CHAPTER 2
ROAD PLANNING AND RECONNAISSANCE
2.1 Route Planning
Planning with respect to road construction takes into
account present and future uses of the transportation system to assure
maximum service with a minimum of financial and environmental cost. The
main objective of this initial phase of road development is to establish
specific goals and prescriptions for road network development along with
the more general location needs. These goals must result from a coordinated
effort between the road engineer and the land manager, forester, geologist,
soil scientist, hydrologist, biologist and others who would have knowledge
or recommendations regarding alternatives or solutions to specific problems.
The pattern of the road network will govern the total area disturbed by
road construction.
The road pattern which will give the least density of
roads per unit area while maintaining minimum hauling distance is the
ideal to be sought. Keeping the density of roads to an economical minimum
has initial cost advantages and future advantages in road maintenance
costs and the acreage of land taken out of production.
Sediment control design criteria may be the same as,
or parallel to, other design criteria which will result in an efficient,
economical road system. Examples of overlap or parallel criteria are:
-
Relating road location and design to total forest resource, including
short and long term harvest patterns, reforestation, fire prevention,
fish and wildlife propagation, rural homestead development, and rangeland
management.
-
Relating road location and design to current and future timber harvesting
methods.
-
Preparing road plans and specifications to the level of detail appropriate
and necessary to convey to the road builder, whether timber purchaser
or independent contractor, the scope of the project, and thus allow
for proper preparation of construction plans and procedures, time
schedules, and cost estimates.
-
Writing instructions and completing companion design decisions so
as to minimize the opportunity for "changed conditions" during construction
with consequent costs in money and time.
-
Analyzing specific road elements for "up-front" cost versus annual
maintenance cost (for instance, culvert and embankment repair versus
bridge installation, ditch pavement or lining versus ditches in natural
soil, paved or lined culverts versus unlined culverts, sediment trapping
devices ("trash racks", catch basins, or sumps) versus culvert cleaning
costs, retaining walls or endhauling sidecast versus placing and maintaining
large embankments and fill slopes, roadway ballast or surfacing versus
maintenance of dirt surfaces, and balanced earthwork quantities versus
waste and borrow).
The route planning phase is the time to evaluate environmental
and economic tradeoffs and should set the stage for the remainder of the
road development process. Although inclusion of design criteria for sediment
control may increase initial capital outlay, it does not necessarily increase
total annual cost over the life of the road which might come from reductions
in annual maintenance, reconstruction, and repair costs (see Section 2.2).
If an objective analysis by qualified individuals indicates serious erosional
problems, then reduction of erosional impacts should be a primary concern.
In some areas, this may dictate the location of control points or may
in fact eliminate certain areas from consideration for road construction
as a result of unfavorable social or environmental costs associated with
developing the area for economic purposes.
2.1.1 Design Criteria
Design criteria consist of a detailed list of considerations
to be used in negotiating a set of road standards. These include resource
management objectives, environmental constraints, safety, physical environmental
factors (such as topography, climate, and soils), traffic requirements,
and traffic service levels. Objectives should be established for each
road and may be expressed in terms of the area and resources to be served,
environmental concerns to be addressed, amount and types of traffic to
be expected, life of the facility and functional classification. Additional
objectives may also be defined concerning specific needs or problems identified
in the planning stage.
-
Resource management objectives: Why is the road being built; what
is the purpose of the road (i.e., timber harvesting, access to grazing
lands, access to communities, etc.)?
-
Physical and environmental factors: What are the topographic, climatic,
soil and vegetation characteristics of the area?
-
Environmental constraints: Are there environmental constraints;
are there social-political constraints? Examples of the former include
erosiveness of soils, difficult geologic conditions, high rainfall
intensities. Examples of the latter include land ownership boundaries,
state of the local economy, and public opinion about a given project.
-
Traffic requirements: Average daily traffic (ADT) should be estimated
for different user groups. For example, a road can have mixed traffic--log
or cattle trucks and community traffic. An estimate of traffic requirements
in relation to use as well as changes over time should be evaluated.
-
Traffic service level: This defines the type of traffic that will
make use of the road network and its characteristics. Table 3 lists
descriptions of four different levels of traffic service for forest
roads. Each level describes the traffic characteristics which are
significant in the selection of design criteria and describe the operating
conditions for the road. Each level also reflects a number of factors,
such as speed,travel time,traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver,
safety, driver comfort, convenience, and operating cost. Traffic density
is a factor only if heavy non-logging traffic is expected. These factors,
in turn, affect: (1) number of lanes, (2) turnout spacing, (3) lane
widths, (4) type of driving surface, (5) sight distances, (6) design
speed, (7) clearance; (8) horizontal and vertical alignment, (9) curve
widening, (10) turn-arounds.
-
Vehicle characteristics: The resource management objectives, together
with traffic requirements and traffic service level criteria selected
above, will define the types of vehicles that are to use the proposed
road. Specific vehicle characteristics need to be defined since they
will determine the "design standards" to be adopted when proceeding
to the road design phase. The land manager has to distinguish between
the "design vehicle" and the "critical vehicle". The design vehicle
is a vehicle which ordinarily uses the road, such as dual axle flatbed
trucks in the case of ranching or farming operations, or dump trucks
in the case of a mining operation. The critical vehicle represents
a vehicle which is necessary for the contemplated operation (for instance,
a livestock truck in the case of transporting range livestock) but
uses the road infrequently. Here, the design should allow for the
critical vehicle to pass the road with assist vehicles, if necessary,
but without major delays or road reconstruction.
-
Safety: Traffic safety is an important requirement especially where
multiple user types will be utilizing the same road. Safety requirements
such as stopping distance, sight distance, and allowable design speed
can determine the selected road standards in combination with the
other design criteria.
-
Road uses: The users of the contemplated road should be defined by
categories. For example, timber harvest activities will include all
users related to the planned timber harvest, such as silviculturists,
foresters, engineers, surveyors, blasting crews, and construction
and maintenance crews, as well as the logging crews. Administrative
users may include watershed management specialists, wildlife or fisheries
biologists, or ecologists, as well as foresters. Agricultural users
would include stock herders and rangeland management specialists and
will have a different set of objectives than timber objectives. An
estimate of road use for each category is then made (e.g., numbers
of vehicles per day). For each category, the resource management objective
over several planning horizons should be indicated. For instance,
a road is to be built first for (1) the harvest of timber from a tract
of land, then (2) access for the local population for firewood cutting
or grazing, and finally (3) access for administration of watershed
rehabilitation activities. The planner should determine if the road
user characteristics will change over the life of the road.
-
Economics: The various road alternatives would undergo rigorous economic
evaluations.
As part of this process a"roads objectives documentation" plan should
be carried out. This process consists of putting the road management objectives
and design criteria in an organized form. An example of such a form is
given in Table 4.
Table 3. Traffic service levels definitions used to
identify design parameters (from U.S. Forest Service, Transportation
Eng. Handbook).
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
FLOW
|
Free flowing with adequate passing facilities.
|
Congested during heavy traffic such as during peak logging or recreation
activities.
|
Interrupted by limited passing facilities, or slowed by the road
condition.
|
Flow is slow or may be blocked by an activity. Two way traffic
is difficult and may require backing to pass.
|
VOLUMES
|
Uncontrolled; will accommodate the expected traffic volumes.
|
Occasionally controlled during heavy use periods.
|
Erratic; frequently controlled
as the capacity is reached.
|
Intermittent and usually controlled. Volume is limited to that
associated with the single purpose.
|
VEHICLE TYPES
|
Mixed; includes the critical vehicle and all vehicles normally
found on public roads.
|
Mixed; includes the critical vehicle and all vehicles normally
found on public roads.
|
Controlled mix; accommodates all vehicle types including the critical
vehicle. Some use may be controlled to minimize conflicts between
vehicle types.
|
Single use; not designed for mixed traffic. Some vehicles may not
be able to negotiate. Concurrent use between commercial and other
traffic is restricted.
|
CRITICAL
VEHICLE
|
Clearances are adequate to allow free travel. Overload permits
are required.
|
Traffic controls needed where clearances are marginal. Overload
permits are required.
|
Special provisions may be needed. Some vehicles will have difficulty
negotiating some segments.
|
Some vehicles may not be able to negotiate. Loads may have to be
offloaded and walked in.
|
SAFETY
|
Safety features are a part of the design.
|
High priority in design. Some protection is accomplished by traffic
management.
|
Most protection is provided by traffic management
|
The need for protection is minimized In by low speeds and strict
traffic controls.
|
TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT
|
Normally limited to regulatory, warning, and guide signs and permits.
|
Employed to reduce traffic volume and conflicts.
|
Traffic controls are frequently needed during periods of high use
by the dominant resource activity.
|
Used to discourage or prohibit traffic other than that associated
with the single purpose.
|
USER COSTS
|
Minimize; transportation efficiency is important.
|
Generally higher than "A" because of slower speeds and increased
delays.
|
Not important; efficiency of travel may be traded for lower construction
costs.
|
Not considered.
|
ALIGNMENT
|
Design speeds is the predominant factor within feasible topographic
limitations.
|
Influenced more strongly by topography than by speed and efficiency.
|
Generally dictated by topographic features and environmental factors.
