7. Alternative Analysis

7.1 Alternative Alignments As mentioned previously, all of the alternative alignments developed are variations on a similar theme. The main difference between each alternative is in the lateral location of the roadway with respect to existing ROW lines. For the purposes of this study, each alternative was assigned a starting station which corresponds to the alternative number. For example, Alternative 1 starts at station 1000+00, Alternative 2 starts at 2000+00, etc.

7.2 Typical Section Alternatives The five alternatives being evaluated in this study have very similar typical sections. Figures 7-1 through 7-4 show the proposed typical sections of CR 16A. All typical sections provide four 12-foot lanes (two each direction) with outside 5-foot paved shoulders. The total pavement width provided is 29 feet one way bounded on both sides by 2-foot wide standard curb and gutter (similar to FDOT type "F") . A 20-foot grassed median is provided to accommodate future tum lanes as may be required. A 22-foot border is provided with 5-foot wide sidewalks adjacent to the ROW lines for pedestrian traffic. The total ROW width required for the typical section is 130 feet.

7.2.1 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 is simply the construction of the typical section about the centerline of the existing roadway. Thirty-two feet of additional ROW is required on both sides of the roadway (for a total of 64 feet) along most of the alignment's length to provide room for the proposed typical section. No ROW is required in the vicinity of the SR 16/CR 16A intersection since the existing width is adequate. The existing horizontal geometry would be maintained, and any super-elevation required in the horizontal curves would be constructed to bring the facility up to current standards.

7.2.2 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 is constructed parallel to the existing alignment on south (right) side of that alignment. The existing north ROW line is held with all construction occurring south of it. Sixty-four feet of additional ROW is required along most of the length of the alignment to provide room for the proposed typical section. No ROW is required in the vicinity of the SR 16/CR 16A intersection at the eastern end of the project because there is adequate ROW currently. New horizontal geometry is needed to describe this alignment since none of the existing geometry is maintained. All horizontal curves will have adequate super-elevation as necessary to meet to current standards.

CR1 6A PER FINALDOC/060450010 7-1

~ CONST AND ! EXISTING R/W ------------- ! ~ EXISTING CR 16A J ____________ EXISTING R/W !

TEMPORARY I -----i ! I TEMPORARY

~~1~~1Uf!'f7NE l j 32' PROPOSED R/W Aau1s1T10N WIDTH j JJ '± 33 ' ± : 32 ' PROPOSED R/W Aau 1s 1T10N w10 TH j \ ~1i~~1~c!'f7NE

~ I I I ! ~

NATURAL

: I I LIMI TS OF CLEARING ; :

~PROPOSED R/W I PROPOSED R/W ---------------...... J i r 130 ' !

I I ~· ~· .

i I I i j _ 22' ~ 12 ' I_ 29 ' , 2' I 20' 2' 29' - 1 2 ' ,_ 22' _ I

i L VARIES I

I I I i I I I I I

~·_5:·

'pfDEWA[i<

SEED & MULCH -1 1- PAVEMENT WIDTH -,-T SEED & MULCH -- -- - , ,-- PAVEMENT WIDTH ---1 ··· -,- SEED & MULCH - 11 AND/OR SOD AND/OR SOD ANO/ OR SOD

16" 5001 ---J--'.

PA~~D SH LOR

12' LANE 12' LANE 10' 10 ' 12 ' LANE i2 ' LANE

PROFILE GRADE LINE PROFILE GRADE LINE

0 .04 0 .04

5 ' PAVED SH LOR

r--;-16" SOD 2 ' : 5' ---:--1 ! VARIES

ls1oEw Al"KI I .. ..

¥ 1

~ I. om a ru 0.04 ' o.~ . · 1

~ I l

NATURAL GROUND

2:1 MAX OR TO SUIT PROPERTY OWNER BUT NOT FLATTER THAN 6:/

TRAFFIC DATA

L__ 12" ( TYPJ

24" STANDARD CURB AND GUTTER ( TYPJ

NEW CONSTRUCTION

CURRENT YEAR 2005 AAOT = 5,900 l'/4" TYPE S-1 OVERLAYED WITH ~ " TYPE S- 11/ ASPHALTIC CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE

ESTIMATED OPENING YEAR 2010 AADT = 10,300

ESTIMATED DESIGN YEAR 2030 AADT = 38,950 K = 9.167. D = 56.107. T = 8.667. (24 HOUR! DESIGN HOUR T = 4 .337.

