Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Chapter 4
Inventory of Existing Conditions The consultant team was tasked with inventorying existing roadway, sign and guardrail conditions for County-maintained roadways in Teller County. The task began with a “windshield survey” of roadways and connecting accesses from public roads (US24, SH67, municipal and adjacent County roads), private roads, and driveways. Data collection generally was done during the time period of September 6, 2000 to October 13, 2000. Field checks were conducted in the early part of 2001. The roadway inventory was used to evaluate the need for future improvements and upgrades relative to future population and job growth, impacts of existing and planned land use and expected travel patterns and volumes. The inventory database also was imported into a Geographical Information System database (ARCView GIS) to graphically represent the existing roadway, sign and guard rail locations and conditions. Methodology With input from the County staff, the consultant team identified what roadway features would be inventoried and evaluated to assist the County in developing short-term and long-term facility improvements. These features included the following:
Road type (paved, chip/seal, dust-suppressed, or gravel) Road condition (surface and geometrics) Sign type Sign condition Guard rail placement and type Guard rail condition
To inventory these features, the consultant team traveled and observed all County-maintained roads by vehicle. While all local roads were included in the inventory, emphasis was given to collector and higher classification roadways. A Garmin Etrex GPS (Global Positioning System) navigator was used to establish the position of roadway features throughout the County. Using radio signals transmitted by operational satellites orbiting the earth, GPS navigators can determine north latitude (lat) and west longitude (long) coordinates. Using these lat/long coordinates, collected data were correlated to numerically sequenced waypoints. For the majority of lat/long readings collected for the roadway inventory, accuracy was within 20 to 30 feet. Canyons and forested areas can affect the accuracy of the GPS readings and, where this occurred, coordinates were re-checked and manually adjusted, resulting in nearly 100% accuracy on lat/long coordinates.
Page 1 of 13
Using a Kodak DC290 digital camera with 3.3 mega-pixel resolution, photos were taken of significant changes in roadway type and condition (surface and geometrics), and selected signs and guardrail (Figure 2, Figure 3). Having the photo log in digital format allows for linking the photos to the GIS database. This provides for a centralized and digitized source of data regarding the County’s roadways, with narrative as well as graphic information about its roadway features. Approximately 445 photos were
taken. Where photos were taken of roadway signs, the direction of the traffic for which the sign is intended, is the direction indicated in the database. For example, a photo of a sign may be directed toward the southeast, but the sign is intended for traffic, thus south (or S) is indicated in the database. In cases where thedirection of the photo is indicated.
Page 2 of 13
Figure 1
southboundphoto does not include a sign, the
Figure 2
Data were entered manually on a data collection form developed for the project (See Figure 3). The data were then entered into an Excel database (“Road-Sign-GR Inventory”) with the following fields: ID: Record ID number Date: Date on which data were collected Subdivision or Area: Subdivision or general area from which data were collected Route: Primary roadway for which data were collected and evaluated Cross Street: Roadway that intersects with route Waypoint: Global Position System reference point for longitude and latitude N Lat: North latitude reading W Long: West longitude reading Photo: Photo number for sign, roadway, etc. Photo Yes/No: Marks a record that contains a photo regarding roadway features and allows for sorting and separation of data Photo Direction: Indicates direction of traffic for which sign is intended or (if no sign) direction in which photo was taken. Road Type: 1 - gravel; 2 – gravel with dust suppressant; 3 - chip/seal; 4 - paved Surface condition: 3 - Good; 2 -Appropriate; 1 - Poor -- based on potholes, cracking, depressions, smoothness, edge erosion Geometric Condition: 3 - Good; 2 - Appropriate; 1 - Poor -- based on relative width, curvature, and grade Road Yes/No: Marks a record that contains a waypoint regarding road data and allows for sorting and separation of data Sign Type: Refers to Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) sign codes Sign Condition: 3 - MUTCD; 2 - MUTCD needs replacement; 1 - non-MUTCD Sign Description: General category of sign type; "n/d" denotes a sign that is not displayed on