Design speeds are generally low.
|
Dictated by topography, environmental factors, and the design and
critical vehicle limitations. Speed is not important.
|
ROAD
SURFACE
|
Stable and smooth with little or no dust, considering the normal
season of use.
|
Stable for the predominant traffic for the normal use season. Periodic
dust control for heavy use or environmental reasons. Smoothness
is commensurate with the design speed.
|
May not be stable under all traffic or weather conditions during
the normal use season.. Surface rutting, roughness, and dust may
be present, but controlled for environmental or investment protection.
|
Rough and irregular. Travel with low clearance vehicles is difficult.
Stable during dry conditions. Rutting and dusting controlled only
for soil and water protection.
|
2.1.2 Design Elements
A road design standard consists of such elements as the definitive lengths,
widths, and depths of individual segments (e.g., 4.3 meter traveled way,
0.6 meter shoulders, 3/4:1 cutslopes, 1 meter curve widening, 15 cm of
crushed aggregate surfacing). Figure 6 illustrates the road structural
terms that will be used throughout the rest of this handbook. Selection
of the appropriate road design standard is critical to the overall efficiency
of the road network to be installed, and certain elements will have a
more rigid standard than others depending on the location of the road
or road segment. The entire range of values for each standard must be
evaluated and selected according to their appropriateness for a given
segment. Then, the various design elements must undergo testing to ensure
that the final design meets the previously agreed upon management objectives.
For instance, on steeper grades vertical alignment has a greater effect
on travel speed than horizontal alignment. Therefore, surfacing and horizontal
alignment should not be improved to increase speed where the road gradient
is the controlling element.
Figure 6. Road structural terms.
Table 4. Example of a roads objective documentation
form (from U.S. Forest Servise, Transportation Eng. Handbook).
2.1.2.1 Number of Lanes and Lane Width
The majority of forest development road systems in the world are single-lane
roads with turnouts. It is anticipated that most roads to be constructed
or reconstructed will also be single-lane with turnouts because of the
continuing need for low volume, low speed roads and their desirability
from economic and environmental impact standpoints. In choosing whether
to build a single- or double-lane road, use the best available data on
expected traffic volumes, accident records, vehicle sizes, and season
and time-of-day of use. Historically, the United States Forest Service
has used traffic volumes of approximately 100 vehicles per day to trigger
an evaluation for increasing road width from one to two lanes. Considering
a day to consist of 10 daylight hours, traffic volumes greater than 250
vehicles per day ordinarily require a double-lane road for safe and efficient
operation. Intermediate traffic volumes (between 100 and 250 vehicles
per day) generally require decisions based on additional criteria to those
listed above: (1) social/political concerns, (2) relationships to public
road systems, (3) season of use, (4) availability of funding, and (5)
traffic management.
Many of the elements used in such an evaluation, although
subjective, can be estimated using traffic information or data generated
from existing roads in the area. For instance, if heavy public use of
the road is anticipated, a traffic count on a comparably situated existing
road will serve as a guide to the number of vehicles per hour of non-Jogging
traffic. Some elements can be evaluated in terms of relative
probabilities and consequences and can be identified as having a low,
moderate, or high probability of occurrence and having minor, moderate,
or severe consequences. The more criteria showing higher probabilities
and more severe consequences, the stronger the need for a double-lane
road.
2.1.2.2 Road width
The primary consideration for determining the basic width of the road
bed is the types of vehicles expected to be utilizing the road. Secondary
considerations are the general condition of the traveled way, design speed,
and the presence or absence of shoulders and ditches. Tables 5 and 6 list
recommended widths for single- and double-lane roads, respectively.
Table 5. Traveled way widths for single-lave roads.
Type and Size of Vehicle
|
Design Speed (Km/Hr)
|
30
|
40
|
50
|
|
Minimum Traveled Way Width (m)
|
Recreational, administrative and service vehicle, 2.0 to 2.4 m
wide
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
3.6
|
Commercial hauling and commercial passenger vehicles, including
buses 2.4 m wide or greater
|
|
|
|
1. Road with ditch, or without ditch where cross slope is 25% or
less
|
3.6
|
3.6
|
4.2
|
2. Roads without ditch where ground cross slope is greater than
25%. The steepness of roadway backslope should be considered to
provide adequate clearance.
|
3.6
|
3.6
|
4.2
|
The presence of a ditch permits a narrower traveled
way width since the ditch provides the necessary clearance on one side.
Except for additional widths required for curve widening, limit traveled
way widths in excess of 4.4 m (14 ft) to roads needed to accommodate off
-highway haul and other unusual design vehicles. Double-lane roads designed
for off-highway haul (all surface types) should conform to the following
standards:
Table 6. Lane widths for double-lane roads.
Size and Type of Vehicle
|
Type of Road
|
Type of Surface
|
Type Design Speed (Km/Hr)
|
15
|
30
|
45
|
60
|
80
|
Recreational, adm. and service:
|
|
|
Minimum Lane Width (m)
|
1. up to 2.0 m wide
|
Recreation or administrative
|
All surface types
|
2.7
|
2.7
|
3.0
|
3.3
|
3.0
|
2. 2.0 to 2.4 m wide
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
3.3
|
3.3
|
3.3
|
Commercial hauling and comm. passenger native vehicles incl. buses
2.4 m wide or greater
|
Roads open to truck traffic or mixed traffic
|
Gravel or native
|
-
|
3.3
|
3.6
|
3.6
|
-
|
Bituminous
|
-
|
3.3
|
3.3
|
3.3
|
3.6
|
Gravel or native surface roads should not have design speeds greater
than 60 km/hr Additional width is required for lower quality surfaces,
because of the off-tracking corrections needed compared to a higher
quality surface.
|
Vehicles wider than the design vehicle (a "critical vehicle") may make
occasional use of the road. Check traveled way and shoulder widths to
ensure that these vehicles can safely traverse the road. Critical vehicles
should never attempt to traverse the road at or even approaching the speeds
of the design vehicle.
Shoulders may be necessary to provide parking areas, space for installations
such as drainage structures, guardrails, signs, and roadside utilities,
increase in total roadway width to match the clear width of an opening
for a structure such as a bridge or tunnel, a recovery zone for vehicles
straying from the traveled way, additional width to accommodate a "critical
vehicle", lateral support for outside edge of asphalt or concrete pavements
(0.3 m is sufficient for this purpose). The space required for these features
will depend on the design criteria of the road and/or the design of specific
structures to be incorporated as part of the roadway.
Minimum Width of Traveled Way for Design Speed
|
Bunk Width
|
30 km/hr(20 mph)
|
50 km/hr (30 mph)
|
60 km/hr (40 mph)
|
3.0 m (10 ft)
|
6.7 m (22 ft)
|
7.3 m (24 ft)
|
7.9 m (26 ft)
|
3.7 m (12 ft)
|
7.9 m (26 ft)
|
8.5 m (28 ft)
|
8.5 m (28 ft)
|
2.1.2.3. Turnouts
Turnout spacing, location, and dimensions provide user
convenience and safety and allow vehicles to maintain a reasonable speed.
Spacing can be computed using the following formula and the curves from
Figure 7 and Table 7:
T = 1.609*(DS)/36
Where:
T = Increase in travel time for the interrupted vehicle (percent)
D = Delay Lime per kilometer for the interrupted vehicle (seconds)
S = Design speed (kilometers per hour).