8 " LIMEROCK BASE COURSE LBR 100/987. MAXIMUM DENSI TY PER AASHTO T- 180 PRIMED ENTIRE WIDTH

12 " STABILIZED SUBGRADE LBR 40/ 987. MAXIMUM DENSITY PER AASHTO T -180

DESIGN SPEED = 45 MPH

POSTED SPEED= 45 MPH

R E V I s I O N s CH2M HI LL DATE Br DESCRIPTION DATE Br DESCRIPTION 9428 8AYMEA[)(N(5 ROAD

SUITE 200 JACKSONVILLE, rL 32256 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NO. 000072

Ef>(llneer of Record: MICHAEL J . ROLAND P.E. No.: 47656

l sr. JOHNS COUNTY

2 :/ MAX OR TO SUI T PROPERTY OWNER BUT NOT FLA TTER THAN 6 : /

FIGURE 7--1 ALTERNATIVE NO. I

TYPICAL SECTION C: w or kdi r \331630 - CR 16A \ fypsal l l .d9n 02/ 03/ 2006

I s~~~r I

11:05 :30 AM

r !

il

f EXISTING CR 16A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCT ION

EXISTING R/W ~ ~ EXISTING R/W EASEMENT LINE

TEMPORARY : 33 '± 33 •+ : 64' PROPOSED RIW AQUIS/TION WIDTH ! z CONSTRUCTION

EASEMENT LINE ~ I ~ [ CONST I ' I I LIMI TS OF CLEARING I :

I

I I I I I PROPOSED R/W ~ i 130'

I I . 65' 65 ' !

I 22· 2· 29· 2 · 20· 2· 29 · 2 · 22· I

SEED & MULCH PAVEMENT WIDTH SEED & MULCH PAVEMENT WIDTH SEED & MULCH l AND/OR SOD AND/OR SOD AND/OR SOD ,

.-2' 16" SOD 16" SOD 2 ' I VARIES I ~ 5' I l "i ' I 12' LANE I 12' LANE JO' I /0 ' 12 ' LANE I 12 ' LANE I "i ' ~ I 5 ' ~ 1. ":ARIE~ • • 1DEWALK I PAVED I I I I I PAVED I s1DEwAtK

SHLDR SHLDR

PROFILE GRADE LINE PROF /LE GRADE LINE ¥

NATURAL , G~

0,04 0 .04 0 .04 I I I I I

I o.o3 0 .03 ~.:__ __ ~ o~.o::.4 ___ i:::==r""' NATURAL GROUND _J

2:1 MAX OR TO SUIT PROPERTY OWNER BUT NOT FLATTER THAN 6:/

TRAFFIC DATA

- 12" ITYPJ

24 ' STANDARD CURB AND GUTTER <TYPJ

NEW CONSTRUCTION

CURRENT YEAR 2005 AADT = 5,900 J'/,, " TYPE S -1 OVERLAYED WITH ~ " TYPE S - 111 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE

ESTIMATED OPENING YEAR 2010 AADT = JO.JOO

ESTIMA TED DESIGN YEAR 2030 AADT = 38,950 K = 9.l6X D = 56 .JOX T = 8.66X <24 HOUR!

