California Department of Transportation Caltrans: Highway Design Manual: U S. Customary Units: Seventh Edition
Table Of Content
Additionally, State law and policies have amended the process for management and selection of State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) projects for Caltrans. Minor pavement rehabilitation (CAPM) projects are not intended to change existing geometric features. However, added assets and features as described in Section 4.0 may necessitate the documentation of nonstandard features. The delegated holder of design standard exception approvals must be consulted if the project proposes to create deviations from geometric design standards. Typically, these exceptions include items such as reduced shoulder width due to installation of standard dike, guardrail or bridge approach rail, and increased shoulder cross slope where it conforms to the existing curb and gutter.
Department Links
Field reviews should be scheduled to encompass as many different project locations as possible. Any project not reviewed by the HQ Pavement Program Advisor is at risk of being disputed if scoping issues are identified. Provides the framework of policies and procedures for developing State highway improvement projects. Minor projects do not require a PIR and become part of the District’s annual Minor Program. Guidance for preparation of the PIR is located on the Office of Project Planning website's Project Initiation Report (PIR) Guidance page.
Propose a Revision to the HDM
Provides uniform policies and procedures to carry out California highway design functions of Caltrans. Provides enhanced guidance for two-way separated bikeways, added guidance for transit stops, additional guidance for separated bikeways adjacent to street parking, and discussion of maintenance using Caltrans equipment. When a chapter is updated, the date on the header of the updated pages is changed and a vertical line added on the outside margin beside the changed text. Implementation of the current version of the HDM shall be applied to on-going projects in accordance with HDM Index 82.5, unless otherwise noted on the Manual Change Transmittal memo or by separate Design Memo.
Information/Data to Bring on the Field Review
This new design guidance is a strong statement on the part of the state transportation department that, when roads are designed and improved, consideration must be given to the safety and comfort of road users who are not in cars. A minor pavement rehabilitation (CAPM) individual slab replacement strategy with short service life and low initial cost should be compared to a major pavement rehabilitation (2R or 3R) strategy such as lane replacement, which typically has a 40-year design life. More severe distress conditions may require more robust repair strategies, such as to address localized failures. More extensive distress conditions that exceeds these severity thresholds may require a major pavement rehabilitation project (2R/3R). Pavement preservation strategies may be used on SHOPP projects in combination with more extensive minor (CAPM) or major pavement rehabilitation (2R or 3R) work, such as preserving the inside lanes of multi-lane routes or individual interchange ramps or connectors. However, stand-alone preservation projects on pavement in generally good condition are not funded by the SHOPP or addressed by this DIB.
Making our Roads Safer through a Safe System Approach FHWA - Federal Highway Administration
Making our Roads Safer through a Safe System Approach FHWA.
Posted: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 07:45:05 GMT [source]
In February 2020, the revised California Manual for Setting Speed Limits was released. The specific purpose of this manual is to set forth a uniform procedure for setting speed limits in California. On December 20, 2021 Caltrans announced its new policy for all new transportation projects it funds or oversees to include “complete street” features that provide safe and accessible options for people walking, biking and taking transit. This policy will expand the availability of sustainable transportation options to help meet the state’s climate, health and equity goals. This DIB is not a textbook or a substitute for engineering knowledge, experience or judgment. Many of the instructions given herein are subject to amendment as conditions and experience may warrant.
Minor Pavement Rehabilitation (CAPM) Scoping Team Field Review Checklist
Pavement preservation primarily consists of nonstructural preventive and corrective maintenance strategies funded under the HM-1 Highway Maintenance Program. The goal of pavement preservation is to maintain existing pavement in generally good condition before more expensive rehabilitation is required. Some pavement engineering strategies for both preservation and minor pavement rehabilitation (CAPM) are similar but are typically applied to segments with different distress extents.