Solve the equation for T and then use the graph in Figure
7 to determine the turnout spacing required to accommodate the number
of vehicles passing over the road per hour (VPH).
Figure 7. Turnout spacing in relation to traffic volume
and travel delay time.
Table 7. Recommended turnout spacing--all
traffic service levels
Traffic Service
|
Turnout Spacing
|
Operational Constraints
|
A
|
Make turnouts intervisible unless
excessive costs or environmental constraints preclude construction
Closer spacing may contribute
to efficiency and convenience.
Maximum spacing is 300 m.
|
Traffic: Mixed
Capacity: Up to 25 vehicles per hour
Design Speed: Up to 60 km/hr
Delays: 12 sec./km or less
|
B
|
Intervisible turnouts are highly
desirable but may be precluded
by excessive costs or environmental constraints. Maximum spacings
300 m.
|
Traffic: Mixed
Capacity: Up to 25 vehicles per hour Design Speed: Up to 40 km/hr
Delays: 20 km/hr or less
Use signs to warn non commercial users of traffic to be expected.
Road segments without intervisible turn-outs should be signaled.
|
C
|
Maximum spacing is 300 m.
When the environmental impact is low and the investment is economically
justifiable, additional turnouts may be
constructed.
|
Traffic: Small amount of mixed
Capacity: Up to 20 vehicles per hour Design Speed: Up to 30 km/hr
Delays: Up to 40 sec./km
Roads should be managed to mini mize conflicts between commercial
and non-commercial users.
|
D
|
Generally, only naturally occurring
turnouts, such as on ridges or
other available areas
on flat terrain, are used.
|
Traffic: Not intended for mixed
Capacity: Generally 10 VPH or less Design Speed: 25 km/hr or less
Delays: At least 45 sec./km expected. Road should be managed to
restrict concurrent use by commercial and non-commercial users.
|
Figure 8 illustrates a typical turnout in detail. Turnouts should be
located on the outside of cuts, the low side of fills, or at the runout
point between through cuts and fills, and preferably on the side of the
unloaded vehicle. Table 8 gives recommended turnout widths and lengths
for various traffic service levels. The maximum transition length should
be limited to 22.5 m for all service levels.
Figure 8. Typical turnout dimensions.
Table 8. Turnout widths and lengths.
Traffic Service Levels
|
Turnout Width
|
Turnout Length & Transition Length
|
A
|
3.0 m
|
Design vehicle length or 22.5 m minimum, whichever is largest.
Minimum 15 m transition at each end.
|
B
|
3.0 m
|
Design vehicle length.
Minimum 15 m transition at each end.
|
D
|
Make the minimum total width of the traveled way and turnout the
width of two design vehicles plus 1.2 m
|
Empty truck length (trailer loaded on truck)
Minimum 7.5 m transitions at each end.
|
2.1.2.4. Turn-arounds
Turn-around design should consider both critical and
design vehicles and should be provided at or near the end of single-lane
roads, and at management closure points, such as gates or barricades.
If intermediate turn-arounds are necessary, signing should be considered
if they create a hazard to other users. The turn-around should be designed
to allow the design vehicle to turn with reasonably safe maneuvering.
2.1.2.5. Curve Widening
Widening may be required on some curves to allow for
off-tracking of tractor-trailer vehicles and for some light vehicle-trailer
combinations. Widening of the traveled way on curves to accommodate the
design vehicle is considered a part of the traveled way. Generally, the
need for curve widening increases as curve radius decreases with shorter
curves requiring less curve widening than longer curves. Criteria for
establishing the need for curve widening given traffic service levels
are given in Table 9.
Table 9. Curve widening criteria
Traffic Service Level
|
Curve Widening
|
A
|
Design curve widening to accommodate the design
vehicle (normally low-boy) at the design speed for each curve. Curve
widening for critical vehicles to be provided by the use of other
road elements, if planned, such as turnouts and shoulders. Provide
widening if needed width is not available. Critical vehicle should
be accommodated in its normal traveling configuration. Curve widening
to be provided in each lane of double-lane roads.
|
B
|
Same as A.
|
C
|
Same as A, except the critical vehicle configuration may need alteration.
|
D
|
Curve widening to be provided only for the design
vehicle. Loads carried by the critical vehicle should be off-loaded
and walked to the project or transferred to vehicles capable of
traversing the road. Temporary widening to permit the passage of
larger vehicles may be accomplished by methods such as temporarily
filling of the ditch at narrow sections.
|
2.1.2.6. Clearance
The desired minimum horizontal clearance is 1.2 m (4
ft) the minimum vertical clearance is 4.3 m (14 ft). At higher speeds
consideration should be given to increasing the clearances.
2.1.2.7. Speed and Sight Distance
Design speed is the maximum safe speed that the design
vehicle can maintain over a specified segment of road when conditions
are so favorable that the design features of the road govern rather than
the vehicle operational limitations. The selected design speed establishes
the minimum sight distance for stopping, passing, minimum radius of curvature,
gradient, and type of running surface. Alternative combinations of horizontal
and vertical alignment should be evaluated to obtain the greatest sight
distance within the economic and environmental constraints. Suggested
horizontal curve radius for a packed gravel or dirt road with no sight
obstruction is 33 and 62 m (108 and 203 ft) for design speeds of 24 and
32 km/hr (15 and 20 mph), respectively. For curves with a sight obstruction
3 m (10 ft) from the travel way, horizontal curve radii are 91 and 182
m (300 and 600 ft), respectively. Suggested vertical curve length is 61
m (200 ft). Recommended stopping distances for single-lane roads with
a maximum pitch of 2 percent (horizontal and vertical control) and traffic
service level C or D are:
km/hr (MPH)
|
Stopping Distance, meters (feet)
|
16 (10)
|
21.3 (70)
|
24 (15)
|
36.5 (120)
|
32 (20)
|
54.9 (180)
|
48 (30)
|
94.5 (310)
|
For a more comprehensive discussion on stopping sight
distance and passing sight distance, the reader is referred to the following
sources: Route Location and Design, by Thomas F. Hickerson; USDA, Forest
Service Handbook # 7709.11, "Transportation Engineering Handbook"; Bureau
of Land Management, Oregon State Office, "Forest Engineering Handbook";
or "Geometric Design Standards for Low Volume Roads", Transportation Research
Board.
2.1.2.8. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
For low volume roads with design speeds of 24 kph (15
mph) or less, a horizontal alignment that approximates the geometric requirements
of circular curves and tangents may be used. Alignment should be checked
so that other design elements, such as curve widening and stopping sight
distance can be considered. A minimum centerline radius of curvature for
roads should be 15 meters (50 ft) except for some recreation and administrative
roads. Superelevation should not be used for design speeds less than 32
kph (20 mph). If snow and ice are factors, the superelevation rate should
not exceed 6 percent and should be further reduced on grades to accommodate
slow truck traffic. Transition segments into and out of superelevated
sections should be provided to avoid abrupt changes in the roadway template.
Vertical alignment, or grade; is of critical concern
because of its potential for environmental damage and becomes increasingly
important for grades exceeding 10 percent. Erosion potential increases
as a function of the square of the slope and the cube of water velocity.
The Most desirable combination of grade and other design elements should
be determined early in the road location phase with additional caution
exercised when grades exceed 8 percent. Vertical alignment normally governs
the speed of light vehicles for grades exceeding 15 percent favorable
and 11 percent adverse and of loaded trucks for grades exceeding 8 percent
favorable and 3 percent adverse. The ability of a vehicle to traverse
a particular grade is dependent on vehicle weight and horsepower and on
the traction coefficient of the driving surface.
Travel time and cost are affected by horizontal alignment,
such as curve radius and road width. Figure 9 shows the relationship between
average truck speed and curve radius for several road widths. For example,
there is a 15 percent difference in average truck speed on a 30.5 m (100
ft) radius curve for a 3.7 m wide road when compared to a 4.3 m wide road.
Horizontal alignment has been classified on the basis of curve radius
and number of curves. The U. S. Forest Service, for example, uses the
following classification system:
[Average radius (m)] / [# of curves / km]
|
Poor
|
=
|
< 4
|
Good
|
=
|
10 - 20
|
Fair
|
=
|
4 - 10
|
Excellent
|
=
|
> 20
|
The effect of grade on truck speed (loaded and unloaded)
is shown in Figure 10. The speed of a loaded truck is most sensitive to
grade changes from 0 to 7 percent in the direction of haul. For grades
steeper than 7 percent other considerations are more important than impact
on speed.