DESIGN HOUR T = 4.33X

8 " LIMEROCK BASE COURSE LBR I00/ 98X MAXIMUM DENSITY PER AASHTO T-180 PRIMED ENTIRE WID TH

12 " STABILIZED SUBGRADE LBR 40/ 98X MAXIMUM DENSITY PER AASHTO T -180

DESIGN SPEED = 45 MPH

POSTED SPEED = 45 MPH

R E V I s I O N s I CH2M HI LL I OATE I BY I DESCRIPTION I DATE I BY I DESCRIPTION 9428 BAYIIEAlXNIS RO.AD

SUITE 200 JACKSONVILLE, FL 32256 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NO. (XJ()()72

Engineer of Record: UICHAEL J. ROLAND P.E. No.: 47656

l) sr. JOHNS COUNTY

2 :1 MAX OR TO SUI T PROPERTY OWNER BUT NOT FLATTER THAN 6 : /

FIGURE 7- 2 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2

TYPICAL SECTION c:wor kdir \331630 - CR t6A \ typsolf2 .dgn 02/03 / 2006

SHEET NO.

11:06:31 AM

{

f EXISTING CR 16A

EXISTING R/W

TEMPORARY I I • 1 · . '1 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION

1 ~ f CONST . CONSTRUCTION

EASEMENT L/NEZ I I ~ EXISTING RIW ~ EASEU~

! 64' PROPOSED R/W AQUISITION WIDTH ~ JJ' :t I 33 ' :t !

1 LIMI TS OF CLEARING I:== PROPOSED RIW L I

I ! 65' 65 '

I i I i j 22' 2' 29' 2' 20 ' 2 ' 29 ' 2 ' 22' i ,1

SEED & MULCH PAVEMENT WIDTH SEED & MULCH PAVEMENT WIDTH SEED & MULCH .1.

AND/OR SOD AND/OR SOD AND/OR SOD

I r-2' 16" SOD 16" SOD 2 ' i VARtESI. 1 ~5· I l ,;• , 12· LANE , 12· LANE 10 · I ,a· 12 · LANE , 12 · LANE , _,; · r- I 5 • --:-ll '. • .. p1DEWALK I PAVED I I I I I PAVEO I s 7oEwAtK I

SH LOR SHLDR

VARIES

PROFILE GRADE LINE PROFILE GRADE LINE ¥

NATURAL

~ 0,04

0 .04 0.04

0.03 0 .0J

i I ' 0 .04 /

~ I I NATURAL] GROUND

2:1 MAX OR TO SUIT PROPERTY ONNER BUT NOT FLATTER THAN 6:/

TRAFFIC DATA

- 12" fTYPJ

24 ' STANDARD CURB AND GUTTER ( TYPJ

NEW CONSTRUCTION

CURRENT YEAR 2005 AADT = 5,900 l'/,i " TYPE 5-1 OVERLAYED WITH ~ " TYPE S-11/ ASPHALT IC CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE

ESTIMATED OPENING YEAR 2010 AADT = JO.JOO ESTIMATED DESIGN YEAR 2030 AADT = JB,950 K = 9.16X D = 56.IOX T = 8.66X (24 HOUR)

DESIGN HOUR T = 4.33X

8 " LIMEROCK BASE COURSE LBR I00/ 98X MAXIMUM DENSITY PER AASHTO T-180 PRIMED ENTIRE WIDTH

12" STABILIZED SUBGRADE LBR 40/ 98X MAXIMUM DENSITY PER AASHTO T - 180

DESIGN SPEED = 45 MPH

POSTED SPEED= 45 MPH

REVISIONS CH2M HILL DATE Br DESCRIPTION DATE Br DESCRIPTION 9428 BAYIIEADOHS ROAD

SUITE 200 JACKSONVILLE, FL 32256 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NO. 000072

Engineer of Record: MICHAEL J . ROLAND PE. No.: 47656

l) sr. JOHNS COUNTY

2:/ MAX OR TO SUI T PROPERTY OHNER BUT NOT FLATTER THAN 6 :/

FIGURE 7-3 ALTERNATIVE NO. 3

TYPICAL SECTION c :workdir \331630 - CR !6A \ typsolt3 .dqn 02/ 03 / 2006

SHEE T NO.