The results of the cost analysis should be documented in the PIR (see PDPM Chapter 8). Constructing a minor pavement rehabilitation (CAPM) project while planning a major pavement rehabilitation (2R or 3R) project can be an acceptable pavement management approach if the engineering strategies are coordinated. An interim minor pavement rehabilitation (CAPM) strategy may be appropriate to address a project segment with extensive existing structural distress if follow up major pavement rehabilitation (2R or 3R) work is programmed as a long-lead project due to delivery issues. Minor pavement rehabilitation (CAPM) projects in advance or in lieu of major pavement rehabilitation (2R or 3R) will affect the predicted performance and optimal project timing, therefore the HQ Pavement Program Advisor must be consulted. This Design Information Bulletin (DIB) provides guidance on design procedures and standards for minor pavement rehabilitation Capital Preventive Maintenance (CAPM) projects, including how to scope cost effective operational improvements and upgrades to other roadway assets. Thus, this DIB incorporates the concepts of preventive maintenance and asset management.
Project Website
Minor pavement rehabilitation (CAPM) is a planned pavement management strategy to make cost-effective repairs on existing roadways in generally fair condition with considerable remaining service life (15 – 30 years). Minor pavement rehabilitation (CAPM) strategies are non-engineered pavement structure designs typically applied to moderately extensive existing structural distress that do not alter existing roadway geometric features. The goal of minor pavement rehabilitation (CAPM) is to extend pavement service life about 5 – 10 years, before costlier major pavement rehabilitation (2R or 3R) is required.
That can be cost effectively addressed using a combination of pavement strategies. Projects with extensive major pavement rehabilitation (2R or 3R) needs may also utilize some pavement preservation or minor pavement rehabilitation (CAPM) strategies but should follow the guidance in DIB 79. Consult the HQ Pavement Program Advisor and refer to the HDM and DIB 79 for more information. This DIB supplements the highway design guidance and standards provided in the California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual (HDM). Although design standards are not explicitly stated in this DIB, design standards that are used will be in the same manner as 3R projects (see DIB 79) and as described in Section 2.3 of this DIB.
The SHOPP project selection process is established by the district Project Nomination Team comprised of the district Asset Manager, the district SHOPP Advisors, functional unit representatives and the SHOPP Program Managers. Cost effectively extending pavement service life and improving smoothness are key elements of minor pavement rehabilitation (CAPM) projects. Minor pavement rehabilitation (CAPM) strategies should be readily constructible (refer to Section 3.0 of this DIB) to minimize disruptions to motorist, bicyclist, pedestrian, and transit operations.
Formal Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) according to the Life Cycle Cost Analysis Procedures Manual is not required for minor pavement rehabilitation (CAPM) projects. However, some cost analysis is required to support effective pavement management decisions, such as analyzing the cost effectiveness of minor (CAPM) versus major pavement rehabilitation (2R or 3R). A comparison of different pavement products or strategies should be done to support project scoping and life cycle planning during the preparation of the PIR.
Explore the policy documents listed below to better understand Caltrans guiding principles for making streets safer for people walking and rolling. Streetsblog California editor Melanie Curry has been thinking about transportation, and how to improve conditions for bicyclists, ever since commuting to school by bike long before bike lanes were a thing. She was Managing Editor at the East Bay Express, editor of Access Magazine for the University of California Transportation Center, and earned her Masters in City Planning from UC Berkeley. Provides guidance to design State highway pedestrian facilities in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Additionally, Caltrans offers a variety of programs intended to promote safe, well designed multi-modal facilities.
For more information, consult with the HQ Pavement Program Advisor and refer to HDM Topic 612 and the annual Highway Maintenance Program Work Plan memorandum. Scoping Team Field Reviews should include the HQ Pavement Program Advisor or the District Pavement Program Advisor. If the HQ and District Program Advisors, District Design Liaison, or DOD Project Delivery Coordinator (for non-delegated projects per the District Design Delegation Agreement) do not attend the field review, they must beconsulted before the project scope is finalized. Recommended district staff attendance and review resources are listed in Attachment A, Minor Pavement Rehabilitation (CAPM) Scoping Team Field Review Checklist.
The draft PIR is submitted to both the HQ and District Pavement Program Advisors for comments. Also, PIRs that have been approved for 2 years should be re-evaluated before delivery to validate the proposed pavement repair strategy. The re-evaluation should consider the latest automated pavement condition survey (APCS) data and include a new Scoping Team Field Review.
Comments
Post a Comment