HomeMy WebLinkAboutI-182 RD 68 Corridor Enhancement Feasibility Study 01-20-09 FtranspoGRoup
WHAT TRANSPCRTAMN CAN BE.
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 20, 2009 TG: 08161.00
To: Bob Alberts, City of Pasco
From: Bruce Haldors, The Transpo Group
Yonnel Gardes, The Transpo Group
cc:
Subject: 1-1821 Road 68 Options— Feasibility Study
The purpose of this memorandum is to document the feasibility study of potential long term
roadway options in the 1-182 corridor/West Pasco area, and describe a proposed short-terra
improvement.
In early 2008,the City of Pasco identified a series of potential options for reducing traffic
congestion along Road 68 near the 1-182 interchange and the Burden Blvd intersection. A
preliminary assessment of various potential new roadway connections in the 1-182 corridor was
presented in a memo dated of May 2008_This preliminary assessment resulted in the identification
of a limited number of alternatives that were judged to merit further review and analysis.
Based on this initial work, it was decided to conduct a follow-up study to refine the alternatives and
perform a more detailed analysis of the engineering feasibility, costs and potential traffic benefits
of the various options. This memo presents the approach and results of this feasibility study.
The memo also includes the presentation of a short-term improvement project that would address
some of the existing issues and would provide immediate benefits.
What are the Studied Long Term Alternatives?
Based on the preliminary study and discussions with City staff, a total of seven potential
alternatives were judged to merit further review and analysis. The seven alternatives are shown
graphically on Figures 1 and 2.
All proposed alternatives involve the creation of new roadway connections that could be
implemented in addition to improvements on existing facilities already identified by the City.
There are two distinct alternative categories, those that only involve surface street connections
and those that involve new freeway connections.
Category A alternatives (Figure 1) involve surface street connections creating a new north-south
connection across 1-182:
• Al connects Road 76 to the proposed Chapel Hill Blvd extension (two alignment options
are considered for this alternative);
• A2 creates a new connection along Road 60;
• A3 creates a new connection along Road 36.
Category B alternatives (Figure 2) involve creating new connections with 1-182:
B1 creates a new off-ramp on eastbound 1-182 near Road 52;
• B2 creates a new collector-distributor system on westbound 1-182 between the Argent Rd
bridge and the TRAC center;
The Transpo Group Inc. 11730118th Avenue N.E..Suite 600 Kirkland,WA 98034.7120 425821.3665 Fax-425.825.8434
N
Q Q Q T N -
3 �' c
a�
-
r
= y y y 3 2 20ih Ave
II II A II I °00.
lG
Q
Road 36
Road M
m TEF
'E
Road 60 m ��,•
Ro 68 PI
R� 8
05 in
'L
J
a r
U
v
91 PSON o
C
Q m <<
r O v
_ O R n
C K
Fro c
PAiB JooWpeeJg
O
lu v-
'40 Co
� «
� o
U () v
1 l
Legend
Alternative B1
Sandifer Parkway Alternative 82
1
d°, n Alternative B3
Alternative B4
y
Burden Blv New Roadway
- - Highways
v
q�
Local Streets
M
nParcel Boundaries
L !
ED ^
\ m
�( Cl
Argent Road �oaa
e —
n�
D
i
1 Court t
]Figure 2 N
Freeway Connection Alternatives A
P 182 Corridor Subarea Transportation Plan
i V I j104 142,02 ClY d Paco tin':art k 4 S;10,:,P3 Pal r �O,Iv, rn1S a'
• B3 creates anew on-ramp on westbound 1-182 west of the existing on-ramp from Road 68
(which would be removed);
• B4 creates a new connection from the westbound 1-182 off-ramp at Road 68 to
Convention Place.
For the purposes of the engineering feasibility study,the conceptual alignment of each alternative
was further refined, with the identification of the location, length, width and probable end-points.