a map for purposes of simplifying the graphic presentation (some of these include cattle/deer signs, County route markers, grader signs, directional signs, no hunting/fishing, etc.; "special" refers to signs regarding County maintenance, truck weight limits, emergency snow route, etc. Sign Yes/No: Marks a record that contains a waypoint regarding sign data and allows for sorting and separation of data Guard Rail Type: Standard metal, jersey barrier, or post & cable Guard Rail Condition: 3 - Good; 2 - Fair; 1 - Poor - based on age, damage and appropriate condition Guard Rail Placement: 1 - placed over dam or bridge; 2 - <50ft; 3 - >50ft. Guard Rail Yes/No: Marks a record that contains a waypoint regarding guard rail data and allows for sorting and separation of data Remarks: Refers to additional information regarding the data collected at that waypoint The above legend is included as part of the database as well. In observing roadway features, lateral, height and horizontal measurements for features such as road width, passing zones, sight distance, sign size and sign post placement were made occasionally. Once these measurements were confirmed for compliance (e.g., MUTCD) and/or industry standards, roadway features were subjectively evaluated for such attributes as appropriate placement, size, and distance. MUTCD compliance for signs in rural areas was evaluated based on the following:
Design (size, color, shape) Placement (minimum 5’ height from bottom of sign to near edge of road surface and 6’ laterally
from the shoulder) Operation (placed to allow reasonable driver response time)
Page 3 of 13
Maintenance (cleanliness, legibility, retro-reflectivity) Uniformity (recognition and understanding)
Figure 3
Page 4 of 13
See Figure 4 for selected data. Results Generally, GPS readings were accurate to within 20 to 30 feet. On a few occasions, the GPS reading was off by 200-300 feet. These readings were manually adjusted before entering them into the Excel database. The correlation between waypoints and roadway alignments was excellent. For an urbanizing rural mountain County, road surface conditions and geometrics were as expected. That is to say, local (and some collector) roads were generally narrow and “wash-boarded” in sections. These same roads often had significant horizontal and vertical curves requiring slow vehicle speeds to maintain safe travel. However, these conditions would be expected in a mountain community. Additionally, surface and geometric conditions were ranked within each road type. For example, the condition of paved roads was compared with the condition of other paved roads, and likewise with gravel and chip/seal roads. The extreme ranking of “poor” was used to prioritize roads needing significant upgrades to correct poor surface conditions or traffic control devices to accommodate poor geometrics. The opposite extreme ranking of “good” was used to identify roadways that require little or no capital investment in the next 10-20 years. Finally, while a roadway may be ranked as having poor geometrics, the ranking does not necessarily indicate the need for major upgrades (e.g., superelevation) but rather continued maintenance of traffic control devices such as warning signs, reflectors, and appropriate speed limits. For road surface condition, all other roads were deemed in “appropriate” condition, indicating that the road surface condition was adequate and as expected for an urbanizing mountain community. Additionally, “appropriate” indicates roadways (particularly chip/seal roadways) that could benefit from some capital investment in the form of preventive maintenance to preclude the conditions now found on chip/seal roads ranked as “poor” for surface condition. For road geometric conditions, all other roads were deemed in “appropriate” condition. For example, several residential subdivisions have poor geometrics (sharp hairpins and steep grades) but these geometric conditions reflect the varying conditions expected for the local, mountainous, and residential nature of the road.
Page 5 of 13
Figure 4
Page 6 of 13
Findings Roadways and related features in Teller County were observed to be in generally good condition as compared with other rural but rapidly urbanizing mountain communities, such as Douglas, Jefferson, Clear Creek and Gilpin counties. The Excel database (“Road-Sign-GR Inventory”) details roadway, sign and guardrail conditions. And, the final plan of policies and actions includes recommended facility improvements based on these observed conditions. The following summarizes selected conditions that were observed. Number of signs: 1,174 (See Figure 5)
Types of signs: 238 speed; 192 stop; 78 yield; 48 school bus; 43 County route markers; 25 directional; 72 informational (scenic by-way, etc.); 1 emergency snow route; 441warning; 36 miscellaneous regulatory (no trucks, no hunting, etc.)
