AASHTO Guide 03 07 2011

GUIDE FOR REVIEW OF THE AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA ON EXISTING ADOT ROADWAYS
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ROADWAY ENGINEERING GROUP NOVEMBER 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction.................................................................................................................1 Project Application......................................................................................................2 Projects Applying AASHTO Controlling Design Criteria Review ......................2 Projects Not Applying AASHTO Controlling Design Criteria Review ...............4 Procedures .................................................................................................................4 Overview ....................................................................................................................5 AASHTO Controlling Design Criteria Report ..............................................................6 Design Traffic Volumes ..............................................................................................7 Functional Classification.............................................................................................7 AASHTO Controlling Design Criteria ..........................................................................8 Design Speed ..................................................................................................8 Lane Width and Shoulder Width ......................................................................8 Bridge Width ..................................................................................................10 Horizontal Alignment, Superelevation, and Stopping Sight Distance.............10 Vertical Alignment and Stopping Sight Distance............................................12 Grade.............................................................................................................13 Stopping Sight Distance for Intersections ......................................................13 Cross Slope ...................................................................................................13 Vertical Clearance .........................................................................................14 Horizontal Clearance... 15 Structural Capacity ........................................................................................16 Bridge Barrier ................................................................................................16 Traffic Interchange Criteria .......................................................................................17 Ramps ...........................................................................................................17 Crossroad ......................................................................................................19 Appendix A Summary of AASHTO Controlling Design Criteria Appendix B Bridge Evaluation Request Appendix C Instruction Guide for the List of Existing Features Requiring Design Exceptions Appendix D AASHTO Report Example
GUIDE FOR REVIEW OF THE AASHTO DESIGN CONTROLLING CRITERIA ON EXISTING ADOT ROADWAYS INTRODUCTION The "Guide for Review of the AASHTO Controlling Design Criteria on Existing ADOT Roadways" (AASHTO Review Guide) was developed as a direct result of the FHWA requirement that federally funded projects conform to the design parameters of the 2004 (Fifth Edition) AASHTO "Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" or formal design exceptions must be approved. This AASHTO Review Guide is an update from the May 1997 document because of the changes in the AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets through the years. A review of AASHTO Controlling Design Criteria (AASHTO Criteria) became necessary when the Federal definition of "construction" was expanded to include "resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation" (3R) by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1976. Before that time, the Federal-Aid Highway Program was almost totally focused on new construction and/or total reconstruction, and virtually all projects complied fully with AASHTO design criteria -- exceptions were rare. With the change, the Federal-Aid Highway Program became involved in projects aimed at preserving and prolonging the service life of existing highways, many of which did not meet current AASHTO criteria. Implementation of this change prompted stiff criticism and opposition by highway safety advocacy groups, who feared that significant portions of the Federal-Aid highway funds would be expended on 3R projects that resurfaced existing highways, with little or no regard for existing safety conditions or significant deviations from AASHTO Criteria. Attempts by both AASHTO and FHWA to adopt specific criteria more appropriate to the 3R-type projects met even stiffer criticism and opposition by the safety advocacy groups, as well as considerable controversy within AASHTO, its member State highway agencies and FHWA. After extensive study and discussion, FHWA adopted a regulation which allowed States the option to either (1) develop and submit special criteria for 3R projects to FHWA for approval, or (2) continue to apply AASHTO Criteria to 3R projects and request exceptions for any deviations left in place after completion of the 3R project. In a direct response to this regulatory action and at the prompting of the highway safety advocacy groups, Congress, in 1982, further modified the Federal definition of construction by adding the phrase "enhance highway safety". This modification effectively required all Federally-funded 3R projects to include at least some form of safety improvement, and demonstrated the continuing concern that existing conditions not meeting current standards, not be perpetuated without adequate evaluation and justification. Arizona elected to follow the second option -- to continue using AASHTO criteria for 3R projects, and request design exceptions for appropriate, justified deviations. To facilitate and simplify the identification of these deviations, FHWA established a national policy requirement for review of 13 controlling criteria.
GUIDE FOR REVIEW OF THE AASHTO DESIGN CONTROLLING CRITERIA ON EXISTING ADOT ROADWAYS In addition to complying with the Federal Regulation and Policy, as noted above, the process of reviewing the controlling AASHTO criteria has the added benefit of identifying and analyzing the anticipated consequences of retaining or perpetuating conditions not meeting current standards. The AASHTO Review Guide is the procedure by which ADOT will identify various project design elements to determine whether or not they meet the 2004 (Fifth Edition) AASHTO Green Book guidelines. Subsequent to this determination, decisions will be made on whether or not it is in the best interests of the Department and the traveling public to upgrade existing features that do not meet current AASHTO Guidelines. In the case of pavement preservation and 3R/4R projects, decisions may become extremely difficult since the AASHTO Green Book is directed toward designs for new roadways, and in most cases, the 3R/4R type projects apply to older sections of highways that were designed to standards of the time and not designed or constructed to meet current AASHTO guidelines. It should be noted that older roadway sections not meeting the 2004 AASHTO Green Book are not inherently unsafe. Achieving AASHTO shoulder widths and vertical alignment in many cases would require reconstruction of entire sections. The following section will discuss the types of projects to which the AASHTO Review Guide will be applied. PROJECT APPLICATION Projects Applying AASHTO Controlling Design Criteria Review The AASHTO Review Guide w ill alw ays apply to projects on existing roadways on the National Highw ay Sy stem (NHS) . The Guide may also apply to roadways not on the NHS when the project team identifies a need to further evaluate the AASHTO controlling criteria as related to possible traffic operational issues. The current NHS maps are available at the following ADOT website: http://tpd.azdot.gov/gis/maps/pdf/NHS.pdf
GUIDE FOR REVIEW OF THE AASHTO DESIGN CONTROLLING CRITERIA ON EXISTING ADOT ROADWAYS The AASHTO Review Guide will be applied to the following types of projects as shown on the Design Exception and Design Variance Process Guide Table and determined by the ADOT Roadway Group Predesign Section Manager: 1. Conversion of an existing roadway to a new divided highway. The AASHTO Review Guide will apply to the existing roadway to remain. 2. Partial Reconstruction of Existing Roadway. The AASHTO Review Guide will apply to the existing roadway to remain. 3. Widening to provide an additional lane or increase the shoulder width. When widening an existing urban access controlled highway to add an auxiliary lane, HOV lane or general-purpose lane, the ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines (RDG) design criteria will be applied only to the new widened portion. When determined beneficial by Roadway Predesign, the AASHTO Criteria may be reviewed for the existing roadway. Widening of an existing roadway to provide for a passing lane or climbing lane shall be in accordance with the Roadway Engineering Group A Policy on the Design of Passing Lanes and Climbing Lanes. 4. Intersection Modifications (turn lane additions). The AASHTO Review Guide will apply to the AASHTO criteria being affected by the proposed modification. 5. Pavement Preservation. Applies to an overlay project greater than one-inch in thickness and a mill and replace project greater than one-inch in depth. (See note below). It should be noted that new construction and full reconstruction projects will not require review of the AASHTO Criteria since the ADOT Roadway RDG applies per the Design Exception and Design Variance Process Guide. An AASHTO Controlling Design Criteria Report may be prepared on an existing roadway, which is being replaced by a new roadway or totally reconstructed in order to better define the purpose and need for the new or reconstructed roadway. This decision will be made by Roadway Predesign during the scoping phase. Note: The review of the AASHTO Criteria will not be utilized on existing interchanges and/or Grade Separations for resurfacing type projects. However, if the scope is significant, such as total pavement replacement, extensive widening or reconfiguration, a review is necessary. Otherwise, the accident patterns or operational problems identified by Traffic, District or the Project Team will be utilized to determine the need to review the criteria for the interchanges. The structures of the interchanges will be reviewed if they are part of the mainline (overpasses), however, if the structure is part of the crossroad, it will not be reviewed unless the entire interchange is reviewed (crossroad and ramps).
GUIDE FOR REVIEW OF THE AASHTO DESIGN CONTROLLING CRITERIA ON EXISTING ADOT ROADWAYS Projects Not Applying AASHTO Controlling Design Criteria Review The following types of projects will not generally apply the "AASHTO Criteria". These projects are normally singular in scope, are maintenance type, or are spot improvement projects: 1. Seal Coats AR-ACFC, ACFC's, chip seals, and overlays one-inch or less in thickness or mill and replace one-inch or less 2. Guardrail or other barriers, crash attenuators 3. Structure Extensions - pipe and box culvert 4. Signing and/or Striping, Channelization 5. Signalization 6. Fencing, Cattle Guards 7. Railroad Crossings 8. State Parks 9. Rest Areas 10. Landscaping and Irrigation 11. Bridge Maintenance, Bridge Replacement 12. Drainage Improvement (except changes in profile require a review of the vertical alignment) 13. PCCP Rehabilitation (Slab Replacement, Grinding, Joint Repair) - FHWA may require written exceptions depending upon degree of involvement in other work items. 14. Spot Improvements 15. Climbing/Passing Lanes (See Roadway Design A Policy on the Design of Passing Lanes and Climbing Lanes.) PROCEDURES A determination of the need to apply the "AASHTO Criteria" to any project must be accomplished before the initial scoping document is started. The engineer preparing the scoping document should confer with the Roadway Predesign representative prior to preparing the AASHTO Controlling Design Criteria Report.
GUIDE FOR REVIEW OF THE AASHTO DESIGN CONTROLLING CRITERIA ON EXISTING ADOT ROADWAYS Using the Project Application section previously outlined, Roadway Predesign Section will determine which projects will apply the "AASHTO Criteria". On projects where it may be unclear as to whether the "AASHTO Criteria" should be applied, the Assistant State Engineer, Roadway Engineering Group has the authority to make this determination. Roadway Predesign Section monitors the preparation of Project Assessment Reports, Design Concept Reports and Combined Location and Design Concept Reports for projects involving New Construction or Reconstruction of Existing Roadways. These reports will determine the application of the AASHTO Controlling Design Criteria and will state any design exceptions required. Roadway Predesign will technically review Scoping Reports prepared by others that describe design features of a project and formulate project costs. The Scoping Reports include analysis and recommendations as to the disposition of the AASHTO Criteria and any required design exceptions. The AASHTO Controlling Design Criteria Report will provide the evaluations and recommendations for incorporating design features which may not meet the guidelines established in the 2004 AASHTO Green Book as described herein. This report will be utilized primarily in obtaining formal design exceptions on NHS projects.
OVERVIEW The purpose of this AASHTO Review Guide is to provide a systematic approach to the review of existing roadways prior to implementing improvements to those roadways. Existing design related data can be gathered from various sources and then compared to the "AASHTO Criteria" designated by "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets," 2004 Fifth Edition, commonly referred to as the "AASHTO Green Book". With this procedure, differences between existing features and the AASHTO Controlling Design Criteria features can be determined. The differences can then be evaluated so that recommendations can be made as to whether or not additional work should be undertaken. It is not the intent of this guide to describe a complete evaluation process. The overall evaluation will require good engineering judgment. The degree and depth of the evaluation will be dependent upon the individual project and the judgment of the engineer. Factors such as economics, anticipated growth, accident history, program schedules, and time and manpower requirements should be given consideration prior to final determination.
GUIDE FOR REVIEW OF THE AASHTO DESIGN CONTROLLING CRITERIA ON EXISTING ADOT ROADWAYS AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA REPORT There are thirteen AASHTO Criteria: 1. Design Speed 2. Lane Width 3. Shoulder Width 4. Bridge Width 5. Horizontal Alignment 6. Superelevation 7. Vertical Alignment *
8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
Grade Stopping Sight Distance * Cross Slope Vertical Clearance Horizontal Clearance Structural Capacity/Bridge Barrier
Note: There are three aspects of stopping sight distance that are reviewed: Vertical curve stopping sight distance, horizontal curve stopping sight distance and intersection stopping sight distance.
AASHTO policies and guides provide values for these AASHTO Criteria. Design exceptions are required if these criteria do not conform to the values as set forth in the standards of the following publications: 1. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2004 2. A Policy on Design Standards Interstate System, 2005 The AASHTO Controlling Design Criteria Report provides the means of documenting the design criteria of an existing roadway, and thereby determining if design exceptions are required. Once it has been decided that a report is required for the project, determine the functional classification and the design speed of the roadway. The design speed for review of the AASHTO Criteria shall be the posted speed of the roadway. These will determine the various geometric design features of the roadway from the above referenced publications. Projected traffic volumes are also required to determine some of the geometric design features of the roadway. The evaluation of the structure criteria for the report is the responsibility of the Bridge Management Section. A Bridge Evaluation Request form must be transmitted to the Bridge Management Engineer for the evaluation of all the structures on the project. (See Appendix B for the Bridge Evaluation Request form. A two-week return period is normally needed). Once the functional classification, design speed and traffic volumes have been determined, the controlling criteria can be evaluated. (The AASHTO Criteria are presented in summary form as shown in Appendix A). The Summary of AASHTO Criteria will then establish if design exceptions are required and a determination will be made if these design exceptions will be requested or not. If no design exceptions are required, the AASHTO Controlling Design Criteria Report is completed and filed. If a determination is made that design exceptions are required, the AASHTO Controlling Design Criteria Report is forwarded to Traffic Design Section for a Crash Analysis for Design Exception Report, Traffic Engineering, PGP 251. (See Appendix C and D for the listing of design exceptions and example for the AASHTO report). The Crash Analysis is provided by Traffic Design for further disposition by the team. If the analysis indicates that there are no crash patterns that are attributed to existing geometric elements being evaluated, a Design Exception Letter can be prepared. If the analysis indicates there are crash patterns that may be attributable to existing geometric elements, further analysis is required to determine if mitigation measures should be undertaken or if a design exception is justified. 6
GUIDE FOR REVIEW OF THE AASHTO DESIGN CONTROLLING CRITERIA ON EXISTING ADOT ROADWAYS DESIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES Construction year* and design year* traffic volumes (AADT) are needed for utilization of the AASHTO values for Lane and Shoulder Widths, Bridge Width and Structural Capacity. The design year selected will be 20 years from construction date. A 10-year design is utilized for pavement preservation projects. Construction year and projected design year traffic volumes along with traffic factors (peak hour factor, % trucks, directional distribution) can be obtained by request from Multimodal Planning Division Traffic Data Section except for the MAG and PAG areas, for those areas the request is made directly to the MAG and PAG representatives. The AASHTO guidelines on Design Traffic Volume for the various roadway classifications are: AASHTO Functional Classification A. Local Rural Roads B. Rural Collector Roads C. Rural Arterial Highways D. Rural Freeways E. Local Urban Streets F. Urban Collector Streets G. Urban Arterial Streets H. Urban Freeways 2004 Green Book Reference p. 380 p. 420 p. 444 p. 504 p. 390 p. 430 p. 470 p. 504
Note: Use construction year from 5-Year Program if shown. If not listed in the 5-Year Program, use construction year if shown in the scoping request. If no construction year is known, estimate construction year as follows: Construction Year = Current fiscal year + Project Development (Scoping plus Design time). Project Development time ranges from 2 to 5 years depending on the type of project. Design Year = Construction Year + Construction Time + Life Cycle; Construction Time typically ranges from 1 to 3 years. Life cycle depends on the type of project. Pavement preservation projects have a 10-year life cycle and all other types of projects have a 20-year life cycle.
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION To determine the functional classification of the roadway that is being considered for review, utilize the Functional Classification Maps prepared by the Multimodal Planning Division. The maps are available at the following ADOT website: http://mpd.azdot.gov/mpd/gis/index.asp
GUIDE FOR REVIEW OF THE AASHTO DESIGN CONTROLLING CRITERIA ON EXISTING ADOT ROADWAYS The following correlations exist between ADOT and AASHTOs classification terminology: ADOT Rural Principle Rural Principle Rural Minor Arterial Rural Major Collector Rural Minor Collector Urban Principle Interstate Urban Principle Other Frwy/Expwy Urban Principle Other Urban Minor Arterial Urban Collector AASHTO Interstate Rural Interstate Other Rural Arterial Rural Arterial Rural Collector Rural Collector Urban Interstate Urban Freeway Urban Arterial Urban Arterial Urban Collector
Rural frontage roads are either rural locals or rural collectors dependent on the traffic movement. Urban frontage roads are classified urban collectors.
AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA DESIGN SPEED The design speed for review of the AASHTO Criteria shall be the posted speed of the roadway. An inventory of the existing posted speed limits within the project limits should be obtained for the AASHTO evaluation. The posted speeds for the State Highway System can be reviewed at the ADOTNet Information Data Warehouse on the Speed Limit Report. In addition to reviewing on-site, posted speed may be reviewed on the Photo Log Viewer (date shown). If there is a discrepancy between the posted speed log and the signage in the field, the posted speed signage in the field shall govern. Note: Consultants may not have access to the posted speed log, therefore, the ADOT project manager will need to obtain this information and provide it to the consultant. Ramp design speed shall either be the posted speed or the design speed as determined by the AASHTO Green Book. (See Traffic Interchange Criteria, Ramps, Design Speed for ramp speed discussion). LANE WIDTH AND SHOULDER WIDTH Lane width and shoulder width on an existing roadway can be determined by researching the as-built plans. The State Highway Log is also a useful tool for ready reference. Lane and shoulder widths should be verified by actual field measurements. Upon determination as to whether lane and shoulder widths meet the minimum AASHTO criteria, evaluation will be required to determine what, if any, modifications should be recommended for implementation. The lane and shoulder width shall be as shown on the typical section. If there is no typical section available, then the width of the lane shall be 12 ft if there is at least 24 ft of pavement available and the remainder of the pavement shall be the 8