,vv iFat are the Key vez�iyii 'Vriteria c
The engineering feasibility or constructability of the various alternatives was analyzed based on
the prevailing design standards from WSDOT and the City of Pasco.
For the surface street alternatives (Category A), a design speed of 40 mph was assumed
(corresponding to a posted or signed speed of 35 mph). The analysis used a maximum arterial
grade of 6 percent. However, in cases where this could not be achieved,the alternatives were not
ruled out if the higher grades were possible to achieve at lower speeds (this will be illustrated later
in this section). The vertical clearance at bridge crossings was assumed to be a minimum of 25 ft.
The minimum arterial curve radius is 1,000 ft.
For the freeway alternatives (Category B), the ramp design speed was 70 mph. it was essential to
study if the ramp acceleration or deceleration required lengths could be achieved while
maintaining appropriate grades and curve radii.A ramp acceleration length should be greater than
2,000 ft; a ramp deceleration length should be greater than 700 ft. The maximum ramp grades are
4 percent uphill and 6 percent downhill. The minimum ramp curve radius was assumed at 2,000 ft
within the acceleration/deceleration zone and 200 ft before or after the acceleration or deceleration
zones respectively.
What are the R'esttk'ts of the FatRI Flnxrs AnRIvBi-,'7
The fatal flaw analysis focused on whether or not the alternatives would meet the design criteria
previously described.
Alternative A2 failed to meet the design requirements. To achieve vertical clearance for the bridge,
under this alternative, a major vertical adjustment of Saratoga Lane south of 1-182 would be
required. Vertical elevation of Saratoga Lane would in turn require major right of way acquisitions
and affects many of the recent residential developments along the corridor and also the
intersection with Chapel Hill Blvd. Moreover, even with the vertical adjustment of Saratoga Lane
/—transpa_-" t_,� 4
the vertical grade would still exceed 7 percent. Based on these results,Alternative A2 was ruled
out.
All other alternatives met the design criteria previously highlighted.
Mat is the i,.%jg:%,;jjtuaI HoW of each After nativ,�
The conceptual horizontal plans developed for each alternative are provided in Appendix A.
The drawings show the horizontal layout of alignment for each alternative, as well as the
approximate elevations, distances, and grades along the alternative corridors. In the absence of
detailed topographic survey, elevations were estimated by triangulation from aerial images.
Alternative 64 had several variations which are shown in Appendix A. The key characteristics and
findings associated by the four options for Alternative B4 are presented in the Appendix section. In
the rest of the memo, only option 1 was considered.
1.,It-..,4 -.r it,- r"*n-4 -+-- ff-,., ., -t, A!4-
Planning level cost estimates were developed for comparing the cost of the various alternatives.A
more detailed cost estimation will be required for the preferred alternatives as the project moves
forward and more design details are available.
The preliminary cost estimation process started with the evaluation of construction quantities
associated with each alternative. Items quantified included the following:
• New pavement/roadway area including sub-grade
• Significant earthwork (cut/fill) approaching structures
• Plan-area of grade-separated structures (bridges, box culverts)
• Traff ic signal control
• Curb, gutter and sidewalk
• New right-of-way.
The various cost items were estimated based on conceptual plans, profiles and cross-sections
developed for each alternative.A contingency level of 10 percent was applied for these estimates
given the conceptual nature of the design at this stage.The cost estimation tables associated with
each alternative are provided in Appendix B.
FransPOGROUP 5
Table 1 below summarizes the costs of the various alternatives.Alternative A2 is not included in
the cost estimation since this alternative was previously ruled out due to design fatal flaws.
Table 1. Cost Estimation Summary
Alternative Estimated cosh
Alternative Al—Option 1 21.7
Alternative Al —Option 2 16.4
Altemattve A2 N.A.