Figure 9. Relationship between curve radius and truck
speed when speed is not controlled by grade.
Figure 10. Relationship between grade and truck speed
on gravel roads.
2.1.2.9. Travel Time
It is important to emphasize that travel time is influenced
by grade, nature of road surface, alignment, roadway width, sight distance,
climate, rated vehicle performance, and psychological factors (such as
fatigue, degree of caution exercised by driver, etc.). Table 10 shows
travel time for loaded and empty trucks over paved, graveled, and dirt
surfaces as influenced by vertical and horizontal alignment. The information
from Table 10 is helpful in the planning stage to assess the effects of
vertical and/or horizontal alignment, road surface and width on travel
time and costs. The planned road should be divided up into segments of
similar vertical and/or horizontal alignment sections. Average times can
be calculated for each segment and/or road class and summed.
Table 10a. Relationship between round
trip travel time per kilometer and surface type as influenced by vertical
and horizontal alignment; adverse grade in direction
of haul (U.S. Forest service, 1965).
Class of Road [1]
|
Percent Grade in Direction of Load (Adverse)
|
+10
|
+9
|
+8
|
+7
|
+6
|
+5
|
+4
|
|
+2
|
0
|
min / km
|
1
|
Lane and one-half with turnouts (car lane and truck lane with 4-ft.
ditch)[2]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A
|
Alignment excellent:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Paved
|
7.93
|
7.28
|
6.59
|
5.93
|
5.28
|
4.59
|
3.95
|
-
|
2.95
|
2.42
|
|
|
2. Gravel
|
8.21
|
7.56
|
6.87
|
6.21
|
5.53
|
4.84
|
4.23
|
-
|
3.20
|
2.42
|
|
B
|
Alignment good:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Paved
|
7.93
|
7.28
|
6.59
|
5.93
|
5.32
|
4.78
|
4.25
|
-
|
3.25
|
3.01
|
|
|
2. Gravel
|
8.21
|
7.56
|
6.87
|
6.21
|
5.57
|
5.03
|
4.53
|
-
|
3.50
|
3.01
|
|
C
|
Alignment fair:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Paved
|
7.93
|
7.28
|
6.62
|
6.12
|
5.62
|
5.09
|
4.56
|
-
|
3.61
|
3.61
|
|
|
2. Gravel
|
8.21
|
7.56
|
6.90
|
6.40
|
5.87
|
5.34
|
4.84
|
-
|
3.81
|
3.61
|
2
|
Single lane with turnouts (truck lane with 3-ft. ditch)[2]:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A
|
Alignment excellent:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Paved
|
7.93
|
7.28
|
6.59
|
5.93
|
5.28
|
4.59
|
4.02
|
-
|
3.02
|
2.58
|
|
|
2. Gravel
|
8.21
|
7.56
|
6.87
|
6.21
|
5.53
|
4.84
|
4.30
|
-
|
3.27
|
2.58
|
|
B
|
Alignment good:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Paved
|
7.93
|
7.28
|
6.59
|
5.93
|
5.38
|
4.85
|
4.32
|
-
|
3.32
|
3.20
|
|
|
2. Gravel
|
8.21
|
7.56
|
6.87
|
6.21
|
5.63
|
5.10
|
4.60
|
-
|
3.57
|
3.20
|
|
|
3. Dirt
|
8.49
|
7.81
|
7.12
|
6.43
|
5.85
|
5.35
|
4.82
|
-
|
4.18
|
3.20
|
|
C
|
Alignment fair:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Paved
|
7.93
|
7.28
|
6.75
|
6.25
|
5.75
|
5.22
|
4.68
|
-
|
3.89
|
3.89
|
|
|
2. Gravel
|
8.21
|
7.56
|
7.03
|
6.53
|
6.00
|
5.47
|
4.97
|
-
|
3.94
|
3.89
|
|
|
3. Dirt
|
8.49
|
7.81
|
7.28
|
6.75
|
6.21
|
5.72
|
5.18
|
-
|
4.15
|
3.89
|
|
D
|
Alignment poor:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Gravel
|
8.45
|
7.95
|
7.42
|
6.92
|
6.39
|
5.86
|
5.36
|
-
|
4.68
|
4.68
|
|
|
2. Dirt
|
8.73
|
8.20
|
7.67
|
7.14
|
6.61
|
6.11
|
5.58
|
-
|
4.68
|
4.68
|
3
|
Single lane with turnouts (truck lane without ditch)[2]:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B
|
Alignment good:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Dirt
|
8.49
|
7.81
|
7.12
|
6.45
|
5.92
|
5.42
|
4.88
|
-
|
3.85
|
3.28
|
|
C
|
Alignment fair:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Dirt
|
8.49
|
7.93
|
7.40
|
6.86
|
6.33
|
5.83
|
5.30
|
-
|
4.27
|
4.08
|
|
D
|
Alignment poor:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Dirt
|
9.03
|
8.49
|
7.96
|
7.43
|
6.90
|
6.40
|
5.87
|
-
|
5.28
|
5.28
|
[1] Alignment classification basis:
Poor
|
=
|
Average radius (meter)
No . of curves per km
|
=
|
less than 4
|
Fair
|
=
|
do.
|
=
|
4 to 10
|
Good
|
=
|
do.
|
=
|
10 to 20
|
Excellent
|
=
|
do.
|
=
|
over 20
|
[2] On single-lane or lane-and-one-half roads,
increase the time for passing vehicles on turnout by the percent
shown in following tabulation. Consider all vehicles for single-lane
roads and only trucks for lane-and-one-half roads.
Turnout spacing (meter)
|
Increased time when number of vehicles passing
over road per hour is ....
|
5
|
10
|
15
|
20
|
|
Percent
|
Percent
|
Percent
|
Percent
|
75
|
2.0
|
4.0
|
6.0
|
8.0
|
150
|
2.6
|
5.4
|
8.0
|
10.7
|
225
|
3.4
|
6.8
|
10.2
|
13.6
|
|
Table 10b. Relationship between round trip travel time
per kilometer and surface type as influenced by vertical and horizontal
alignment; favorable grade in direction of haul
(U.S. Forest service, 1965).
Class of Road [1]
|
Percent Grade in Direction of Load (Favorable)
|
0
|
-2
|
-4
|
-6
|
-7
|
-8
|
-9
|
-11
|
-12
|
-14
|
min / km
|
1
|
Lane and one-half with turnouts (car lane and truck lane with 4-ft.
