicated that
mainline I-90 traffic volumes grew at 3 percent annually between 1989 and 2003.
B.
Meade County Growth Rates
Growth Area Type
Annual Growth rate
Year 2030 Growth Factor
High
Medium
Low
4%
2%
1%
2.5
1.6
1.3
Future Growth Areas
Figure 4 depicts High, Medium and Low Growth areas within Meade County. These growth areas were
categorized based on recent history and knowledge of future development plans. The highest growth
expectations are for the I-90 corridor, particularly closer to the Rapid City Area. Areas north of Sturgis are
expected to provide additional accommodations for Rally visitors.
Page 9
Figure 4.
Future Growth Areas
C.
Traffic Volume Projections
The high, medium and low growth factors in Table 4 were applied to roadways within the growth areas
shown on Figure 4 to develop the Year 2030 traffic volume projections shown on Figures 5a through 5c.
Rally traffic counts were also increased using the same growth factors to account for future growth in Rally
traffic. Future growth is anticipated to bring Alkali Road east of Highway 34, Elk Creek Road east of
Deerview Road, and Dyess Avenue and Elk Vale Road south of 224th Street above 1,000 vehicles per day
(vpd).
Growth in traffic volumes along some gravel Meade County roadways may trigger the decision to pave.
Data provided by the SDDOT indicates that it is economically viable to consider paving roadways that carry
in excess of 660 vpd. Surface treatment is considered along gravel roadways carrying in excess of 200
vpd. According to Year 2030 traffic projections, paving decisions may be needed along Bear Butte Road
between Sturgis and Foothills Road, Pleasant Valley Road east and west of I-90, and Antelope Creek
Road north of the Pennington County Line.
Page 10
V. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
C.
A roadway network is comprised of a hierarchy of roads whose functional classification is defined by their
usage. In general, streets serve two functions: they provide mobility and access. Roadway classification is
determined by the relative degree to which a road serves mobility versus access functions, as well as
characteristics such as continuity, trip lengths served, travel speeds, and traffic volumes. Following are
descriptions of different roadway types in Meade County:
Collector roadways are County or municipally maintained roads that serve a combination of mobility and
access functions. They typically distribute traffic between arterial roads and local streets. Collectors provide
for moderate trip lengths and travel speeds. Access is provided via moderately spaced at-grade signalized
and stop controlled intersections.
A.
Federal and State Highways
Much of the primary regional roadway system in Meade County consists of roads that are maintained by
the federal or state governments:
Interstate 90 (I-90) is the County’s only Freeway, defined by high speeds and access provided by
widely spaced, grade-separated interchanges. I-90 passes through the southwest portion of the
County as part of the east-west interstate route connecting across South Dakota and the northern
United States.
U. S. Highway 212 (US 212) is the County’s other Federal Highway, passing near the northern
County border. It extends east and west through South Dakota.
State Highways in the County include segments of the east-west State Highway (SH) 34 and
segments of the north-south SH 79 and SH 73.
B.
Arterial Roads
Arterial roadways are County or municipally maintained mobility roads that carry longer-distance trips for
regional, inter-community and major commuting purposes. Arterials have a limited number of at-grade
intersections and only provide direct property access when lower classification street access does not
exist. Arterials can carry significant traffic volumes at higher speeds for longer distances and are seldom
spaced at closer than one-mile intervals.
Urban Arterials
D.
Collector Roads
Local Roads
The primary function of local roads is to provide access to adjacent land uses. Local streets generally are
internal to or serve an access function for a single neighborhood or development. Local roads are limited in
length and continuity, and traffic using them should have a close-by origin or destination.
Figure 7a illustrates the classifications of the road system in the County. It shows that the majority of the
major (non-local) road system in the County consists of a network of north-south and east-west rural
arterial and collector roads spaced between two and ten miles apart. The road system in the areas around
Sturgis and Piedmont include a mix of urban and rural arterial and collector roadways, as illustrated in
Figures 7b and 7c.
E.
I-90 Service Roads
I-90 service roads serve to provide for local access and circulation between freeway interchanges, relieving
some local traffic demand along I-90. It is important to note that current responsibility for maintaining the
service roads varies between Meade County and the SDDOT by roadway section.
F.
Local Jurisdiction Functional Classification
Cities and Towns within Meade County have developed or are in the process of developing functional
classification maps that cover a 3-mile platting jurisdiction surrounding each. The 3-mile jurisdictions are
depicted graphically on Figure 6.
Functional classification maps for the Cities of Sturgis and Summerset are included in Appendix A.
Arterial roads in the more developed areas in and around Sturgis and Piedmont are classified as urban
arterials. Urban arterials have or are planned to have two travel lanes in each direction and have curbs,
gutters, and sidewalks on each side.
Rural Arterials
Arterial roads in less developed parts of the County are classified as rural arterials. Rural arterials have
shoulders on the edges rather than urban curb, gutter and sidewalk treatments,
Page 14
VI. ROADWAY DESIGN STANDARDS
A.
Proposed Roadway Cross Sections
Figures 8 and 9 respectively depict typical cross-sections for Arterial and Collector roadways. These
cross-sections would be used as a template for future roadway construction and improvements to existing
roadways. For both Arterials and Collectors there are different cross-sections shown for roads in urban and
rural areas. Urban cross-sections, for both Arterial and Collectors, include curbs, gutters and sidewalks
adjacent to the travel lanes, while rural cross-sections have paved shoulders but no curb, gutter or
sidewalk. Cross sections are also provided for rural unpaved (gravel) arterial and collector roadways.
These are typical cross-sections; however, particular road segment cross-sections may vary depending on
specific intersection improvements, topographical and environmental features, or roadside constraints.
B.
Access Management Basis
As discussed earlier, approach permit applications are received and reviewed by the County and access is
granted or denied on a case-by-case basis. The establishment of access management guidelines is
intended to guide the County in determining allowance of access to a particular property, and under what
circumstances or restrictions that an access might be allowed. The guidelines are not intended to be a full
comprehensive access manual, but rather some principles to determine if access would be allowed and
references to determine the need for auxiliary turn lanes. It is recognized that County staff would look at
each access on a case-by-case basis to determine any need for acceleration/deceleration lanes.
Approach permit applications will continue to be required for gaining access to any County roadway. A
permit application will also be required when there are changes to the property that increase the traffic
volume to the site by 20 percent or more.
The access guidelines should be recognized as the desired intent for the final disposition of a particular
access consideration. There will be exceptions in which the letter of the access guidelines is not possible
or is impractical. Such conditions will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and the County
should attempt to apply these guidelines to the extent possible. Engineering judgment should be applied for
any access request that significantly deviates from established guidelines.
Developing Areas
Arterial roadways should be the primary target for access control in the developed areas. Access to
adjacent properties is far more prevalent where there is significant development. Collector roads and
especially local streets should not be subject to strict access control measures since that is their purpose,
but maintaining mobility along the arterial roads is best accomplished by restricting access. Where private
access to an arterial roadway needs to be provided, it should be located (to the extent possible) at points
one quarter-mile from section-line (or adjacent) intersections provided that this location is adequate relative
to grade and sight distance. In the event that a particular property does not have an alternative means of
access or if the property frontage does not encompass the one-quarter mile point, an access may have to
be provided, but serious consideration should be given to restricting left turn movements. Also, accesses
granted to an arterial street should be accompanied with provisions for cross-access or a shared access
with neighboring properties (either at the time access is granted or planned in the future), as appropriate.
Collector streets in developing areas need not have such a strict policy relative to access. However, it is
desirable to ensure that access drives onto collectors are not immediately adjacent to each other. A
minimum spacing criterion should be incorporated into the policy. Local streets should also have a
minimum spacing criteria, unless it can be clearly shown that the access use is extremely rare (no more
than once or twice a month).
The need for acceleration/deceleration lanes would be evaluated based on the projected peak hour traffic
volume turning into and out of the proposed access and the traffic volume passing the access on the main
street. Chapter 12 of the South Dakota Department of Transportation Road Design Manual
(http://www.sddot.com/pe/roaddesign/docs/rdmanual/rdmch12.pdf) provides graphs that may be used to
determine whether left turn or right turn lanes are warranted.
The turning traffic volume is closely related to the type and magnitude of development projected to utilize
the proposed access. A traffic impact study completed for proposed development would include projected
peak hour traffic volumes and would identify turn lane requirements based on traffic volume projections.
The access management guidelines need to be sensitive to the environmental nature of the various
roadway classifications. Ideally, the policy should be most restrictive along arterial roads since these
roadways provide the greatest function of mobility, and it should be the least restrictive on local roads
which are intended to provide access to adjacent properties. Further, rural roads tend to have a greater
mobility function than those in developed areas for a given roadway classification, and the policy needs to
recognize this difference between developing area roads and rural roads.
