RGJ Square

Progress Report #1
CE 421W: Transportation Design | Dr. Eric Donnell | Dr. Kristin Kersavage

Joseph Deptula, John Iffert, Guanhao Xu, Rebeka Yocum

3-15-2019
 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. i
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................. ii
TEAM INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
PROJECT INTRODUCTION AND EXISTING CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................... 2
IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN CONTROLS AND CRITERIA .............................................................. 2
Functional Classification Assumption ........................................................................................ 2
Design Vehicle ............................................................................................................................ 2
Projected Design Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................. 2
Design Speed ............................................................................................................................... 3
Design Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 3
DESIGN DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................... 4
Alternative 1 ................................................................................................................................ 5
Alternative 2 ................................................................................................................................ 6
Alternative 3 ................................................................................................................................ 6
ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY AND RANKING .............................................................................. 6
CRASH PREDICTION EVALUATION ................................................................................................ 9
DESIGN CONSISTENCY EVALUATION ........................................................................................... 10
COST ESTIMATING ....................................................................................................................... 11
RECOMMENDATION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ................................................................... 11
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 12
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................. 12
Appendix A – Horizontal Alignments ...................................................................................... 12
Appendix B – Vertical Alignment ............................................................................................ 12
Appendix C – Typical Cross-Sections ...................................................................................... 12

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Projected Volume for Fox Hill Rd. at Bernel Rd. …………………...………..……….3
Figure 2. Projected Volume for Fox Hill Rd. at Minuteman Rd. ………………………….…….3
Figure 3. Study Area Including Alternative Alignments……………………….…………….…..4
Figure 4. Example of Quantifying the Land Types Impacted by Alternative 3……………..……8
 ii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Design Criteria for all Considered Alternatives………………………………..……….4
Table 2. Geographic and Geometric Data for Each Alternative……………………..…………...5
Table 3. Prioritization of Land Use Types and Features………………………..………………..7
Table 4. Land Area of Disturbance for Each Alternative…………………………..…………….8
Table 5. Predicted Crash Frequencies of Roadway…………………………………..…………..9
Table 6. Predicted Crash Frequencies of Intersections……………………………………..…...10
Table 7. Estimated 85th Percentile Speeds for Alignment Tangents and Curves…………..…...11
Table 8. Cost Estimation of Each Alignment…………………..………………………………..11
 1

TEAM INTRODUCTION
RGJ Square is made up of four team members, each member brings unique strengths to
this project. Rebeka Yocum is a first-year graduate student with a bachelor’s degree in physics
working towards a transportation engineering Ph.D. What Rebeka lacks in foundational
transportation engineering knowledge, she makes up for in writing, formatting, and presentation
skills. Guanhao Xu is a first-year graduate student with a bachelor’s and master’s degree in
transportation engineering working towards a transportation engineering Ph.D. Arguably the
team member with the most experience, Guanhao brings a broad understanding of concepts to
the table, as well as knowledge about the field. John Iffert is a fourth-year undergraduate student,
working towards his bachelor’s degree in civil engineering. Having had internships and previous
experience with large scale projects, John offers a strong operational understanding of the
software we are using in this project, and has a clear view of long-term goals, keeping the entire
team on track. Joseph Deptula is a fourth-year undergraduate student, working towards his
bachelor’s degree in civil engineering. With a large collection of relevant courses in his
wheelhouse and experience working in the field, Joseph brings a broad computational skillset to
the team, and offers clarity on computationally heavy problems. Each member of RGJ Square
has individualized strengths, knowledge bases, and perspectives, ensuring the teams production
of well-rounded, high-quality work.
 2