GUIDE FOR REVIEW OF THE AASHTO DESIGN CONTROLLING CRITERIA ON EXISTING ADOT ROADWAYS shoulder width without respect to the striping of the roadway. If there is less than 24 ft of pavement, then the width of the lane shall be as measured in the field with respect to the shoulder stripe. Local Rural Roads, Collectors and Arterials (2-lane undivided) have traveled way as the criterion for lane width. Traveled way pertains to the two traffic lanes. The minimum AASHTO lane and shoulder widths are summarized in the following tables for the various functional classifications of roadways: AASHTO Functional Classification A. Local Rural Roads B. Rural Collector Roads C. 1. Rural Arterial Highways (2-lane) 2. Rural Divided Arterial 3. Rural Multilane Undivided Arterial* D. Rural Freeways** E. Local Urban Streets *** F. Urban Collector Streets G. Urban Arterial Streets*** H. Urban Freeways** * 2004 Green Book Reference p. 384 p. 425 p. 448 p. 455 pp. 453-454 pp. 504-505 p. 393 pp. 433-434 pp. 472-473 pp. 504-505
Note: The rural elements of design apply to Multilane Undivided Arterial; therefore, use Exhibit 7-3, except divide the traveled way by two to obtain the lane width. ** Note: For the Interstate System, see "A Policy on Design Standards-Interstate System, 2005. *** Note: Local Urban Streets and Urban Arterials have no criterion for shoulders.
GUIDE FOR REVIEW OF THE AASHTO DESIGN CONTROLLING CRITERIA ON EXISTING ADOT ROADWAYS BRIDGE WIDTH BRIDGE WIDTH is defined as the minimum clear roadway width on the bridge as listed under the column heading "Curb to Curb" of the Bridge Record. This information can also be obtained from the Bridge Management Engineer by submitting a Bridge Evaluation Request Form (See Appendix B). For all existing bridges contained within the project limits the Bridge Width shall be compared with the AASHTO guidelines as contained in the 2004 Green Book. The AASHTO Bridge Width criteria is referenced below for the various Functional Classifications of roadways: AASHTO Functional Classification A. Local Rural Roads B. Rural Collector Roads C. Rural Arterial Highways D. Rural Freeways * E. Local Urban Streets** F. Urban Collector Streets G. Urban Arterial Streets** H. Urban Freeways * * 2004 Green Book Reference pp. 385-386 pp. 426-427 p. 447 p. 506 pp. 386,399 pp. 427,436 p. 481 p. 506
Note: For Interstate System, see "A Policy on Design Standards - Interstate System, 2005. Rural and Urban freeways have no specific criteria; therefore use the approach roadway width. ** Note: There are no specific criteria for bridges to remain. Therefore the criteria for local urban bridges should be used per Exhibit 5-7, page 386. For urban arterials use approach roadway width. HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT, SUPERELEVATION AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE The existing horizontal alignment with corresponding curve data and superelevation can be obtained utilizing the as-built plans. While the degree of curvature shown on as-built plans is generally very reliable, the superelevation data cannot be relied upon because revisions to superelevation during construction have not been well documented in the past. Also, subsequent overlay projects and maintenance work may have changed the original superelevation. Exhibits 3-25 through 3-29 (pp. 167-174) in the 2004 AASHTO Green Book can be utilized as the desired standards for curvature for rural highways and high-speed urban streets. As in the case of vertical alignments, the posted and advisory speed limits throughout the alignment will provide information for helping to determine if modifications are needed. If superelevation data is not available or may have been changed, other means of reviewing superelevation may be required.
10
GUIDE FOR REVIEW OF THE AASHTO DESIGN CONTROLLING CRITERIA ON EXISTING ADOT ROADWAYS ADOT has adopted maximum rates for superelevation (See RDG Table 202.1A) as follows: 1. Rural Highways (controlled and non-controlled access) Above elevation 6000 ft - 0.060 ft/ft Between elevation 4000 ft & 6000 ft - 0.080 ft/ft Below elevation 4000 ft - 0.100 ft/ft 2. Urban Highways Controlled access 0.060 ft/ft Non-controlled access 0.040 ft/ft For a given design speed there are five methods for sustaining centripetal acceleration on curves by the use of e or f or both. See pp. 140 to 143 of the 2004 Green Book for further discussion. Method 5 (p. 140) for distribution of e and f is utilized to compute the minimum superelevation required for a given design speed or posted speed. Method 2 (p. 140) for distribution of e and f is utilized to compute the speed of the existing curve based upon the existing superelevation and the existing degree of curve. The Method 2 speed is compared to the posted speed in order to access the need to improve the superelevation of the existing curve when the existing superelevation is less than the Method 5 e minimum. The output from the computer program (HCA 60) shows both of these values. Superelevation on low-speed urban streets (posted speed is 45 mph or less) is not required. Horizontal curves are frequently designed without superelevation, counteracting the centrifugal force solely with side friction. However, the minimum radius as per Exhibit 3-16 (p. 151) should not be exceeded. For a full discussion of design for low-speed urban streets see Chapter 3 of the 2004 AASHTO Green Book on pp. 148 - 152. Stopping sight distance on horizontal curves is also an important feature that should be closely observed during the field review. During the drive through the project, features that would appear to restrict horizontal sight distance such as narrow cut ditches, trees, bushes, outcroppings, etc. should be observed. Exhibit 3-53 (p. 226) or equation 3-38 (p.227) of the 2004 AASHTO Green Book should be utilized to determine the desired sight distance. The required sight distance is obtained from Exhibit 3-2 (p. 115) or Equations (3-2) (p. 113) and (3-3) (p. 114). The computer program (HCA 6.1) can also be utilized to obtain the horizontal sight distance. Measurements can be taken during the field review to determine if sight distance obstructions exist or additional data can be requested and evaluated as needed.
11
GUIDE FOR REVIEW OF THE AASHTO DESIGN CONTROLLING CRITERIA ON EXISTING ADOT ROADWAYS Roadway Predesign has software (HCA 6.1), which is designed for inputting of existing horizontal curve data and outputs minimum superelevation, speed of existing curve, existing and required horizontal SSD for a specific design speed. (See Appendix D for computer output format). Note: When utilizing the HCA 6.1 software to determine horizontal stopping sight distance the following inputs are required: 1) Input the grade with respect to traffic utilizing the inside travel lane of the horizontal curve, 2) choose the largest negative grade or the smallest positive grade if there are multiple grades within the horizontal curve and 3 ) HSO is the horizontal sightline offset which is typically measured in the field. If the horizontal stopping sight distance is not to be calculated leave the HSO column, the Grade column and the Horizontal Stopping Sight Distance column blank. VERTICAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE As-built plans are normally the best source of data available for evaluation of existing profile alignments. In some instances, hard-copy maps or other survey information may be available in the absence of as-built plans. Once the existing alignment has been determined, the 2004 AASHTO Green Book (pp. 265276) can be utilized to determine the theoretical adequacy of the existing profile. 1. Utilize equation (3-43) or (3-44) (pp. 268) to calculate the existing sight distance for crest vertical curves; utilize equation (3-48) or (3-50) (p. 273) to calculate the existing sight (light beam distance) for sag vertical curves. The calculated sight distances should be compared to Exhibit 3-2 (p. 115) and/or Equations (3-2) (p. 113) and (3-3) (p. 114) for the required stopping sight distance. 2. Utilize Exhibit 3-71 (p. 271) to input the length of the existing crest vertical curve and the algebraic difference of the existing grades to determine the existing speed (VE). 3. Utilize Exhibit 3-74 (p. 275) to input the length of the existing sag vertical curve and the algebraic difference of the existing grades to determine the existing speed (VE). VE will provide an indication of the theoretical design speed that the existing vertical curve will provide and can then be compared to the design speed selected for the given section of highway in evaluating the need for any modification to the existing vertical alignment. Roadway Predesign Section has software (VCA 6.0), which is designed to evaluate existing vertical alignments and determine existing speeds, existing and required stopping sight distance on crest vertical curves and headlight distance for sag vertical curves. Note: When inputting the approach and departure grades into the program, the user needs to open the HELP file and under HELP TOPICS read the discussion concerning Approach and Departure Grade Fields. This will assure the approach and departure grade fields are filled out correctly.
12
GUIDE FOR REVIEW OF THE AASHTO DESIGN CONTROLLING CRITERIA ON EXISTING ADOT ROADWAYS GRADE The mainline profile on a route can be determined by a review of the as-built plans. The review of the vertical alignment and stopping sight distance will provide some indication of grades that may need further evaluation. In general, AASHTO has established guidelines for suggested maximum grades for various roadway classifications as follows: AASHTO Functional Classification A. Local Rural Roads B. Rural Collector Roads C. Rural Arterial Highways D. Rural Freeways * E. Local Urban Streets F. Urban Collector Streets G. Urban Arterial Streets H. Urban Freeways * * 2004 Green Book Reference p. 382 p. 423 p. 446 p. 506 p. 391 p. 432 p. 472 p. 506
Note: For Interstate System, see A Policy on Design Standards Interstate System, 2005
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE FOR INTERSECTIONS The at-grade intersections of the through facility with public roads should be observed for adequacy of intersection sight distance during the initial field review for the project. If there appears to be a potential restriction with intersection sight distance, additional data may need to be gathered. Check with the Regional Traffic Engineer if there are sight distance operational issues on public roads. Consideration should be given to modifications to sight distance obstructions that occur within the sight triangles or other mitigation measures should be considered. A full discussion of intersection sight distance is contained in Chapter 9 of the 2004 AASHTO Green Book beginning on p. 650. CROSS SLOPE The primary consideration on cross slope is to provide adequate pavement drainage. In addition to a review of the as-built plans, this item should be addressed by visual observation during the Field Review. Also, District representatives should be asked to provide any historical information in regard to problems with cross slope, ponding on the pavement, or irregular shape of the cross section. In some instances, the existing pavement cross section may have become distorted due to several overlays and/or maintenance treatment. If this is the case, the new pavement design should consider alternatives such as additional removal, milling, or total reconstruction of the pavement section. This should be coordinated closely with ADOT Materials Group and should be addressed in their pavement evaluation process.
13
GUIDE FOR REVIEW OF THE AASHTO DESIGN CONTROLLING CRITERIA ON EXISTING ADOT ROADWAYS AASHTO has established guidelines for ranges of cross slopes for various roadway classifications as follows: AASHTO Functional Classification A. Local Rural Roads B. Rural Collector Roads C. Rural Arterial Highways D. Rural Freeways * E. Local Urban Streets F. Urban Collector Streets G. Urban Arterial Streets H. Urban Freeways * * 2004 Green Book Reference p. 383 p. 421 pp. 446-447 p. 504 p. 392 p. 431 p. 472 p. 504
Note: For Interstate System, see "A Policy on Design Standards Interstate System, 2005.
VERTICAL CLEARANCE Underpass clearances at bridge structures should be verified through a review of the Bridge Inspection Maintenance Reports** which are available in ADOT Bridge Group and are also shown on the Bridge Evaluation Request Form (See Appendix B). Existing clearances*** can then be compared with the AASHTO recommended clearances. Whenever a change in the existing profile grade on an existing route is being contemplated, the vertical clearances at existing structures should be reviewed to determine how the proposed changes in profile (overlay, mill, etc.) might affect the clearance. The AASHTO recommended vertical clearance for each classification of roadways is as follows: AASHTO Functional Classification A. Local Rural Roads B. Rural Collector Roads C. Rural Arterial Highways D. Rural Freeways * E. Local Urban Streets F. Urban Collector Streets G. Urban Arterial Streets H. Urban Freeways * * 2004 Green Book Reference p. 385 p. 427 p. 447 pp. 506-507 p. 399 p. 436 p. 472 pp. 506-507
Note: For Interstate System, see "A Policy on Design Standards - Interstate System, 2005. ** Note: Always compare the date on the bridge maintenance record to the date on the as-builts to assure that the roadway was not overlaid after the bridge inspection. *** Note: Existing vertical clearances to be utilized are obtained from the Bridge Evaluation Request Form or the Bridge Inspection Maintenance Report.
14
GUIDE FOR REVIEW OF THE AASHTO DESIGN CONTROLLING CRITERIA ON EXISTING ADOT ROADWAYS HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE This element is also often referred to as lateral offset to obstructions. The consideration for Urban Arterial Streets, Urban Collector Streets and Local Urban Streets where curbs are utilized is to maintain a minimum lateral offset distance from the face of curb to a fixed object. The consideration for all other roadways is to maintain a clear lateral clearance which equals the approach roadway width. The AASHTO Horizontal Clearance criteria is referenced below for the various Functional Classifications of roadways: AASHTO Functional Classification A. Local Rural Roads B. Rural Collector Roads C. Rural Arterial Highways D. Rural Freeways * E. Local Urban Streets F. Urban Collector Streets G. Urban Arterial Streets H. Urban Freeways * * 2004 Green Book Reference p. 387 p. 427 p. 448 p. 507 p. 399 p. 437 p. 481 p. 507
Note: For Interstate System, see A Policy on Design Standards Interstate System, 2005
15
GUIDE FOR REVIEW OF THE AASHTO DESIGN CONTROLLING CRITERIA ON EXISTING ADOT ROADWAYS STRUCTURAL CAPACITY It is ADOT policy to design all new and reconstructed bridges for HS 20 design loading regardless of the functional classification of the roadway. All bridges on the project will be evaluated by the Bridge Management Engineer when a Bridge Evaluation Request Form (See Appendix B) is submitted. The AASHTO Structural Capacity criteria is referenced below for the various Functional Classifications of roadways: AASHTO Functional Classification A. Local Rural Roads B. Rural Collector Roads C. Rural Arterial Highways D. Rural Freeways * E. Local Urban Streets** F. Urban Collector Streets** G. Urban Arterial Streets** H. Urban Freeways * * 2004 Green Book Reference p. 386 p. 427 p. 447 p. 506 p. 386 pp. 427, 436 p. 481 p. 506
Note: For Interstate System, see "A Policy on Design Standards - Interstate System, 2005. Rural and urban freeways (including Interstates) have no criteria for bridges to remain, therefore use HS 20. ** Note: Urban Locals, Collectors and Arterials have no criteria for bridges to remain. Therefore for Locals use Exhibit 5-7, page 386; for Collectors use Exhibit 67, page 427; and for Arterials use HS 20.
BRIDGE BARRIER The bridge barrier type for State-owned bridges is listed in the Arizona State Highway System Bridge Record and for all other bridges is listed in the Arizona City Streets and County Roads Bridge Record. This information can also be obtained from the Bridge Management Engineer by submitting a Bridge Evaluation Request Form (See Appendix B). Evaluation of the bridge barrier for replacement is the responsibility of the Bridge Management Engineer and will be shown on the Bridge Evaluation Request Form. For information regarding bridge barrier and off-bridge transition features such as barrier curbs, walkways and roadside barriers refer to the 2004 AASHTO Green Book Sections on Curbs, p. 319, Sidewalks, pp. 427,761-763; and Bridge Railings, p. 764.
16
GUIDE FOR REVIEW OF THE AASHTO DESIGN CONTROLLING CRITERIA ON EXISTING ADOT ROADWAYS TRAFFIC INTERCHANGE CRITERIA RAMPS 1. Design Traffic Volume See Design Traffic Volumes. 2. Design Speed Design speed shall be posted speed of ramp. If the posted speed is unknown, then the design speed recommended by the 2004 AASHTO Green Book is referenced in Exhibit 10-56 on p. 826. (Use the posted speed of the mainline for the Highway design speed and the middle range as the ramp design speed.) The minimum design speed for freeways and expressway diagonal exit ramps is 50 mph; this is usually for the ramp proper. This speed does not pertain to the ramp terminals that should be properly transitioned and provided with speed-change facilities adequate for the highway speed involved. Loop ramp (where the net angular change in direction exceeds 180 degrees) design speed preferably should not be less than 25 mph (150 ft radius). For a directional ramp, the minimum design speed is 40 mph and for a semidirectional ramp, a design speed of less than 30 mph should not be used. (See p. 825.) 3. Lane widths and shoulder widths Ramp pavement widths of an existing TI can be determined by researching the asbuilt plans. During the Predesign Field Reviews, pavement widths should be observed and verified as necessary to determine how the existing widths compare with the guidelines in the 2004 AASHTO Green Book.
17
GUIDE FOR REVIEW OF THE AASHTO DESIGN CONTROLLING CRITERIA ON EXISTING ADOT ROADWAYS Design widths of ramp pavements for various conditions are discussed on p. 838 and widths for turning roadways is given in Exhibit 10-67, p. 839. (Also, see the revised (1/2009) FHWA Memo of 09/28/88 for additional instructions; however, there is no maximum width for ramps, only a maximum width for both shoulders for one-way operation.) Case II with design traffic condition C is to be utilized for all ramps except if the current volume is under 100 vpd, then Case II, condition B may be utilized for a single-lane ramp. Upon determination as to whether pavement width meets the minimum AASHTO criteria, evaluation will be required to determine what, if any, modification should be recommended for implementation. Design vehicle turning templates using the computer program may be used to evaluate adequacy of existing ramps. 4. Vertical alignment and stopping sight distance See Vertical alignment and stopping sight distance. Horizontal alignment, superelevation and stopping sight distance See Horizontal alignment, superelevation and stopping sight distance. Grades Profile grades on a ramp can be determined by a review of the as-built plans. In general, AASHTO has established guidelines for suggested maximum grades on pp. 828 to 829 of the 2004 AASHTO Green Book. The ascending and descending grades should be limited to 3-5%. However, with proper ramp terminal facilities, short upgrades of 8% permit safe operation without unduly slowing down passenger cars. On one-way down ramps, gradients up to 8% do not cause hazard due to excessive acceleration. Therefore the 8% grades are to be utilized as the maximum grades. Cross Slope The cross slope on portions of ramps on tangent normally are sloped one-way at a practical rate that may range from 1.5 to 2.0 percent for high-type pavement. See p. 829 of the 2004 Green Book. Vertical Clearances Underpass clearances at bridge structures should be verified through review of the Bridge Inspection Maintenance Reports that are available in ADOT Bridge Group. The existing clearance is also available when submitting a Bridge Evaluation Request form to the Bridge Management Section. Existing clearances can then be compared with the AASHTO recommended clearance.
5.
6.
7.
8.
18
GUIDE FOR REVIEW OF THE AASHTO DESIGN CONTROLLING CRITERIA ON EXISTING ADOT ROADWAYS Interstate and freeway routes shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 16 feet. For sign trusses and pedestrian overpasses the clearance shall be 17 ft. All other roadways shall have a minimum clearance of 14 feet. 9. Bridge Widths Information on existing State-owned bridges is listed in the Arizona State Highway System Bridge Record published by the Bridge Group. BRIDGE WIDTH is defined as the minimum clear roadway width on the bridge as listed under the column heading "Curb-to-Curb" of the Bridge Record. The bridge width can also be obtained from the Bridge Management Engineer by submitting a Bridge Evaluation Request Form. Information obtained from the Bridge Record should be verified with the Bridge Management Section. Details for the bridge deck and the attendant bridge rail, curbs and sidewalk may be obtained from the bridge inspection files and from available as-built plans. Clear width on bridges shall be as wide as the approach roadway. See p. 506 of the 2004 AASHTO Green Book. 10. Structural Capacity There are no AASHTO criteria for bridges to remain; therefore HS 20 should be used. Bridge Barrier The evaluation of the bridge barrier is the responsibility of the Bridge Management Engineer. Barrier will be evaluated both for structural and geometric criteria.
11.
CROSSROAD Determine the functional classification of the crossroad utilizing either the map prepared by Multimodal Planning Division (Functional Classification for the Arizona State Highway System) if the crossroad is a State route, or the section containing the definitions and characteristics of highway facilities (pp. 7-13) of the 2004 Green Book. Once the classification has been established, then utilize the AASHTO Review Guide for means to identify and evaluate the AASHTO recommended design criteria. * Note: Except in very unusual circumstances, the crossroad will always have the same terrain classification as the mainline.
19
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA
Page 1
RURAL COLLECTOR
(PAVEMENT PRESERVATION PROJECT)
Page 2
SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA MAINLINE SUMMARY (UNDIVIDED)

PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT LOCATION: HIGHWAY SECTION: FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: 080 CH 386 H 6580 01C SR 80; EAST OF DOUGLAS DOUGLAS - RODEO HIGHWAY RURAL COLLECTOR ROUTE: BEGINNING MP: ENDING MP: SR 80 368.40 373.50
TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND FACTORS: CONSTRUCTION YEAR 2007 AADT (VPD) 3,261 DESIGN YEAR 2017 AADT (VPD) 4,200 TRAFFIC FACTORS K= 14% D= 51% T= 14%
THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT IS:
65 MPH
TERRAIN IS: LEVEL
AVERAGE ELEVATION IS:
4400 FT
LANE AND SHOULDER WIDTH: EXISTING (FT) WIDTH OF TRAVELED WAY: SHOULDER WIDTH: 24 5* AASHTO RECOMMENDED MINIMUM (FT) 24 1 81
VERTICAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: APPROACH DEPARTURE MILEPOST VPI STATION BEGIN END GRADE (%) GRADE (%) LENGTH OF CURVE (FT) STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE EXISTING (FT) SEE ATTACHMENT #1 REQUIRED (FT) EXISTING SPEED (MPH) POSTED SPEED (MPH)
HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: SUPERELEVATION MILEPOST HPI STATION 122+99.94 398+37.50 BEGIN END RDG MAX (FT/FT) 0.08 0.08 EXISTING (FT/FT) 0.020 0.020 MINIMUM (FT/FT) -0.012 -0.012 EXISTING SPEED (MPH) 71 71 POSTED SPEED (MPH) 65 65 EXISTING DEGREE OF CURVE 2o 00' 00" 2 00' 00"
o
MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE 3o 52' 3 52'

