HomeMy WebLinkAboutTrans 2015-04-06 Item 2A - Update - 42nd Avenue South / Allentown Roadside BarrierTO:
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
Mayor Haggerton
Transportation Committee
FROM: Bob Giberson, Public Works Director
BY: Dave Sorensen, Project Manager
DATE: April 3, 2015
SUBJECT: 42nd Ave S /Allentown Roadside Barrier
Project No. 91310301
Project Update
ISSUE
Present an update for the 42nd Ave S /Allentown Roadside Barrier Project.
BACKGROUND
This project, funded as part of the Small Roadway & Safety Improvements in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), was
preceded by a study to determine guardrail and /or barrier warrants along the Duwamish River adjacent to 42nd Ave S
and S 115t" St in Allentown. The goals are to prevent accidents in which vehicles go into the river, reduce illegal
dumping of vehicles, and provide additional security for large fire apparatus on narrow streets. The technical analysis
is complete and the design phase is underway with the project plans at approximately 30% complete.
Several areas of the river bank are being recommended for guardrails and /or barriers as a result of the analysis.
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) City Safety grant funding for construction was pursued,
however no project funds were awarded. With the grant application unsuccessful, City funds will now be used to
construct the improvements over multiple years. Construction of all recommended guardrail and barrier installations is
currently estimated $344,465. This topic was last discussed at the November 24, 2014 Transportation Committee.
Four residents of the Allentown neighborhood addressed the Committee to express concerns about the obstruction of
river views and adverse aesthetic impacts to the neighborhoods. The residents inquired about alternate safety solutions
or less obstructive barriers. Staff informed the Committee that any barrier that is used must be crash - tested and
conform to engineering standards. Following Committee discussion, Chair Ekberg requested additional community
outreach and any resulting feedback as well as potential alternative designs be brought back to the Committee
when appropriate. This update includes the requested action by Chair Ekberg (2014 TC Chair).
ANALYSIS
Alternative Barrier Options: Barrier products installed on city projects must be crash -test approved by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). Staff reviewed the current list of FHWA approved options as seen in Attachment No. 1. Staff
retraced their research on recommendations for barriers and found no other feasible options for guardrails and Jersey
barriers other than those noted in Attachment No. 1 as Options A and B. Rejection of the other alternatives listed in
Attachment No. 1 will be discussed in the committee meeting, including "weathered" steel guardrail, which residents
requested as an option.
As a note, FHWA no longer allows weathered guardrail, also known as "Corten" guardrail, due to concerns about
weathering steel. The use of weathering steel or (rusting steel) in guardrails should be limited. As roadside barriers are
usually close enough to the path of travel that they might be sprayed with water from passing vehicles, chemicals found in
the water spray can affect and degrade the structural integrity of weathering steel barriers. If weathering steel is desired for
aesthetic purposes, agencies should adopt a frequent inspection and replacement schedule. It may continue to be used
on the backside of steel backed timber rail.
W: \PW Eng \ PROJECTS \A- RW & RS Projects\42nd Ave S Allentown Roadside Barrier (91310301)\Design\November 24th TC Project Update \Feb 2015 TC Update \Dons to TC \March 2015 Into Memo 42nd Ave S Barrier report RRT - sb.docx
1
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
Additional Public Outreach: In December 2014 the Communications Department compiled community responses to a field
survey completed in the Allentown neighborhood. Data collection via door -to -door contact was completed and analyzed.
The goal was to determine residents' concerns, likes, and dislikes of this area. The survey was an un- prompted effort and
residents were not asked specific questions. While a number of items surfaced, pro and con for this neighborhood, no
residents mentioned concerns over the 42nd Ave S Roadside Barrier Project. Staff has taken community input into
consideration early on in the design process. Every effort has been be made to consider design options that strike a good
balance between form, function, aesthetics, budget considerations, and required safety design standards. Currently, the
most feasible barrier products are concrete Jersey barriers and either steel or wooden guardrail as noted in Attachment
No. 1.
FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated construction costs for all recommended guardrail and barrier installations is $299,970 based on the
calculations of the current 30% design. This includes a 10% contingency and with construction management at 15 %, the
total project cost estimate is $344,465. The 2015 construction budget is set at $70,000 (as the grant funding was not
successful).