PROJECT INTRODUCTION AND EXISTING CHARACTERISTICS

The University Park Airport serves the greater Centre County area as a transportation
center for both people and goods. The airport is looking to expand its operations of both
passengers and cargo but would find a hard time in doing so if the transportation structure
surrounding the airport does not improve. The surrounding area of the airport also looks to
redevelop to include a sports complex and expand on the current residential areas. Currently two
expressways (I99 and US322) transverse near the airport and are connected to the city of State
College, but neither route has easy access to the airport. A passenger or truck carrying goods
must travel on a roundabout way to get to the airport, and accessibility becomes a problem.
Therefore, it is beneficial to search for a new route to reduce travel time and increase
accessibility to the area. A road is proposed to connect Innovation Park and the airport. An
existing intersection located at Innovation Park creates a logical starting point for the new
proposed road. The intersection has close proximity to the airport as well as access to the Mount
Nittany Expressway. This progress report is designed to evaluate three proposed alternative to
determine their effectiveness in resolving the access problem to the University Park Airport. The
report will choose one design to move forward with and further develop.

IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN CONTROLS AND CRITERIA

Functional Classification Assumption
The area in which the new road is to be built is surrounded by mostly farmland and
forested areas. Therefore, it is a safe assumption to say the road is in a rural environment. The
topography of the location of the road is neither flat nor too mountainous. Therefore, the road
will be classified as being in a rolling environment. The new road will be receiving traffic from
two rural major arterials, US 322 and I-99, at one end. The other end of the road connects with a
local rural road, either Fox Hill Road or Minute Man Drive. It is believed that the new road will
receive a fair amount of traffic from the two minor arterials leading to the airport. Therefore, the
new road will be classified as a rural, minor arterial.
Design Vehicle
According to the traffic data given in the project description, less than 5% of traffic
consists of heavy vehicles. The project team believes all heavy vehicles will use the new road to
either come from or get to one of the minor arterials. Therefore, the team predicts that the
percentage of heavy vehicles traveling on the new road will be greater than or equal to 5%. It is
also believed that the State College airport wishes to expand its operational capacity, resulting in
more cargo going through the airport. The cargo would likely need to be transported using semi-
trucks and trailers therefore, semi-trucks were selected as the design vehicle for the new road.
Projected Design Traffic Volumes
2038 Projected traffic volumes of Fox Hill Road at Bernel Road and Minuteman Road
are given in the project description and are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 respectively.
 3

Figure 1: Projected Volume for Fox Hill Rd. at Figure 2: Projected Volume for Fox Hill Rd. at
Bernel Rd. Minuteman Rd.
Given a starting point for the proposed alternatives at the Innovation Park Stub, the
proposed alternative will have a significant impact on the 2038 Projected Volumes. With an
improved route to the Airport, it is assumed that vehicles travelling from US-322 or I-99 to the
University Park Airport will no longer use Fox Hill Road. Therefore, the 2038 Projected
Volumes for the movements that represent traffic in-route-to or leaving-from the University Park
airport will be impacted by the diversion of traffic to the proposed alternative.
Following the assumption that a small percentage of travelers from Park Avenue and the
nearby Toftrees development will continue to utilize Fox Hill Road for local travel, we believe
85% of the traffic travelling WB and EB on Fox Hill Road will be diverted to the proposed
alternative. From the given 2038 Proposed volume, the proposed alternative is designed to
accommodate 314.5 vehicles per hour.
𝑣𝑒ℎ 𝑣𝑒ℎ
370 × 85% 𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 314.5
ℎ𝑟 ℎ𝑟
Design Speed
To determine the design speed for our three alternatives, we turned to the connecting
travel ways. US-322 and I-99 both have posted speed limits of 55 miles per hour. Because our
alternatives are a lower functional class than US-322 and I-99, it seemed appropriate to design
them at a lower speed. We chose a design speed of 45 miles per hour considering the speed
limits of connecting roads and considering the rolling terrain on which we intend to build.
Design Criteria
Each Alternative were designed in accordance to the following design criteria, which are
consistent with AASHTO Green Book Standards and are further explained in preceding and
 4

proceeding sections of this technical memorandum. Table 1 provides the design criteria on which
each Alternative is based off of.
Table 1. Design Criteria for all Considered Alternatives

Design Criterion Value Units

Minimum Radius of Horizontal
587.0 ft.
Curve
Minimum Vertical Grade ± 0.5 %
Maximum Vertical Grade ± 6.0 %
Number of Lanes 1 lane
Lane Width 12 ft.
Shoulder Width 6 ft.