Page 21
Figure 8.
Typical Roadway Sections – Arterials
Figure 9.
Typical Roadway Sections – Collectors
Page 22
Rural Areas
Similar to the developing areas, arterial roads should be the primary target to controlling access. However,
collector roads and local roads tend to serve more of a mobility function in rural areas than they do in the
developing areas. As such, an access management policy should be a bit more restrictive on these
classifications within a rural setting. The arterial classification should still be subject to the most restrictive
set of rules similarly to the developing area arterial roads.
To address potential access restrictions for rural collectors and locals, it is suggested to base
driveway/intersection spacing information on sight-distance requirements. If two successive accesses are
no closer than the distance of a driver’s safe stopping sight distance, then the driver traveling the main road
need only monitor one access at a time. Being required to monitor more than one access at a time adds to
the complexity of the driving task, and should be avoided. As such, spacing of access along rural collectors
and locals should be based on the design speed and stopping distance of these roadways within rural
areas. The spacing need not be strictly enforced for those rarely used accesses as previously mentioned.
Roadway grade and entering sight distance should be a consideration when locating a driveway access.
The access management guidelines are intended to preserve the integrity of those roadways which are to
provide a mobility function. The most restrictive criteria are applied to the arterial roadways. However, the
local roads within the rural areas also provide some mobility and are subject to stricter access controls than
their developing area counterparts. As such, separate access guidelines for local roads have been
developed for developing areas and rural areas.
C.
Access Management Guidelines
The following guidelines should be applied to access requests to the extent possible.
Arterial Roads - Direct access to abutting land is subordinate to providing service to the through
traffic movements. Access will normally not be granted to individual property which has a
reasonable alternative means of access to a lower classification of roadway. Consideration of
reasonable alternative access will take into consideration the function of the alternative roadway, its
purpose, capacity, operation, safety, and means of improving the alternative roadway.
Ideally, accesses should be limited to only arterial and collector cross-streets. Intersections with the
potential for eventual signalization should be spaced at one-quarter-mile intervals based on section
lines, where feasible and subject to the roadway’s grade and to the driver’s entering sight distance.
Allowed accesses or intersections spaced at intervals other than one-quarter mile will be restricted
to right-in/right out only unless an engineering study clearly demonstrates that there are benefits to
allowing additional movements and that the access location would not be a significant detriment to
the integrity of the arterial roadway.
A full movement access, with the potential for signalization, may be allowed at a location which
does not meet the preferred one-quarter mile spacing provided that an engineering study shows
that quarter-mile spacing is not practical and that good signal progression (at least 35 percent) can
be achieved. The location of any access should maintain a minimum spacing of 500 feet with any
other access or intersection subject to allowance for proper vehicular turn lane storage
requirements.
All necessary means shall be pursued to ensure that any access granted to an arterial roadway
serves as many properties as possible; this may require the stipulation of cross access through the
subject property to serve neighboring properties. Additional access will not be provided to parcels
along the arterial which are subdivided or are under a common ownership. Single family homes will
not be allowed to front onto an arterial.
Collector Roads - Direct access onto a collector roadway is reasonably balanced with the
roadway’s mobility function. One access will be allowed to serve each property provided that it does
not create a hazard nor a detriment to the roadway’s integrity and is at least 500 feet from another
existing or future eminent access or intersection. Access will normally be full movement,
unsignalized unless such access creates an operation or safety problem. In such a case, a
restriction of movements may be required. A second access to individual properties may be granted
if this access is not detrimental to existing or future access serving the adjacent property or to the
operation of an existing or planned cross-street intersection. Single family homes will not be allowed
to front onto a collector.
Any access or cross-street intersection which has the potential for signalization will need to be
located to ensure adequate (30 percent) progression, if appropriate. An engineering study will be
required to show proper signal progression. Any access with the potential for signalization should
be located so as to serve as many properties as possible with the potential stipulation of cross
access to the adjacent properties.
Local Roads; Developing Areas - Intent of local roads within developing areas is to provide direct
access to abutting properties. Minimum spacing between access/intersections should be 50 feet;
greater spacing may be required in unique circumstances subject to specific traffic conditions.
Local Roads; Rural Areas - Local roads within rural areas have a dual function of providing
adequate access to the abutting properties within an environment that experiences relatively high
speeds. One access to adjacent properties will be allowed provided that it does not create a hazard
nor a significant detriment to the roadway’s mobility function and is at least 500 feet from any other
existing or future eminent access or intersection. A second access to individual properties may be
allowed pending specific circumstances and appropriate spacing.
It is recognized that some access drives will be used very little such as those serving agricultural purposes
or oil and gas purposes. If the access is to experience very little use (no more than twice a month), the
policy stated above may be waived barring any other unusual circumstances.
Page 23
D.
Roadway Surfacing Decisions
The decision to pave a gravel roadway is complex, requiring consideration of multiple factors. Several of these
factors are identified in Appendix D of the Gravel Roads Maintenance and Design Manual (South Dakota Local
Transportation Assistance Program, November 2000), available at www.epa.gov.owow/nps/gravelroads/. The
document provides a ten part answer to the question of when to pave a gravel road. Based on a review of
available resources (including the Manual) and discussion with the Meade County Transportation Committee,
the following elements should be considered in making the decision to pave a gravel roadway.
Daily traffic volumes and type of traffic along the roadway. Recent data from the SDDOT indicate
that it is economically viable to provide surface treatment to gravel roads carrying in excess of 250300 vpd. Roads carrying in excess of 660 vpd are typically reviewed to determine whether an
alternate roadway surface should be considered. These thresholds have been established by the
County based on economic analyses of the costs required to build and maintain each roadway
surface type at different daily traffic levels.
The continuity and functional classification of the roadway should be considered. Arterial roads
should generally be paved before collector or local roads. As another consideration, a local street
may be economically sealed or paved while a road with heavy truck usage may best be surfaced
with gravel and left unpaved until sufficient funds are available to place a thick load-bearing
pavement on the road.
The tendency of drivers to divert away from gravel surfaces and onto paved surfaces to make their
trip should be considered. If the new paved roadway would provide the first paved surface serving a
particular demand pattern within Meade County, it should be designed to accommodate higher
levels of traffic and routes leading to it may require some improvement to provide adequate traffic
safety.
Traffic safety should be addressed. Paved roads encourage higher travel speeds, and sight
distance, curvature, lane width, surface friction and superelevation should be tailored to the
anticipated travel speed. As stated in the Gravel Roads Manual, it makes no sense to pave a gravel
road which is poorly designed and hazardous.
It is important to build up the road base and improve drainage before paving. If water is not drained
away from the road, the pavement fails.
The decision to pave a gravel road is ultimately based on economic considerations. Accordingly,
the South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT) published a research report in June of
2004 intended to assist local governments with the roadway surfacing decision. The report provides
a detailed cost model addressing the agency and user costs associated with various roadway
surfaces. Available at (http://www.state.sd.us/Applications/HR19ResearchProjects/Projects/
sd200210_Final_Report.pdf), this report may be used as a tool to evaluate agency costs. It is
recommended that Meade County make use of this information in the roadway surfacing decision
process. The Technical Brief associated with this research report is included in Appendix B.
Public opinion should be weighed in the decision process and leaders should inform the public
about the factors considered in the decision process.
Page 24
VII. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS / FINANCING
A.
Assessment of Development Impacts
New development in the County generates new vehicle trips and associated new demands on the County’s
road system. The impacts of different developments vary from a small number of trips for a single new
home to a large number of trips for a major residential subdivision or commercial development. Many
counties and municipalities require applicants for major developments to submit a traffic impact study,
estimating the number of trips expected to be generated, the expected distribution of those trips onto the
surrounding road network, and identifying major road improvements needed to accommodate the traffic.
Jurisdictions typically establish a threshold for the size of development that would trigger the requirement to
do a traffic impact study (TIS). The traffic volume thresholds shown in Table 5 are recommended in
consideration of the need for a traffic impact study:
Table 5.
Traffic Impact Study Requirements
Daily Traffic Volume Generated by Proposed
Development (Vehicle-trips per day)1
1,000 or more
500-1,000
Less than 500
1
B.
Study Requirements
Traffic Impact Study Required
Traffic Impact Study may be required at the
discretion of Meade County
Traffic Impact Study Not Required
Daily Traffic Volume generated by development may be calculated based on proposed land uses using Trip
Generation, Seventh Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2004). Using these rates, 1,000 vehicles per
day corresponds to approximately 23,000 Square Feet of Shopping Center Retail or approximately 105 singlefamily detached homes.