Altemative A3 12.3
Alternative B1 8.1
Alternative B22 5.6
Alternative B33 2.1
Altemative 84' 7.9
1. In million of 2048 dollars
2. Includes the construction of Rd 60 between the 1-182 proposed ramp and Burden Blvd
3. Does not include extending the 1.182 eastbound auxlllary lane to Rd 100
4. Option 1 of Altemative 84(see Appendix A)
The cost summary highlights the higher cost of the surface street alternatives (Category A)
compared to the freeway alternatives (Category B). This is mainly due to the bridge structures
required by the surface street alternatives, which constitute a major part of the overall cost.
Among the surface street alternatives, Alternative Al - Option 1 has the highest cost due to the
amount of earthwork required and the bridge skew which increases its length (and cost) compared
to other alternatives. For the same reasons, the second alignment for Alternative Al (Option 2)
appears to be less costly than the first alignment (Option 1).Among the surface street alternatives,
Alternative A3 has the lowest cost.
Among the freeway altematives, Alternative B1 is the most costly alternative due to the fill material
needed to bridge the difference in elevation between the freeway and Argent Road. On the other
hand,Altemative B3 has the lowest cost (it does not include any extension of the auxiliary lane to
Road 100).
What is the Impact on Traffic Volui,lus?
The City's travel demand model was used to analyze the impact of the various alternatives on the
traffic patterns in the study area. The model was used to estimate traffic volumes along key
transpo ?RC 6
arterials. The comparison of alternatives from a traffic operations perspective focused on a review
of anticipated traffic volumes along Ad 68 and at key intersections.
Table 2 presents predicted directional hourly volumes at three locations along Road 68. The table
highlights traffic volume changes of 200 vehicles or more during the PM peak hour as a result of
the implementation of an alternative (compared to the baseline or"no action"scenario).
Table 2. Road 68 Traffic Volumes (PM Peak hour volumes per direction
South of 1-182 EB North of 1-182 WB North of Burden Blvd
Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound
No Action 1,100 1,270 2,590 2,040 1,020 970
Altemative Al 960 1,130 2,570 1,910 960 910
Alternative A2 1,010 1,180 2,510 1,940 1,020 970
Alternative A3 1,060 1,270 2,580 1,940 1,000 970
Alternative B1 1,110 1,070` 2,570 2,040 11030 980
Alternative B2 1,110 1,240 2.wo' 2,050 990 980
Alternative B3 1,100 1,250 2;600 :111 1,010 850
Alternative B4 1,110 1,240 2,1 2,040 990 980
1. Shows location where proposed alternative reduces tratf%:volumes by more than 200 vehiclas during the PM Peak Hour
It can be seen that all alternatives contribute to some traffic diversion away from Road 68.
However, in most cases,the level of traffic diversion is limited.The highest level of diversion is
observed with Alternative B3 on the southbound direction of Road 68 between Burden Blvd and
the 1-182 interchange; the PM peak hour volume is reduced by 700 vehicles (34%) with the
implementation of Alternative B3 and the 1-182 eastbound traffic using the new ramp.
Table 3 presents the total predicted traffic volume (2025 PM peak)through a series of
Intersections.The table highlights traffic volume changes of 200 vehicles or more during the PM
peak hour.
transpc ;_lp 7
Table 3. Intersection Traffic Volumes(PM peak hour total entering traffic)
Rd 68/1-182 Rd 68/1-182 Rd 68/ Convention Pi/
EB Ramps wB Ramps Burden Blvd Burden Blvd
No Action 3,230 4,670 5,070 2,990
Alternative Al 2,960 4,500 5,050 3,000
Alternative A2 3,060 4,490 4,900 2,840
Alternative A3 3,1 BO 4,560 4,950 2,860
Alternative B1 3;020' 4,650 5,060 2,950
Alternative 132 3,220 4.aW 4,UO' 2JW
Alternative 83 3,220 3w, 4,880 2,970
Alternative B4 3,240 4,220° 41,646 3,150
1. Shows location where proposed altemative reduces traffic volumes by more than 200 vehicles during the PM Peak Hour
Again, it can be seen that all alternatives generate some traffic diversion away from the studied
intersections. The only exception is the intersection of Road 68 Place and Burden Blvd which
shows a slightly higher overall traffic volume under Alternative B4. In general, the changes in total
traffic entering the intersection do not exceed 10% with the implementation of the alternatives
compared to the no-action scenario. However,the intersection of Road 68 and the 1-182
westbound ramps does experience a reduction of traffic exceeding 10% in two cases: Alternative
B3 (reduction of 680 vehicles or 15%) and Alternative B4 (reduction of 450 vehicles or 10%).