Additional Options Cost Scenarios: The cost analysis for Option "B ", steel- backed timber guardrail, was included in the
November 24, 2014 agenda packet and is estimated to cost an additional $120k over the current 30% design estimate.
The 'TimBarrier' Option "A" is more cost effective and would run an additional $30k - $40k, provided that there are no
design issues that would prevent is feasible installation. A potential drawback to this system is that there is no
crashworthy end treatment currently available. Designing an end treatment that will work may be infeasible for financial or
engineering reasons.
It should be noted that the choice of multiple barrier types will likely create undesirable aesthetics. The anchored concrete
Jersey barrier is proposed in locations where underlying utilities prohibit the installation of guardrail posts. The likely need
to install concrete Jersey barriers combined with currently existing standard W beam guardrails may make the choice to
install a third type of aesthetic barrier undesirable. This is important to the aesthetic discussion as the additional costs may
not provide the expected outcome.
• Current 30% design (W beam and concrete Jersey barrier) $300,000
• Replace W beam with weathering steel $320,000 - $330,000
• Option "A" - Replace W beam with TimBarrier (wood guardrail) $330,000 - $340,000
• Option 'B" - Replace W beam with timber - backed steel $400,000 - $420,000
Designing and constructing other options that would eliminate the need for concrete Jersey barriers will add specific costs
related to utility relocations as estimated below as well as other implementation costs. These additional costs may include
the relocation of -800 LF of telecom ductbank (no cost to city under franchise) and the relocation of 150 LF of water line at
an approximate cost $30,000.
Additional City funds would be needed for the Small Roadway & Safety Improvements Program if any options listed
above are requested by Council. Construction costs could be spread over the next 6 years to minimize the impact to the
Residential Street Fund (103 Fund).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends moving forward with this project based on the current funding programmed within the CIP.
Attachments: Page 5, 2015 CIP for Small Roadway & Safety Improvements
Consultant Project Status Report with Vicinity Map and Aerial Layout
Photos of Standard W Beam Guardrail & Concrete Jersey Barrier
Attachment No. 1 — Aesthetic Barriers
W: \PW Eng \PROJECTS\A- RW & RS Projects \42nd Ave S Allentown Roadside Barrier (91310301) \Design \November 24th TC Project Update \Feb 2015 TC Update \Docs to TC \March 2015 Into Memo 42nd Ave S Barrier report RRT - sb.docx
2
CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
2015 to 2020
PROJECT: Small Roadway and Safety Improvements Project No. 91310301
Varies
DESCRIPTION: Programmatic approach to addressing small roadway and safety concerns through a variety of methods.
Addresses needs not included in general maintenance, traffic calming, or other approaches.
JUSTIFICATION: Increasing public demand on staff time. Local access streets in residential neighborhoods may need minor
roadway or safety improvements that can not be addressed with any other City program.
STATUS: 42nd Ave S /Allentown Roadside Barrier is proposed in phases, Project No. 91310301. Full design in 2014
and critical areas constructed in 2015. Additional construction in 2016 is grant dependent.
MAINT. IMPACT: Minimal.
COMMENT: Federal construction grant is proposed for $350,000 from the City Safety with no local match required. Full
program is only feasible if Public Works adds a Traffic Engineer to staff (same position as Traffic Calming).
FINANCIAL Through Estimated
(in $000's)
2013 2014 2015
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 BEYOND TOTAL
EXPENSES
Design
8
30
78
116
Land (R /W)
0
Const. Mgmt.
10
50
60
Construction
60
300
360
TOTAL EXPENSES
8
30
148
350
0
0
0
0
0
536
FUND SOURCES
Awarded Grant
0
Proposed Grant
350
350
Mitigation Actual
0
Mitigation Expected
0
City Oper. Revenue
8
30
148
0
0
0
0
0
0
186
TOTAL SOURCES
8
30
148
350
0
0
0
0
0
536
4 MI
11111 �.