Financing Tools
Different County roadway improvement types can be financed through a variety of different mechanisms.
This section provides a brief overview of existing or potential funding mechanisms and their applicability to
different improvement types.
Local Roads
Construction of local streets accessing single development is generally the responsibility of private
developers who create the need for those streets and driveways.
Major Roads Adjacent to New Developments
New developments are generally required to construct or improve arterial and collector roads that are
adjacent to the development. Roads would be constructed to the applicable road classification type and
typical cross-section documented in this plan.
Other Major Road System Improvements
Since new development does not necessarily occur contiguous to existing development, developmentprovided improvements often leave gaps in the road system. There are several different approaches that
can be considered by counties or municipalities to fund new roads or improvements to the major road
system that are not immediately adjacent to a particular development. These approaches may be
capitalized using bond programs, or long-term financing programs that allow capital improvements to
proceed sooner than would be possible with a “pay-as-you-go” approach. This approach is most common
for capital improvements in entities with an expanding tax base.
Following is a summary of financing options that can be considered, individually or in combination, by
Meade County to fund these improvements to the major road system.
County Capital Improvement Program – Funding for new roads or improvements to existing
roads can be funded using general County funds through a capital improvement program. Meade
County allows for the development of capital reserve accounts which can be used to set aside
incoming monies for specific capital improvement projects.
Development Contributions – The County can negotiate with a developer to fund or construct
improvements to fill gaps in the system that help provide desirable access to that development.
Rather than negotiating on a case-by-case basis for off-site improvements, regulations can be
enacted, often referred to as “adequate public facilities” regulations that enable the County to
require such off-site improvements as a condition to development approval. The TIS filed by the
developer would serve as a guide to identifying needed roadway improvements.
Road Impact Fees – Impact fees are development exactions that are a common device used by
many local governments throughout the Country to impose charges on new development to
generate revenues for funding of off-site road expansion necessitated by new development. Impact
fees enable the local government to target this funding to the highest priority improvements for the
County. Based on the traffic volume thresholds shown in Table 5, many development filings within
Meade County would not be sizeable enough to require a TIS. Such developments could be
required to pay a road impact fee based on the number of residential units or commercial building
size.
Platting Fees – A fee may be charged to developers for the platting of land within Meade County
outside of the 3-mile platting jurisdictions of Cities and Towns that have developed Major Street
Plans.
Building Permit Fee – A fee charged to acquire a building permit through the County may be used
to fund transportation improvements.
Wheel Tax – A wheel tax could be implemented. Motor vehicles registered in the County would
have a wheel tax imposed upon each vehicle at a specified rate. Forty South Dakota counties
currently impose the wheel tax, with over half of them at the maximum rate of $4.00 per wheel.
Sales Tax – A countywide sales tax increase could be implemented to help pay for transportation
improvements.
Page 25
VIII.
ROADWAY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
A number of roadway improvements have been identified to provide additional roadway capacity and traffic
safety within Meade County. These projects are anticipated to be constructed by the Year 2016. Table 6
provides a listing of roadway improvement projects that are graphically depicted on Figure 10. A total of
eleven projects have been identified, including paving, realignment, reconstruction and new roadway
connection/extension projects. The project types are described as follows:
Roadway Paving Projects
Five segments of the County roadway system are included as asphalt paving projects, comprising 29.8
roadway miles.
Curve Realignment Projects
Three curve realignment projects are included in the set of improvements, totaling 4.4 miles in length.
New Alignments
The one proposed new roadway alignment/extension is 5.5 miles in length.
IX. TRANSPORTATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STEPS
Following are the guiding principles, along with strategies for implementing those principles, contained in
the Meade County Transportation Plan.
The Meade County transportation planning process should complement the County development
patterns and principles.
•
•
New development should occur only where existing transportation facilities are adequate or where
necessary improvements will be made as part of the development project.
•
•
Reconstruction
The two roadway reconstruction projects total 2.2 miles.
The Functional Road Classification Map should be used as the official future roadway plan for
the County.
New accesses/approaches to County roadways should be permitted based on the categories
and guidelines included in the Meade County Transportation Plan.
Adequate facilities and service levels for transportation should be clearly defined in the Highway
Ordinance.
Meade County Ordinances should establish traffic impact requirements to identify the need for
improvements created by future development in order to meet adopted level of service
standards.
New development should pay its equitable share for necessary improvements to the County
transportation system.
•
•
•
Meade County Ordinances should require construction of improvements identified through a
traffic impact study.
Meade County Ordinances should include a traffic improvement fee to support other future
improvements to the County transportation system made necessary by the impact of the
development, including cumulative impacts.
Meade County Ordinances should establish a mechanism to allow a party who initially funds an
improvement to be reimbursed by future developments that also impact that facility.
Meade County should establish a Capital Improvement Program for County transportation facilities.
•
•
•
The Capital Improvement Program should identify a methodology for prioritizing projects which
emphasizes the importance of maintaining the existing roadway system.
The Capital Improvement Plan for roadway maintenance and improvement should consider
consistency with the Transportation Plan as an element of project prioritization.
The Capital Improvement Program should identify methods to share costs with adjacent cities
and other governmental entities.
Page 26
Table 6.
Listing of County Roadway Improvement Projects
ID #
Corridor
From
To
Length (Miles)
Description
1
Avalanche Road
Sturgis City Limits
Pennington
County Line
Pennington
County Line
City Dump
1.2
Reconstruction and surfacing
Estimated Conceptual
Construction Cost ($M)
0.6
north
1.8
Asphalt Paving as minor arterial
1.3
Medium
Elk Creek Road
6
Expand ROW to 100’, pave roadway
9.8
Medium
5.5
New roadway connection and
reconstruction of existing alignment
8.0
Medium
1
Reconstruction
0.75
Low
6
Asphalt Paving
4.4
Low
Acquire Right-of-Way for Improvements
n/a
High
Realignment of Roadway
7.0
Low
th
2
150 Avenue
3
Elk Vale Road
4
North Loop Road
Highway 79
5
Bear Butte Road
Sturgis limits
6
Antelope Creek
Road
Pennington
County Line
Sunshine Valley
Road (Reverse
Curves)
7
Elk Creek Road
8
New Underwood
Road
215th Street
9
Elk Creek Road
Elk Vale Road
10
Deadwood
Extension
Pennington
County Line
11
Elk Creek Road
Valley View
I-90 near
Whitewood
Bear Butte Lake
Road
Elk Creek Road
Priority Level
Medium
Edgewood Place
3
Highway 34
10
Asphalt Paving
7.4
Medium
6
Asphalt Paving
4.4
Low
1
Realignment, widen bridge over
Boxelder Creek
1.5
High
0.4
Realignment of curves
0.9
High
Antelope Creek
Road
Meade County
Road 7
East side of
Reverse Curves
Page 27
SD HWY 79
126th Pl.
Wetz Rd.
194 St.
Apple Rd.
FELSBURG
H O LT &
ULLE VI G
199 St.
SD HWY 34
203rd St.
4
Avalanche Rd.
Bear
Butte Rd.
1
Alkali Rd.
5
207th St.
thl
eh
90
em
Rd
Tilford Rd.
.
Elk
Creek Rd.
9
7
Mill Rd.
10
Elk Vale Rd.
3
150th Avenue
11
2
Antelope Creek Rd.
Elk Creek Rd.
New Underwood Rd.
Be
Middle Alkali Rd.
(SDDOT)
Elk Vale Rd.
8
6
Figure 10
Roadway Improvement
Project Location Map
North
Meade County Transportation Plan, 07-043, 10/31/08
Page 28
APPENDIX A
CITY AND TOWN FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MAPS
Appendix A
19
20
21
22
23
24
19
20
21
22
23
24
19
20
21
22
23
24
19
20
21
22
23
30
29
28
27
26
25
30
29
28
27
26
25
30
29
28
27
26
25
30
29
28
27
26
24
19
Major Street Plan
25
City Of Rapid City
90
33
32
35
34
36
29
30
§
¨
¦
31
20
32
31
33
34
35
31
36
32
33
Road Classification
35
34
31
36
33
32
34
35
36
31
32
2
1
6
5
12
7
8
I do hereby certify that this Major Street Plan
was adopted by the Rapid City Council on
December 3, 2007. I further certify that original
minutes of the Rapid City Council meeting
on December 3, 2007 are on file in the Finance
Office.