11:07 :48 AM

'/

(£ EXISTING CR 16A

1 PROPOSED I JJ ':t JJ ':t I PROPOSED RIW AQUISITION WIDTH VARIES 1

TEMPORARY I • WIDTH I I TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION I _________ EXISTING R/W (£ CONST~

1 , CONSTRUCTION

EASEMENT LINEZ i-- 'I EXISTING RIW ~ ' EASEME~T LINE

I • I ' t_____j ~~~~~~-L_IM_IT_S~O_F~CL_E_A_R_IN_G~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NATURAL

l i===== PROPOSED R/W I I 1 BO' '

' i I I

65' 65' ! I I

1 i I j _ 22' _ ,2' 1 _ 29' 2' 20' 2' 29' _ , 2 ' ,_ 22' _I

AND/OR SOD AND/ OR SOD AND/OR SOD ii SEED & MULCH PAVEMENT WIDTH --~ - SEED & MULCH - - PAVEMENT WIDTH - - SEED & MULCH

I r-2.' 16" SOD 16" SOD 2 ' VARIES I ~ 5 ' I l 12' LANE 12' LANE JO' JO' 12 ' LANE 12 ' LANE ~ I 5 ' T VARIES I TbEWAtK AVED PAVE s1DEwA'r.K .. ..

. SHLDR SHLDR

PROF ILE GRADE LINE PROF /LE GRADE LINE

0 .04 0.04

i I

I I I I I

¥

1

J 0,04 I I o.oJ o.oJ I ' 0 .04 _/.

~ i j NATURAL GROUND :.....J

2:1 MAX OR TO SUIT PROPERTY OWNER BUT NOT FLATTER THAN 6:/

TRAFFIC DATA

- 12" (TYPJ

24" STANDARD CURB AND GUTTER (TYPJ

NEW CONSTRUCTION

CURRENT YEAR 2005 AADT = 5,900 l'/4 " TYPE 5-1 OVERLAYED WITH ~ " TYPE 5-11/ ASPHALT IC CONCRE TE SURFACE COURSE

ESTIMATED OPENING YEAR 2010 AADT = JO.JOO ESTIMATED DESIGN YEAR 2030 AADT = 38,950 K = 9./67. D = 56.107. T = 8.667. (24 HOURI DESIGN HOUR T = 4 .JJX

8 " LIMEROCK BASE COURSE LBR 100/987. MAXIMUM DENSITY PER AASHTO T-180 PRIMED ENTIRE WIDTH

12" STABILIZED SUBGRADE LBR 40/ 987. MAXIMUM DENSITY PER AASHTO T-180

DESIGN SPEED = 45 MPH

POSTED SPEED= 45 MPH

REVISION S CH2M HILL DA TE Br DESCRIPTION DATE £Jr DESCRIPTION 9428 BAYIIEADONS ROAD

SUITE 200 JACKSONVILLE, FL 32256 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NO. 000072

Engineer of Record: MICHAEL J. ROLAND P.E. No.: 47656

. ST. JOHNS COUNTY

I 2 :/ MAX OR TO SUIT PROPER TY OWNER BUT NOT FLATTER THAN 6: /

FIGURE 7-4 AL TERNATIVES NO. 4 AND NO.

TYPICAL SECTION 5

c :wor kdir \331630 - CR l6A\ typsatt4. dgn 02/ 03 /2006

SHEET NO.

11:09:18 AM

7. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

7 .2.3 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 is constructed parallel to the existing alignment on the north (left) side of that alignment. The existing south ROW line is held with all construction occurring north of it. Sixty-four feet of additional ROW is required along most of the length of the alignment to provide room for the proposed typical section. Again, no ROW is required in the vicinity of the SR 16/CR 16A intersection at the eastern end of the project as there is adequate width currently. New horizontal geometry is needed to describe this alignment since none of the existing geometry is maintained. All horizontal curves will have adequate super-elevation as necessary to meet current standards.

7.2.4 Alternative 4 Alternative 4 consists of construction of the proposed typical section more or less along the centerline of the existing alignment. Sixty-four feet of additional ROW is required along most of this alternative's length to provide room for the proposed typical section, but it is not distributed evenly along the alternative; i.e. the ROW taking width on both sides varies, but the sum is equal to 64 feet.