� ► ,� a �, 11��1 ��
2015 - 2020 Capital Improvement Program
5
3
Project Status Report
To: Dave Sorensen, P.E. — City of Tukwila
From: Nelson Davis - KPG
Date: 11/13/2014
Re: 42nd Ave S — Roadside Barrier Warrant Analysis
Project No: City # 91310301.1000.100 (KPG # 13093)
BACKGROUND:
The City of Tukwila intends to install roadside barrier along 42nd Avenue S and S 115th
Street in general accordance with the recommendations contained in the `42nd Avenue S —
Roadside Barrier Analysis' prepared by KPG (9/25/2013). The proposed improvements
include installation /replacement of approximately 2,400 linear feet of barrier along the west
side of 42nd Avenue S / south side of S 115th Street. The roadway is located adjacent to
the Duwamish River and the barrier will improve safety along this stretch of the roadway.
CURRENT PROJECT STATUS:
KPG has completed utility locates, survey, geotechnical review and prepared 30% Plans
and Construction Cost Estimate that is currently under review with the City. The Plans
generally match the recommendations included in the original Roadside Barrier Analysis
that combines the use of of anchored concrete barrier and WSDOT standard galvanized
beam guardrail on timber posts. In some locations, beam guardrail was recommended in
the original Barrier Analysis, but has been upgraded to anchored concrete barrier in the
current 30% design due to discovery of underground utilities. The underground utilities
would conflict with timber post installation and result in greater costs associated with utility
relocation and pavement repair compared with changing the type of barrier.
ESTIMATED COSTS AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
The estimated construction cost at the 30% design level is $300,000 compared with a
preliminary estimate of $275,000 during the 2013 Barrier Analysis. The increased cost is
primarily due to the need for additional anchored concrete barrier in lieu of beam guardrail
due to underground utility conflicts.
As requested, we also reviewed alternate guardrail materials as follows:
• Use of weathering steel guardrail to replace galvanized beam guardrail would result
in a cost increase of approximately $30,000 over the current estimate.
• Use of steel backed timber guardrail to replace galvanized beam guardrail would
result in a cost increase of approximately $120,000 over the current estimate.
4
These estimates are for replacement of the beam guardrail portion of the project only,
which is approximately 50% of the proposed barrier. The remaining 50% of barrier would
remain as anchored concrete barrier due to either physical site conditions or conflicts with
subsurface utilities that would result from timber post installation.
SCHEDULE:
A grant application was submitted for construction funding through the Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) in July, 2014. If the City is awarded grant funds, the intent
would be to construct all of the improvements under a single construction contract in 2015.
If the funding is not approved, the project will be split into phases to be completed over the
next few years in accordance with the current budget. Determination of grant funding is
scheduled for December 2014, at which time we will proceed with final design and
permitting of the improvements. A phasing strategy will be developed in the event that
grant funds are not available.
If grant funds are awarded to the City, additional environmental documentation will be
required to satisfy federal funding requirements; however, the goal is to complete the
permitting and design for construction in the summer /fall of 2015.
5
Vicinity Map
..R
1
1
111
PRO J ECT
LOCATION
UMW
BA
!141
TAM
ice?
I— r
'41111WC:i 111".
Mart
6
1
i
Standard W Beam Guardrail
Concrete Jersey Barrier
8
a�lsgann ,saaanpe;nuew ayl o� aa;aa
f_
S
m N
• N
QQ '
7
rD
m N
Da • m
c
• N
O_ N
O
7
o
O
K N
0 S
n v
0 v
T m
2 (D
• C.
Hf �
o m
o
0
0
O �
O
N 3
S
70 O
O (0
0) m
n- 3
N m
O
c
DJ
Q-
,Y
(n
t S
N (D
ro
r-F T
3 o.
• m
� v
v
m 2
d Cal .
a <
Cu
m v
w o �
= 00
m �
m —I
r-F N
O
(D
0
3
n n
3 m
• N
O O
c 7�
• O
(0 3
_. v
Q
3
0) U
c
o -• 0
0
0
= m
DJ
O O
Q - -
Z. 0)
CL
0_
d
• n
(0 (0
3 0
N m
- Q
CD Cr
CU
m
rr
n
O'
'Sr
z-
r"r
-
.•
F
S
5
f=
DJ
Q
0
n
0
3
O
Q
c
n
—1
D
r-r
.<
=
v
v
0_
c
N
Z
S c
.ter n
0
.. .5
VI
7 frtD
o m
3 -
c,
O
O
n
v
r
S
3
—
-.,
m
O
m
�'
3
G)
c-
, rD
. 0 CrQ
.. O
ao
S
• D
0
o
• c
r,
3 N
S
—
rS
Nrrt
N
DJ
Gl
S
S
N
.. rr
rr
N
x
O
S
..