Interstate Highway
5
2
3
4
1
6
d
De a
6
4
5
3
2
1
5
6
3
4
2
1
4
5
6
w oo
9
12
11
7
9
8
10
30
25
21
%
Æ
79 28
29
27
%
Æ
445
2
32
6
1
5
Hwy 44
7
8
11
10
12
7
8
14
13
18
17
16
15
No rth St.
36
31
%
Æ
44
2
11
15
St . Jo
s
ep h S
t.
21
29
1
28
230
32
13
14
22
5
St. Patrick St.
7
£
¤
16
t.
27
£
¤
4
13
8
9
%
Æ
79
19
11
10
17
Collector15
44
10
21
20
14
26
25
30
29
34
35
36
31
32
14
13
18
22
0
23
24
19
2
1
6
5
28
33
5,000
10,000
1
________________________________
Alan Hanks, Mayor
.
9
10
17
16
15
20 20,000
21
2230,000
2
7
8
13
18
14
_________________________________
James F. Preston, Finance Officer
17
12
11
(SEAL)
4
23
24
40,000
Feet
12
11
Longview Dr.
%
Æ
4
19
20
Miles
8
6
25
30
29
27
26
25
30
29
28
27
26
34
35
36
31
32
33
34
35
36
31
32
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
10
11
12
7
8
9
10
11
12
7
8
3
44
18
Minor Arterial
0
16B
Hw
y
16
17
18
24
23
§
¨
¦
£
¤
33
44
6
12
S
lin
Eg
%
Æ
%
Æ
9
8
Proposed Collector
v e.
15
16
§
¨
¦Anamosa St.
35
10
20
30
190
S t.
17
25
26
5 th
44
18
9
%
Æ
%
Æ
24
7
90
34
Main St.
.
d.
Dr
ge R a ke
Ra n
L
on 3
.
ny
4 Ca
l vd
nB
o
cks
Ja
44
19
A
Elm
9
33
W. Chicago St.
Pa rk Dr.
3
4
31
36
23
R d.
35
22
16
Valley Dr.
20
.
5
34
143rd Ave.
19
Rd
6
33
17
12
11
Proposed Minor Arterial
Country Rd.
SD 79
Creek Dr.
24
gis
32
18
14
r
Stu
31
13
14
90
LaCrosse St.
26
27
15
§
¨
¦
£
¤
Mt. Rushmore Rd.
28
16
17
Ra nd
29
23
18
Skyline Dr.
20
30
22
21
13
nyo n Rd.
So uth Ca
19
14
15
r R d.
16
17
T ow e
18
10
Radar Hill Rd.
8
Covington St.
7
Elk Vale Rd.
12
Dyess Ave.
11
10
9
Dated this _____ day of December, 2007.
Proposed Principal Arterial
ve .
8
3
dA
%
Æ
79
7
Principal Arterial
7
8
9
14
13
18
17
16
15
14
13
18
17
16
15
14
13
18
17
22
23
24
19
20
21
22
23
24
19
20
21
22
23
24
19
20
16
15
20
21
14
£
¤
16
19
20
21
22
23
19
24
20
21
23
22
y
Hw
29
28
27
25
26
30
30
28
29
L ake Rd.
Sh erid an
31
32
33
34
36
35
5
4
3
2
1
8
9
10
11
12
27
Moo n Meado
31
32
6
5
7
8
4
£
¤
Hwy 16
33
9
£
¤
16B
y
16
£
¤
B
19
16B
%
Æ
79
26
25
30
29
28
27
26
25
30
29
28
27
26
25
30
29
28
27
26
25
30
29
35
36
31
32
33
34
35
36
31
32
33
34
35
36
31
32
33
34
35
36
31
32
ws Rd.
34
3
24
B
16
w
H
10
%
Æ
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
12
7
8
9
10
11
12
7
8
9
14
13
18
17
16
15
14
13
18
17
16
23
24
19
20
21
22
07CA054
23
19
20
21
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
11
12
7
8
9
10
11
12
7
8
9
10
11
14
13
18
16
15
14
13
18
17
16
15
23
24
19
21
22
23
24
19
20
21
22
Sp ring
C r eek
Rd .
6
44
16
14
13
18
17
16
20
21
22
23
24
19
20
21
15
%
Æ
79
17
eR
15
Y ok
16
k
Ne c
17
d.
22
20
24
November 21, 2007
Planning Commission Approved:_______________________
29
28
27
26
25
30
29
28
27
26
25
30
29
28
27
26
25
30
29
28
27
26
25
30
29
December 3, 2007
City Council Approved:_______________________________
25
29
28
27
26
30
28
January 10, 2008
Summary of Adoption:________________________________
32
33
34
35
36
31
32
33
34
35
36
31
32
33
34
35
36
31
32
33
34
35
36
31
32
36January 30,312008
33 Date:______________________________________
34
35
32
Effective
33
BRUNSON
FUTURE COLLECTOR
CITY LIMITS
INC.
SURVEYING
GIS
ENGINEERING
DESIGN
ARCHITECTURE
COLLECTOR
www.4front.biz
FOUR FRONT
MINOR ARTERIAL
517 7th street rapid city sd 57701
MAJOR ARTERIAL
ph: 605.342.9470 fax: 605.342.2377
LEGEND
219TH
PIEDMONT CITY LIMITS
ELK CREEK ROAD
IVE
DR
TELLURIDE STREET
AD
BRECKENRIDGE
RO
WHISTLER COURT
KIT
SUMMERSET, SOUTH DAKOTA
LE
APP
ES
BL
ON
RS
CA
OE
AH
AP
AR
STA
AR
CED
NY
PO
LA
RE
NE
RO
BI
NS
DO
ON
RO
TH
Y
NE
NA
ROA
JENTER
DIA
NN
D
IVE
DR
Y
LA
TA
RUB
RENA’TA DRIVE
KA
Y
EN
LL
HE
RE
LO
NAVAJO
WK
WN
DA
STAGE STOP ROAD
D
T
UR
CO
STAGE STOP ROAD
M
EA
&
ST
E
RI
RE
RA
DG
ND
IL
HI
NC
W
.
GE
RA
O.
RID
US
R.
ST
LL
VO
AD
EA
E
EZ
RO
H
RO
AD
UX
SIO
SUMMERSET
HA
MO
JA
E
ND
LA
D
KE
OO
CR
TY
BET
MIDLAND
AD
RO
ON
NY
CA
E
GL
N
WILD ROSE
EA
CO
NS
ICA
TI
ER
TU
AM
IN
TI
TE
ON
NICHE
RS
ST
TA
RE
ET
TE
SD
DE
IN
ND
PE
OP
R.
O.
W
.
CE
79
TERRY
EN
Y
WA
GH
LO
90
HI
CHICORY
IE
PE
DE
IN
L
RO
CA
OP
CE
EN
AD
RO
ND
IC
BL
PU
RE
LO
SUZ
IOT
TR
PA IVE
DR
LIB
ER
TY
ST
RE
ET
D
LANE
LAN
OM
DOW
RIE
COURT
L
TE
AN
CH
M TRAIL
FREEDO
OM
FREED
S
FREED
SHA
BELLINGHAM DRIVE
AR
WILMINGTON STREET
CA
R
DO
RE
S
T
IVE
DR
ET
CASTLEWOOD
A
T
E
HE
9
ST
0
ER
R
ST
IGH
RE
TO
HW
HIG
BR
.
ET
N
O
AY
.
ST
79
GTO
RE
W
.
ET
N
TERRA
SD
VE
EET
STR
EET
STR
N
GTO
MIN
REM
MIN
WIL
DRIVE
YON
E
RE
NC
EL
RE
LANE
LEISU
T
IA
COUR
NE
LA
ASTOR
RIA
ASTO
NE
MIE
OSA
DER
LA
RA
A
PON
LA
UR
NT
CAN
T
AM
ST
MA
ROM
HOO
KER
ALL
N
T
ND
LANE
QU
I
GH
STREE
SE
NNAH
WS
LA
A
WN
SAVA
MEADO
LIN
BEL
DI
TO
HIGH
LANE
CASTLEWOOD
DRIVE
E
E
DRIVE
PLAC
RIDG
ERRY
CAMB
MULB
MULB
ERRY
DRIVE
RT
GE
BRID
COU
ASTORIA LANE
CAM
FILE LOCATION: 1205-015-PL04.DGN DRAWN BY: RJD
EMERALD HEIGHTS
DATE: 03/11/08
IV
JOB NUMBER: 05.1205.015
DR
IVE
DR
NE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
RIS
DO
JA
TITLE
MAJOR
STREET
NOT TO SCALE
PLAN
MAP
4-1
Copyright 2007. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission from FourFront Design, Inc.