In general, Alternative B3 appears to be the most promising alternative in terms of shifting traffic
away from Road 68, mainly through a re-routing of the traffic heading towards eastbound 1-182.
Alternatives B2 and 134 are also showing benefits related to this criteria, although the amount of
anticipated traffic diversion is more limited.
What should he done Next to f)r-,r1H,- on the Long Term
Solt rt€�en�?
Based on this initial assessment, it is recommended to develop a more detailed analysis of
engineering feasibility and traffic evaluation of potential benefits.
The traffic studies will involve refining the modeling and simulation tools to better quantify the
potential benefits of the proposed alternatives on traffic performances through the area.Additional
data collection including origin-destination surveys should be conducted to better understand
travel patterns in and around the study area. This will be used to refine the travel demand model
used to estimate traffic volumes underthe different scenario. Detailed traffic operational studied
ltranspoGROUP 8
will be required, and it is recommended to apply a microscopic traffic simulation model (such as
VISSIM) to fully capture the effect of the proposed alternative and quantify their impact on traffic
performances. The simulation model should be able to account for congestion and Intersection
delays, and make routing decisions accordingly (dynamic traffic assignment).
The impact on safety is another area that needs further study to better evaluate the potential
impact of the various alternatives. Safety assessment should be based on recent accident history,
and also capture the likely impacts on safety of the different design options under consideration.
All alternatives involving direct impact on the freeway will have to be studied in close coordination
with WSDOT and FHWA. Initial discussions have been conducted, but much more coordination
work is needed.The proposed freeway connections would require the development of an
Interchange Justification report following the process set forth by WSDOT.
Funding options should be explored further to identify potential funding sources for each
alternative.
What Can be Done in the Short Term',
All alternatives discussed so far are long-term options that will take years to be decided and
implemented. Temporary solutions are needed to provide immediate relief and improvements of
safety and operation conditions along Road 68 near Burden Blvd.
The review of recent collision reports shows a high number of accidents reported on Burden
Boulevard at the Sun Mart/Dugout Tavern entrance. In 2008, a total of 18 collisions have been
reported at this location.
It is proposed to extend the existing c-curb along Burden Boulevard to the west,all the way to the
intersection with Road 68. The proposed curb extension is shown on Figure 3. The curb extension
would prohibit left-turn movements in and out of the Sun Mart/Dugout driveway. Safety
improvements would be achieved by limiting the number of conflicting movements, while adequate
access conditions to the businesses would be maintained.
In addition to the c-curb extension,the proposed short-term improvements also include:
• Free right turn from Burden on southbound Rd 68
• Third southbound lane on Rd 68 from Burden to interchange
Ftranspc C 'D 9
o OL
CD *I
C i
;g
Jill
low
'b
n
x • 40 ,r
•
The proposed Burden/Rd fib intersection improvements are shown on Figure 4.The key
improvement is the creation of a free right turn on the west leg of the intersection. The new
channelizabon also allows for concurrent left turns along Burden Boulevard which improves the
intersection operations.
The southbound progression from Burden Boulevard to the interchange is shown on Figure 5. A
third southbound lane is provided all the way from Burden to the interchange.Access to Lowes
from southbound Rd 68 is maintained. The southbound right lane is reserved for freeway entrance
south of the Lowes intersection.
Planning level cost estimates have been developed for these short-term improvements. The
estimated cost is$350,000.