This alternative starts at the intersection of SR 13/CR 16A, following the existing alignment (Sta 4000+00 to Sta 4010+00). It then transitions south of the existing roadway thus avoiding impacts to several private residences in the vicinity of the CR 16A/CR 210 intersection (Sta 4010+00 to Sta 4035+00). From Sta 4035+00 to Sta 4165+00, Alternative 4 stays south of the existing alignment, thus minimizing impacts to the Ashford Mills and Silverleaf Plantation DRis. From Sta 4165+00 to Sta 4205+00, this alternative shifts to the north of the existing alignment avoiding impacts to most of the property owners between the stations described. Beyond Sta 4205+00, Alternative 4 transitions back to the centerline of the existing roadway, and follows it until approximately Sta 4330+00. This alternative then shifts north again to minimize impacts to the property owners between Sta 4350+00 to Sta 4360+00. After Sta 4360+00, Alternative 4 transitions south to coincide with the existing alignment. It follows the existing alignment to its intersection with SR 16.

As with the previous alignment alternatives, no ROW is required in the vicinity of the SR 16/CR 16A intersection at the eastern end of the project since there is enough ROW. New horizontal geometry is needed to describe this alignment since little of the existing geometry is maintained. All horizontal curves will have adequate super-elevation as necessary to bring the facility up to current standards.

7 .2.5 Alternative 5 Alternative 5 consists of construction of the proposed typical section more or less along the centerline of the existing alignment similar to Alternative 4. Sixty-four feet of additional ROW is required along most of the length of the alternative to provide room for the proposed typical section, but it is not distributed evenly along the alternative; i.e. the ROW taking width on both sides varies, but the sum is equal to 64 feet.

Alternative 5 begins south of the SR 13/CR 16A intersection at Sta 5000+00 and progresses east toward the intersection with CR 210. Near the end of the first horizontal curve around Sta 5032+00, Alternative 5 shifts north of the existing alignment to avoid large earth berms constructed just south of the existing south ROW line. Alternative 5 continues east, roughly

CR16A PER FINALDOC/060450010 7-6

7. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

parallel to the existing alignment, before beginning a transition south around Sta 5083+00 that takes it south of CR 16A thus avoiding impacts to the Ashford Mills and Silverleaf Plantation DRis. Around Sta 5176+00, Alternative 5 crosses back north of the existing alignment until Sta 5195+00 to avoid impacts to property owners on the south side of the road. The alternative begins a transition to the south of the existing alignment completing it around Sta 5235+00. From there, Alternative 5 runs roughly parallel to CR 16A until Sta 5285+00 minimally impacting the property holders south of the existing alignment in the vicinity of Leo Maguire Parkway. A horizontal curve carries Alternative 5 north across the existing alignment where it again roughly parallels existing CR 16A. Around Sta 5360+00, another horizontal curve ties Alternative 5 into the existing alignment just west of the CR 16A/ SR 16 intersection.

As with the previous alignment alternatives, no ROW is required in the vicinity of the SR 16/CR 16A intersection at the eastern end of the project. New horizontal geometry is needed to describe this alignment since none of the existing geometry is maintained. All horizontal curves will have adequate super-elevation as necessary to bring the facility up to current standards.

7 .3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Each Alternative

7.3.1 Alternative 1

Advantages Existing horizontal geometry is maintained, and equal ROW takings from both sides of road minimize charges of favoritism since all property owners immediately adjacent to the corridor are affected.

Disadvantages Maintenance of traffic (MOT) could be complicated since bridge 784028 coincides with the median of this alternate thus leading to tight construction machinery clearances. Also, impacts to Ashford Mills and Silverleaf DRis are not minimized. There is a moderate cost associated with re-grading the existing earth berm on the south side of the roadway to match the typical section. More parcels are impacted resulting in more relocations. This alignment also impacts the Orangedale Electrical Substation.

7 .3.2 Alternative 2

Advantages Construction phasing would be relatively simple. All traffic would utilize existing CR 16A while new eastbound lanes constructed . Once completed, traffic would be shifted to eastbound roadway while westbound roadway constructed. Also, there would be minimal impact to Ashford Mills and Silverleaf Plantation DRis.