EY
LL
VALLEY DRIVE
VA
OD DRIVE
VALLEY DRIVE
N
HILLS DRIVE
SU
GLENWO
HILLS DRIVE
STEAMBOAT ROAD
BUTT E
127T H
BEAR BUTTE
EDE N
M
79
203RD
BEAR BUTTE LAKE
COLONY
RUGER
AL
AV
AN
C
CHIS OLM
GRAV EL
OX YOKE
H
EL L E
N
GLENCOE
PARK
HARM ON
131S T
ANTLE R
CYPRESS
IR
OTTE R DICKS ON
OLD STONE
1ST
207TH
BARRY
90
CATTAIL
PINE VIEW
CK
SB
ER
BL
U
G
CK
SB
ER
FOR
G
D
M
D
TT
EL L IO
D
TO
KATM ANDU
E
9,500
14,250
DOR
AL
PLEA SANT VALLE Y
130T H
2,375 4,750
IE W
0
Sturgis 3 Mile Planning Jurisdiction
YV
GALENA
Feet
19,000
City of Sturgis Major Street Plan
SUNR
IS
CARD INAL
U
DG
T
LL E
VA
RO
E
GH
RIDGE
U
BL
BUF FALO
VA
N
OC
KE
R
CA
NY
ON
BL M
OA K RIDGE
ANNA BEL
A
132ND
CYPRESS
2ND
CUST E
R
6T H
4T H
RENO
BARRY
FULT ON
ER
WE B
IN
LIT
TA
4TH
1S T
NA
MA
ALKA LI
MOSS Y OAK
AN
N
PINE TREE
ELK
FOX
O
ARIZ
JUNCTION
E
M
O
NY
CA
DOUGLAS
3RD
SPRUCE
OS
DOLAN CREE
K
AD
DE
LA ZE LLE DUDLEY
HIL
K L
IDA IDA
GLENN
RK EY
WOODLA ND
PA R
K
C
RA
MO
TT
OR
SH
HU
RL
EY
AN
D
RM
WIL D TU
S
LA Z Y
MILLER
EAST
SHE
14
A
APOLLO
20TH
MAYE R
NE SLY
L L IE
AL D
ER
90
OD
BA L
L
WO
3R
IT E
10TH
9T H
8T H
7TH
6TH
WH
34
TE RRY
15TH
14TH
MERRITT
FOO THIL LS
ASH
JOS
E
Lawrence County Roads
E
Lawrence County Parcels
Proposed Major Streets
APPENDIX B
TECHNICAL BRIEF-SDDOT LOCAL PAVING REPORT
Appendix B
only the vehicle operating and crash components of the user costs are included as options in the
cost analysis.
LOCAL ROAD SURFACING CRITERIA
(SD2002-10)
TECHNICAL BRIEF
Introduction
On a daily basis, local road agencies in South Dakota face the challenge of how to costeffectively maintain low-volume roads. Specifically, decision makers are faced with the
challenge of determining when it is most economical to maintain, upgrade, or downgrade a
road’s existing surface. For example, an agency might need to determine when it is most costeffective to convert a gravel road to a blotter road.
In order to assist decision makers with these types of questions, the South Dakota Department of
Transportation (SDDOT) initiated a research study in 2002 regarding surfacing criteria for lowvolume roads. The objective of this research study is to create a process that allows the user to
compare the costs associated with different types of roads to provide assistance in deciding
which surface type is most economical under a specific set of circumstances. In addition to
incorporating the economical factors, the process must also allow the user to consider other noneconomic factors that are more subjective and difficult to quantify, such as political factors,
growth rates, housing concentration, mail routes, and industry/truck traffic. The process that was
developed can be performed manually, as outlined in this Technical Brief, or through the use of a
computerized tool developed under this project and available through the South Dakota Local
Technical Assistance Program (SDLTAP).
The Technical Brief was developed to provide a step-by-step procedure for making road surface
type decisions between different surface materials (hot-mix asphalt [HMA], blotter, gravel, and
stabilized gravel) on low volume roadways. The approach outlined in this document is flexible
enough to allow users to consider only those costs actually incurred by the agency for
maintaining their roads, to include non-agency cost factors such as vehicle operating costs or
crash potential, or to include non-economic factors. Whatever considerations are included in the
analysis, the methodology presented in this Technical Brief provides a practical tool to assist
agencies with decisions about the most cost-effective road surface type to be used in various
situations.
Methodology
The decision of the most cost-effective surface type to be used on a road can be heavily
influenced by the initial cost of constructing the road, the maintenance costs expected over its
life, and the impact the road surface might have on its users. These factors have all been
incorporated into the methodology outlined in this Technical Brief. The approach is based on an
analysis of both costs and non-economic factors that might influence an agency’s selection of the
appropriate road surface to be used. In the process developed under this study, there are several
different types of costs considered. The term agency cost is used to define the funds expended
by the local agency to build and maintain the given roadway over its life. In addition to agency
costs, the analysis may optionally consider user costs. User costs typically include the vehicle
operating, crash, and delay costs incurred by the users of a roadway. During an analysis, all,
some, or none of the user costs may be included as selected by the agency. For this analysis,
Local Road Surfacing Criteria
G-1
June 2004
In order to calibrate the methodology to the local agencies in South Dakota, all counties in the
state were asked to participate in providing data related to specific road sections in their county.
An attempt was made to collect data for all road surface types having a full range of average
daily traffic (ADT) and truck percentage levels for all terrain types. Using the data provided by
participating counties, the project models were customized to reflect typical costs in South
Dakota. These models, which were developed based upon an analysis of the costs incurred over
the anticipated life of each road section, allow the user to determine the most cost-effective
surface for a given set of roadway conditions. The method for determining the optimal surface
type using a manual approach is described in the next section of this Technical Brief. The
consideration of the time value of money is incorporated into the automated tool available
through the SDLTAP but was omitted from the Technical Brief to keep the manual process from
becoming too complex. The salvage value of treatments at the end of the analysis period is also
ignored in this manual approach but may be included in the analysis conducted using the
automated tool.
Procedure
This section provides the details necessary for an agency to determine the most appropriate
surface type for a given pavement section based upon the average conditions observed in South
Dakota. To apply the methodology developed for this study, the following steps should be
followed. An example analysis (displayed in italics) is provided along with the step-by-step
procedure.
Step 1. Identify the Road Section
The first step in determining the appropriate surface type for a given roadway section is to
identify the road section of interest. You must decide what portion of the roadway you want to
consider in your analysis. Further, for the chosen roadway section, you must also identify the
corresponding average daily traffic (ADT) value associated with the entire length of the roadway
section that you are considering. The ADT value may be based upon traffic counts that have
been conducted on the section or estimated based upon your knowledge of the road section.
Details about the section (such as road name, location, and ADT) should be added to lines 1
through 3 on the summary table (table 12) that is included on page 14 of this Technical Brief.
Example: County A has a 5-mile section of County Road 1 that had been gravel surfaced since it
was initially constructed. Since its initial construction, the ADT has increased on the roadway
section to 350 vehicles per day (based upon a recently conducted traffic count). County A is
considering surfacing the pavement section. Currently, they are receiving political pressure to
pave the road, but they are unsure if they should construct a blotter or HMA road. The section
details were added to lines 1 through 3 on the example summary table (table 13) on page 14 of
this Technical Brief.
Step 2. Determine the Agency Costs
The next step in selecting the surface type for a given roadway section is to calculate the agency
component of the total costs expected to be incurred over the life of the roadway. Tables 1
through 4 allow you to determine the agency costs associated with the pavement section if it is
G-2
June 2004
surfaced with HMA, blotter, gravel, or stabilized gravel, respectively. Further information on
filling out these tables is provided.
Column 1
Treatment
Table 1. Agency costs for HMA surfaced roadway section.
Column 1
Treatment
Column 2
Number of
Applications
Per Year
(times/yr)
Column 3
How Often the
Treatment is
Applied
(years between
applications)
Column 4
Costs Per
Application
(cost/mile)
Line 1: Crack
Sealing
Line 2: Seal
Coat
Line 3:
Overlay
Line 4:
Striping and
Marking
Line 5:
Patching
Line 6: Other
___________
Line 7: Maintenance Costs Per Mile Per Year
(Sum Lines 1 through 6)
Line 8: Analysis Period (years)
Line 9: Maintenance Costs Per Mile for the Analysis Period
(Line 7 * Line 8)
Line 10: Initial Construction/ Last Major Rehabilitation Costs (costs/mile)
Line 11: Total 20-year Costs Per Mile (Line 9 + Line 10)
G-3
Table 2. Agency costs for blotter surfaced roadway section.