FCranSpOGROUP j=
N OD CD
� 1,a
CD
3
;o
CD
CA
15' xoW
m`
.s I
E `•
P ' I
Fi J
1 /
p ! i
Ilk
r
o
O II
O
I
i rr
J
1
�z
olr-
th
CL
}It
a ;
f
�.
,l
f f till
1 ��•--J.'�- 5 �S 1 'I
f
1 ,
L i
I �1
I m nunm .�
.f
F
l
El ;
Appendix A: Conceptual Horizontal Layouts
rtranspoGRouP 14
k NOT TO SCALE
t
- f
r
Alternative Al - Option 1 The
Transco
Road 68/Burden Blvd Congestion Relfe f Studyy
u;\01\04242.02 CJty of P.seo On—Cebf 2007\Tosk 4 Sobaeo Plan uodole\ENGINITEPING\Con ptao3 AM.—I"s\►ft—t%v. ►f..OPeo-f <Alt Au mdt-dop )1113106 16a5
m
y � o
4 �
I � V
r e
O
4
Y
t
u
4 u
2
2
r
v u
0
a
rl j u
LP
n°
a o
b ry
i
N
NOT"TO SCrAI.E
1
y
I)
7I
I
1
X1040
I`
1
f� AGENT STREET
Alternative A2
Road 68/burden Blvd Congestion Relief Stu dy Uwe
W\04\04242,02 City of PuBco On—Con 2007\Tos4 4 Subamcs Plow VPdots\ENVNEERlMC\Conceptual•fk—al".a\►g0maGw A2 <0 42> m.rryap II/13/08 16737
F
i
I •
-r
a
->.
..,
Alternative A3
Me
Rerrd!+K rDut+OCn Ifltd CMt�esttOte RrGej StuQy
Transco
)AI\04\04242.02 City of Pmea Oa-Coll 2007\lo,% • 5ubor•o Won Vpdot•\ENCtNEERINC\C—. pWd A3 <AA A3> .n.,i .p 1 t/13/O8 16:37
NOT rJ SME
y
7
�.-07ml STREET
f,.--
Iln
1a
.f�
Altemadve B1
Traris�
Road 68/Burden Blvd Congestion Relief Study
N:\04\04242.02 Uty of Pasco On—Call 2007\Trill 4 Suba,.o Plan Updal4\ENGINEERING\Goee4pluo4 All., 91 till Bl> mNfndop 11/13/DB 16:38
4Z I "I
t -
Ii
I �Ar. I
09 cv%
y 1 S
1 �
i
f I• e €
m
JJ
f� U
4 Z
K
1 W
J y
a
8
CD b
� m a
k noux�� l .�1 .:�•, � �
1 c ,
t a
a
w
g9 O�ti f ��vy'1 d c+
4
v riag;
i
F
m
J � i
s
t o
I -
! a
m
V
s 3
O
L
+, a
/f uw
� df
- a
AL
0
n en
w
u �
a �
o $
Is _ N
_ � O
C V
+
PQ V o
m
r a
o
� � N
� � r
s
BURDEN BIVO
WOT To SCALE
� 0
Notes:
-� ' �.. • ThIs Option meets geometric design requirements
•
It provides a direct route to the TRAC and residences along
Burden Blvd east of Road" k,
It might require realignment or restriping of the existing
ramp and relocation of the hotel entrance �-
l�
4
1 I
Alternative B4- Option 1 TT p
Road 68/Burden 8fvd Congest/on Retlef Study
M:0410424202 Coy M P*s o1.C•1 Z OAU"I Sub—Ran UPMMENGWE ERING�CorK oww AAemawwCAMro *• B4_Optic l c t BO mArodap 11/1 VM 16;40
BUROEN eLva — N
NOT TO SCA"
.-m ono
l
Nc_,es