DESIGN DESCRIPTION
Three Alternatives will be investigated in this report. The alternatives share a common
origin point yet tie into existing roadways at differing endpoints. Figure 3 presents the location
of each alternative in relation to the study area. Currently, traffic from any westward direction
must arrive at the University Park Airport from Fox Hill Road. The current route is inconvenient
for drivers coming from US-322 and I-99, as the Fox Hill Road route is not a direct path from
those two major arterials to the airport. Each proposed alternative seeks to mitigate the
inefficiencies of the existing route by offering a more direct path from the Innovation Park Stub
to either an entrance at Fox Hill Road or Minuteman Lane. and is accompanied by Table 2,
which provides further geographic and geometric information for each alignment.

Figure 3. Study Area Including Alternative Alignments

The geographic and geometric properties of each alternative are presented in Table 2.
Each Alternative is composed of two horizontal curves, both of which are designed for a vehicle
speed of 45 mph, allowing drivers to maintain an inefficient speed en route to the airport. Each
 5

alternative is designed to handle heavy vehicle traffic, which is especially important if the airport
increases capacity for cargo and therefore recieves more future truck and semi-tractor-trailer
traffic. While for the most part every alternative offers a more efficient route than what is
currently utilized, construction of any of the propsed alternatives will require earthwork, as the
area of study is characterized by regions of variable and steep terrain. Furthermore, coordination
with exisitng roadways (which will be required for every alternative) can add complications to
the exisitng transportation network. Therefore, careful consideration, design, and planning must
be implemented in order to assure safe and efficient transition from exisitng to new roadway
infrastructure. The following sections provide further design detials for each alternative.
Table 2. Geographic and Geometric Data for Each Alternative

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Stub @ Innovation Stub @ Innovation Stub @ Innovation
Starting Point
Park Park Park
Between the
Intersections of
Mid of Minuteman At the Elbow on
Ending Point Bernel Rd/Fox Hill
Lane Minuteman Lane
Rd & Minuteman
Ln/Fox Hill Rd
# of Curves 2 2 2
Radius Curve 1 587.649 ft. 587.649 ft. 587.649 ft.
Length Curve 1 137.672 ft. 236.438 ft. 249.718 ft.
Radius Curve 2 587.649 ft. 587.649 ft. 587.649 ft.
Length Curve 2 396.057 ft. 473.074 ft. 482.155 ft.

Alternative 1
Alternative 1 offers drivers a route from the Innovation Park Stub to the elbow at
Minuteman Lane, an existing road adjacent to the University Park Airport. A clean attachment to
the existing roadway can save money and utilize the existing infrastructure. However, tying into
existing roadway will require further coordination, especially if the typical cross sections do not
match up. This Alternative dramatically reduces travel time for vehicles coming from US-322 or
I-99. Two horizontal curves, shown in Appendix A, are properly designed to permit safe and
efficient traversing from one segment to the other, while maintaining the design speed.
As seen in Appendix B and Appendix C, the topography of the study area results in a
vertical alignment requiring substantial earthwork and cross sections with large sections of cut
and fill required.
Finally, the route will certainly disturb a residential dwelling place, which will require
extensive coordination, communication and financial compensation for the stakeholders
involved.
 6