Number of signs in good condition: 794 (68%); number of signs that are MUTCD compliant, but need replacement: 341 (29% -- 10 of the MUTCD-compliant signs needing replacement actually only need to be re-posted as detailed in data base); number of signs that are not MUTCD-compliant and should be replaced immediately: 30 (3%)
Number of miles of County-maintained roadway, 546: gravel, approx. 486; paved, approx. 10; chip/seal, approx. 51; (See Figure 6)
Number of miles with good surface conditions: approx. 12 Number of miles with poor surface conditions: approx. 19 Road sections with poor surface conditions: County Road 42/Lower Twin Rock County Road 1 between US24 and south of Lower Twin Rock County Road 5 between CR51 and northern terminus County Road 25/Trout Creek Road, chip/seal section County Road 22/Rampart Range Road
Table 1: Percent of Roadway Miles with Appropriate, Good and Poor Surface Conditions
MILES % of Total APP. 515 94% GOOD 12 2% POOR 19 4% TOTAL 546 100%
Number of miles with good geometric conditions: approx. 16 (See Figure 7) Number of miles with poor geometric conditions: approx. 64 Road sections with poor geometrics: County Road 88/Shelf Road County Road 86/Phantom Canyon Road County Road 1 between CR11 and Cripple Creek County Road 42/Lower Twin Rock County Road 3 between Gold Dust Circle and CR 33 County Road 25/Trout Creek Road, chip/seal section County Road 25/Tranquil Acres Rd, approx. between ¾ of a mile north of intersection
with Pine Bluff Rd. on the south and Blossom Rd. on the north County Road 78/Painted Rocks Road between CR782 and Douglas County Line County Road 8/Gold Camp Road County Road 51/Cedar Mountain Road between Yucca Creek Road and CR 3
Page 7 of 13
Page 8 of 13
Figure 5 Sign Inventory
(̂$Z(̂%U$Z$Z$Z$Z(̂
(̂ (̂
(̂(̂$T
$T%U
$T(̂%U
(̂
$Z$T;$T;$T$Z%U$T
(̂$T
%U
(̂ (̂%U(̂
$T
(̂
(̂ (̂(̂
(̂
(̂%U
$Z(̂%U
$T$T$T$T$T%U%U
%U$T$T$T$T%U%U$T$T;$T$T$T$T
$T$T$T$T;$T$T; $T$T$T;
$T$T;$T $T$T%U$T;$T$T$T$T%U$T$T$T$T%U$T%U$T
%U$T$T
%U$T$T
$T%U%U$T%U
$T
$T%U%U(̂
$Z
%U%U$T$T$T$T
$T%U