Column 5
Costs Per Mile Per Year
column 2* column 4
column 3
20
June 2004
Column 2
Number of
Applications
Per Year
(times/yr)
Column 3
How Often the
Treatment is
Applied
(years between
application)
Column 4
Costs Per
Application
(costs/mile)
Line 1: Seal
Coat
Line 2:
Striping and
Marking
Line 3:
Patching
Line 4:
Process in
place, add
aggregate, and
reblot
Line 5: Other
___________
(Line 6 * Line 7)
G-4
Column 5
column 2* column 4
column 3
20
June 2004
Table 3. Agency costs for gravel surfaced roadway section.
Column 1
Treatment
Column 2
Number of
Applications
Per Year
(times/yr)
Column 3
How Often the
Treatment is
Applied
(years between
application)
Column 4
Costs Per
Application
(costs/mile)
Line 1:
Blading
Line 2:
Regravel
Line 3:
Reshape Cross
Section
Line 4: Spot
Graveling
Line 5: Other
___________
(Line 6 * Line 7)
Table 4. Agency costs for stabilized gravel surfaced roadway section.
Column 5
column 2* column 4
column 3
Column 1
Treatment
Column 2
Number of
Applications
Per Year
(times/yr)
Column 3
How Often the
Treatment is
Applied
(years between
application)
Column 4
Costs Per
Application
(costs/mile)
Line 1: Dust
Control
Line 2:
Blading
Line 3:
Regravel
Line 4:
Reshape Cross
Section
Line 5: Spot
Graveling
Line 6: Other
___________
(Line 7 * Line 8)
20
Column 5
column 2* column 4
column 3
20
Fill out each line in tables 1 through 4 by entering the requested information regarding
maintenance treatments that will be applied over a 20-year analysis period. For example, column
1 lists several treatments that are normally applied to the selected surface type. You are to enter
the number of applications of the treatment that are applied each year in column 2. In column 3,
enter the number of years between each application of the treatment. For example, if a treatment
is applied every 4 years, you would enter a “4” in column 3. Lastly, you must enter the costs per
mile for each application of the treatment into column 4. Once these values are entered, you can
determine the costs per mile for each treatment on a yearly basis. This value is calculated by
multiplying the value in column 2 by the value in column 4 and then dividing by the value in
column 3. The resulting value is placed in column 5 for each respective treatment type. It
should be noted that not all treatment types have to be utilized in the calculation. Further, if you
do not know the typical costs or frequencies associated with a particular treatment, default values
are provided in tables A-1 through A-4 in Appendix A of this Technical Brief. The default
values reflect data collected from the local agencies in the state and have been supplemented
with expert opinion from the Technical Panel and research team for this research project. It
should be noted that the default initial/major rehabilitation costs do not reflect the costs of
upgrading the road from one surface type to another. Therefore, if you wish for upgrade costs to
be taken into consideration, the default costs for initial construction/major rehabilitation must be
increased by the appropriate amount.
After summarizing the costs per mile per year for each treatment used, the total costs per mile
per year can be calculated by summing the maintenance costs per mile per year for all treatment
G-5
June 2004
G-6
June 2004
types (this is summarized in line 7 for tables 1 and 4 and line 6 for tables 2 and 3). The
maintenance costs per mile for the analysis period can be calculated by multiplying the total
costs per mile per year by the length of the analysis period listed in the table (20 years is the
default value). The maintenance costs per mile are summarized in line 9 for tables 1 and 4 and
line 8 for tables 2 and 3. These final total costs for each surface type can then be determined by
adding the initial construction/last major rehabilitation costs (line 10 for tables 1 and 4 or line 9
for tables 2 and 3) to the maintenance costs per mile for the analysis period (line 9 for tables 1
and 4 or line 8 for tables 2 and 3). The total costs should be summarized in line 11 for tables 1
and 4 or line 10 for tables 2 and 3. Final calculated values should be listed on line 4 of the
summary table (table 12) that is included on page 14 of this Technical Brief.
Example: Using tables 1 through 4, County A determined the agency costs for all surface types
as shown in tables 5 through 8. The agency costs for each surface type were determined using
the default values found in Appendix A. The agency costs for the HMA, blotter, gravel, and
stabilized gravel roads were determined to be $128,400, $74,150, $143,896, and $225,656,
respectively. These numbers from tables 5 through 8 have been added to line 4 of the example
cost table (table 13) on page 14 of this Technical Brief.
Table 5. Example agency costs for HMA surfaced roadway section.
Column 1
Treatment
Column 2
Number of
Applications
Per Year
(times/yr)
Column 3
How Often the
Treatment is
Applied
(years between
applications)
Column 4
Costs Per
Application
(cost/mile)
Line 1: Crack
1
3
$1,200
Sealing
Line 2: Seal
1
4
$7,000
Coat
Line 3:
1
20
$37,000
Overlay
Line 4:
1
4
$280
Striping and
Marking
Line 5:
1
1
$500
Patching
Line 6: Other
___________
(Line 7 * Line 8)
G-7
Column 5
column 2* column 4
column 3
$400
Table 6. Example agency costs for blotter surfaced roadway section.
Column 1
Treatment
Column 2
Number of
Applications
Per Year
(times/yr)
Column 3
How Often the
Treatment is
Applied
(years between
application)
Column 4
Costs Per
Application
(costs/mile)
Line 1: Seal
1
4
$7,850
Coat
Line 2:
1
4
$370
Striping and
Marking
Line 3:
1
1
$1,260
Patching
Line 4:
Process in
place, add
aggregate, and
reblot
Line 5: Other
___________
(Line 6 * Line 7)
Column 5
Cost Per Mile Per Year
column 2* column 4
column 3
$1,962
$93
$1,260
--
-$3,315
20
$66,300
$7,850
$74,150
$1,750
$1,850
$70
$500
-$4,570
20
$91,400
$37,000
$128,400
June 2004
G-8
June 2004
Table 7. Example agency costs for gravel surfaced roadway section.
Column 1
Treatment
Column 2
Number of
Applications
Per Year
(times/yr)
Column 3
How Often the
Treatment is
Applied
(years between
application)
Column 4
Costs Per
Application
(costs/mile)
Line 1:
50
1
$65
Blading
Line 2:
1
6
$7,036
Regravel
Line 3:
Reshape Cross
Section
Line 4: Spot
1
1
$2,420
Graveling
Line 5: Other
___________
(Line 6 * Line 7)
Table 8. Example agency costs for stabilized gravel surfaced roadway section.
Column 5
column 2* column 4
column 3
Column 1
Treatment
Column 2
Number of
Applications
Per Year
(times/yr)
Column 3
How Often the
Treatment is
Applied
(years between
application)
Column 4
Costs Per
Application
(costs/mile)
Line 1: Dust
1
1
$2,300
Control
Line 2:
6
1
$380
Blading
Line 3:
1
10
$17,416
Regravel
Line 4:
1
10
$3,400
Reshape Cross
Section
Line 5: Spot
1
1
$3,635
Graveling
Line 6: Other
___________
(Line 7 * Line 8)
$3,250
$1,173
-$2,420
-$6,843
20
$136,860
$7,036
$143,896
Column 5
column 2* column 4
column 3
$2,300
$2,280
$1,742
$340
$3,635
-$10,297
20
$205,940
$19,716
$225,656
Step 3. Determine the User Costs
After determining the agency cost component of the analysis, the next step involves calculating
the user cost portion. In this analysis, there are two components of user costs that are
considered: vehicle operating costs and crash costs. As mentioned previously, the user cost
portion of the analysis may be used in full, used partially, or totally excluded from the analysis.
The utilization of user costs in life cycle cost analysis is supported by many agencies including
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA 1998) and it is recommended that the users of this
Technical Brief also consider user costs.
Step 3a. Determine the Vehicle Operating Costs
The first user costs to be determined are the vehicle operating costs. These costs represent the
wear and tear on a vehicle associated with driving on various pavement surfaces. Figure 1
displays the vehicle operating costs per mile of roadway for roads with ADT values of 0 to 1000
vehicles per day. Using figure 1, enter the plot at your known ADT level and determine the
corresponding vehicle operating costs for each of the four surface types being considered (HMA,
blotter, gravel, and stabilized gravel). These values can be listed on line 5 of the summary table
(table 12) that is included on page 14 of this Technical Brief.
G-9
June 2004
G-10
June 2004
Example: Using figure a, County A used an ADT of 350 and drew a line upward through the
three surface type cost lines. The vehicle operating cost for the HMA, blotter, gravel and
stabilized gravel roads were determined to be $310,000, $375,000, $500,000 and $420,000,
respectively. The numbers from figure 1 have been added to line 5 of the example cost table
(table 13) on page 14 of this Technical Brief.
table 9, County A determines that the crash rates for their roadway section correspond to a
“medium” crash potential.