Alternative 2
Alternative 2 offers drivers a route from the Innovation Park Stub to Fox Hill Road
between Bernel Road and Minuteman Lane. This alternative again reduces the distance required
to arrive at the airport from travelers utilizing westward routes such as US-322 and I-99. Two
horizontal curves, shown in Appendix A, are properly designed to permit safe and efficient
traversing from one segment to the other, while maintaining the design speed. Longer tangents
between the curves will require for careful planning of signage placement in order to warn
drivers to maintain safe speeds on the curves and approaching the intersection with Fox Hill
Road.
As seen in Appendix B and Appendix C, the topography of the study area results in a
vertical alignment requiring substantial earthwork and cross sections with large sections of cut
and fill required.
Finally, the route will certainly disturb two residential dwelling places, which will require
even more coordination, communication, and financial compensation for the stakeholders
involved.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 offers drivers a route very similar to Alternative 1: from the Innovation
Park Stub to the to a point perpendicular to Minuteman Lane. At the intersection with
Minuteman Lane, Alternative 3 reduces the number of conflict points between vehicles, however
adds marginal travel time for drivers. Finally, the route will certainly disturb a residential
dwelling place, which will require extensive coordination, communication and financial
compensation for the stakeholders involved. Two horizontal curves, shown in Appendix A, are
properly designed to permit safe and efficient traversing from one segment to the other, while
maintaining the design speed. In comparison to Alternative 1, the curves are slightly shorter, and
careful coordination and planning for signage will be required to make sure vehicles approach
the intersection with Minuteman Lane at a safe speed.
As seen in Appendix B and Appendix C, the topography of the study area results in a
vertical alignment requiring substantial earthwork and cross sections with large sections of cut
and fill required. In comparison to Alternative 1, Alternative 3 results in a more balanced net cut
and fill, requiring less trucks to transport dirt away from the site.
Finally, the route will certainly disturb a residential dwelling place, which will require
extensive coordination, communication and financial compensation for the stakeholders
involved.

ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY AND RANKING

From given CAD files, Centre County parcel data, FEMA Floodplain Designations,
National Wetlands Inventory, and Topographic and Satellite Imagery, various land use types and
features of import were identified in the area of disturbance for each alternative. Table 3.
Presents the various land use types and features identified in the area of study.
 7

Lands identified as vacant are the least important in the environmental inventory
assessment, where wetlands take the priority spot. A small riverine habitat flows through the
study area, where construction will have a heavy impact. Furthermore, residential property is
given high importance as residents will be very unhappy if their home and place were disturbed
by future construction. Due to the relatively low occurrence of agricultural land in the area of
study, agricultural land is given a low priority. Floodplain is assigned an intermediate level of
importance, as the only areas where the floodplain occurs in the area of study are in the beds of
the (which coincides with the wetland areas). Due to the proximity of the riverine wetland, it is
also important to preserve the nearby forested land, which will support the local habitats.
Table 3. Prioritization of Land Use Types and Features

Land Type Rank Weight

Wetlands 1 7

Residential Property 2 6

Forested Land 3 5

Floodplain 4 4

Agricultural Land 5 3

Trail Land 6 2

Vacant Land 7 1

Given the land use type prioritization, a weight was assigned to each land type. The
highest-ranking land type in importance is given the greatest weight, whereas the land type of
least importance is given the lowest weight. The Weighted Total Land Disturbance value is a
summation of the products of a land use type’s area disturbed and that land use type’s weight. A
weighted score therefore gives priority to land use types such as Wetlands and Residential
property when making a final decision based on the weighted total land disturbance value. After
quantifying the various areas of land disturbed by each Alternative (as shown in Figure 4), the
total area of each land type disturbed by an alternative was computed.
 8

Figure 4. Example of Quantifying the Land Types Impacted by Alternative 3

Table 4 presents the areas impacted by construction as well as the weighted land
disturbance values for each alternative. Furthermore, features impacted by construction and
operation, such as residential buildings, stream crossings, and historic structures (of which none
were identified through the National Registry of Historic Places) are listed.
Table 4. Land Area of Disturbance for Each Alternative

Total Area of Land Disturbed (Acres)