*
0
S
(o
N
v
o
3
co
a
(D
7
G
Po Po
v
2
00
S
'p
7 fp
N
3.
n
a)
m
co
�%
-1
m
-I
INo longer being produced
NatureRail
Gregory Highway Products
http: / /www.gregorvcorp.com /highway nature
FLEXIBLE SYSTEMS
2
m
i.! o pry. e r-
ru l -
tf YS/}t 'lit kn t
( r, pA 1)
1xi5 r 1
f!d.: Jiff !G l' f_..
Soh iryVr[ 1 F'
fk.
• 1(, I
,
<
D
li
<.Y
1I
l
�
'I
^'
} 'rr
� N -
■
_
-r
-�+k ti _
,
Al 7
Da : - rte, . .a f
MANUFACTURER
•
i-
r
W
0.)
O
CL
1-
r
.A
-1
r
W
—1
r
N
I NCHRP 350
I TEST LEVEL
g
D
2
For a comparisons of all systems, please refer to FHWA Cable Barrier
Chart
Refer to manufacturer's
(Steel post encased by a 6 3/4"
Z "O rt
0 a)
O
-h (D
O0 O "O
T. 3 0)
O , (D
N O
-s M
N
(D
'
,-
((DD
N
■rt
=-
(D
N Z Ol z _a Ol
W Ql r�-r Q
, W ( rt v
\ A 70 3
N_0) =cl, rD
-4:5 _ O _ m
N N
0 M C
r-• N 0
-0 Ul v Ul Q
01 - n _
V 0q V v
Q
co co cr,
,-+
- - (D
-0 -o rD
O O
.r
POST AND BLOCKOUT
the timber rail.
N * N h-' .A
o _ _
v C v, X O
Q
W =
0 p) O X !
03 N s?
(D CI- rD W N
0- 0- CL N3
K - (0
o , rD
p v O Cr2
rt — - O
S N rD N O)
(D N Q N v
m (D FL
W
0 v h-, N e)
_ O
v m X O 0
= Q VI
= W = r'
O X v
O r, Q
co (D W N
(D 0,13
(DD - rD
o v,
O
rt r�-r - O
rD (D N OC
N Q (D 0)
v fD— rz
— W
D
I-
(Huge p01111..
Refer to manufacturer's specifications for availability of end treatments.
Steel posts are typically galvanized. Coating alternatives are available to
enhance aesthetic appearance.
Use in medians and along edge of roadways.
All wood appearance blends into the surrounding environment.
Use along edge of roadway.
No crashworthy end terminal is currently available; acceptable end treatments
include anchoring in a backslope or flaring the barrier to the edge of the clear
zone.
DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS
Attachment No. 1 (Aesthetic Barrier)
April 23, 2013
Aesthetic Barrier
DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS
J
CL
POST AND BLOCKOUT
TEST LEVEL
NCHRP 350
MANUFACTURER
SEMI -RIGID SYSTEM
Rail height 2' -3"
Wood and rock appearance blends into the surrounding environment.
Design reduces visual impairment of the environment.
0)
E
ro
0)
0
0)
ro
0)
Q
0)
U
U
(0
0)
(0
(0
co
T
y
v
3
U
N
ro
c
C
0)
Y
0)
L O
L
(0
co
0
Z
(0
(0
01
U
0)
L
a--�
0
A)
aJ
0A
0)
0)
0
4-,
0)
.0
co
(0
0)
00
C
(0
4-
L O
0)
Q
0
00
s-
0
U
C
0)
U
0
NJ
N
0
0)
w
0
O
2
0)
O
0.