Using table 10, County A determines their “medium” crash potential relates to crash costs of
$181,670, $145,420, $73,430, and $38,920, for the HMA, blotter, stabilized gravel, and gravel
roads, respectively. The crash costs from table 10 have been added to line 6 of the example cost
table (table 12) on page 14 of this Technical Brief.
$1,600,000
Table 9. Crash Potential.*
Vehicle Operating Costs per mile ($)
HMA
$1,400,000
Blotter
$1,200,000
Crash Potential
None
Low
Gravel
Stabilized
Gravel
$1,000,000
Medium
$800,000
$600,000
High
$400,000
$200,000
Expected Number of Crashes by Type over 10 Year Time Period
No fatalities, injuries or personal damage only crashes
No fatalities, one or no injury crashes, and fewer than four personal
damage only crashes
Option 1: No fatalities, one to three injury crashes, and four to six
personal damage only crashes
Option 2: One fatality, one or two injury crashes, and four or fewer
Option 1: No fatalities, more than three injury crashes, and more than six
Option 2: One fatality, more than two injury crashes, and more than four
Option 3: More than one fatality
*Crash rates based upon 1-mile roadway section.
$0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
ADT
Figure 1. Cumulative 20-year vehicle operating costs per mile of roadway for roads with 0 to
1000 ADT.
Step 3b. Determine the Crash Costs
The second user costs to be determined are crash costs. The crash costs for a given roadway are
based upon the frequency of fatal, injury, and personal damage crashes that occur within a given
timeframe on a roadway section. Based upon your knowledge of the road section, use table 9 to
determine the crash potential you expect per mile of roadway over a 10-year period. While crash
potential is provided for a 10-year period, the crash costs were determined for a 20-year analysis
period. The crash potential rates were provided for a 10-year period rather than a 20-year period
because it is easier to estimate crash potential over a shorter time period such as 10 years versus
a longer time period of 20 years. Once the crash potential level is determined for the given
pavement section, table 10 can be used to determine the average accident costs for each surface
type. These results can be added to line 6 of the final summary table (table 12) that is included
on page 14 of this brief.
Example: Over a 10-year time period, County A expects to have five fatalities, ten injury and ten
personal damage crashes over its 5-mile roadway section. The expected crash rates correspond
to one fatality, two injury, and two personal damage crashes per mile of pavement over the next
10 years (each crash figure is divided by five to convert the accidents to a per-mile basis). Using
G-11
June 2004
Table 10. Average 20-year crash costs per mile of pavement per surface type per crash potential
level for rural roads.
Surface Type
HMA
Blotter
Gravel
Stabilized Gravel
None
$
$
$
$
-
Low
$
$
$
$
Medium
20,110
14,470
3,800
12,250
$ 181,670
$ 145,420
$ 38,920
$ 73,430
High
$
$
$
$
398,900
289,860
222,300
275,000
Step 3b. Scale the User Costs
Before adding user costs to the agency costs, it may be appropriate to adjust the user costs.
Some agencies discover that during a cost analysis such as this, the very large costs associated
with vehicle operating and crash costs often overwhelm the agency (construction and
maintenance) costs of a specific project. Therefore, the agency may decide to exclude user costs
or reduce the associated costs in order to provide costs that are more in line with expected values.
This can be done by scaling the user costs calculated in the previous step with a weighting factor
that is representative of the importance of user costs within the agency. A weighting factor of
1.0, for example, is representative of using the user costs as they are calculated (in other words,
no scaling of user costs is conducted). A weighting factor of 0 eliminates user costs from
consideration in the analysis. Therefore, a reasonable weighting factor should be selected
between the values of 0 and 1.0. When selecting the weighting factor, the agency should
consider the relative magnitude of the user costs to the agency costs and select a weighting factor
G-12
June 2004
that represents the importance of one value to the other. The final weighting factor that is
selected should be added to line 8 of the final summary table (table 12) that is included on page
14 of this brief. If you are not comfortable determining your own weighting factor, table 11
provides a recommended range of weighting factors depending upon the level of importance
your agency places on the user costs. Selecting a high level of importance on user costs
generally places approximately equal weight on the agency and user costs.
Example: County A wants to place a high level importance on their user costs. Using table 11 as
a guide, the county decided to use 0.125 as a weighting factor for the user costs. They add this
number to the line 8 of the example cost table (table 13) on page 14 of this Technical Brief.
Table 11. Recommended weighting factors for user costs.
Level of Importance Assigned to User Costs
Low
Medium
High
Proposed Weighting Factor Range
0 – 0.05
0.05 – 0.10
0.10 – 0.15
Step 4. Summarize Total Costs
The total cost of the three surface types can be determined by filling out the remainder of the cost
analysis table (table 12). The total user costs (line 7) for each surface type can be determined by
adding the vehicle operating costs (line 5) to the crash costs (line 6). Then the weighted user
costs (line 9) can be calculated by multiplying the total user costs (line 7) by the weighting factor
for user costs (line 8). Lastly, the total costs for each surface can be determined by adding the
agency total costs (line 4) to the weighted user costs (line 9). The surface with the lowest costs is
the most cost-effective choice based solely on economic factors.
Example: County A finalized all of its calculations by computing the total user costs (line 7), the
weighted user costs (line 9), and the total costs for each surface (line 10) as shown in table 13 on
page 14 of this Technical Brief. County A determined that a blotter road, with the lowest overall
total costs, is the most cost-effective surface choice based solely on economical factors.
Table 12. Summary of 20-year cost analysis.
Line 1. Road Name
Line 2. Location
Line 3. ADT
Cost Information
HMA
Line 8. Weighting factor for user costs
Line 9. Weighted user costs ($ per mile)
(Line 7 * Line 8)
Line 10. Total Costs ($ per mile)
(Line 4 + Line 9)
Table 13. Example summary of 20-year cost analysis.
Line 1. Road Name
Line 2. Location
Line 3. ADT
County Road A
5 mile section from B to C
350 vehicles per day
Cost Information
Line 4. Agency total costs ($ per mile)
Line 9. Weighted user costs ($ per mile)
(Line 7 * Line 8)
Line 10. Total Costs ($ per mile)
(Line 4 + Line 9)
June 2004
Stabilized
Gravel
Line 5. User average total costs– Vehicle
operating costs ($ per mile)
Line 6. User average total costs – Crash
costs ($ per mile)
Line 7. Total user costs ($ per mile)
(Line 5 + Line 6)
Line 8. Weighting factor for user costs
G-13
Gravel
Line 4. Agency total costs ($ per mile)
Line 5. User average total costs– Vehicle
operating costs ($ per mile)
Line 6. User average total costs – Crash
costs ($ per mile)
Line 7. Total user costs ($ per mile)
(Line 5 + Line 6)
Blotter
HMA
Blotter
Gravel
Stabilized
Gravel
128,400
74,150
143,896
225,656
310,000
375,000
500,000
420,000
181,670
145,420
38,920
73,430
491,670
520,420
538,920
493,430
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
61,459
65,053
67,365
61,679
189,859
139,203
211,261
287,335
G-14
June 2004
Step 5. Evaluate Non-Economic Factors
3.
In some cases, an agency may select a local road surface based solely on the economic
factors calculated earlier. However, in most cases, there are other issues besides total
costs that come into play when deciding on a roadway surface. These issues include
political factors, growth rates, housing concentration/dust control needs, mail routes, and
industry/truck traffic. Table 14 has been developed to allow agencies to take both the
economic and non-economic factors into consideration. The following directions provide
a step-by-step procedure for completing table 14. Each step of the procedure is followed
in italics by an example for County A.
1.
With rating and scoring factors assigned, the next step of the evaluation is to calculate
the scores for each surface type. For each factor category within each surface type,
multiply the scoring factor by the rating factor to determine the total score. For this
calculation, the rating factor, which previously was given as a percentage, should now be
expressed as a decimal (e.g. 5% = 0.05) when multiplying by the scoring factor. The
total scores for each surface type should then be determined by adding the total score for
each factor category together and recorded in the bottom row of table 14.
Example: County A calculated its scores as shown in table 15. The result of the analysis
shows that the HMA, blotter, gravel, and stabilized gravel roads had total scores of 3.45,
3.55, 1.55, and 1.45, respectively.