Land Use Type Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Residential Property 1.03 5.47 0.91
Agricultural Land 0.00 13.68 0.00
Floodplain 0.51 1.06 0.99
Wetlands† 0.51 1.06 0.99
Forested Land 34.25 41.17 32.07
Vacant Land 0.33 0.38 0.33
Trail Land 0.25 0.25 0.25
Weighted Total Land
183.88 292.29 177.55
Disturbance Value
Residential Buildings (Count) 1 4 1
Stream Crossings* (Count) 2 3 4
Historic Structures (Count) 0 0 0

† Wetland areas match with the floodplain areas through comparison of FEMA Floodplain
Maps and the National Wetlands Inventory.
* Stream crossings are defined by where the roadway corridor or earthwork footprint crosses
the stream.
 9

From the weighted land disturbance values and the count of prioritized features,
Alternatives 1 and 3 are the least impactful on the environment. While Alternative 3 has a lower
score than Alternative 1, the extra stream crossings required for Alternative 3 result in a narrower
margin between the impacts made by each Alternative. In conclusion, the environmental
inventory assessments results in a close preference between Alternatives 1 and 3, however
Alternative 2 is strongly not preferred from an environmental standpoint.

CRASH PREDICTION EVALUATION

Safety performance functions, derived from crash data from similar sites, are used to
predict crash frequencies. Crash modification factors increase or decrease predicted crashes
based upon the difference between base conditions and existing conditions. Since roadway
segments and intersections have distinctly different characteristics, we will predict crashes for
roadway segments and for intersections respectively.
Since we only have traffic volume data for the intersection Bernel Road & Fox Hill Road
and the intersection of Fox Hill Road & Minuteman Road, we cannot predict the crash
frequencies of the whole existing route between Innovation Park and the University Park airport.
Below, we compare the predicted crash frequency among the alternatives.
From Table 5, we can clearly find the roadway of alignment 1 has the smallest number of
predicted crash frequencies. The number of predicted crash frequencies on the roadway of
alignment 3 is very close to that of alignment 1. The roadway of alignment 2 has the largest
number of predicted crash frequencies, almost twice those of alignment 1 and 3.
Table 5. Predicted Crash Frequencies of Roadway

Alternatives Horizontal Elements Predicted Crashes per year

tangent 1 0.31
curve 1 0.03
Alignment 1 tangent 2 0.58
curve 2 0.10
tangent 3 0.13
total 1.16
tangent 1 0.30
curve 1 0.06
Alignment 2 tangent 2 1.01
curve 2 0.12
tangent 3 0.57
total 2.07
tangent 1 0.30
curve 1 0.06
Alignment 3 tangent 2 0.67
curve 2 0.12
tangent 3 0.14
total 1.29
 10

In Table 6, we can see that alignment 2 has the smallest total predicted intersection crash
frequency. The predicted intersection crash frequency for alignment 3 is close to alignment 2.
Alignment 1 has the largest number of total predicted intersection crash frequencies, almost 1.5
times those of Alignment 2 and 3.
Table 6. Predicted Intersection Crash Frequencies

Alternatives Intersection Predicted Crashes per year

Fox and Bernel 4.37
Alignment 1 Fox and Minuteman 3.32
Minuteman and our road 3.47
total 11.17
Fox and Bernel 4.37
Alignment 2 Fox and our road 3.28
Fox and Minuteman 0.25
total 7.89
Fox and Bernel 4.37
Alignment 3 Fox and Minuteman 3.32
Minuteman and our road 0.41
total 8.10
Fox and Bernel 5.96
Existing Route Fox and Minuteman 0.44
total 6.40

From Table 5 and Table 6, we can see that alignment 1 has 12.33 predicted crash
frequencies in total, alignment 2 has 9.96 and alignment 3 has 9.39. From the perspective of
safety, alignment 3 is recommended. It should be noted that the difference in crash frequency
across alignments is not terribly large and will be taken into consideration when deciding which
alignment to recommend for construction.