ditch)[2]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A
|
Alignment excellent:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Paved
|
2.42
|
2.42
|
2.47
|
2.89
|
3.22
|
3.53
|
3.87
|
4.53
|
4.87
|
5.59
|
|
|
2. Gravel
|
2.42
|
2.42
|
2.53
|
2.97
|
3.31
|
3.65
|
3.97
|
4.62
|
4.97
|
5.68
|
|
B
|
Alignment good:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Paved
|
3.01
|
3.01
|
3.01
|
3.05
|
3.22
|
3.53
|
3.87
|
4.53
|
4.87
|
5.59
|
|
|
2. Gravel
|
3.01
|
3.01
|
3.01
|
3.13
|
3.32
|
3.65
|
3.97
|
4.62
|
4.97
|
5.68
|
|
C
|
Alignment fair:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Paved
|
3.61
|
3.61
|
3.61
|
3.61
|
3.61
|
3.67
|
3.87
|
4.53
|
4.87
|
5.59
|
|
|
2. Gravel
|
3.61
|
3.61
|
3.61
|
3.61
|
3.61
|
3.80
|
3.97
|
4.62
|
4.97
|
5.68
|
2
|
Single lane with turnouts (truck lane with 3-ft. ditch)[2]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A
|
Alignment excellent:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Paved
|
2.58
|
2.58
|
2.58
|
2.89
|
3.22
|
3.53
|
3.87
|
4.53
|
4.87
|
5.59
|
|
|
2. Gravel
|
2.58
|
2.58
|
2.62
|
2.97
|
3.31
|
3.65
|
3.97
|
4.62
|
4.97
|
5.68
|
|
B
|
Alignment good:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Paved
|
3.20
|
3.20
|
3.20
|
3.20
|
3.34
|
3.53
|
3.87
|
4.53
|
4.87
|
5.59
|
|
|
2. Gravel
|
3.20
|
3.20
|
3.20
|
3.25
|
3.44
|
3.65
|
3.97
|
4.62
|
4.97
|
5.68
|
|
|
3. Dirt
|
3.20
|
3.20
|
3.20
|
3.31
|
3.50
|
3.72
|
4.06
|
4.72
|
5.06
|
5.75
|
|
C
|
Alignment fair:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Paved
|
3.89
|
3.89
|
3.89
|
3.89
|
3.89
|
3.89
|
4.02
|
4.53
|
4.87
|
5.59
|
|
|
2. Gravel
|
3.89
|
3.89
|
3.89
|
3.89
|
3.89
|
3.95
|
4.11
|
4.62
|
4.97
|
5.68
|
|
|
3. Dirt
|
3.89
|
3.89
|
3.89
|
3.89
|
3.89
|
4.02
|
4.20
|
4.72
|
5.06
|
5.75
|
|
D
|
Alignment poor:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Gravel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Dirt
|
4.68
|
4.68
|
4.68
|
4.68
|
4.68
|
4.68
|
4.68
|
4.88
|
5.07
|
5.68
|
3
|
Single lane with turnouts (truck lane without ditch)[2]:
|
4.68
|
4.68
|
4.68
|
4.68
|
4.68
|
4.68
|
4.68
|
4.98
|
5.17
|
5.75
|
|
B
|
Alignment good:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Dirt
|
3.28
|
3.28
|
3.28
|
3.33
|
3.52
|
3.72
|
4.06
|
4.72
|
5.06
|
5.75
|
|
C
|
Alignment fair:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Dirt
|
4.08
|
4.08
|
4.08
|
4.08
|
4.08
|
4.09
|
4.28
|
4.72
|
5.06
|
5.75
|
|
D
|
Alignment poor:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Dirt
|
5.28
|
5.28
|
5.28
|
5.28
|
5.28
|
5.28
|
5.28
|
5.28
|
5.47
|
5.82
|
[1] Alignment classification basis:
Poor
|
=
|
Average radius (meter)
No . of curves per km
|
=
|
less than 4
|
Fair
|
=
|
do.
|
=
|
4 to 10
|
Good
|
=
|
do.
|
=
|
10 to 20
|
Excellent
|
=
|
do.
|
=
|
over 20
|
[2] On single-lane or lane-and-one-half roads,
increase the time for passing vehicles on turnout by the percent
shown in following tabulation. Consider all vehicles for single-lane
roads and only trucks for lane-and-one-half roads.
Turnout spacing (meter)
|
Increased time when number of vehicles passing
over road per hour is ...
|
5
|
10
|
15
|
20
|
|
Percent
|
Percent
|
Percent
|
Percent
|
75
|
2.0
|
4.0
|
6.0
|
8.0
|
150
|
2.6
|
5.4
|
8.0
|
10.7
|
225
|
3.4
|
6.8
|
10.2
|
13.6
|
|
2.2 Economic Evaluation and Justification
2.2.1 Economic Analysis Methods
A long range plan, including road planning, is the basis
for an economically, as well as environmentally, sound road system. A
well planned road system will result in the least amount of roads to economically
serve an area or watershed. It will also result in the least amount of
sediment delivery to streams as shown in Figure 1.
The first step in road access planning is to determine the optimum road
spacing for a given commercial use. A break-even analysis can often be
applied. Plotted graphicallly, the optimum spacing would lie at the minimum
total cost, or the intersection of the cost lines. Additional information
can be found in Pearce (1960), Dietz et al (1984), Von Segebaden (1964),
and others.
An economic evaluation of a particular road standard
will require a rough estimate of road construction costs be determined
from road design data and from locally available cost information for
the various cost components. Likewise, annual maintenance cost per kilometer
of road is best estimated based on local experience for comparable roads.
Trucking cost data will consist of the average cost per round-trip kilometer
of haul over the road and would take into consideration travel time (see
Section 2.1), fixed costs (depreciation, interest, insurance, etc.), operating
costs per minute driving time (fuel, lubrication, repairs), dependent
costs per minute driving time plus delay time (driver's wage, social security
tax, unemployment compensation, administration), and tire cost per mile
by surface type.
The combined annual costs of road construction, maintenance, and trucking
make up the annual cost:
A = R + I + M + T
where A is total annual cost per kilometer, R is annual
cost per kilometer of road construction for the amortization period, I
is average annual interest cost, M is annual maintenance cost per kilometer,
and T is average trucking cost per kilometer for the annual commodity
volume to be hauled over the road.
EXAMPLE:
Assume the following costs (in US dollars) have been
estimated for three classes of road. (Annual volume of commodity, 10 million
cubic meters.)
ROAD CLASS
|
I
|
II
|
III
|
Construction cost per kilometer
|
$40,000.00
|
$22,000.00
|
$15,000.00
|
Maintenance cost per kilometer
|
300.00
|
400.00
|
500.00
|
Trucking cost per 1,000 m³ per kilometer
|
0.25
|
0.30
|
0.35
|
Trucking cost per annum per kilometer
|
2,500.00
|
3,000.00
|
3,500.00
|
Annual cost per km over 25 years
|
|
|
|
R road construction cost
|
1,600.00
|
880.00
|
600.00
|
I interest costs
|
700.00
|
383.00
|
262.00
|
M maintenance cost
|
300.00
|
400.00
|
500.00
|
T trucking cost
|
2,500.00
|
3,000.00
|
3,500.00
|
A Total Annual Costs
|
$5,100.00
|
$4,663.00
|
$4,862.00
|
(If amortization period is 25 years, the annual rate
is 4 percent of the construction cost. If the interest rate is 3.5 percent,
the average annual interest rate is 1.75 percent.)
Note that in the above calculation the Class II road
is the most economical by a margin of $199.00 over the Class III road.
Over the period of amortization of 25 years, the margin for the Class
II road will be $4,975.00 per kilometer.
Another method in choosing the most economical of two
road standards is to calculate the annual amount or volume of commodity
at which the costs of the two roads will be equal. If annual volume exceeds
the calculated amount the higher road standard will be justified; likewise,
if annual volume is less than the calculated amount, the lower standard
is justified. The formula for calculating V is:
V =
|
(R + I + M)H - (R + I + M)L
|
TL - TH
|
The subscripts H and L indicate high and low standard,
respectively, and T is expressed as cost per 1000 m³ per kilometer. Ail
other values are expressed in units stated above.
EXAMPLE:
Using the same costs as in the previous example for the Class II and
Class III road, the annual volume is calculated as:
V =
|
(880 + 383 + 400) - (600+ 262 + 500)
|
= 6,020 x 10(3) m³
|
(0.35 - 0.30)
|
Hence, for volumes exceeding 6.02 x 106, m³ the Class
II road is the more economical choice; for volumes less than 6.02 x 106
m³ the Class III road would be chosen. If the two roads differ in length,
multiply the costs per kilometer by the number of kilometers of each road
for use in this formula.
2.2.2 Analysis of Alternative Routes
The above formulas can also be used to evaluate two or more alternatives
to a proposed route. One common situation is to choose between a longer
route on a gentle favorable grade and a shorter route involving an adverse
grade and a steeper favorable grade.
EXAMPLE:
1. Longer route segment: 3.67 km of 3% favorable
grade. Trucking cost = $.562 per 1000 m³; construction cost $55,050 at
6% amortization plus interest = $3,303; annual maintenance at $300/km
= $1,101. Total annual cost = $4,404.
2. Shorter route segment: 2.0 km of 8% favorable grade, 1 km of
5% adverse grade. Trucking cost = $.81 per 1000 m³; construction cost
$41,000 at 6% amortization plus interest = $2,460; annual maintenance
at $400/km (steeper grade, sharper curves) = $1,200. Total annual cost
= $3,660.
V = (4,404 - 3,660)/(0.81 - 0.562) = 3 x 10(6) m³
(According to the formula, the longer route will be the
more economical if the annual volume hauled exceeds 3 million cubic meters.)