E
O
U
co
M
X
LD
X
LO
CO
00
0
0)
0)
E
(0
0
00
0
0)
t
0
4-,
0)
0)
01
E
0)
(1)
4-,
Q
0)
0)
Reinforced concrete, rock and
Conservation Corp construction.
18' bollard spacing
O
on •
C
N
(0 0
O_ O-
N 4J
0) N
CO ,
B a)
0)
E
i E
CO
C
No blockout.
Deception Pass Log Rail
www.wsdot.wa
600/642.1.htm
Rail height 2' -5"
All wood appearance blends into the surrounding environment.
Use along edge of roadway.
0)
4-,
E
(0
0)
0)
0)
Q
0)
U
U
(0
0)
(0
(0
(0
T
y
c
0)
3
U
N
ro
c
C
0)
c
0)
L-
0
L
(0
co
L
u
0
Z
(0
0)
01
0)
L
4--)
0
A)
00
0)
A)
4-,
0
4-,
co0)
(0
0)
L
Y
00
C
(0
4-
L
0
A)
Q
0
N
CO
00
0
U
C
(0
0)
U
0
NJ
Dynamic deflection 4' -4 ".
TID
X
r-I
0)
(0
C
a)
E
00
0
6" x 8" x 6' long timber post
Wood blockouts 6" x 8" x 10"
Post spacing 8'
TimBarrier StreetGuard Plus
S.I. Storey Lumber Co.
0
0)
E
3
www.sistore
Rail height 2' -7"
Wood appearance blends into the surrounding environment.
4..i %
C CO
01 0)
E U
++ 0)
(0 _c
L) Y
4 4-
O 0
c
0) 00
CU
CU
0)
Q Y
0) O
U Y
U L
(0 0)
ro
N i
> Y
0.
C
C L
0)
L
M O
Q
0
(0
C
m
CU
CO
-a C
CU OA
•r2
O
O U
3
L
ro
N 0)
(i 0 0)
0 v C
Z .c O
Dynamic deflection 4"
X
LO
t
"0 -0
0)
O D (0
2 —
( 4)
O
CU 0
0) U
N 0)
Q 0) 4-'
O\
.�
U a m
12" diameter x 7' log post
Wood blockouts 8" x 6" x 8"
notched into log post
Post spacing 10'.
N
J
1-
Steel- Backed Log Rail
(0
C
N
resources
0
flh.fhwa.dot
Y
L
us-
O
N
Ei. c
al CL)
(0
L d
2))
O
E•01
c
W
0)
N
0 (0
� CU
-0 0.
0) N
4-, E
0) 0)
0 Y
U ?
(0
3 :
3
C
6 .>
_ C
0
O co
O0
O
O_
O
3 '
O_ ((00
N O
O w
co
01
O
C
w LL
0)
(moo
00
v O
w d
N Y
L
CU
L
00 0)
O 00
d
CU
(0
s
0.0
Q Y
N
RS c
Cr) N
'
0) cu
LL
O1 N
›- Y
0
W
Y 0)
C0)
C
0) as
L
Q
E N
'v
O O p
0) O
LO
0)
LL
(6 0
(0 U
-C (i
Federal Highway Administration
•allsgam ,saaanpe;nuew aye ol.ia;aa
IAC
0
a
3
0
f_
S
(0
m
• Cu
00
7
(D
(D N
00
OA (D (D
C
7 N
fl • N
O
m 5
= 7
D 0
o ?
c
rt f..i
p S
N
0 N
T ("D
2 (D
• Cnci.
O (D
6
O
O
O
O
N 3
70 C
o
DJ (D
a 3
N �
a
3
O r-'
(/i C
DJ O
N Q-
rt (D
N rt
■
N (D
rt m
co ro
3 a
N (D
7
DJ
Uoi
(D =
Q <
.<
CD v
N 3
Cr
• ao
c
•
(D ••1
rt N
O
fD
0
as 3
n
3 ro
• N
✓ n
O 0
M �
C =
eY
O
S �
CD 3
_. N
7 rt.