o
EXISTING HSO (FT) NA NA
EXISTING GRADE
HORIZONTAL SSD EXISTING (FT) REQUIRED (FT)
(%)
REMARKS: * DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED NOTE 1: RURAL COLLECTOR DOES NOT HAVE DESIGN CRITERION OVER 60 MPH, THEREFORE 60 MPH WAS USED AS THE CRITERION.
Page 3
SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA MAINLINE SUMMARY (UNDIVIDED) (CONTINUED)
GRADES: EXISTING MAXIMUM GRADE IS: AASHTO MAXIMUM GRADE IS: 3.3333% 5% 1
CROSS SLOPE: EXISTING CROSS SLOPE IS: AASHTO RANGE IS: 2.0% 1.5 - 2.0%
VERTICAL CLEARANCE: PRECONSTRUCTION STRUCTURE MILEPOST CLEARANCE POST CONSTRUCTION CLEARANCE MINIMUM CLEARANCE
NONE
STRUCTURES: BRIDGE EXISTING BRIDGE STRUCTURE BRIDGE #64 BRIDGE #54 RCB 3-10'x8' (#44) MILEPOST 371.98 372.65 373.11 LENGTH 52'-0" 44'-0" 32'-0" EXISTING BRIDGE WIDTH 39.7' 39.7' 38.0' RECOMMENDED BRIDGE WIDTH 28'-0" 28'-0" N/A BARRIER GEOMETRY ADEQUATE Yes Yes Yes BRIDGE BARRIER STRUCTURAL ADEQUATE Yes Yes Yes EXISTING STRUCTURE CAPACITY HS 20 HS 12.22 * HS 20 RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE CAPACITY HS 15 HS 15 HS 15
NOTE: DO NOT LIST BOX CULVERTS WHICH ARE NOT AT GRADE. REMARKS: * DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED NOTE 1: RURAL COLLECTOR DOES NOT HAVE DESIGN CRITERION OVER 60 MPH, THEREFORE 60 MPH WAS USED AS THE CRITERION.
Page 4

PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT LOCATION: HIGHWAY SECTION: FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: 080 CH 386 H 6580 01C SR 80; EAST OF DOUGLAS DOUGLAS - RODEO HIGHWAY RURAL COLLECTOR ROUTE: BEGINNING MP: ENDING MP: SR 80 373.50 378.50
60 MPH
TERRAIN IS: LEVEL
4400 FT
NOTE: PREPARE A "SUMMARY" FOR EACH POSTED SPEED LIMIT WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS. LANE AND SHOULDER WIDTH: EXISTING (FT) WIDTH OF TRAVELED WAY: SHOULDER WIDTH: 24 2* AASHTO RECOMMENDED MINIMUM (FT) 24 8
VERTICAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: APPROACH DEPARTURE MILEPOST VPI STATION 510+00.00 BEGIN END GRADE (%) 1.0000 GRADE (%) -1.5000 LENGTH OF CURVE (FT) 400 STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE EXISTING (FT) 632 REQUIRED (FT) 434 EXISTING SPEED (MPH) 63 POSTED SPEED (MPH) 60
HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: SUPERELEVATION MILEPOST HPI STATION 512+48 BEGIN END RDG MAX (FT/FT) 0.08 EXISTING (FT/FT) 0.020 MINIMUM (FT/FT) -0.024 EXISTING SPEED (MPH) 58 POSTED SPEED (MPH) 60 EXISTING DEGREE OF CURVE 2o 00' 00" MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE 4o 46' EXISTING HSO (FT) NA EXISTING GRADE HORIZONTAL SSD EXISTING (FT) REQUIRED (FT)
(%)
REMARKS: * DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED
Page 5
GRADES: EXISTING MAXIMUM GRADE IS: AASHTO MAXIMUM GRADE IS: 3.333% 5%
VERTICAL CLEARANCE: PRECONSTRUCTION STRUCTURE MILEPOST CLEARANCE POST CONSTRUCTION CLEARANCE NONE MINIMUM CLEARANCE
STRUCTURES: BRIDGE EXISTING BRIDGE STRUCTURE Bridge #55 Bridge #65 MILEPOST 373.9 376.81 LENGTH 44' 32' EXISTING BRIDGE WIDTH 39.7' 39.8' RECOMMENDED BRIDGE WIDTH 28' 28' BARRIER GEOMETRY ADEQUATE No ** Yes BRIDGE BARRIER STRUCTURAL ADEQUATE No ** Yes EXISTING STRUCTURE CAPACITY HS 12.22 * HS 20+ RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE CAPACITY HS 15 HS 15
NOTE: DO NOT LIST BOX CULVERTS WHICH ARE NOT AT GRADE.
REMARKS: * DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED ** DESIGN EXCEPTION WILL NOT BE REQUESTED BECAUSE BRIDGE BARRIER WILL BE UPGRADED UNDER THIS PROJECT.
Page 6
URBAN ARTERIAL
(MAJOR WIDENING PROJECT)
Page 7

PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT LOCATION: HIGHWAY SECTION: FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: 77 PM 82 H 6694 01C TANGERINE ROAD - PINAL COUNTY LINE TUCSON - ORACLE JC - GLOBE HIGHWAY URBAN ARTERIAL ROUTE: BEGINNING MP: ENDING MP: SR 77 82.00 85.60
55 MPH
TERRAIN IS: LEVEL
2900 FT
LANE AND SHOULDER WIDTH: EXISTING (FT) TRAVEL LANE WIDTH: CONTINUOUS TWO-WAY LEFT TURN: SHOULDER WIDTH: 4-(VARIES) 12 -14 0 10 PROPOSED (FT) 4-12 12 10 AASHTO RECOMMENDED MINIMUM (FT) 10 10 8
NOTE: ADD TURN LANES AND/OR PARKING LANES IF THEY ARE PRESENT. VERTICAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: APPROACH DEPARTURE MILEPOST VPI STATION 749+50 753+50 774+50 792+00 802+00 82.97 83.12 BEGIN END GRADE (%) 0.5286 3.8182 0.5000 1.9543 5.6995 GRADE (%) 3.8182 0.5000 1.9543 -5.6995 0.5098 LENGTH OF CURVE (FT) 800 1400 1000 1000 1000 STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE EXISTING (FT) 985 954 +9999 531* 645 REQUIRED (FT) 608 608 586 539 539 EXISTING SPEED (MPH) 80 79 +100 54 61 POSTED SPEED (MPH) 55 55 55 55 55
HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: SUPERELEVATION MILEPOST HPI STATION 732+72 BEGIN END RDG MAX (FT/FT) 0.06 EXISTING (FT/FT) 0.015 MINIMUM (FT/FT) -0.104 EXISTING SPEED (MPH) 94 POSTED SPEED (MPH) 55 EXISTING DEGREE OF CURVE 0o 45' MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE o 5 24' EXISTING HSO (FT) NA EXISTING GRADE HORIZONTAL SSD EXISTING (FT) REQUIRED (FT)
(%)
Page 8
GRADES: EXISTING MAXIMUM GRADE IS: AASHTO MAXIMUM GRADE IS: 5.6995 * 5%
CROSS SLOPE: EXISTING CROSS SLOPE IS: AASHTO RANGE IS: 2.0 % 1.5 - 3.0%
STRUCTURES: BRIDGE EXISTING BRIDGE STRUCTURE DEAD MAN WASH MILEPOST 83.53 LENGTH 136' EXISTING BRIDGE WIDTH 56.0 ** RECOMMENDED BRIDGE WIDTH 80.0 BARRIER GEOMETRY ADEQUATE No ** BRIDGE BARRIER STRUCTURAL ADEQUATE No ** EXISTING STRUCTURE CAPACITY HS 15 * RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE CAPACITY HS 20
NOTE: DO NOT LIST BOX CULVERTS WHICH ARE NOT AT GRADE. REMARKS: * DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED ** DESIGN EXCEPTION WILL NOT BE REQUESTED BECAUSE BRIDGE WIDTH AND BARRIER WILL BE UPGRADED UNDER THIS PROJECT.
Page 9

PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT LOCATION: HIGHWAY SECTION: FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: 77 PM 82 H 6694 01C TANGERINE ROAD - PINAL COUNTY LINE TUCSON - ORACLE JC - GLOBE HIGHWAY URBAN ARTERIAL ROUTE: BEGINNING MP: ENDING MP: SR 77 85.60 89.50
45 MPH
TERRAIN IS: LEVEL
2900 FT
LANE AND SHOULDER WIDTH: EXISTING (FT) LANE WIDTH: CONTINUOUS TWO-WAY LEFT TURN: SHOULDER WIDTH: VERTICAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: APPROACH DEPARTURE MILEPOST VPI STATION 827+00 846+00 857+00 868+00 BEGIN END GRADE (%) 0.5098 1.1658 2.6200 0.7200 GRADE (%) 1.1658 2.6200 0.7200 2.1500 LENGTH OF CURVE (FT) 800 800 1400 800 STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE EXISTING (FT) +9999 +9999 1261 +9999 REQUIRED (FT) 366 375 375 372 EXISTING SPEED (MPH) +100 +100 94 +100 POSTED SPEED (MPH) 45 45 45 45 4-(VARIES) 12 -14 0 10 PROPOSED (FT) 4-12 12 10 AASHTO RECOMMENDED MINIMUM (FT) 10 10 8
HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: SUPERELEVATION MILEPOST HPI STATION BEGIN END RDG MAX (FT/FT) EXISTING (FT/FT) MINIMUM (FT/FT) EXISTING SPEED (MPH) POSTED SPEED (MPH) SEE ATTACHMENT No. 2 EXISTING DEGREE OF CURVE MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE EXISTING HSO (FT) EXISTING GRADE HORIZONTAL SSD EXISTING (FT) REQUIRED (FT)
(%)
REMARKS:
Page 10
GRADES: EXISTING MAXIMUM GRADE IS: AASHTO MAXIMUM GRADE IS: 2.9200 % 6%
CROSS SLOPE: EXISTING CROSS SLOPE IS: AASHTO RANGE IS: 2.0 % 1.5 - 3.0%
STRUCTURES: BRIDGE EXISTING BRIDGE STRUCTURE MILEPOST LENGTH EXISTING BRIDGE WIDTH RECOMMENDED BRIDGE WIDTH BARRIER GEOMETRY ADEQUATE BRIDGE BARRIER STRUCTURAL ADEQUATE EXISTING STRUCTURE CAPACITY RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE CAPACITY
NONE
REMARKS:
Page 11
RURAL INTERSTATE
(PAVEMENT PRESERVATION PROJECT)
Page 12
SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA MAINLINE SUMMARY (DIVIDED)

PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT LOCATION: HIGHWAY SECTION: FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: 40 CN 152 H3262 01 C WELCH RD TI - DEVIL DOG TI ASHFORK - FLAGSTAFF HIGHWAY RURAL INTERSTATE ROUTE: I-40 EB & WB BEGINNING MP: ENDING MP: 150.00 160.00
NOTE: THE "SUMMARY" FOR A DIVIDED ROADWAY CAN EITHER BE COMBINED AS SHOWN OR EACH DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC CAN HAVE ITS OWN "SUMMARY":. TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND FACTORS: CONSTRUCTION YEAR 1993 AADT (VPD) 6,800 DESIGN YEAR 2003 K= 10% AADT (VPD) 10,000 D= NA T= 9% TRAFFIC FACTORS
65 MPH
TERRAIN IS: LEVEL
5500 FT
LANE AND SHOULDER WIDTH: EXISTING (FEET) LANE WIDTH: INSIDE SHOULDER WIDTH: OUTSIDE SHOULDER WIDTH: 2-12 3 *(WB), 4 (EB) 10 AASHTO RECOMMENDED MINIMUM (FEET) 2-12 4 10
VERTICAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: APPROACH DEPARTURE MILEPOST VPI STATION BEGIN END GRADE (%) GRADE (%) LENGTH OF CURVE (FT) STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE EXISTING (FT) REQUIRED (FT) EXISTING SPEED (MPH) POSTED SPEED (MPH)
SEE ATTACHMENT #1
HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: SUPERELEVATION MILEPOST HPI STATION BEGIN END RDG MAX (FT/FT) EXISTING (FT/FT) MINIMUM (FT/FT) EXISTING SPEED (MPH) POSTED SPEED (MPH) SEE ATTACHMENT #2 REMARKS: * DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED EXISTING DEGREE OF CURVE MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE EXISTING HSO (FT) EXISTING GRADE HORIZONTAL SSD EXISTING (FT) REQUIRED (FT)
(%)
Page 13
SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA MAINLINE SUMMARY (DIVIDED) (CONTINUED)
GRADES: EXISTING MAXIMUM GRADE IS: AASHTO MAXIMUM GRADE IS: 3.9978% * 3%
VERTICAL CLEARANCE: PRECONSTRUCTION STRUCTURE Palo Parado UP EB (#3421) Palo Parado UP WB (#3422) Deadman UP EB GS (#3444) Deadman UP WB GS (#3445) MILEPOST 157 157 159 159 CLEARANCE 16' - 0" 16' - 2" 16' - 0" 16' - 2" POST CONSTRUCTION CLEARANCE 15' - 10" * 16' - 0" 15' - 10" * 16' - 0" MINIMUM ALLOWABLE CLEARANCE 16' - 0" 16' - 0" 16' - 0" 16' - 0"
STRUCTURES: BRIDGE EXISTING BRIDGE STRUCTURE Creator Wash Bridge EB (#2123) Creator Wash Bridge WB (#2124) Ashfork RR OP EB (#3241) Ashfork RR OP WB (#3242) REMARKS: * DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED MILEPOST 157 157 159 159 LENGTH 105' 105' 125' 125' EXISTING BRIDGE WIDTH 36.0' * 37.5' 35.5' * 37.5' RECOMMENDED BRIDGE WIDTH 37.5' 37.5' 37.5' 37.5' BARRIER GEOMETRY ADEQUATE No * Yes No * Yes BRIDGE BARRIER STRUCTURAL ADEQUATE No * Yes No * Yes EXISTING STRUCTURE CAPACITY HS 15 * HS 15 * HS 20 HS 20 RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE CAPACITY HS 20 HS 20 HS 20 HS 20
Page 14
SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA CROSSROAD

PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT LOCATION: HIGHWAY SECTION: CROSSROAD: FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND FACTORS: CONSTRUCTION YEAR 1993 AADT (VPD) 950 DESIGN YEAR 2003 K= 10% AADT (VPD) 1,000 D= 51% T= 9% TRAFFIC FACTORS 40 CN 152 H3262 01 C WELCH RD TI - DEVIL DOG TI ASHFORK - FLAGSTAFF HIGHWAY PALO PARADO TI CROSSROAD RURAL COLLECTOR MAINLINE MILEPOST: 157.00
50 MPH
TERRAIN IS: LEVEL
5500 FT
LANE AND SHOULDER WIDTH: EXISTING (FT) WIDTH OF TRAVELED WAY: SHOULDER WIDTH: 24 2* AASHTO RECOMMENDED MINIMUM (FT) 22 5
VERTICAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE:
APPROACH DEPARTURE MILEPOST VPI STATION 510+00.00 BEGIN END GRADE (%) 1.0000 GRADE (%) -1.5000
LENGTH OF CURVE (FT) 400
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE EXISTING (FT) 632 REQUIRED (FT) 434
EXISTING SPEED (MPH) 63
POSTED SPEED (MPH) 50
HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: SUPERELEVATION MILEPOST HPI STATION 512+48 BEGIN END RDG MAX (FT/FT) 0.08 EXISTING (FT/FT) 0.020 MINIMUM (FT/FT) -0.024 EXISTING SPEED (MPH) 58 POSTED SPEED (MPH) 50 EXISTING DEGREE OF CURVE o 4 00' 00" MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE o 7 34' EXISTING HSO (FT) NA EXISTING GRADE HORIZONTAL SSD EXISTING (FT) REQUIRED (FT)
(%)
Page 15
SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA CROSSROAD (CONTINUED)
STRUCTURES: BRIDGE EXISTING BRIDGE STRUCTURE Palo Parado TI UP EB (#3421) Palo Parado TI UP WB (#3422) MILEPOST 157 157 LENGTH 105' 105' EXISTING BRIDGE WIDTH 30' 30' RECOMMENDED BRIDGE WIDTH 22' 22' BARRIER GEOMETRY ADEQUATE No ** Yes BRIDGE BARRIER STRUCTURAL ADEQUATE No ** Yes EXISTING STRUCTURE CAPACITY HS 15 HS 15 RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE CAPACITY HS 15 HS 15
REMARKS: ** DESIGN EXCEPTION WILL NOT BE REQUESTED BECAUSE BRIDGE BARRIER WILL BE UPGRADED UNDER THIS PROJECT.
Page 16
SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA RAMP 157A

PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT LOCATION: HIGHWAY SECTION: FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: DESCRIPTION: 40 CN 152 H3262 01 C WELCH RD TI - DEVIL DOG TI ASHFORK - FLAGSTAFF HIGHWAY DIAGONAL WB EXIT RAMP MAINLINE MILEPOST: 157.00
TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND FACTORS: CURRENT YEAR 1990 AADT (VPD) 250 CONSTRUCTION YEAR 1993 AADT (VPD) 390 DESIGN YEAR 2003 AADT (VPD) 520 TRAFFIC FACTORS K= 12% D= NA T= 2%
THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT IS: UNKNOWN, USE 50 MPH
TERRAIN IS: LEVEL
5500 FT
RAMP WIDTH: CASE (1 OR 2 OR 3): TRAFFIC CONDITION (A OR B OR C): MINIMUM RADIUS (FT) 2291 TOTAL PAVED WIDTH (FT) 22 2-C WIDTH (FT) 20 2 C 2-C WIDTH EXCLUDING SHOULDERS (FT) 12 TRAVELED-WAY WIDTH EXISTING WIDTH (FT) 14 MINIMUM 1-C (FT) 14 EXISTING LEFT SHOULDER (FT) 2 EXISTING RIGHT SHOULDER (FT) 6 EXISTING LEFT & RIGHT SHOULDER (FT) 8 AASHTO MAXIMUM SHOULDERS (FT) 12
VERTICAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: APPROACH DEPARTURE MILEPOST VPI STATION 6+25 12+25 BEGIN END GRADE (%) 3.0000 -3.0000 GRADE (%) -3.0000 1.0000 LENGTH OF CURVE (FT) 600 600 STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE EXISTING (FT) 465 622 REQUIRED (FT) 446 446 EXISTING SPEED (MPH) 51 61 POSTED SPEED (MPH) 50 50
HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: SUPERELEVATION MILEPOST HPI STATION 11+25 REMARKS: BEGIN END RDG MAX (FT/FT) 0.08 EXISTING (FT/FT) 0.035 MINIMUM (FT/FT) -0.053 EXISTING SPEED (MPH) 65 POSTED SPEED (MPH) 50 EXISTING DEGREE OF CURVE o 3 00' 00" MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE o 7 34' EXISTING HSO (FT) NA EXISTING GRADE HORIZONTAL SSD EXISTING (FT) REQUIRED (FT)
(%)
Page 17
SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA RAMP 157A (CONTINUED)
GRADES:
EXISTING MAXIMUM ASCENDING 3%
EXISTING MAXIMUM DESCENDING -3%
AASHTO MAXIMUM ASCENDING 8%
AASHTO MAXIMUM DESCENDING 8%
NONE NOTE: DO NOT LIST BOX CULVERTS WHICH ARE NOT AT GRADE.
REMARKS:
Page 18
SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA RAMP 157F

PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT LOCATION: HIGHWAY SECTION: FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: DESCRIPTION: 40 CN 152 H3262 01 C WELCH RD TI - DEVIL DOG TI ASHFORK - FLAGSTAFF HIGHWAY LOOP EB EXIT RAMP MAINLINE MILEPOST: 157.00
TERRAIN IS: LEVEL
5500 FT
RAMP WIDTH:
CASE (1 OR 2 OR 3): EXISTING
2 C 2-C 2-C WIDTH (FT) 22 EXCLUDING SHOULDERS (FT) 14 TRAVELED-WAY WIDTH EXISTING WIDTH (FT) 20 MINIMUM 1-C (FT) 16 EXISTING LEFT SHOULDER (FT) 2 EXISTING RIGHT SHOULDER (FT) 6 EXISTING LEFT & RIGHT SHOULDER (FT) 8 AASHTO MAXIMUM SHOULDERS (FT) 12
TRAFFIC CONDITION (A OR B OR C): EXISTING MINIMUM RADIUS (FT) 180 AASHTO MINIMUM RADIUS (FT) 150 TOTAL PAVED WIDTH (FT) 28
VERTICAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: APPROACH DEPARTURE MILEPOST VPI STATION 6+25 12+25 BEGIN END GRADE (%) -5.0000 -3.0000 GRADE (%) -3.0000 1.0000 LENGTH OF CURVE (FT) 600 600 STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE EXISTING (FT) 3200 622 REQUIRED (FT) 162 157 EXISTING SPEED (MPH) >100 61 POSTED SPEED (MPH) 25 25
HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: SUPERELEVATION MILEPOST HPI STATION 3+25 9+75 REMARKS: BEGIN END RDG MAX (FT/FT) 0.08 0.08 EXISTING (FT/FT) 0.080 0.060 MINIMUM (FT/FT) -0.005 -0.121 EXISTING SPEED (MPH) 26 35 POSTED SPEED (MPH) 25 25 EXISTING DEGREE OF CURVE o 31 00' 00"
o 15 00' 00"
MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE o 42 38' 42o 38'
EXISTING HSO (FT) NA NA
EXISTING GRADE
HORIZONTAL SSD EXISTING (FT) REQUIRED (FT)
(%)
Page 19
SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA RAMP 157F (CONTINUED)
GRADES:
EXISTING MAXIMUM ASCENDING 1%
EXISTING MAXIMUM DESCENDING -5%
NONE NOTE: DO NOT LIST BOX CULVERTS WHICH ARE NOT AT GRADE.
REMARKS:
Page 20
APPENDIX B
BRIDGE EVALUATION REQUEST FORM
ROADWAY ENGINEERING GROUP ROADWAY PREDESIGN SECTION
PAGE _ OF _
DATE:
TO:
Peng Chen BRIDGE GROUP BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SECTION, MD 635E
FEDERAL REFERENCE NO: HIGHWAY: LOCATION: MP LIMITS: TO:
TRACS NO:
FROM:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SUBJECT:
BRIDGE EVALUATION REQUEST
Please evaluate the following structures per AASHTO guidelines:

STR. NO. AND ROUTE NO. MILEPOST NAME BRIDGE LENGTH BRIDGE ROADWAY WIDTH TYPE BRIDGE RAIL / BARRIER GEOM. OK STRUC OK THICKNESS (EXISTING) AC OVERLAY REMOVE (MINIMUM) REPLACE/NEW (MAXIMUM) VERTICAL CLEARANCE (MINIMUM) NB/EB SB/WB BRIDGE LOAD RATING BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATING
Comments:
Comments:
Comments:
Comments:
Comments:
Evaluation Completed by:
Date:
APPENDIX C
INSTRUCTION GUIDE FOR THE LIST OF EXISTING FEATURES REQUIRING DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
In order to facilitate document reviews and to establish continuity among AASHTO Controlling Design Criteria Reports, the following outline for listing design exception and example for an Interstate project has been prepared. Please note order in which the mainline, crossroad, ramps and design exceptions are listed. The examples show the standard sentences and numbering sequence used to introduce each design exception and a description of the design exception. Please list the mainline roadways, crossroad, and ramps in the following order: MAINLINE ROUTE NB (or EB) Design Exception(s) ROUTE SB (or WB) Design Exception(s) T.I. NAME CROSSROAD NAME Design Exception(s) RAMP DESIGNATION (use the NB entrance or WB exit ramp) Design Exception(s) RAMP DESIGNATION (use the NB exit or EB entrance ramp) Design Exception(s) RAMP DESIGNATION (use the SB entrance or EB exit ramp) Design Exception(s) RAMP DESIGNATION (use the SB exit or WB entrance ramp)
(The RAMP DESIGNATION will be the ramp number as shown on the Control-of-Access photograph of the traffic interchange, or as marked at the Traffic Interchange ramps in the field. If not available, use the description of the ramp with respect to traffic movement, such as SB Exit or WB Entrance Ramp. ) (The Ramp Functional Classification refers to the type of ramp under review, such as diagonal, loop, direct etc.; see p. 823 of the 2004 Green Book) C-1
Please list the applicable design exceptions in the following order: 1. Design Speed 2. Travel Lane/ Traveled Way/ Ramp Pavement Width 3. Shoulder Width 4. Existing Bridge Width 5. Horizontal Alignment a. Existing degree of curve exceeding maximum b. Horizontal Curve Stopping Sight Distance 6. Superelevation 7. Vertical Alignment a. Vertical Curve Stopping Sight Distance 8. Grade 9. Intersection Stopping Sight Distance 10. Cross Slope 11. Vertical Clearance a. Existing b. Post Construction 12. Horizontal Clearance 13. Structural Capacity a. Bridge Barrier 1. Geometry 2. Structural Criteria NOTE: The information shown on the following asterisk table is used to demarcate on the Summary of Controlling Design Criteria sheets. * Design Exception Required ** Design Exception Required, but will not be requested because. *** Not Calculated because.. **** For special circumstances If none of the above conditions apply, the Remarks block remains blank.
C-2
PROJECT 40 CN 152 H3262 01 C -40-3(77)A WELCH ROAD TI DEVIL DOG TI ASH FORK FLAGSTAFF HIGHWAY I-40
AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA REPORT July 2006
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION DIVISION ROADWAY ENGINEERING GROUP ROADWAY PREDESIGN
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
List of Existing Features Requiring Design Exceptions EB & WB I-40 PALO PARADO TI Crossroad Ramp 157A Ramp 157F Ramp 157D Ramp 157J
ii ii iv iv iv iv iv v
LIST OF EXISTING FEATURES REQUIRING DESIGN EXCEPTIONS The following is a list of the existing design features requiring design exceptions based upon A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2004 and A Policy on Design Standards Interstate System 2005. I-40 EB The existing shoulder width is less than the recommended 4 ft (inside) shoulder as follows: 1. MP 150.05 to MP 160.00 1 ft less than recommended. The existing bridge width is less than the recommended 37.5 ft as follows: 1. MP 151.03 Crater Wash Bridge (#2123) 1.5 ft less than recommended. 2. MP 153.50 Ashfork RR OP (#3241) 2.0 ft less than recommended. The existing degree of curve exceeds the recommended maximum of 3o 52 as follows: 1. Beginning MP 151.00 (HPI Sta 980+34.10) 0o 38 greater than the maximum. 2. Beginning MP 153.00 (HPI Sta 990+50.00) 1o 38 greater than the maximum. The superelevation rate is less than the recommended minimum as follows: 1. Beginning MP 156.50 (HPI Sta 1097+67.30) - Existing Speed XX mph 0.006 ft/ft less than the recommended of XXX ft/ft. 2. Beginning MP 157.00 (HPI Sta 1109+21.10) - Existing Speed XX mph 0.008 ft/ft less than the recommended of XXX ft/ft. The vertical curve stopping sight distance is less than the recommended as follows: 1. Beginning MP 152.33 (VPI Sta 997+00.00) Existing Speed XX mph 58 ft less than the recommended XXX ft. 2. Beginning MP 154.02 (VPI Sta 1050+50.00) Existing Speed XX mph 325 ft less than the recommended XXX ft. 3. Beginning MP 156.23 (VPI Sta 1690+50.00) Existing Speed XX mph 85 ft less than the recommended XXX ft. The existing grade exceeds the recommended maximum of 3% as follows: 3. MP 154.99 to MP 155.83 0.9997% greater than the recommended. The post construction vertical clearance is less than the recommended 16-0 as follows: 1. MP 157.00 Palo Parado Bridge (#3421) 0- 2 less than the recommended. 2. MP 159.00 Deadman UP GS (#3444) 0 2 less than the recommended.
ii
The bridge structural capacity is less than the recommended HS 20 as follows: 1. MP 151.03 Crater Wash Bridge (#2123) HS 18.5. The geometry and/or structural criteria of the bridge barrier does not meet AASHTO recommendations as follows: 1. MP 151.03 Crater Wash Bridge (#2123) bridge barrier and 18 curb. 2. MP 153.50 Ashfork RR OP (#3241) bridge barrier. I-40 WB The horizontal curve stopping sight distance is less than recommended as follows: 1. Beginning MP 156.80 (HPI Sta 1097+67.30) Existing Speed XX mph 253 ft less than the recommended XXX ft. The superelevation rate is less than the recommended minimum as follows: 1. Beginning MP 153.21 (HPI Sta 990+50.00) Existing Speed XX mph 0.006 ft/ft less than the recommended of XXX ft/ft. 2. Beginning MP 156.80 (HPI Sta 1097+67.30) Existing Speed XX mph 0.006 ft/ft less than the recommended of XXX ft/ft. 3. Beginning MP 157.50 (HPI Sta 1109+21.10) Existing Speed XX mph 0.008 ft/ft less than the recommended of XXX ft/ft. The vertical curve stopping sight distance is less than the recommended as follows: 1. Beginning MP 152.44 (VPI Sta 997+00.00) Existing Speed XX mph 58 ft less than the recommended XXX ft. 2. Beginning MP 154.14 (VPI Sta 1050+50.00) Existing Speed XX mph 325 ft less than the recommended XXX ft. 3. Beginning MP 156.34 (VPI Sta 1690+50.00) Existing Speed XX mph 85 ft less than the recommended XXX ft. The existing grade exceeds the recommended maximum of 3% as follows: 1. MP 154.99 to MP 155.83 0.997% greater than the maximum. The bridge structural capacity is less than the recommended HS 20 loading as follows: 1. MP 151.03 Crater Wash Bridge (#2124) HS 15.
iii
Palo Parado T.I. Crossroad The existing shoulder width is less than the recommended 6 ft as follows: 1. Sta 575+34.12 to Sta 582+00.23 2 ft less than recommended. 2. Sta 582+00.23 to Sta 583+01.24 1 ft less than recommended. The superelevation rate exceeds the recommended maximum of 0.08 ft/ft as follows: 1. HPI Sta 562+48.54 Existing Speed XX mph 0.02 ft/ft greater than the maximum. 2. HPI Sta 577+51.24 Existing Speed XX mph 0.02 ft/ft greater than the maximum. Ramp 157A The ramp pavement width is less than the recommended 14 ft as follows: 1. Sta 19+25.56 to Sta 10+23.04 1 ft less than recommended. The existing degree of curve exceeds the recommended maximum of 7o 34 as follows: 1. HPI Sta 11+25.89 0o 11 greater than the maximum. Ramp 157F The superelevation rate is less than the recommended minimum as follows: 1. HPI Sta 10+24.11 Existing Speed XX mph 0.011 ft/ft less than the recommended of XXX ft/ft. The vertical curve stopping sight distance is less than the recommended as follows: 1. VPI Sta 597+00.00 Existing Speed XX mph 103 ft less than the recommended XXX ft. 2. VPI Sta 650+50.00 Existing Speed XX mph 49 ft less than the recommended XXX ft. 3. VPI Sta 691+50.00 Existing Speed XX mph 104 ft less than the recommended XXX ft. Ramp 157D The ramp shoulder width exceeds the recommended maximum 12 ft as follows: 1. Sta 14+27.56 to Sta 6+23.04 1 ft more than the recommended.
iv
Ramp 157J The vertical curve stopping sight distance is less than the recommended as follows: 1. VPI Sta 9+75.00 Existing Speed XX mph 21 ft less than the recommended XXX ft.
APPENDIX D
AASHTO REPORT EXAMPLE
PROJECT 040 CN 239 H 6570 01C -40-D-( )A I-40; DENNISON COUNTY LINE FLAGSTAFF HOLBROOK HIGHWAY INTERSTATE 40
AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA REPORT SEPTEMBER 2005
PREPARED FOR: ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INTERMODEL TRANSPORTATION DIVISION ROADWAY ENGINEERING GROUP ROADWAY PREDESIGN
PREPARED BY: AZTEC ENGINEERING 4561 E. MCDOWELL ROAD PHOENIX, AZ 85008
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
List of Existing Features Requiring Design Exceptions EB & WB I-40 LUEPP ROAD TI Crossroad Ramp A Ramp B Ramp C Ramp D Summary of AASHTO Controlling Design Criteria Attachment #1, Vertical Curve Inventory EB Attachment #1, Vertical Curve Inventory WB Attachment #2, Horizontal Curve Inventory EB Attachment #2, Horizontal Curve Inventory WB Bridge Evaluation Request
ii ii ii iii iii iii iii 1-14 15 16 17 18 19
LIST OF EXISTING FEATURES REQUIRING DESIGN EXCEPTIONS The following is a list of the existing design features requiring design exceptions based upon A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2004 and A Policy on Design Standards Interstate System 2005. I-40 EB The superelevation rate is less than the recommended minimum as follows: 1. Beginning MP 239.96 (HPI Sta 2312+09.72) e existing = 0.015 ft/ft (0.050 ft/ft less than the recommended of 0.065 ft/ft) e minimum Method 2 = 0.025 ft/ft Method 2 Speed 73 mph The bridge structural capacity is less than the recommended HS 20 loading as follows: 1. MP 248.99 EB Tucker Flat Bridge #336 HS 11.11 I-40 WB The existing shoulder width is less than the recommended 4 ft (inside) shoulder as follows: 1. MP 250.25 to MP 239.96 1 ft less than recommended. The superelevation rate is less than the recommended minimum as follows: 1. Beginning MP 241.38 (HPI Sta 2312+21.69) e existing = 0.015 ft/ft (0.050 ft/ft less than the recommended of 0.065 ft/ft) e minimum Method 2 = 0.025 ft/ft Method 2 Speed 73 mph
The vertical curve stopping sight distance is less than the recommended as follows: 1. Beginning MP 246.99 (VPI Sta 2682+00.00) Existing Speed 75 mph 3 ft less than the recommended 843 ft. LEUPP ROAD T.I. Crossroad The superelevation rate is less than the recommended minimum as follows: 1. Beginning MP 245.39 (HPI Sta 3+99.21) e existing = 0.015 ft/ft (0.027 ft/ft less than the recommended of 0.042 ft/ft) e minimum Method 2 = -0.137ft/ft Method 2 Speed 48 mph The geometry and/or structural criteria of the bridge barrier does not meet AASHTO recommendations as follows: 1. MP 245.39 Leupp TI UP (#1317) bridge barrier ii
RAMP A The existing degree of curve exceeds the recommended maximum of 5o 58 as follows: 1. HPI Sta 10+41.78 4o 2 greater than the maximum. 2. HPI Sta 3+12.34 0o 2 greater than the maximum. RAMP B The existing degree of curve exceeds the recommended maximum of 5o 58 as follows: 1. HPI Sta 4+50.00 0o 2 greater than the maximum. 2. HPI Sta 12+54.03 4o 2 greater than the maximum. RAMP C The vertical curve stopping sight distance is less than the recommended as follows: 1. VPI Sta 10+00.00 - Existing Speed 44 mph 164 ft less than the recommended 529 ft. RAMP D The superelevation rate is less than the recommended minimum as follows: 1. HPI Sta 6+77.20 e existing = 0.015 ft/ft (0.030 ft/ft less than the recommended of 0.045 ft/ft) e minimum Method 2 = -0.059 ft/ft Method 2 Speed 70 mph
The vertical curve stopping sight distance is less than the recommended as follows: 1. VPI Sta 1+00.00 - Existing Speed 41 mph 203 ft less than the recommended 543 ft. 2. VPI Sta 6+00.00 - Existing Speed 47 mph 120 ft less than the recommended 543 ft.
iii
SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA MAIN LINE EB ROADWAY

PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT LOCATION: HIGHWAY SECTION: FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: 40 CN 239 H6570 01 C DENNISON - COUNTY LINE FLAGSTAFF - HOLBROCK HIGHWAY RURAL INTERSTATE ROUTE: BEGINNING MP: ENDING MP: I-40 EB 239.96 250.25
TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND FACTORS: CONSTRUCTION YEAR 2007 AADT (VPD) 24,375 DESIGN YEAR 2017 K= 15% AADT (VPD) 30,976 D= 51% T= 43% TRAFFIC FACTORS
75 MPH
TERRAIN IS: LEVEL
5100 FT
LANE AND SHOULDER WIDTH: EXISTING (FEET) LANE WIDTH: INSIDE SHOULDER WIDTH: OUTSIDE SHOULDER WIDTH: 2-12 4 10 AASHTO RECOMMENDED MINIMUM (FEET) 2-12 4 10
SEE ATTACHMENT #1
HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: SUPERELEVATION MILEPOST HPI STATION BEGIN END RDG MAX (FT/FT) EXISTING (FT/FT) MINIMUM (FT/FT) METHOD 2 SPEED (MPH) POSTED SPEED (MPH) SEE ATTACHMENT #2 REMARKS: EXISTING DEGREE OF CURVE MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE EXISTING HSO (FT) EXISTING GRADE HORIZONTAL SSD EXISTING (FT) REQUIRED (FT)
(%)
Page 1
SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA MAIN LINE EB ROADWAY (CONTINUED)
VERTICAL CLEARANCE: PRECONSTRUCTION STRUCTURE Leupp Road TI UP (#1317) MILEPOST 245.39 CLEARANCE 17' - 0" POST CONSTRUCTION CLEARANCE 16' - 9.5" MINIMUM ALLOWABLE CLEARANCE 16' - 0"
STRUCTURES: BRIDGE EXISTING BRIDGE STRUCTURE Tucker Flat Bridge, EB (#336) MILEPOST 248.99 LENGTH 80' EXISTING BRIDGE WIDTH 39.6' RECOMMENDED BRIDGE WIDTH 37.5' BARRIER GEOMETRY ADEQUATE Yes BRIDGE BARRIER STRUCTURAL ADEQUATE NO** EXISTING STRUCTURE CAPACITY HS 11.11* RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE CAPACITY HS 20
REMARKS:
* DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED ** DESIGN EXCEPTION WILL NOT BE REQUESTED BECAUSE BRIDGE BARRIER WILL BE UPGRADED UNDER THIS PROJECT.
Page 2
SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA MAIN LINE WB ROADWAY

PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT LOCATION: HIGHWAY SECTION: FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: 40 CN 239 H6570 01 C DENNISON - COUNTY LINE FLAGSTAFF - HOLBROCK HIGHWAY RURAL INTERSTATE ROUTE: BEGINNING MP: ENDING MP: I-40 WB 239.96 250.25
TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND FACTORS: CONSTRUCTION YEAR 2007 AADT (VPD) 24,375 DESIGN YEAR 2017 K= 15% AADT (VPD) 30,976 D= 51% T= 43% TRAFFIC FACTORS
75 MPH
TERRAIN IS: LEVEL
5100 FT
LANE AND SHOULDER WIDTH: EXISTING (FEET) LANE WIDTH: INSIDE SHOULDER WIDTH: OUTSIDE SHOULDER WIDTH: 2-12 3* 10 AASHTO RECOMMENDED MINIMUM (FEET) 2-12 4 10
SEE ATTACHMENT #1
HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: SUPERELEVATION MILEPOST HPI STATION BEGIN END RDG MAX (FT/FT) EXISTING (FT/FT) MINIMUM (FT/FT) METHOD 2 SPEED (MPH) POSTED SPEED (MPH) SEE ATTACHMENT #2 REMARKS: * DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED EXISTING DEGREE OF CURVE MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE EXISTING HSO (FT) EXISTING GRADE HORIZONTAL SSD EXISTING (FT) REQUIRED (FT)
(%)
Page 3
SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA MAIN LINE WB ROADWAY (CONTINUED)
VERTICAL CLEARANCE: PRECONSTRUCTION STRUCTURE Leupp Road TI UP (#1317) MILEPOST 245.39 CLEARANCE 16' - 9" POST CONSTRUCTION CLEARANCE 16' - 6.5" MINIMUM ALLOWABLE CLEARANCE 16' - 0"
STRUCTURES: BRIDGE EXISTING BRIDGE STRUCTURE Tucker Flat Bridge, WB (#1318) MILEPOST 248.99 LENGTH 81' EXISTING BRIDGE WIDTH 38.0 RECOMMENDED BRIDGE WIDTH 37.5' BARRIER GEOMETRY ADEQUATE Yes BRIDGE BARRIER STRUCTURAL ADEQUATE No** EXISTING STRUCTURE CAPACITY HS 20 RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE CAPACITY HS 20
REMARKS:
** DESIGN EXCEPTION WILL NOT BE REQUESTED BECAUSE BRIDGE BARRIER WILL BE UPGRADED UNDER THIS PROJECT.
Page 4
SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA CROSSROAD

PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT LOCATION: HIGHWAY SECTION: CROSSROAD: FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND FACTORS: CONSTRUCTION YEAR 2007 AADT (VPD) 950 DESIGN YEAR 2017 K= 10% AADT (VPD) 1,000 D= 51% T= 9% TRAFFIC FACTORS 40 CN 239 H6570 01 C DENNISON - COUNTY LINE FLAGSTAFF - HOLBROCK HIGHWAY LEUPP ROAD TI RURAL COLLECTOR MAINLINE MILEPOST: 245.39
30 MPH
TERRAIN IS: LEVEL
5100 FT
LANE AND SHOULDER WIDTH: EXISTING (FEET) WIDTH OF TRAVELED WAY: SHOULDER WIDTH: 24 5 AASHTO RECOMMENDED MINIMUM (FEET) 22 5
VERTICAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE:
APPROACH DEPARTURE MILEPOST VPI STATION 2+01.43 8+00.00 BEGIN END GRADE (%) -2.0000 2.7633 GRADE (%) 2.7633 -0.3645
LENGTH OF CURVE (FT) 400 300
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE EXISTING (FT) 382 495 REQUIRED (FT) 204 204
EXISTING SPEED (MPH) 45 54
POSTED SPEED (MPH) 30 30
HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: SUPERELEVATION MILEPOST HPI STATION 3+99.21 BEGIN END RDG MAX (FT/FT) 0.08 EXISTING (FT/FT) *0.015 MINIMUM (FT/FT) 0.042 METHOD 2 SPEED (MPH) 48 POSTED SPEED (MPH) 30 EXISTING DEGREE OF CURVE o 6 00' 00" MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE o 26 44' EXISTING HSO (FT) NA EXISTING GRADE HORIZONTAL SSD EXISTING (FT) REQUIRED (FT)
(%)
REMARKS:
*DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED
Page 5
SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA CROSSROAD (CONTINUED)
VERTICAL CLEARANCE: PRECONSTRUCTION STRUCTURE MILEPOST CLEARANCE POST CONSTRUCTION CLEARANCE NONE MINIMUM ALLOWABLE CLEARANCE
STRUCTURES: BRIDGE EXISTING BRIDGE STRUCTURE Leupp TI UP (#1317) MILEPOST 245.39 LENGTH 238.0' EXISTING BRIDGE WIDTH 30' RECOMMENDED BRIDGE WIDTH 22' BARRIER GEOMETRY ADEQUATE No * BRIDGE BARRIER STRUCTURAL ADEQUATE Yes EXISTING STRUCTURE CAPACITY HS 20 RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE CAPACITY HS 15
REMARKS:
*DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED
Page 6
SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA RAMP A

PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT LOCATION: HIGHWAY SECTION: FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: DESCRIPTION: 40 CN 239 H6570 01 C DENNISON - COUNTY LINE FLAGSTAFF - HOLBROCK HIGHWAY DIAGONAL WB ENTRANCE RAMP MAINLINE MILEPOST: 245.39
TERRAIN IS: LEVEL
5100 FT
RAMP WIDTH: CASE (1 OR 2 OR 3): TRAFFIC CONDITION (A OR B OR C): MINIMUM RADIUS (FT) 572.96 EXISTING TOTAL PAVED WIDTH (FT) 22 2-C WIDTH (FT) 20 2 C 2-C WIDTH TRAVELED-WAY WIDTH EXCLUDING SHOULDERS (FT) 12 EXISTING WIDTH (FT) 14 MINIMUM 1-C (FT) 14 EXISTING LEFT SHOULDER (FT) 2 EXISTING RIGHT SHOULDER (FT) 6 EXISTING LEFT & RIGHT SHOULDER (FT) 8 AASHTO MAXIMUM SHOULDERS (FT) 12
VERTICAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: APPROACH DEPARTURE MILEPOST VPI STATION 5+00 12+50 BEGIN END GRADE (%) 0.7958 1.3720 GRADE (%) 1.3720 2.7246 LENGTH OF CURVE (FT) 200 200 STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE EXISTING (FT) +9999 +9999 REQUIRED (FT) 504 517 EXISTING SPEED (MPH) +100 +100 POSTED SPEED (MPH) 55 55
HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: SUPERELEVATION MILEPOST HPI STATION 10+41.78 3+12.34 REMARKS: BEGIN END RDG MAX (FT/FT) 0.08 0.08 * DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED ** DESIGN EXCEPTION NOT REQUESTED BECAUSE TRAFFIC IS APPROACHING A STOP CONDITION *** NOT CALCULATED BECAUSE EXISTING DEGREE OF CURVE EXCEEDS MAXIMUM DEGREE OR CURVE. EXISTING (FT/FT) 0.043 0.076 MINIMUM (FT/FT) 0.222 ** *** METHOD 2 SPEED (MPH) 41 54 POSTED SPEED (MPH) 55 55 EXISTING DEGREE OF CURVE o 10 00' 00" ** 6o 00' 00" * MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE o 5 58' o 5 58' EXISTING HSO (FT) NA NA EXISTING GRADE HORIZONTAL SSD EXISTING (FT) REQUIRED (FT)
(%)
Page 7
SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA RAMP A (CONTINUED)
GRADES:
EXISTING MAXIMUM ASCENDING 2.7146%
EXISTING MAXIMUM DESCENDING NA
NONE
REMARKS:
Page 8
SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA RAMP B

PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT LOCATION: HIGHWAY SECTION: FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: DESCRIPTION: 40 CN 239 H6570 01 C DENNISON - COUNTY LINE FLAGSTAFF - HOLBROCK HIGHWAY DIAGONAL EB EXIT RAMP MAINLINE MILEPOST: 245.39
TERRAIN IS: LEVEL
5100 FT
RAMP WIDTH:
CASE (1 OR 2 OR 3):
2 C 2-C TRAVELED-WAY WIDTH EXISTING WIDTH (FT) 14 MINIMUM 1-C (FT) 14 EXISTING LEFT SHOULDER (FT) 2 EXISTING RIGHT SHOULDER (FT) 6 EXISTING LEFT & RIGHT SHOULDER (FT) 8 AASHTO MAXIMUM SHOULDERS (FT) 12
TRAFFIC CONDITION (A OR B OR C): EXISTING MINIMUM RADIUS (FT) 572.96 EXISTING TOTAL PAVED WIDTH (FT) 22 2-C WIDTH (FT) 20
EXCLUDING SHOULDERS (FT) 12
VERTICAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: APPROACH DEPARTURE MILEPOST VPI STATION 2+00.00 13+00.00 BEGIN END GRADE (%) -1.5005 0.1373 GRADE (%) 0.1373 1.1300 LENGTH OF CURVE (FT) 200 200 STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE EXISTING (FT) +9999 +9999 REQUIRED (FT) 505 502 EXISTING SPEED (MPH) +100 +100 POSTED SPEED (MPH) 55 55
HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: SUPERELEVATION MILEPOST HPI STATION 4+50.00 12+54.03 REMARKS: BEGIN END RDG MAX (FT/FT) 0.08 0.08 *DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED ** DESIGN EXCEPTION NOT REQUESTED BECAUSE THIS IS THE ENTRANCE TERMINI FOR THE CROSSROAD RAMP ENTRANCE *** NOT CALCULATED BECAUSE EXISTING DEGREE OF CURVE EXCEEDS MAXIMUM DEGREE OR CURVE. EXISTING (FT/FT) 0.076 0.043 MINIMUM (FT/FT) *** 0.222 ** METHOD 2 SPEED (MPH) 54 41 POSTED SPEED (MPH) 55 55 EXISTING DEGREE OF CURVE 6o 00' 00" * 10o 00' 00" ** MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE o 5 58' 5o 58' EXISTING HSO (FT) NA NA EXISTING GRADE HORIZONTAL SSD EXISTING (FT) REQUIRED (FT)
(%)
Page 9
SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA RAMP B (CONTINUED)
GRADES:
EXISTING MAXIMUM DESCENDING -1.5005%
NONE
REMARKS:
Page 10
SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA RAMP C

PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT LOCATION: HIGHWAY SECTION: FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: DESCRIPTION: 40 CN 239 H6570 01 C DENNISON - COUNTY LINE FLAGSTAFF - HOLBROCK HIGHWAY DIAGONAL WB EXIT RAMP MAINLINE MILEPOST: 245.39
TERRAIN IS: LEVEL
5100 FT
RAMP WIDTH: CASE (1 OR 2 OR 3): TRAFFIC CONDITION (A OR B OR C): MINIMUM RADIUS (FT) TANGENT TOTAL PAVED WIDTH (FT) 22 2-C WIDTH (FT) 20 2 C 2-C WIDTH EXCLUDING SHOULDERS (FT) 12 TRAVELED-WAY WIDTH EXISTING WIDTH (FT) 14 MINIMUM 1-C (FT) 14 EXISTING LEFT SHOULDER (FT) 2 EXISTING RIGHT SHOULDER (FT) 6 EXISTING LEFT & RIGHT SHOULDER (FT) 8 AASHTO MAXIMUM SHOULDERS (FT) 12
VERTICAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: APPROACH DEPARTURE MILEPOST VPI STATION 14+00.00 10+00.00 BEGIN END GRADE (%) -1.0850 3.9600 GRADE (%) 3.9600 1.4976 LENGTH OF CURVE (FT) 400 200 STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE EXISTING (FT) *365 538 REQUIRED (FT) 529 529 EXISTING SPEED (MPH) 44 56 POSTED SPEED (MPH) 55 55
HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: SUPERELEVATION MILEPOST HPI STATION BEGIN END RDG MAX (FT/FT) EXISTING (FT/FT) MINIMUM (FT/FT) METHOD 2 SPEED (MPH) POSTED SPEED (MPH) NONE (TANGENT) REMARKS: *DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED EXISTING DEGREE OF CURVE MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE EXISTING HSO (FT) EXISTING GRADE HORIZONTAL SSD EXISTING (FT) REQUIRED (FT)
(%)
Page 11
SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA RAMP C (CONTINUED)
GRADES:
NONE
REMARKS:
Page 12
SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA RAMP D

PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT LOCATION: HIGHWAY SECTION: FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: DESCRIPTION: 40 CN 239 H6570 01 C DENNISON - COUNTY LINE FLAGSTAFF - HOLBROCK HIGHWAY DIAGONAL EB ENTRANCE RAMP MAINLINE MILEPOST: 245.39
TERRAIN IS: LEVEL
5100 FT
RAMP WIDTH:
CASE (1 OR 2 OR 3):
2 B 2-B TRAVELED-WAY WIDTH EXISTING WIDTH (FT) 14 MINIMUM 1-C (FT) 14 EXISTING LEFT SHOULDER (FT) 2 EXISTING RIGHT SHOULDER (FT) 6 EXISTING LEFT & RIGHT SHOULDER (FT) 8 AASHTO MAXIMUM SHOULDERS (FT) 12
TRAFFIC CONDITION (A OR B OR C): EXISTING MINIMUM RADIUS (FT) 2864.79 EXISTING TOTAL PAVED WIDTH (FT) 22 2-B WIDTH (FT) 18
EXCLUDING SHOULDERS (FT) 10
VERTICAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: APPROACH DEPARTURE MILEPOST VPI STATION 1+00.00 6+00.00 BEGIN END GRADE (%) -1.5000 -5.2180 GRADE (%) -5.2180 -0.9990 LENGTH OF CURVE (FT) 100 400 STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE EXISTING (FT) **340 *423 REQUIRED (FT) 543 543 EXISTING SPEED (MPH) 41 47 POSTED SPEED (MPH) 55 55
HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: SUPERELEVATION MILEPOST HPI STATION 6+77.20 BEGIN END RDG MAX (FT/FT) 0.08 EXISTING (FT/FT) *0.015 MINIMUM (FT/FT) 0.045 METHOD 2 SPEED (MPH) 70 POSTED SPEED (MPH) 55 EXISTING DEGREE OF CURVE 2o 00' 00" MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE o 5 58' 00" EXISTING HSO (FT) NA EXISTING GRADE HORIZONTAL SSD EXISTING (FT) REQUIRED (FT)
(%)
REMARKS:
*DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED ** DESIGN EXCEPTION NOT REQUEST BECAUSE THIS IS THE ENTRANCE TERMINI FOR THE THE CROSSROAD RAMP ENTRANCE
Page 13
SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA RAMP D (CONTINUED)
GRADES:
EXISTING MAXIMUM ASCENDING NA
NONE
REMARKS:
Page 14
Attachment 1 - Vertical Curve Inventory