�..� • Would require realignment of the ezlsting i
romp
• This Option does not satisy geometric design
requirements since the radius of 200 ft. is
less than the required gtnimum
k . Intersection control would be on issue
I
I
04 J
I I,
o
1�
I � I
i
} Alternative B4 - Option 2
p4n
""
Road 68/Burden Blvd Congestion RelletStudy i
M-,\04\04242.02 City of P..%. De—Cell 2007\Toa4 4 S.t—go Plop Upd.t.\ENC-NEERINC\Cmeepluel AlMrnet:w\Ane.nol:vR 04_0vtion2 <A t BA> -0;.Joo 11/13/08 16-40
eIIRDEN aLw
NOT TO SCALE
,. This Option is geometrically feosible
• The volumes are however anticipated to Pe lower
than Option 1 due to the fact that more turns
1 q \ are involved
a Provides a less direct route compared to Option
I ;1
f�
r
1�
Alternative B4 Option 3 TTY
Road 68/Barden Blvd Congestion Relief Study '� v
G
J:\04\04242,0$ City of Posao 0—Cotl 2007\Tos4 4 Subarea Plan LJpdaln\ENGINEERING\COeeeptuoi 84_Qption3 <Att 84> a*,:.d0P i t/13/08 M41
Appendix B: Cost Estimates
1 transpo 15
ti
Preliminary Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Cost
Alternative A] • Option ]
Item Item Area(Sr-) Quantity Unit Unit Total
No. Description Price Price
I P2Vernent Remat-al S1' S MA) S
2 Earthwork 291,000 CY $ 2500 $ 7,275,0(x1.00
3 Crushed Surfacing Top Course(for Roadway) 10,560 TON S 20.00 S 211,208.33
4 Asphalr 2,340 TON $ 1(101(1 S 734,041.67
5 DrainaV'Frunkline 2,055 LP S 60.00 S 123,300.00
6 Drainage La.%EM 514 LC S 40-00 S 2u,550.(K)
7 Catch Basin Tye 1 10 Each S I,(xro.0o $ 10,275.(x)
M Catch Basin Typ,7 2 10 Each S 3,000.00 S 30,825.00
9 Drainage Control 61,65() SF 5 1.50 S 92,475.00
W ('.anent Cone.Traffic:,urb and Gurrer 4,110 LF S 14.00 $ 57,54(1.(10
11 Cement Conc.Sidewalk 2,740 MI S SOAK) S 137,(100.00
12 Illumination System Cc=plcte E—ST S 7(1,1KK1w S 7u,mmit1
13 Bridge Structure 22,250 SF S 250.1x1 S 5,562,5(x3.0(1
Subtotal S 13,824,715
Miscellaneous Irems 30•.. S 4,147,414
Mobilization(Sec.No.1.09.7) 10*�, S 1,797,213
SUBTOTAL $ 19,767 342
Contingency for Lerel of Design €0") S 1,976,934
TOTA1. S 21,746,277
TOTAL 5 21,750,0(x1
Total Road L:nbah=25(x1 f1.
Length of Bridge=A45 ft.
Length ofEmbankmem= 1755 A.
Length ofroad at grade=700 fr.