Ort O
g
• U
rt_ C
O
7 U
0 ON
7 (D
0J
• O
3
a
N
CL Q
—
N • N
• C)
rt
(D m
3 °+
N (D
a
_
0 S
CU '<
CD
aa!JJe8 Dpayisad
'Connecticut DOT
a
xt
1-,
S m N tn
rt 3
r', N
-h fD CO W
• = 3 n n
v r Q. G.
o -. -.
3 3
0• s
o -
fD ci n
N C
d C
o CU
0 fl- a
N d
N -
fl)
3
in cro
,-,.
iv co
= 3
CL '+
v
Z
D
E
m
■-.
Y..
• t
,0 l
1'.
r i' F
lr �.
_f
•
MANUFACTURER
NCHRP 350
TEST LEVEL
E
D
For a complete comparisons of these systems, please refer to FHWA
Roadside Post and Beam Chart
Uses wood or steel posts.
O
o
a
CS
n
O
_
X
CO
_
x
I--`
I--‘
_
v
o
CO
"O
CU
m.
W
0
•
v
o
CT
(D
0
W
8
=
a
N
00
v
G
N
7
N
CD
a
x
N
U'1
X
ol
Ol
m
(D
O
r7
The SBT end terminal is 40' -9" long and is designed to collapse when hit end -on.
9 - 6" x 10" weakened wood posts.
9 - 6" x 10" rail segment with angled ends and special attachment hardware.
10" x 12" x 7' long timber post.
Post spacing 5'.
Wood blockouts 4" x 9" x 12"
II -RIGID SYSTEM
POST AND BLOCKOUT
Standard metal beam guardrail
plates and splices to provide tensile
continuity.
Composite Rail: 6" x 10" wood rail
backed with a 3/8" thick steel plate.
XII
D
1
rropriety irear.rnents to achieve rustic appearance on ootn post anu rail
elements: acid - etched, powder coated and weathered steel.
This product is structurally inferior to standard gaurdrail do
to the weakening created by the process used to create the
weathered look. FWHA does not reccomend installing this
product near constantly humid locations such as riverside
applications.
No crashworthy end terminal was developed tor this system; acceptable end
treatments include anchoring in a backslope or flaring the barrier to the edge
of the clear zone.
Rail height 2' -3"
All wood appearance blends into the surrounding environment.
System can connect to Straight and Curved Stone Masonry Guardwall.
Dynamic deflection 1' -11" with blockout
DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS
aa!JJe8 Dpayisad
April 23, 2013
Aesthetic Barrier
CHARACTERISTICS
RIGID SYSTEM
No crashworthy end terminal is currently available; acceptable end treatments
include anchoring in a backslope or flaring the barrier to the edge of the clear
zone.
Wall height: 1' -10"
Stone facing blends into the surrounding environment.
No crashworthy end terminal is currently available; acceptable end treatments
include anchoring in a backslope or flaring the barrier to the edge of the clear
zone.
Stone facing blends into the surrounding environment.
Used in medians when double- faced.
COMPONENTS
Section 2 is 2' tall x 5' -6" long.
Reinforced concrete footings and core wall are poured and stone
placed prior to filling the cavity with concrete.
Rock size is between 12" and 1' -6" with smaller rocks and masonry
mortar.
Wall width: 2' single or 2' -3" double faced.
Three main components: reinforced concrete foundation slab, inner
reinforced concrete core wall and rough stone masonry face with an
attachment system.
Masonry face can have the projections a maximum of 1 -1/2" beyond
the working line. Avoid projections oriented toward oncoming traffic.
Rake joints can be up to 2" deep, and mortar beds can be 2" - 3" thick.
Three main components: reinforced concrete foundation slab, inner
reinforced concrete core wall and rough stone masonry facing with
an anchor attachment system.