%U$T $T$T$T$T%U
%U$T$T$T$T
;$T(̂$T$T$T%U$T%U
;$T
(̂
$T%U$T$T$T$T
$T%U
%U$T$T$T%U$T
%U;$T$T
$T%U$T%U$T$T
$T$T$T
;$T%U
(̂$T %U
%U$T$T %U %U$T %U$T$T$T$T$T %U
%U $Z$Z$Z%U$T$T
(̂$T%U
(̂(̂
%U$T$T%U
$Z (̂$T (̂%U;(̂
(̂
%U%U$T$T$T
%U$T$T$T;;$T$T $T;
(̂ $T$T$T$T%U$T
$T$T$T%U$T$T;$T%U $T$T$T $T$T $T $T(̂;%U $T $T$T $T%U$T %U
(̂
$T%U$T$T
;
$T%U$T
$T
%U
(̂(̂$T$T%U$T%U%U$T
;$T$T$T$T%U%U$T$T%U$T$T%U
$T$T$T$T$T$T$T%U
$T
%U(̂%U
(̂
$T
%U$T$T$T;$T%U$T; %U$T$T
(̂%U %U$T;%U
$T;$T$T$T$T
%U%U
$T$T$T%U(̂
$T
%U(̂%U(̂
$Z(̂%U%U$T(̂(̂
$T$T
$Z(̂
$Z$T(̂
$T$T$T$Z%U$T$T(̂%U$T
(̂
(̂$T
%U(̂%U(̂
$Z
$T%U%U(̂%U
$Z%U
(̂%U%U%U(̂%U %U$T(̂$T$Z;%U$T$Z$Z
%U(̂$T%U%U%U(̂$T%U%U%U$T
%U$T$T%U%U$T (̂%U%U $Z$T$Z$T%U(̂
$T(̂ (̂
;$T$T$T$T
%U$T$T$T%U$T
%U(̂%U
$T
%U$Z
%U(̂
%U(̂ (̂$T
$T$T%U%U$T$T
%U
%U
(̂
%U%U
%U
%U%U%U$T$T
%U
$T%U$T(̂$T
$T%U$T%U;$T$T
(̂(̂(̂
(̂(̂
(̂$T%U(̂$T(̂$T
(̂%U
%U$Z;$Z$T;(̂
$Z$Z
$T$T$T (̂%U$T%U;%U %U
$T (̂(̂%U
$T
$T$T$T
;%U$T$T
$T$T%U$T(̂%U
$T %U
;(̂ $T$T
$Z
$T
$T
$T
(̂
%U$Z
(̂%U%U
%U(̂
$T
$T
%U$Z
%U%U
$T$T
$T$T
(̂$T
(̂(̂
$T%U
$T(̂$T (̂(̂%U
$T%U
(̂(̂$T(̂$T
%U(̂$T$Z
(̂%U
%U$T
$T
(̂%U
(̂%U(̂%U(̂%U
$T %U(̂$T
%U$Z
%U
$T
%U
$Z(̂
(̂(̂(̂(̂%U(̂(̂(̂%U%U
$Z(̂
$Z%U $T$T(̂ $T$T(̂
$T$T(̂
(̂%U
(̂ %U$Z$T %U%U$Z
(̂(̂%U
(̂%U
$Z%U
(̂
$T$T$T%U%U$T
%U$T$T%U
$T$T
$T
$T$T%U%U$T$T$T$Z$Z
(̂$T
(̂$T;$T
%U$Z%U(̂$Z$T
(̂%U
%U
;
$Z%U
(̂
%U(̂(̂ (̂%U(̂(̂%U
$T
%U$T%U
(̂(̂
(̂
;$T%U(̂ %U$Z;$T$T;%U%U$T;$T(̂
$T
$Z$T(̂
$Z$T
$T %U$T (̂%U(̂$T%U%U%U$Z(̂
%U%U (̂(̂
$Z$T;$T(̂%U(̂$T(̂$T$T
%U%U
$Z$T
(̂ $Z$Z;%U(̂ (̂%U$Z%U %U%U
%U(̂ $T$Z
(̂%U$T%U; (̂%U%U(̂ (̂(̂%U(̂%U(̂
(̂$T(̂$T$T
(̂(̂(̂%U
(̂
;%U;$T
$T
%U ;%U$Z
%U(̂ (̂$T
%U%U
%U $T%U(̂ $T$T(̂(̂
$T
%U
$T %U%U$T $T$T$T$T%U
$Z(̂$T
%U$T(̂
(̂%U$T$Z (̂$Z$Z (̂
$Z
(̂(̂(̂(̂
$Z$T
%U$T$T$T%U%U
$T$T%U%U$T$T ;;$T%U$T %U %U;$T
%U
$Z$Z
$T$T$T
(̂$T$T$T$T$T$T
$Z(̂$Z(̂
$Z%U$T$T%U $T(̂
%U
(̂
(̂$T$Z%U$T$T$T(̂$T(̂$T(̂%U;$T$T$T$T
$T$Z$T$T$T$Z%U%U
%U$Z(̂%U
%U$Z(̂(̂(̂
$T$T
$Z$Z$Z %U$T$Z(̂%U$T$T$T%U$T$Z(̂%U$T
COUNTY RO
AD 1C
OU
NTY R
D 11
COUNTY ROAD 51
COUNTY RD 112
CO
UNTY R
D 1
COUNTY R
OAD 11
COUNTY RD 81
WIL
DHORN
RD
COUNTY R
D 3
TRAI
L CR
EEK
RD
S.H. 24S.