In justifying the added capital investment to achieve
greater road stability the risk of potential cost of a road failure must
also be weighed in the balance. This type of risk analysis is commonly
done when determining culvert size for a particular stream crossing. The
probability of occurrence of a peak flow event which would exceed the
design capacity of the proposed culvert installation must be determined
and incorporated into the design procedure. The 1964-65 winter season
floods occurring throughout the Pacific Northwest Region of the United
States have been classified as 50; to 100-year return interval events.
("Return interval" is defined as the length of time that a storm event
of specified magnitude would be expected to reoccur. A 50-year event,
therefore, would be expected to occur, on the average, once every 50 years.)
Damages to transportation structures (roads, bridges, trails) in Oregon
was estimated at $12.5 million, or, 4 percent of the total investment
of $355 million not including destruction of stream habitat, water quality,
private property, and "down time" and other inconveniences associated
with these losses.
As mentioned earlier in this handbook, constructing
roads specifically to control erosion may not cost any more than constructing
roads using conventional methods. The money invested to achieve satisfactory
levels of stability while still meeting design criteria will generally
be recouped over the life of the road in reduced maintenance costs, serviceability,
longer life, and reduced impacts on stream habitat and water quality.
The goal of fitting roads to the terrain and adopting appropriate road
standards to achieve that goal will often result in reduced earthwork
per station.
Incremental costs for roads built to high standards of
construction (compacted fills, surface treatments, terraced fills, etc.)
associated with the amount of reduction of sediment yield is difficult
to generate since such wide variability exists in equipment and labor
costs, environmental factors (such as soil erodibility), and operator
skill. Gardner (1971) has developed some rudimentary data for comparing
annual road costs for single and double lane roads with differing surface
treatments depreciated over 20 years and using 6 percent capital recovery.
The author suggests that user cost for environmental protection is represented
as the difference in annual cost between two-lane paved and one-lane gravel
roads in Table 11. More detailed comparisons of annual cost per km at
different user levels is presented in Tables 12 and 13.
Table 11. Comparison of single-lane versus double-lane
costs at three different use levels.
Number of Vehicles per year
|
Total annual cost per kilometer
|
1 lane gravel
|
2 lane paved
|
Difference
|
US Dollars
|
10,000
|
3,440
|
4,200
|
-760
|
20,000
|
5,800
|
5,690
|
+112
|
40,000
|
10,530
|
8,680
|
+1,790
|
Table 12. Comparison of annual road costs per kilometer
--10,000 vehicles per year.
Cost distribution
|
Road Standard
|
2 lane
paved
|
2 lane
chip-seal
|
2 lane
gravel
|
1 lane
gravel
|
1 lane spot stabilization
|
1 lane
primitive
|
Dollars per Kilometer
|
Initial Construction
|
$31,070
|
$24,860
|
$18,640
|
$12,430
|
$9,320
|
$6,210
|
|
Dollars per kilometer per year (20-year period)
|
Depreciation[1]
|
2,710
|
2,170
|
1,620
|
1,080
|
810
|
540
|
Maintenance
|
120
|
250
|
370
|
500
|
680
|
310
|
Vehicle use
|
1,370
|
1,430
|
1,680
|
1,860
|
2,730
|
5,280
|
Total annual
|
4,200
|
3,850
|
3,670
|
3,440[2]
|
4,230
|
6,130
|
[1] 20 years at 6% using capital recovery.
|
[2] Lowest annual cost.
|
Table 13. Comparison of annual road costs per kilometer
for 20,000 and 40,000 vehicles per year
Cost distribution |
Road Standard
|
2 lane
paved
|
2 lane chip-seal
|
2 lane
gravel
|
1 lane
gravel
|
1 lane spot stabilization
|
1 lane
primitive
|
Dollars per Kilometer
|
construction
|
31,070
|
24,860
|
18,640
|
12,430
|
9,320
|
6,210
|
|
Dollars per kilometer per year (20-year period)
20,000 vehicles per year
|
Depreciation[1]
|
2,710
|
2,170
|
1,620
|
1,080
|
810
|
540
|
Maintenance
|
250
|
500
|
750
|
1,000
|
1,370
|
620
|
Vehicle use
|
2,730
|
2,860
|
3,360
|
3,730
|
5,470
|
10,560
|
Total annual
|
5,690
|
5,5302
|
5,730
|
5,810
|
7,650
|
11,720
|
|
Dollars per kilometer per year (20-year period)
40,000 vehicles per year
|
Depreciation
|
2,710
|
2,170
|
1,620
|
1,080
|
810
|
540
|
Maintenance
|
500
|
1,000
|
1,490
|
1,990
|
2,730
|
1,240
|
Vehicle use
|
5,470
|
5,720
|
6,710
|
7,460
|
10,940
|
21,130
|
Total annual
|
8,680[2]
|
8,890
|
9,820
|
10,530
|
14,480
|
22,910
|
[1] 20 years at 6% using capital recovery.
|
[2] Lowest annual cost.
|
Gardner (1978) analyzed alternative design standards
and costs in addition to observing the initial performance of the experimental
road and its esthetic acceptability. Alternate design features included
reducing road width to a level that would accommodate the tracks of the
proposed yarding equipment (3.81 m (12.5 ft)), treating slash by chipping
and scattering below the toe of the fill, using turnouts only when the
terrain was favorable thus keeping road widths to a minimum, creating
stepped backslopes (Figure 11) where bedrock competence was good and planting
shrubs and grasses with and without straw mulches, and, finally, incorporating
neoprene down- spouts below culverts to dissipate energy and protect the
road prism. Sections I and II of the experimental road had the following
characteristics:
|
Average grade (percent)
|
Average curev radius (meters)
|
# curves / km
(mi)
|
Section I
|
7.26
|
25.00
|
12.1 (19.4)
|
Section II
|
5.90
|
19.30
|
10.8 (17.4)
|
Figure 11. Stepped backlope (no scale).
Gardner found that using 1/10:1 backslopes and reducing
clearing widths in the experimental road saved approximately $4,333 in
construction cost and had no adverse effect on logging or hauling cost
(Table 14). The effects on harvesting costs were not analyzed in this
study.
Table 14. Cost summary comparison (5
vehicles per hour--1/2 logging trucks, 1/2 other traffic); assumes 8-hour
hauling day, 140 days/year use, 20 year road life, 23.8 m³ (6.0 M bd.
ft.) loads for logging trucks, cost of operating logging trucks including
driver's wage--$0.25/min, cost of operating other vehicles-- 5,535 m³
(1 1/2 MM bd. ft.) timber harvested. (Gardner, 1978 ).
Road standard*
|
Annual amortized
difference in cost
|
Annual difference
hauling cost
|
Annual difference
other traffic
|
Net difference
|
Dollars
|
Experimental
|
0
|
|
|
|
III
|
+ 1,842.99
|
- 3,187.65
|
- 431.20
|
-1,775.86
|
IV
|
+11,790.22
|
-15,287.59
|
-2,371.60
|
-5,868.97
|
*
|
Experimental road : single lane, 4.27 m (14 ft)
width, 24.1 kph (15 mph) design speed, 0.91 m (3') ditch.
|
|
III road : single lane, 4.88 m (16 ft) width, 27.4 km/hr
(17 mph) design speed, 0.91 m (3 ft) ditch.
|
|
IV road : double lane, 7.32 m (24 ft) width, 38.6 km/hr
(24 mph) design speed, 1.22 m (4 ft) ditch.
|
Table 14 indicates that any environmental values gained by the construction
of the experimental road would cause little economic sacrifice at vehicle
use levels of 5 per hour. At higher use levels, however, the trade-offs
become more significant and decisions regarding standards become more
difficult.
2.3 Route Reconnaissance and Location
Keep in mind that a bad road in a good location is preferable
to a good road in a bad location. A bad road can nearly always be fixed.
However, no amount of quality survey or design work can correct any significant
location error. For instance, a road constructed across a steep headwall
area is more likely to intercept surface and subsurface water flow and
has a far greater potential for failure than a road constructed along
the ridgeline above the headwall. Since excess moisture is nearly always
associated with landslides, it is always best to avoid drainage areas
where water is expected to collect. Some important factors to remember
when locating roads include:
-
Avoid high erosion hazard sites, particularly where mass failure
is a possibility.
-
Utilize natural terrain features such as stable benches, ridgetops,
and low gradient slopes to minimize the area of road disturbance.