Masonry face can have the projections a maximum of 1 -1/2" beyond
TEST LEVEL
2
N
Q
2
NCHRP 350
J
dfI �w,�
7y
.k
•ENO °: _
tr—
N
J
m
J
cir
Y
._ _ u,
r'�Jyy:-
MANUFACTURER
W
2
a
z
1 1
I I
Rough Stone Masonry Guardwall
http: / /safety.fhwa.dot.gov /roadway dept /poli
icy guide /road hardware /barriers /pdf /b202.cf 1
El
http: / /safety.fhwa.dot.gov /roadway dept /poli
df
v
T
Q y
-0 O_
(Y6 E
Q Q
L Y
U N
N N
C
_
_ C
o co
co
v C
N O
o
o
= 'Y
Q co
m �
o
o
'Y C
(Q
G
O Y
L
C
LL
CL/
U
C �
v o
0 a
� o
N Y
LE
v
E 2
v
tw c
o
a .§
0_
3 �
L
GA
2 �
—0 =
Y
QJ
E
v v
LL
111
0J CO
� O
3
Q
E N
v O
0
0 0
o
LO
v
LL
(0 0
Y
(p U
L
U Y
N C
Y O
C Q
O
C
0
t v
N
N
0.1 UO
N �
N v
aT al
QJ '
N W
N
L J
H Y
refer to the manufacturers' website.
12
•allsgam ,sJaanpe;nuew alp ol. Ja;a.i
Ln
(D
m N
= Cu
00 —^
(0
co
CD cc,
. N
00 (D
C
N
O-
0
m 5
= 7
D
O ?
N
rF 1"1
DJ 3
cu
0 cu
T
0-
Cri
O N
O
O
O
O
N 3
p-
c
o
N (0
N �
Q
C
cu
N Q-
N
N
m
m
N (�
D
(u =
—
s
a
-<
N
00 O
00
CD
v
•
co —1
c
0
m
v m
o m
a0 a)
m (-)
3 T.
• N
O 0
c 7
eY 0
ro 3 �
3
_. N
7 c,
0 O
7
Cl) -0
c
O
7 -6
0 ON
= (D
a)
= O
O_
< v
Q Q
w
N N
N f1
3
(0
73 Q
(IT Cr
0) '<
D
rrrD
rt
-J 0
aa!JJe8 Dpayisad
Stone Cast, Inc.
http: // safety .fhwa.dot.gov /roadway dept /poli
cy guide /road hardware /barriers /pdf /b-
Q
n, `
00
W
i
O_
T
N
O
http: / /flh.fhwa.dot.gov /resources /pse /standar
RIGID SYSTEM
z
a
E
f. - -�
111/111
;M
- a
k.
' s
5.
L
L
�`
!
,1
C
g
MANUFACTURER
W
-i
r
w
—I
r
(
NCHRP 350
TEST LEVEL
g
D
v,
2
Unit footing: 1' deep x 4' wide, cast integrally with its stem.
Foundation, stem , and stone veneer cast integrally as a single unit.
Units can be made in 5',10' or 20' long segments, and can be curved to
fit a specified radius
Foundation, core, and concrete stone facing are precast as a single
unit.
Three main components: reinforced concrete foundation slab, inner
reinforced concrete core wall and rough stone masonry face with an
attachment system.
Masonry face can have the projections a maximum of 1 -1/2" beyond
the working line. Avoid projections oriented toward oncoming traffic.
D -.I... :..;..4.- ...... �... . ... .... 7„ ..I ....... - ......I w....4 -..- �. -..J.. .. -.... L-... '1„ 7„ +I..;..I.
COMPONENTS
No crashworthy end terminal is currently available; acceptable end treatments
include anchoring in a backslope or flaring the barrier to the edge of the clear
zone.
Vse III F1leuld1Is 11 u0UUle -IdLeu 01 dI01l eub'e 01 ruduwdy.
Approved for use with 4" mountable curb at any offset.
No crashworthy end terminal is currently available; acceptable end treatments
include anchoring in a backslope or flaring the barrier to the edge of the clear
zone.
Stone facing blends into the surrounding environment.
No crashworthy end terminal is currently available; acceptable end treatments
include anchoring in a backslope or flaring the barrier to the edge of the clear
zone.