I
Preliminary Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Cost
Alternative Al - Option 2
Item Item Area(Si) Quantity Unit Unit Total
No. Description Price Price
1 Pavement Rcmoral h1' $ JODU S
2 Earthwork 246,4(X1 CY $ 25a) $ 6,16U,U(]i1.W
3 Crntshed 5urf2cingTop C;oome(for R(radn-a1') 7,404 TON S 20.00 S 188,063.33
4 Asphalt 2,084 TON $ 1(X).00 5 208,416.67
5 Drainage Trunklinc 1,830 LF 5 (AUX) 5 1(19,8()(1.UU
6 Dnainagc lateral 459 LF $ 40.(IU 5 18,300.00
7 Catch 13a.in T)Tc 1 9 Each $ 1,000.00 S 9,150.(H)
8 Catch Basin Type 2 9 Each $ 3,1H10.00 5 27,450.00
9 DrainaW Comm] 54,91X) SP $ 1.50 $ J32,35(u)a
10 (Jemew Corrc.Traffic Curb and Gutter 3,6611 LF 5 14.W $ 51,24(.00
11 Cement Conc.Sidmalk 2,440 tiY $ 50.00 $ 122,0M.W
12 lllumination 3gslem Complete F`T 5 60,UQO.l10 $ 60,000.00
13 Bridge titrucrurc 13,5(11 SP' S 25U,W S 31375,11(1().00
Subtotal 5 !(1,411,790
MLcchancoua Irons 30". 5 3,123,537
13fobilizati,m(ticc.No. 1.09.7) JII"w 5 1,353,533
SUBTOTAL $ 14,869,8611
Contingency for Letr1 u(DL,:ign 1 a $ 1,486,996
OTA1. $ 1(.377,746
TOTAL $ 16,311(1,00(1
Total Road l engh=21(It)fr
Length of Bridge=27U ft.
Length of Lmbankment=1690 ft.
Unl,nh of ruad at grade=0 fi,
Pagel of 1
M G2Crtr of P.-C,CaSPOOT,t 4EuW.e Pan UMM.WNGINEERING4-F,,—T—E.—t..m A1.0pt9 Printed 1119120092:01 PM
WdZOZ600V/ /4p3iui,d Ca'tyro,rJns3 v".1u0o!,-y-0 *�d,°F+9LOLYLYau�,ri
t 10 l e6ed
'tJ 0=IPA tt peoi jo 4t8oal
'(J OIZZ=(uiw>Iucgw-I3n g0lmyj
f3 o6z=,Np!ja.o ROlua'7
>J�HIS'c=;>a4uus 9£ptog puc uta€itV Nutpnlaur)tjigurl pang 1zfo.L
tftlo'o)Z`Zt S TVIOJ,
1Lt'LSZ'ZI S 'L\UOJ,
91£`41!'1 S ql w4rsocrjo la,irl s(>i,(ouaNunuo:)
95I'£tl'Il S 'IV,CO,C ns
tf4ft1 'i S u (L'(,i)l ohE as uonuzrflgolN
SZL'L£4"Z S swat]snoaut(faurj-4
L€4'Z6Z% S [stwgnti
rmr�,,u�.+1br N(1 nr n%+6r it+'y>!rOpq.vr/-fll r pnarnm t!r141 710N*
(10'(IOS'ZWO S 001042 S is OSWRf AP!,l[ £1
(X)'(HN a S (O'000`LN S 1Sa atolduru.)u:a>sSS unneununlu ZI
00'fI0{)`41€ S !HI'OS S ,lS 0Nt`£ �lr.+wptti•auo,tuacua-,J 1 I
(A)IOR(AL S 00'41 S 3T i)ZZ 5 ann.)PuII gjn:)a9JE1.C'auo:)tuausr) t)[
00'SZO`L£I S OS't S {S 05£`16 lotiuo;•)aXtuceiO 6
011'ost`6£ S 00'001!'£ S 4ati:j £t Z a4L L+qu j 4a n:) H
0Q'os('£1 S 00'0(X1'1 S q"a £I t a LQ.L?gufq 4ut:) L
(N)'oSC'l£ S 00'Ot S JT b'8L Irsattrl aNaumiq t)
00'1x19`951 S {10'11<1 S :IT ot9`z augyun�J•a4curelQ g
L9'l6L`9t£ S 00'00l S NOI H9t'£ t
()fYf)06'IZ£ S 011'02 S NOI S60'91 (t,+tp>oxjOj)'wno- cEo l,�upc3in5Pa4snt,)
00'000'00L'1 S ()0•SZ S W 0(NI'N9 .yso,a4ueg z