-
if necessary, include short road segments with steeper gradients
to avoid problem areas or to utilize natural terrain features.
-
Avoid midslope locations on long, steep, or unstable slopes.
-
Locate roads on well-drained soils and rock formations which dip
into slopes rather than areas characterized by seeps, highly plastic
clays, concave slopes hummocky topography, cracked soil and rock strata
dipping parallel to the slope.
-
For logging road, utilize natural log landing areas (flatter, benched,
well-drained land) to reduce soil disturbance associated with log
landings and skid roads.
-
Avoid undercutting unstable, moist toe slopes when locating roads
in or near a valley bottom.
-
Roll or vary road grades where possible to dissipate flow in road
drainage ditches and culverts and to reduce surface erosion.
-
Select drainage crossings to minimize channel disturbance during
construction and to minimize approach cuts and fills.
-
Locate roads far enough above streams to provide an adequate buffer,
or provide structure or objects to intercept sediment moving downslope
below the road.
-
If an unstable area such as a headwall must be crossed, consider
end hauling excavated material rather than using sidecast methods.
Avoid deep fills and compact all fills to accepted engineering standards.
Design for close culvert and cross drain spacing to effectively remove
water from ditches and provide for adequate energy dissipators below
culvert outlets. Horizontal drains or interceptor drains may be necessary
to drain excess groundwater.
2.3.1 Road Reconnaissance
Erosion and sedimentation rates are directly linked to
total road surface area and excavation. The closer the road centerline
follows the natural topographic contour, the smaller the erosional impact
will be. On low-volume roads it is permissible and even advisable to use
non-geometric alignment standards, or the "free alignment method". The
beauty of this system is its ability to permit design decisions to be
made in the field while allowing for tighter control in areas with critical
grades and alignments such as draws, switchbacks, steep topography, or
ridges, and less control in areas where resource risks are minimal. Clearing
and excavation quantities are substantially reduced compared to conventional
geometric alignment methods. More time is spent "on the ground" in the
road location step and preliminary survey so that major alignment changes
are not necessary during the design phase.
Two types of tag or grade line are run by the road locator.
On more gentle ground the tag or grade line follows closely, or is identical
to the proposed road center line (Figure 12).
Figure 12. Tag line location and center line location
of proposed road. Sideslopes are typically less than 40 to 50 percent.
On steeper ground where heavy cuts on center line are required (sideslopes
greater than 50 to 60 percent), the tag line is marked on the "grade-out"
or "daylight" point (Figure 13).
Figure 13. Tag line location and center line location
of proposed road. Sideslopes are typically 50% or steeper.
The following procedure has been proven to be successful
for direct location of the center line. First, the tag line is run with
abney or clinometer. Tags, flagging, or ribbons are hung at eye level
(approximately 150 to 170 cm) above ground. The ribbon should be intervisible
and hung every 15 to 25 m depending on topography and vegetation density.
Once a satisfactory tag line has been established, a second pass is made
by marking tangents and points of intersection (Pl) of tangent (Figure
14).
Figure 14. Selection of the road alignment in the field
by "stretching the tag line". This "stretched", or "adjusted" tag line
is surveyed and represents the final horizontal location of the road.
It is good practice to cut a pole of sufficient height
with brightly colored flagging to be placed at the proposed PI. This allows
the road locator to clearly see the proposed tangent in relation to the
marked tag line. By moving the tag ribbon horizontally "on-line" with
the tangent, the road locator can evaluate the required cut/fill at center
line (Figure 15). Likewise, he can measure the deflection angle the Pl,
and, based on the selected curve radius, determine the suitability of
center line location along the curve. As a rule, the selected tangent
should be uphill for the majority of the ribbons marking the tag line.
The longer the tangents are, the larger the offset will be and the greater
the impact from cuts and fills. Therefore, on low volume, low design speed
roads, short tangents should be favored in order to minimize earthwork.
For example in Figure 14 an additional tangent could be inserted near
the PI 2. As shown in Figure 15, still closer proximity of the tag line
to the selected road center line would result.
Figure 15. Position [1] shows tag line ribbon at approximately
eye-level. The feet of the road locator are "on grade". Position [2] shows
the ribbon on-location over the center line or tangent as selected in
the field after stretching. The ribbon has been moved horizontally, thereby
allowing an estimate of required cut or fill at center line.
Tag lines in the field should always be run 1 or 2 percent
less than the allowable maximum grade. For example, if a projected road
on the map shows 10 percent grade, the road locator should use 8 or 9
percent in the field. The final design grade of the proposed road will
likely be 1 or 2 percent steeper than the tag line grade in the field.
Tag line grades around sharp-nosed ridges or steep draws
should be reduced, or preferably located along the proposed curve. Otherwise,
the designed center line will be significantly shorter than the marked
tag line, resulting in an unacceptably steep design grade (Figure 16).
Figure 16. Example of the effect of
shortened center line through a draw or around a sharp ridge. This situation
develops when running the tag line into the draw or around a sharp ridge
without allowing for proper curve layout and design location.
In such cases, the tag line should be set "on location"
by setting curve points using the deflection method (Figure 17). The points
are selected with hand compass by turning the appropriate deflection angle
and measuring the corresponding chord length.
Figure 17. Curve layout by deflection method, a useful
approach during the original road location phase.
By setting the ribbon to the corresponding grade percent, the road locator
can immediately evaluate the effect of his decision. Table 15 lists some
convenient deflection angles and cord lengths for various curve radius.
Table 15. Deflection angles for various chord lengths
and curve radii.
Radius of curve
(meters)
|
Deflection per meter
degrees / meter
|
Chord Lengths c ( meters)
|
5
|
7.5
|
10
|
Deflection angles (degrees)*
|
15
|
1.9
|
9.6
|
14.3
|
19.1
|
20
|
1.4
|
7.2
|
10.7
|
14.3
|
25
|
1.15
|
5.7
|
8.6
|
11.5
|
30
|
0.96
|
4.8
|
7.2
|
9.6
|
35
|
0.82
|
4.1
|
6.2
|
8.2
|
*
|
First deflection angle; subsequent deflection angles in layouts
are double the indicated value
|
The following techniques during tag line installation should be followed
to avoid increased final design grades:
1. In the case of steep draws, run the desired grade
into the draw until the opposite hillside is at a distance equal to twice
the minimum radius. Now, sight across the draw at zero grade, find that
point on the other hillside and continue from that point with the original
grade (Figure 18).
2. In the case of sharp ridges, the procedure is similar.
Find the starting point for the curve. At that point, lay the tag line
at zero percent around the ridge until you are opposite your beginning
point and at the desired ending point for the curve. At this point resume
your original grade.
Figure 18. By sighting across draw at
0 percent grade, the desired curve is laid out without increasing the
grade.
For more information on reconnaissance and road location
procedure, the reader is referred to Forest Engineering Handbook (1960),
by J. K. Pearce.
Location of switchbacks requires careful location in
the field in order to minimize impacts on travel (excessive grades) as
well as on road construction (excessive cuts and fills). As a rule, grades
through a switchback at center line should not exceed 6 to 8 percent.
Because of the shortened distance along the inside road edge, the grade
there will typically be 2 to 3 percent steeper. The result is that inside
truck wheels will start to slip causing a "wash-board" effect. Likewise,
increased erosion and sedimentation rates will result because of the continued
spin-out of the traction wheels. The grade along the inside edge of the
road can be calculated by the following formula:
Example: A switchback has a grade at centerline
of 8 %. The deflection angle measures 160 degrees and road width (travelled
width) is 3.6 meters. Additional curve widening of 1.5 meters is required
on the inside of the switchback.
What is the grade along the inside edge of the road?
The grade along the inside would be 10.6%, considerably
higher than what is desirable.
Several steps can be taken to minimize the impact of
excessive grade. If the grade cannot be reduced through a larger radius,
for example, adequate surface material should be used that can withstand
the added tire action and provide enough traction to prevent spin-out.
Switchbacks should not be located on slopes in excess of 35 percent because
of the excessive amount of earthwork required. Natural topographic features,
such as benches, saddles, or ridge tops should be used for locating switchbacks.
The following example illustrates the effect of slope on cuts and fills
(Figure 19):
Figure 19. Cut and fill apportioning through a switchback
to maintain a given grade.