CHARACTERISTICS
aa!JJe8 Dpayisad
April 23, 2013
Aesthetic Barrier
CHARACTERISTICS
41
'L
no
-0
0)
O
N
7.0
d
AD
N
0
.F+
3
7to
V
+,
>
(•r)
N
+
.7)
=
(o
0
.0 L
C (o
a) a)
E V
0) _C
LJ a--,
-O 0
C 0)
0) OA
CU
a1
—
-C
co_ J-'
u O
U L
CO 0)
Q.) s_
(3
ro
—
> a)
+-C
-+
no OA
T c
+, •i
C (0
v '•
L L
C 0
U N
U) Q
— o
c Y
E o
L .O
a)
a N
-6 C
c
0) L3A
T .c
-
4-, O
O o
c
L (a
� v
u c a)
O c) c
z .E O
COMPONENTS
;IGID SYSTEM
v
_=
E
4—
bA
-6
01
>.
ate-,
(o
•x
o
a.
03
a)
Q
O
VI
a1
bA
C
ro
Y,
O
0
VI
ro
To
v u
L L
Iti >
0
1.
E
7:3
7
dA
v
X
QJ
_
to
`v
(_
in
O
—
E
c
E
(O
E
:3
,(1'
-
L
CE
v
V)
"a
C fa
V)
, -I
0
' L
N
0
(O a)
b.°
u
-p
O N
0 >
'�
a) O
0 a)
- 4
+� E
a) ro
E -c
N
C a)
L lt
a) (o
44-, 4
ti4
L QJ
-O
cu
O ) dO_
0 (E
tlA -0
EC ra m
— v)
N 2
48
v
u
(4
a)
t
4-,
C
N
E
L
a0 •
a) -O
c _3
(o r,
iv
Q c
. O_
>- a)
C a)
(a -O
E
a
a
-,
2
0 4
O L
x
1- a)
M +F,
a)
a)
>
m
++
ate-)
c
•2
(o
-a 4-
ao)
o 0
C
-a �,
(
0.0 -0
-c (a
*' L
a)
>
0
O
••,
X \
cu rn
+� w
L 0
O 4—
++ v
CL 7
,
<
.4 E
_c 4-
Y o
v
E
7 a)
E a,
ro
E y
__ 0
a-+ OL
(1:5
o_ (O
c
>, v
c 0)
(O
v, a)
' u
4
O L
O
° E
a)
o E
0
a0 E
_o - (n
vi _ L
ro O
(../ co In
Ln O -1
t
u — v
L
n3 o
4- "6 C X
C L ate)
-, (o )
\ a) fro -
N ru v) a)
O +C+ O
v
NSF, O a1
U L
E a) Q 0
z c
E (o
X -0 a.
o + v v
E v a..
(U > +'
O (n
-c _o L >
}' (a O O
L
N 0., (o
eA -a)
'c
L
4.-'X -C
Q) L o rL a)
t 0 L
L a Q
N ra
O ns -O
u
+, qA 0.0 0 +�
OA p
a) v) o
Q- c M a1 C
c - z p
< Y 0 -' L
LO Q a) ate, O..
TEST LEVEL
=
V)
a
2
NCHRP 350
m
J
1—
MANUFACTURER
l' IF'1:4.:-.."-I'
JI
--ill 'i1\
f \).
5
_ 5
'. 1
.
J
-E-- y
9.
•I
Lu
<
a
Z
L
L
L
m
a)
4,
c
u
0
W
VI
a
o
.o
u
a)
c
4,
a) C
rru
.Q V
0
v
u O_ O
v L)
ro
° Ll
U Y
L
a Ln
O u
N
2 To
.. a)
ab v
ai s
a)
co
a co
_a v
• 0_
a) 91
o
0.1
Y
U
N a
� N
3 �
-D C
c ,
(o
-0
c c
O
in
O O
Q
0
O_ ((0
c
C 0
O
C c
ro
C Q)
o L
c
N
U L• 6
C �
0
� CL
13_)
iC
2
s- v
0A C
o bA
CL Q)
N
0
-0
s
ao
2 v
a
co C
0) N
0 E
v
LL y,
A) N
C a
▪ V)
L
C (6
7 N
Y Q)
-O
CL)
E o
v 0
cC
E - N
'4- 0
O
O
O p
0J O
p- a
v
LL
C
L-
(1:1
_c
V c
LE 0
Y U
C Q
o
C
C -
_C Q)
Uf
cUf C
C �
0) CIA
Y O
>
N Q)
Q/
• C
Q)
low
00 C
N LLJ
a) (/)
t
H Y
refer to the manufacturers' website.
14