DESIGN CONSISTENCY EVALUATION

Consistency is an important part of any design. For all three alignments, we calculated
the estimated 85th percentile speed based on their design. For tangents, this estimation accounts
for the roadside hazard rating, design speed, and tangent length. For curves, this estimation
accounts for the curve radius. We used a roadside hazard rating, RHR = 3 for our estimations.
The quality of alignment design depends on how consistent the estimated 85th percentile speed is
as drivers transition from tangents to curves, and when compared to the design speed of 45 miles
per hour. A tabular summary of the design consistency calculations can be seen in Table 7.
 11

Table 7. Estimated 85th Percentile Speeds for Alignment Tangents and Curves

Alignment 1 Alignment 2 Alignment 3

Roadway V85 Speed Diff. V85 Speed Diff. V85 Speed Diff
Segment (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph)
Tangent 1 52.22 2.22 52.22 2.22 49.57 0.43
Curve 1 41.76 8.24 41.76 8.24 41.76 8.24
Tangent 2 52.22 2.22 52.22 2.22 49.57 0.43
Curve 2 41.76 8.24 41.76 8.24 41.76 8.24
Tangent 3 49.85 0.15 52.22 2.22 47.27 2.73

From Table 7, we can see that all three alignments are what the AASHTO Green Book
considers to be fair designs. The predicted speed for each alignment element differs between six
and twelve miles per hour from the design speed. For each element, the consecutive segment
speeds also vary between six and twelve miles per hour. All three alignments exhibit a fair
design, meaning they are equally preferred when considering design consistency.

COST ESTIMATING
Each alignment was subjected to the same per unit costs. The biggest factor in the total to
the cost estimation is the length of the roadway and the amount of earthwork to be done. Each of
the three alignments require more cut than fill, and therefore would require some dirt to be
wasted. A tabular representation of the costs of each alignment can be seen in Table 8.
Alignment 3 is the most balanced of the three alignments. Less than 1000 cubic yards of dirt
would need to be wasted. Alignment 1 is the cheapest and shortest alignment at 4,602 LF with an
estimated cost of $4,064,522.68.
Table 8. Cost Estimation of Each Alignment

Costs
Alignment
No. Asphalt Asphalt Aggregate
Earthwork Total
Wearing Base Subbase

1 $3,335,025.05 $285,503.61 $318,085.26 $125,908.75 $4,064,522.68

2 $4,186,789.38 $509,994.24 $568,194.74 $224,910.42 $5,489,888.77

3 $3,357,676.69 $316,911.92 $353,077.89 $139,760.00 $4,167,426.50

RECOMMENDATION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Following an analysis of our three alignments, we have decided to recommend alignment
1 for construction to connect Innovation Park to the State College Airport in State College,
 12

Pennsylvania. To come to this conclusion, we quantified the environmental impact, predicted

crash frequency, design consistency, and cost of each alternative. With all four aspects of each
alignment taken into consideration, alignment 1 emerged as the best option for construction.
While alignment 1 is not the best option when considering all aspects individually, overall it
seems to be the best choice to recommend for construction.

CONCLUSION
Our team, RGJ Square was tasked with designing an alignment to connect Innovation
Park to the State College Airport in State College, Pennsylvania. To begin, we designed three
separate alignments using the design controls explained earlier in this report. We then analyzed
each alignment, considering their unique environmental impacts, predicted crash frequencies,
design consistencies, and costs. Following these analyses, we were able to choose the best
alignment and recommend alignment 1 for construction to connect Innovation Park to the State
College airport in State College, Pennsylvania.

APPENDICES
Appendix A – Horizontal Alignments
See attached CAD print out.
Appendix B – Vertical Alignment
See attached CAD print out.
Appendix C – Typical Cross-Sections
See attached CAD print out.
13