Disadvantages Since all ROW taking on south side of existing alignment, affected property owners might charge favoritism in alternative selection process. This alternative has the highest number of

CA1 6A PER FINALDOC/060450010 7.7

7. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

residential relocations (eight). This alternative has the highest amount of wetland impact (3.57 acres) as well. There is a significant cost associated with relocation of the existing earth berm on the south side of the roadway. The alternative also encroaches into the Orangedale Electrical Substation.

7 .3.3 Alternative 3

Advantages Construction phasing is relatively straightforward. All traffic would utilize existing CR 16A while new westbound lanes constructed. Once completed, traffic would be shifted to westbound roadway while eastbound roadway constructed. Also, large earth berms along south side of existing roadway remain intact, thus reducing potential earthwork costs. Finally, the alternative avoids the Orangedale Electrical Substation altogether.

Disadvantages Since all ROW taking is on the north side of the existing alignment, affected property owners might charge favoritism in alternative selection process. ROW takings from Ashford Mills and Silverleaf Plantation DRis maximized, thus leading to large potential costs. This impacts more parcels, resulting in more relocations.

7.3.4 Alternative 4

Advantages ROW takings minimized from most property owners. The residential relocation number is the lowest, 1. Wetland and floodplain impacts are minimized. Overall construction cost is moderate.

Disadvantages MOT could be substantial. Since alternative shifts from one side of existing road to the other, cross-over transitions would be necessary during construction to maintain traffic. There would be some ROW impacts to the Ashford Mills DRI. There is minor encroachment into Orangedale Electrical Substation. Costs associated to relocate berm significant.

7.3.5 Alternative 5

Advantages ROW takings from Ashford Mills and Silverleaf Plantation DRis would be avoided all together resulting in minimal ROW acquisition costs. No impact to Orangedale Electrical Substation. This alternative has the same number of relocations as Alternative 4.

Disadvantages MOT could be substantial. Since alternative shifts from one side of existing road to the other, cross-over transitions would be necessary during construction to maintain traffic.

CR16A PER FINAL.DOC/060450010 7-8

7. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

7.4 Alternative Evaluation An evaluation matrix was prepared to further evaluate the alternatives. Evaluation factors included area of floodplain impacted, number of residential relocations, additional ROW required, and wetland area impacted. Cost estimates for alternative are included. The evaluation matrix is shown in Table 7-1.

TABLE 7-1 Evaluation Matrix

Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Area of Area of Estimated Right of

Alternative Construction Wetland Floodplain Right of way2 Way Impact Alignment Cost (2005 $)1 Impact (AC) Impact (AC) Cost (2005 $'s) Area (AC) Relocations

$46,904,797 0.60 1.06 $1,285,336.35 46.4 7

2 $46,732,554 3.57 1.09 $973,330.72 45.8 8

3 $45,161,289 0.79 1.00 $1 ,499,636.64 49.7 7

4 $46,593,466 1.97 1.06 $949,968.22 48.1

5 $45,993,619 1.97 1.09 $929,056.89 45.1

Source: CH2M HILL, 2006.

1. Preliminary Cost Estimates are based on conceptual engineering; City of Jacksonville average unit costs for years 2004-2005. 2. ROW costs are based on St. Johns County Property Appraiser data. 3. Wetland Mitigation and Tree Mitigation are not included in costs. 4. Costs are for year 2005.

5. Construction and Right of Way costs do not include pond costs. 6. Project length is approximately 7.0 miles. 7. Alternative 5 is the recommended alternative.

Alternative 5 was selected as the preferred alternative. Alternatives 4 and 5 had the least number of relocations, but Alternative 4 impacts the Orangedale electrical substation, has a higher estimated right of way cost, construction cost, and right of way impacted area. Alternative 5 was selected because it shifts north avoiding the substation while minimizing residential relocations, wetland impacts, and floodplain impacts which minimized the estimated construction cost.

CR16A PER FINALDOC/060450010 7.9