The first step in evaluating non-economic factors along with cost factors is to assign
rating factors to the factor categories in table 14. In order to assign rating factors, you
must comparatively weigh the importance of each of the six factor categories and assign
higher ratings to those factors that are most important to your agency. The total of all
rating factors must add up to 100 percent. You may use any combination of rating
factors that make sense to your agency, as long as the sum does not exceed 100. For
instance, an agency that places greatest importance on total costs and minor importance
to the other factors might assign a rating factor of 50 to Total Costs and 10 to each of the
other 5 categories. After the rating factors are selected, they should be added to the
Rating Factors column in table 14. When applying these rating factors, remember that
the same rating factors will be used for each surface type.
4. The last step in the evaluation is to determine the most appropriate surface type for the
roadway section. Once the total scores for each surface type have been determined, the
surface type with the highest score should be the selected surface for the given roadway
section.
Example: Since the blotter road received the highest total score as shown in table 15,
County A selected it as the road surface that was most appropriate under the given set of
circumstances. The analysis results provide a solid methodology for making a choice of
a blotter road over HMA even with the known political influence.
Table 14. Scoring table for economic and non-economic factors.
Example: County A decided to weight total cost as having a 55 percent importance
because it was the most important factor to them in selecting a pavement surface.
However, the County was receiving some political pressure to change the gravel road to
an HMA-surfaced road. Therefore, they assigned a 25 percent rating to political issues.
At the same time, a 10 percent weighting was assigned to housing concentration/dust
control and a 5 percent weighting was assigned to both mail routes and industry/truck
traffic. No weight was assigned to growth rates because this issue was not significant to
the County. These assignments are shown in table 15.
2.
The next step in the evaluation is to assign scoring factors. For each of the six
categories, comparatively rank the four surface types by assigning Scoring Factors (4 is
highest rating and 1 is the lowest rating) in table 14 for each surface type. A rating of 4
should be assigned to the surface that does best in the given category while a rating of 1
should be assigned to the surface that does worst in that category. If two or more surface
types perform equally in a given category, equal scoring factors can be assigned to each.
Example: Based upon the results of the cost analysis, County A decided to score the
Total Costs for each surface with scoring factors of 4, 3, 2, and 1 for the blotter, HMA,
gravel, and stabilized gravel roads, respectively. This signified that the blotter had the
lowest total cost as determined in the cost analysis (so it received the highest score)
followed by the HMA, gravel, and stabilized gravel surfaces. Then, based upon the
political pressure to change the given gravel roadway to an HMA-surfaced section, the
highest scoring factor of 4 was assigned to the HMA surface and the lowest scoring
factor a value of 1 was assigned to both the gravel and stabilized gravel surface types
under the political issues factor. Other appropriate scoring factors were assigned to the
remaining factor categories as shown in table 15.
G-15
June 2004
Factor
Categories
HMA
Rating
Total
Factor Scoring
Score
(%)
Factor (RatingFactor*
Blotter
Total
Scoring
Score
ScoringFactor)
ScoringFactor)
Gravel
Scoring
Factor
Total
Score
(RatingFactor*
ScoringFactor)
Stabilized Gravel
Total
Scoring
Score
Factor
(RatingFactor*
ScoringFactor)
Total Costs
Political
Issues
Growth Rates
Housing
Concentration/
Dust Control
Mail Routes
Industry/
Truck Traffic
Total Score
100%
G-16
June 2004
Table 15. Example scoring table for economic and non-economic factors.
Factor
Categories
Total Costs
Political
Issues
Growth Rates
Housing
Concentration/
Dust Control
Mail Routes
Industry/
Truck Traffic
Total Score
HMA
Rating
Total
Factor Scoring
Score
(%)
Blotter
Total
Scoring
Score
ScoringFactor)
ScoringFactor)
Gravel
Scoring
Factor
Total
Score
(RatingFactor*
ScoringFactor)
Stabilized Gravel
Total
Scoring
Score
Factor
(RatingFactor*
ScoringFactor)
55%
3
1.65
4
2.20
2
1.10
1
0.55
25%
4
1.00
3
0.75
1
0.25
2
0.50
0%
4
0.00
3
0.00
1
0.00
2
0.00
10%
4
0.40
3
0.30
1
0.10
2
0.20
5%
4
0.20
3
0.15
1
0.05
2
0.10
5%
4
0.20
3
0.15
1
0.05
2
0.10
100%
3.45
3.55
1.55
1.45
Summary
APPENDIX A
The Technical Brief outlines a step-by-step process to assist counties in South Dakota in making
road surface type decisions. This manual procedure allows the user to consider any combination
of agency costs, user costs, and other non-economic factors when determining the appropriate
surface type for a given roadway section. The models used as the basis of this procedure are
based upon the average construction and maintenance costs, treatment timings, crash costs, and
vehicle operating costs submitted by counties in South Dakota during the data collection efforts
of this study with some modifications by the Technical Panel (as noted in the final report for this
project). In addition to the manual procedures outlined in this document, a software tool has
been developed that is also available for conducting the analysis. The software tool allows an
agency to further customize the types of treatments and the costs that will be applied over the life
of a road section. The basis for this manual procedure and the software tool are summarized in
Local Road Surfacing Criteria, SD2002-10, Final Report.
DEFAULT TREATMENT COSTS AND FREQUENCIES
References
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1998. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement
Design. FHWA-SA-98-079. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
G-17
June 2004
G-18
June 2004
Table A-1. Default construction and maintenance costs for HMA
roadways in South Dakota based upon ADT levels.
ADT
0-99
100199
200299
300399
400499
500599
600699
> 700
Initial
Const.
or Major
Rehab.
Cost ($)
35,000
Years
between
app.
3
35,000
3
37,000
Crack Seal
Seal Coat
900
Years
between
app.
5
900
5
3
1,200
37,000
3
39,000
Overlay
Table A-3. Default construction and maintenance costs for gravel
roadways in South Dakota based upon ADT levels.
Striping and
Marking
Years
Cost
between
($)
app.
5
210
Patching/
Annual
Maint.
Cost ($)
6,500
Years
between
app.
21
35,000
6,500
17
35,000
4
250
500
4
7,000
20
37,000
4
280
500
1,200
4
7,000
20
37,000
4
280
500
5
1,600
4
7,300
20
39,000
4
310
500
40,000
6
1,600
4
7,300
20
40,000
4
320
500
43,000
6
1,600
4
7,300
20
50,000
4
360
500
43,000
6
1,600
4
7,300
20
50,000
4
360
500
Cost
($)
Cost
($)
Cost
($)
500
Blading
Regravel
ADT
Initial
Construction or
Major Rehab. Cost ($)
Times per
year
Cost
($)
Years
between
app.
Cost
($)
0-99
100-199
200-299
> 300
3,700
3,700
4,500
7,036
17
20
30
50
45
45
50
65
8
8
6
6
3,700
3,700
4,500
7,036
Spot Gravel/
Annual Maint. Cost ($)
350
800
1,070
2,420
Note: All costs are per mile.
Table A-4. Default construction and maintenance costs for stabilized
gravel roadways in South Dakota based upon ADT levels.
ADT
Table A-2. Default construction and maintenance costs for
blotter roadways in South Dakota based upon ADT levels.
ADT
Initial Construction
or Major Rehab. Cost
($)
0-99
100-199
200-299
300-399
400-499
> 500
7,000
7,000
7,170
7,850
9,180
9,540
Seal Coat
Years
between
app.
5
5
4
4
5
4
Cost
($)
7.000
7,000
7,170
7,850
9,180
9,540
Striping and
Marking
Years
Cost
between
($)
app.
5
250
5
250
4
280
4
370
5
440
3
450
Patching/Annual
Maint. Cost ($)
530
920
1,250
1,260
1,430
3,150
0-99
100199
200299
> 300
Initial
Construction/
Major Rehab.
Cost ($)
Dust Control
Blading
Regravel
Reshape Cross
Section
Years
Cost
between
($)
app.
---
Spot
Gravel/
Annual
Maint.
Cost ($)
5,000
Years
between
app.
1
2,700
Times
per
year
4
40
Years
between
app.
12
8,154
1
3,300
4
40
5
4,854
--
--
333
8,154
1
3,300
4
40
5
4,854
--
--
333
19,716
1
2,300
6
380
10
17,416
10
3,400
3,635
Cost
($)
Cost
($)
Cost ($)
2,300
500
G-19
June 2004
G-20
June 2004

Meade County Transportation Plan

Transcription

Similar documents

SafeStore Leaflet - Ground

LumiStar - Silicon Constellations

Parkchester Preservation Corporation

ATSSA UPDATE VERSION JUN 03

Family Fitness Flyer v9

Harrisburg Overpass Construction Update

Dragon Raid 2011 Ride Maps

EDC Via Transversal Baru

Additional Info

Kanapaha Park No Parking Pics