From this it follows that an elevation difference (DE)
of 12 m has to be overcome between the PC (beginning point) and PT (ending
point) of the switchback. However, road length along center line is 20
* (pi) = 62.8 m. The required grade of 8 % along 62.8 m overcomes only
5.0 m of the total DE of 12 m. Therefore, 7 m (12 m - 5 m) have to be
made up through either cuts or fills. Local conditions would dictate how
the 7 m would be apportioned between cuts and fills. (For example, 4 m
of cut at the PT and 3 m of fill at the PC would be required to overcome
the elevation difference on a 30 percent sideslope.). As a general rule
"cutting" or excavation should be favored over filling or embankments.
Proper fills are more difficult to construct than excavations.
2.3.2 Faults.
Alternative routes should be carefully reviewed in the
office and at the site, utilizing all available background information
and technical expertise. Among the most useful tools available to the
road engineer are a recent set of aerial photos. These must be of a scale
small enough to reasonably identify surface features such as natural drainage
characteristics, topographic characteristics (ridgelines, slope gradients,
floodplains, wet areas, landslides), existing cultural features (roads,
buildings, etc.), vegetation or stand type and density, bare soil areas,
and geologic features such as faults.
Many of the geologic features that affect slope stability
can be detected in the field and on topographic maps and photos. Mountain
ranges will often indicate a pronounced directional trend in which faulting
can be identified. Since faults are focal points for stress relief and
for intrusions of igneous and metamorphic rocks, these zones usually contain
rock that is fractured, crushed, partially metamorphosed, or highly weathered
and are critical to road location. (Burroughs, et al., 1976) Overlaying
geologic maps with topographic maps often reveals the location of major
fault zones (Figure 20 ). Indicators of fault zones include saddles, or
low sections in ridges, which are aligned in the same general direction
from one drainage to another and streams that appear to deviate from the
general direction of nearby streams. Aerial photographs can be examined
for clues to possible fault zones when neither geologic nor topographic
maps can provide assistance or are unavailable. Figure 21 is a stereogram
of an area in southwest Oregon and indicates a possible fault zone that
passes through several saddles and begins and ends in the river channel.
A large old slide is indicated at A and a newer slide at B. Maps and photos
will also provide clues as to the relative engineering properties, or
competence, of rocks in the area.
Geologic maps and topographic maps can help locate boundaries
between geologic materials with different values of competence and resistance
toweathering. Changes in vegetation patterns on aerial photos can also
help in identifying such boundaries (Figure 22). Field personnel should
be alert for on-the-ground indicators of faulting --fractured and uptilted
rock and individual rocks with "slickensides", or shiny surfaces resulting
from the intense heat developed by friction on sliding surfaces within
the fault zone.
Figure 20. Suspected fault zones are indicated by the
alignment of saddles in ridges and by the direction of stream channels.
Geologic map is found in upper left corner. Major faults are shown as
heavy dark lines on geologig maps (Burroughs, et al., 1976).
Figure 21. Stereogram of a possible
fault zone. The location of the fault is indicated by the dashed line
through the low saddle between the large, older slump at A and the newer
slope failure at B (Burroughs, et al., 1976).
Figure 22. Approximate boundary between serpentine (metamorphic
rock) material and the Umpqua formation is shown by the dashed line. The
determination is based primarily on the basis of vegetation density. Timber
on portions of the Umpqua formation have been harvested which accounts
for a reduction in vegetation density, particularly in the northwest corner
of the photo. (Burroughs, et al., 1976).
2.3.3 Indicators of Slope Stability
Certain features can serve as indicators of potential
slide-prone areas. With some practice, these can be easily identified
in the field.
Hummocky topography. This
type of landscape generally contains depressions and uneven ground that
has resulted from continued earthflow or slumping. Some areas that are
underlain by particularly incompetent parent material, deeply weathered
and subject to heavy rainfall, show a characteristically hummocky appearance
(Figure 23). "Sag ponds" (areas of standingwater), seeps, and springs
are often found within these areas. Certain plant species, called hydrophytes,
frequently indicate the presence of groundwater near the surface and potential
instability.
Pistol-butted, tipped and "jackstrawed" trees.
Pistol-butted trees were tipped downslope while small as a result of sliding
soil or debris, or as a result of active soil creep. As the tree grew,
the top regained a vertical posture. These are good indicators of slope
instability in areas with climates dominated by rain; deep heavy snowpacks
at high elevations may also cause pistol-butting. Tipping and jackstrawed
or "crazy" trees that lean at many different angles within the stand indicate
unstable soils and actively moving slopes.
Tension cracks or "cat steps".
Soil movement builds up stresses in the soil mantle which are sometimes
relieved by tension cracks. These features may be hidden by vegetation
but are a definite indicator of active movement.
Soil mottling. When groundwater
is present intermittently within the soil mantle, the iron compounds present
in the soil will oxidize to form distinctive orange or red spots. If groundwater
levels are more persistant throughout the rainy season, iron reduction
occurs giving the soil profile a gray or bluish-gray color. The occurrence
of these "gleyed" soils indicates a soil that is saturated for much of
the year. The presence of mottles alone is not an indication of instability,
but together with other indicators such as those described can point to
the need for special consideration in the location and design of a road.
They often point to the need for drainage and/or extra attention to the
suitability of a subsoil for foundation material.
Figure 23. "Hummocky" topography with
springs, curved or tilted trees, and localized slumps characterize land
undergoing active soil creep.
Less quantitative methods involve subjective evaluations
of relative stability using soils, geologic, topographic, climatic, and
vegetative indicators obtained from aerial photos, maps, and field observations
A headwall rating system such as the one presented in Figure 24 can be
used to broadly evaluate relative stability of a particular site. The
rating obtained in the field is entered into an empirical slope stability
model to evaluate various timber harvesting options. As with most subjective
rating systems, consistency among field personnel is a major problem.
However, they accurately represent the relative importance of individual
factors and their effects on likelihood of failure by mass movement type.
The weighted values for hazard indices are presented as guides only, and
can be adjusted to reflect local conditions.
Figure 24. Empirical headwall rating
system used for shallow, rapid landslides on the Mapleton Ranger District,
U.S. Forest Service, region 6, Oregon.
LITERATURE CITED
Bishop, D. M. and M. E. Stevens. 1964. Landslides on
logged areas in southeast Alaska. USDA Forest Service Research Paper PNW-1,
18 pp.
Burroughs, E. R. and J. G. King. 1985. Surface erosion
control on roads in granitic soils. Inland Empire Forest Engineering Conference.
Moscow, Idaho. February, 1985. 8 pp.
Burroughs, E. R. Jr., G. R. Chalfant, and M. A. Townsend.
1976. Slope stability in road construction. U. S. Department of the Interior.
Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office. 102 pp.
Dietz, P., W. Knigge and H. Loeffler. 1984. Walderschliessung.
Verlag Paul Parey, Hamburg and Berlin, Germany.
Gardner, R. B. 1978. Cost, performance, and esthetic
impacts of tin experimental forest road in Montana. USDA Forest Service
Research Paper INT-203. 28 pp.
Gardner, R. B. 1971. Forest road standards as related
to economics and the environment. USDA Forest Service Research Note INT-45.
4 pp.
Hickerson, T. F. 1964. Route location and design. Fifth
Ed. McGraw-Hill Co., New York. 634 pp.
Kuonen, V. 1983. Wald-und Gueterstrassen. Eigenverlag,
V. Kuonen, Lindenweg 9, CH-8122. Pfaffhausen, Switzerland.
Pearce, J. K. 1960. Forest Engineering Handbook. Prepared
for US Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 220 pp.
Rice, R. M. 1977. Forest management to minimize landslide
risk. In "Guidelines for Watershed Management". Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 1977. pp. 271-287.
Segebaden von, G., 1964. Studies of cross-country transport
distances and road net extension. Studia Forestalia Suedica, No. 18.
Sidle, R. C. 1980. Slope stability on forest land. USDA
Forest Service Research Paper PNW209. 23 pp.
Transportation Research Board, 1978. Geometric design
standards for low-volume roads, Compendium 1. National Academy of Sciences
and U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C.
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1960.
Logging Road Handbook. Agricultural Handbook No. 183. 65 pp.
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1982.
Transportation Engineering Handbook
|