H. 6
7
HIGHW
AY 67
S HW
Y 67
TELL
ER CNTY
RD 88
NWoodland Park
2 0 2 Miles
Scale in Miles
Base Mapping data by Teller County
County Boundary
Streets
City Limits
Teller CountySign Inventory
Cripple Creek
Date: 05/11/01
; school %U special
%U speed (̂ stop$T warning $Z yield
Signs
(̂
Figure 6 Surface Type and Condition
COUN
TY R
D 11
COUNTY RD 1
COUNTY RD 42
COUNTY ROAD 1
COUNTY RD 112
COUNTY RD 81
COUNT Y R D 1 1
COUN
TY R
OAD
3
COUNT
Y ROAD
81RIDGE DR
COUNTY RD 51
COUNTY RD 21
VALLEY VIEW DR
US HWY 24
STATE HWY 67
STATE HWY 67
Teller County
0 3 6 9
MilesTranSystems Corp., 5/01
Map LayersStreets/RoadsState/US HighwaysCounty
Surface Type & ConditionAsphaltChip SealGravelPoor Condition
TROUT CREEK RD
COUN
T Y R
OAD
5COUNTY RD 25
COUNTY RD 22
COUNTY ROAD 42
COUNTY RO
AD 1
Page 9 of 13
Figure 7 Geometry Rating
1
OU
CO
UN
TY RD
1 1
COUNTY RD 31US HWY 24R
ER
NORTH RD
US HWY 24STATE HW
Y 67
STATE H
WY 67
Teller County
0 3 6 9
MilesTranSystems Corp., 5/01
Map LayersStreets/RoadsState/US HighwaysCounty
Geometry RatingGoodAppropriatePoor
CO
UN
TY R
D 8
CO
UN
TY RD
88
TELLER CNTY RD 88
COUNTY ROAD 5
COUN
TY R
D 8
CO
UN
TY RD
1
COUNTY ROAD 78
TRT CREEK RD
COUNTY ROAD 1
TRAIL CRE K RD
COUNTY ROAD 8
COUN
TY R
D 42
COUNTY RD 51
WIL
DH
OR
N R
D
COU
NTY RD 86
IDG D
E
Page 10 of 13
Table 2: Percent of Roadway Miles with Appropriate, Good and Poor Geometrics MILES % of Total APP. 466 85% GOOD 16 3% POOR 64 12% TOTAL 546 100%
Guard rail type and condition (selected): (See Figure 8)
Metal, in good condition: Sections along County Road 1 between CR11 and Cripple Creek (>50 feet in length) Sections along County Road 81 between Victor and CR 811/Bison Road (>50 feet in
length) Sections along County Road 11 south of CR112 (>50 feet in length) Canyon Rd. in Crystola Pines Subdiv. (<50 ft.)
Metal on one or both sides of a dam or bridge, in good condition Lakemoor West Subdivision (both) Palmer Village Subdivision (both) Westwood Lakes Subdivision (both) County Road 21/Crystola Road (both)
Post and cable on one or both sides of a dam or bridge Highland Lakes Subdivision (both) in good condition Forest Glen Sports Assoc. Subdivision (both) in poor condition
Jersey barrier, in good condition County Road 61/Four Mile Road (north side of road)
Table 3: Percent of Guardrail in Appropriate, Good and Poor Condition by Type Poor
Condition in Feet
Poor Condition as % of Total
Fair Condition in Feet
Fair Condition as % of Total
Good Condition in Feet
Good Condition as % of Total
Total Feet
Metal 30 0% 100 0% 30281 100% 30411 Wood or Stone 20 29% 50 71% 0 0% 70 P&C 400 89% 50 11% 0 0 450 Jersey Barrier 0 0% 0 0% 50 100% 50
Spots” (less than 1/8 mile in length) where surface and geometric problems were noted even for a residential subdivision (indicated as “poor” in data base):
Surface condition: Mica Road (Twin Rock Subdivision) Geometric condition: Mica Road, Agate Road (Twin Rock Subdivision) Circle Drive, Crestridge Road (Valley Hi Mountain Subdivision) Kendora Lane (Woodland Valley Subdivision)
Page 11 of 13
Trout Creek Drive, Spruce Creek Drive, Spring Creek Drive, Woody Creek Drive, Elk Creek Drive, Rabbit Creek Trail (Indian Creek Subdivision)
Dennis Drive, Kjelstrup Drive, Durelli Drive, Brooks Lane, Pine Drive, Blick Drive, Anderson Drive (Turkey Rock Ranch Subdivision)
Stonehenge Drive (Druid Hills Subdivision)
Page 12 of 13
Figure 8 Guard Rail Inventory
$T%U$T
$T$T
$T
%U$T
$T$T
%U
$T
$T
$T$T$T$T
$T
$T
$T$T
$T$T
COUN
TY ROAD 1
CO
UN
TY RD
1 1
COUNTY ROAD 51
COUNTY RD 112
CO
UN
TY RD
1
COUNTY ROAD 11
COUNTY RD 81
WIL
DHORN RD
COUNTY R
D 3
TRAI
L CR
EEK
RD
S.H. 24
S.H
. 67
NW oodland Park
2 0 2 Miles
Scale in Miles
Guardrail > 50'
Over Bridge or Dam$TOne Side Only < 50'%UCounty Boundary
Streets
City Limits
Teller CountyGuard Rail Inventory
Base Mapping data by Teller County
Date: 05/11/01
Cripple Creek
Page 13 of 13