Project Name: DENNISON - COUNTY LINE (EB VERTICAL CURVES) 40 CN 239 H6570 01C Project No: Roadway Type: Divided Roadway (Uni-directional)
VPI Station (ft) 2282+00.00 2298+50.00 2323+00.00 2365+50.00 2398+50.00 2415+00.00 2427+00.00 2459+00.00 2484+00.00 2410+00.00 2535+00.00 2593+75.00 2653+35.00 2681+50.00 2702+50.00 2731+00.00 2759+93.00 2810+00.00 Milepost Begin End Grade (%) Approach -0.6490 0.7290 -0.4300 0.2610 -0.2200 0.0000 0.7050 1.7500 0.2000 -0.1000 -1.3020 -0.9400 -0.7700 2.3166 -1.8800 -0.6200 0.0000 0.9600 Departure 0.7290 -0.4300 0.2610 -0.2200 0.0000 0.7050 1.7500 0.2000 -0.1000 -1.3020 -0.9400 -0.7700 2.3166 -1.8800 -0.6200 0.0000 0.9600 0.6250 Curve Length (ft) 1000.00 1600.00 300.00 800.00 800.00 Curve Stopping Sight Distance (ft) Type Sag Sag Sag Sag Sag Existing +9999 2024 +9999 2843 +9999 +9999 +9999 2044 3997 1987 +9999 GB 1535 1283 +9999 +9999 +9999 3621 Required 825 821 821 818 818 815 804 812 816 836 836 GB 827 845 845 824 815 805 Speed (mph) Existing +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 GB +100 96 +100 +100 +100 +100 Posted 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
2200.00 Crest 1200.00 Crest
3000.00 Crest 800.00 Crest 2200.00 Crest 800.00 GB 1200.00 900.00 800.00 1000.00 Sag GB Sag Sag Sag Sag
3200.00 Crest
800.00 Crest
Meaning Of Symbols: GB = Grade Break - Stopping Sight Distance and Speed not calculated Note: Input grade with direction of traffic for one-way traffic
Page 15
Attachment 1 - Vertical Curve Inventory

Project Name: DENNISON - COUNTY LINE (WB MAINLINE VERTICAL CURVES) 40 CN 239 H6570 01C Project No: Roadway Type: Divided Roadway (Uni-directional)
VPI Station (ft) 2812+00.00 2760+00.00 2729+00.00 2703+00.00 2682+00.00 2653+00.00 2600+00.00 2582+00.00 2552+00.00 2529+00.00 2511+00.00 2462+00.00 2418+00.00 2375+00.00 2315+00.00 2299+00.00 2274+50.00 246.99 246.72 Milepost Begin End Grade (%) Approach -1.9560 0.2597 -0.3125 0.1600 -0.2351 1.7620 -0.0506 -1.2806 -1.1300 -0.9013 -1.0556 -0.7272 2.5260 -1.7571 -0.6230 -0.0387 0.9500 Departure 0.2597 -0.3125 0.1600 -0.2351 1.7620 -0.0506 -1.2806 -1.1300 -0.9013 -1.0556 -0.7272 2.5260 -1.7571 -0.6230 -0.0387 0.9500 0.6007 Curve Length (ft) 800.00 800.00 1800.00 Curve Stopping Sight Distance (ft) Type Sag Sag Sag Existing 2333 2286 +9999 3131 8083 1890 1477 +9999 +9999 7393 +9999 999 * 840 +9999 +9999 +9999 3489 Required 847 820 820 818 818 815 835 835 833 832 832 826 843 843 825 815 806 Speed (mph) Existing +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 84 75 +100 +100 +100 +100 Posted 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
800.00 Crest 800.00 Crest 3000.00 Crest 1200.00 Crest 800.00 800.00 800.00 800.00 800.00 800.00 1000.00 Sag Sag Sag Sag Sag Sag Sag
800.00 Crest
1400.00 Crest
800.00 Crest
Meaning Of Symbols: * = Existing Stopping Sight Distance less than AASHTO required value Note: Input grade with direction of traffic for one-way traffic
Page 16
Attachment 2 - Horizontal Curve Inventory

Project Name: DENNISON - COUNTY LINE (EB MAINLINE HORIZONTAL CURVES) 40 CN 239 H6570 01 C Project No:
HPI Station (ft) 2406+46.85 2512+07.13 Milepost Begin End Superelevation (ft/ft) Existing AASHTO Min *0.015 0.015 0.015 0.065 0.015 0.015 RDG Max 0.08 0.08 0.08 Degree Of Curve Existing 1-45'-00" 0-10'-00" 0-20'-00" 2-36' 2-36' 2-36' Speed (mph) 73 >100 >100 75 75 75 HSO (ft) NA NA NA Grade Horizontal SSD (ft) (%) Existing Required AASHTO Max Method 2 Posted
2312+09.72 239.96 241.38
Meaning Of Symbols: * Requires a design exception Note: AASHTO Minimum superelevation derived from Method 5 to meet posted speed. Roadway Engineering Design Guidelines (RDG) Maximum is based on elevation (See RDG Table 202.1A). Input grade with respect to traffic for inside lane of curve; if both - & + grades within the curve, choose the negative grade; if all negative grades, choose the largest negative grade; if all positive grades, choose the smallest positive grade. (See Help file under Help Topics/Approach Grade) HSO = Horizontal Sightline Offset
Page 17
Attachment 2 - Horizontal Curve Inventory

Project Name: DENNISON - COUNTY LINE (WB MAINLINE HORIZONTAL CURVES) 40 CN 239 H6570 01 C Project No:
HPI Station (ft) 2512+19.84 2406+42.87 241.38 239.96 2312+21.69 Milepost Begin End Superelevation (ft/ft) Existing AASHTO Min 0.015 *0.015 0.015 0.015 0.065 0.015 RDG Max 0.08 0.08 0.08 Degree Of Curve Existing 0-20'-30" 1-45'-00" 0-10'-02" 2-36' 2-36' 2-36' Speed (mph) >100 73 >100 75 75 75 HSO (ft) NA NA NA Grade Horizontal SSD (ft) (%) Existing Required AASHTO Max Method 2 Posted
Meaning Of Symbols: * Requires a design exception Note: AASHTO Minimum superelevation derived from Method 5 to meet posted speed. Roadway Engineering Design Guidelines (RDG) Maximum is based on elevation (See RDG Table 202.1A). Input grade with respect to traffic for inside lane of curve; if both - & + grades within the curve, choose the negative grade; if all negative grades, choose the largest negative grade; if all positive grades, choose the smallest positive grade. (See Help file under Help Topics/Approach Grade) HSO = Horizontal Sightline Offset
Page 18
ROADWAY ENGINEERING GROUP ROADWAY PREDESIGN SECTION

DATE:
TO:
2/21/2005 Not Assigned Flagstaff - Holbrook Highway TRACS NO:
PAGE 1 OF 1
SUNIL ATHALYE BRIDGE GROUP BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SECTION, MD 635E
FEDERAL REFERENCE NO: HIGHWAY: LOCATION: MP LIMITS:
040 CN 239 H6570 01C
Dennison - County Line

239.30
TO:
250.10
FROM:
Aztec Engineering
4561 E. McDowell Rd Phoenix, AZ 85008
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Pavement Preservation and Safety
SUBJECT:
BRIDGE EVALUATION REQUEST
Please evaluate the following structures per AASHTO guidelines:

STR. NO. AND ROUTE NO. MILEPOST NAME BRIDGE LENGTH BRIDGE ROADWAY WIDTH TYPE BRIDGE RAIL / BARRIER GEOM. OK STRUC OK THICKNESS (EXISTING) AC OVERLAY REMOVE (MINIMUM) REPLACE/NEW (MAXIMUM) VERTICAL CLEARANCE (MINIMUM) NB/EB SB/WB BRIDGE LOAD RATING BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATING
I-40
239.60
#1391
Meteor City TI OP EB
102'-0"
Comments:
38.2'
H-2-1
Yes
Yes
None
N/A
N/A
15.50'
15.60'
HS20+
XX
I-40
239.60
#1392
Meteor City TI OP WB
102'-0"
Comments:
37.8'
H-2-1
Yes
Yes
None
N/A
N/A
15.70'
15.70'
HS20+
XX
I-40
245.39
#1317
Leupp TI UP SR 99
238'-0"
Comments:
30'
H-2-1
No
Yes
None
N/A
N/A
17.0'
17.0'
HS20+
XX
I-40
248.99
#336
Tucker Flat Br.
80'-0"
Comments:
EB I-40 248.99 #1318

Tucker Flat Br.
Thrie Bm Yes Yes 2" If Needed If Removed N/A N/A HS11.11 Retrofit This bridge is currently carrying normal traffic loads w/o significant distress, though it has been rated below HS20. The bridge rail has about 30'0" collision damage. 38' Single Rail w/ parapet Yes No 1" If Needed If Removed N/A N/A
HS20+
39.6'
XX
81'-0"
Comments:
XX
EB
Evaluation Completed by:
Mohammed Baki, P.E.
Date:
3/1/2005
Page 19

AASHTO Guide 03 07 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AASHTO Guide 03 07 2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AASHTO Guide 03 07 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GUIDE FOR REVIEW OF THE AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA ON EXISTING ADOT ROADWAYS

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ROADWAY ENGINEERING GROUP NOVEMBER 2009

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA MAINLINE SUMMARY (UNDIVIDED)

THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT IS:

TERRAIN IS: LEVEL

AVERAGE ELEVATION IS:

MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE 3o 52' 3 52'

EXISTING HSO (FT) NA NA

HORIZONTAL SSD EXISTING (FT) REQUIRED (FT)

SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA MAINLINE SUMMARY (UNDIVIDED) (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA MAINLINE SUMMARY (UNDIVIDED)

THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT IS:

TERRAIN IS: LEVEL

AVERAGE ELEVATION IS:

REMARKS: * DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED

SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA MAINLINE SUMMARY (UNDIVIDED) (CONTINUED)

NOTE: DO NOT LIST BOX CULVERTS WHICH ARE NOT AT GRADE.

SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA MAINLINE SUMMARY (UNDIVIDED)

THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT IS:

TERRAIN IS: LEVEL

AVERAGE ELEVATION IS:

REMARKS: * DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED

SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA MAINLINE SUMMARY (UNDIVIDED) (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA MAINLINE SUMMARY (UNDIVIDED)

THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT IS:

TERRAIN IS: LEVEL

AVERAGE ELEVATION IS:

SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA MAINLINE SUMMARY (UNDIVIDED) (CONTINUED)

NOTE: DO NOT LIST BOX CULVERTS WHICH ARE NOT AT GRADE.

SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA MAINLINE SUMMARY (DIVIDED)

THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT IS:

TERRAIN IS: LEVEL

AVERAGE ELEVATION IS:

SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA MAINLINE SUMMARY (DIVIDED) (CONTINUED)

NOTE: DO NOT LIST BOX CULVERTS WHICH ARE NOT AT GRADE.

SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA CROSSROAD

THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT IS:

TERRAIN IS: LEVEL

AVERAGE ELEVATION IS:

VERTICAL ALIGNMENT AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE:

LENGTH OF CURVE (FT) 400

STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE EXISTING (FT) 632 REQUIRED (FT) 434

EXISTING SPEED (MPH) 63

POSTED SPEED (MPH) 50

REMARKS: * DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED

SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA CROSSROAD (CONTINUED)

NOTE: DO NOT LIST BOX CULVERTS WHICH ARE NOT AT GRADE.

SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA RAMP 157A

THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT IS: UNKNOWN, USE 50 MPH

TERRAIN IS: LEVEL

AVERAGE ELEVATION IS:

SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA RAMP 157A (CONTINUED)

EXISTING MAXIMUM ASCENDING 3%

EXISTING MAXIMUM DESCENDING -3%

AASHTO MAXIMUM ASCENDING 8%

AASHTO MAXIMUM DESCENDING 8%

SUMMARY OF AASHTO CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA RAMP 157F

THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT IS: UNKNOWN, USE 25 MPH