S 00 O S w letcuwaZlivacuaard
aaud asug cxon uasaa oL.j
leioy 1po %!an +(iriurno (3S)raly matj atatj
Fy anlleu.laljy
lso' uoi»nJlsuOD algLgOJd ;a aluLulls3 s,aaaul6u3 Aj eujLu'laJd
l
Preliminary Engineer's Estimate Of Probable Construction Cost
Alternative B1
Item Item Area(SF) Quantity Unit Unit Total
No. Deseri lion Price Price
I Pavement Removal ST 5 10.00 S
2 Larrhwork 186,500 CY 5 25.(K) S 4,662,5(X).00
3 Czmhed Surfacing Top Course(For Roadway) 4,240 TON S 20.00 S 84,791.07
4 Asphalt 1,566 ON S 1(10.(X1 $ 156,597.22
5 Drainage Trunl3ine 1,650 LF 5 W.00 5 99,(X1).()8
b Drainage Lateral LF $ 4J.W $
7 Catch Basin Thpe 1 K Each S 1,(10).0(1 S 8,250.00
8 Catch Basin Type 2 Bach $ 3,:X}1I.W S
9 Drainage Control 41,250 SF S 1.50 S 61,875.00
lit Cement C:onc,Traffic Curb and Gutter Lh S 14,00 5
11 Cernent Conc.Sitlew:dl; tit' S 50.00 5
i2 IUurninadon System Complete }✓S'I 5 55,000.00 S 55,(8X).(Xi
13 Bridge Structure SF S 250,(lU S
tiubtoial S 5,128,014
Miscellaneous Items 3rWo $ 1,538,404
Mobilization N. C.NU 1-119.7) ill' 5 666,642
SUBTOT,U. $ 7,333,060
Conrin,�c:xy for lxvel of Design 1011. S 733,306
TOTAL $ 8,066,366
OTAL S 8,070,000
Total Goad Lengrh= 1 6S fr.
Length of Badgu=II fl.
Length of Embankment=16511 ft.
Ungrh u f ruad at grade=0 ft.
Page 1 of 1
Mw.0424202a4raP.-6n-eat2o7)7 akaSv6eim 81 Printed ill 9ron2:02Pht
Preliminary Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Cost
Alternative 132'`
Item Item Area(SF) Quanriry Utah Unit Total
No. Description pnCe Price
1 Pavement Removal SY $ 10.00 S
2 Earthwork 23,ift (:Y 5 25.(X1 S 575,0(Rl.(K)
3 Crushed Surfacing Top C.nur`e(foe Roadxvay) 211,594 TON $ 2(1.00 $ 531,875.00
4 Asphalt 9,823 TON S 3011.00 S 982,291.67
5 Drainage TrunUm 8,2110 LP S 60.(() $ 492,(XN).0O
6 Drainage Lateral 538 LP 5 4CA) $ 21,SOU.00
i Catch Aasin Typc 1 41 Each 5 1,00(.0(] 5 41,000.00
8 Catch Tiasin Type 2 11 Each S 3,000.00 5 32,25().00
9 Drainage Gontml 25847511 SP S 1.51) 5 388,125.00
10 Cement Gone,Traffic Curb and Gutter LP $ 14.00 $ -
I I Cement Cone.Sidewalk 2,867 sy' $ 50.00 S 143,333.33
12 Illumination System Complete ES l' $ 275,000.00 S 275,(1((1,00
13 Bridge Structure $)' S 250.(}0 S
Subtotal 5 3,482,375
'Jn,-hug.,the rvtl ej Hoad f,0 F..v'lrnr o4 belarrn Darrkn 131rd ox1lht prapojed ramp
■
Nuscellane,lw Items 311"e $ 1044,712
lobdizadon($cc.No.1-09.7) 10ao S 452,709
SUBTOTAL S 4,979,796
Con6n,enep fin I--vel of Dv.Rigm ItY S 497,980
TOTAL $ 5,477,776
OTAL 5 5,480,(40
*TThr gtarnlifia inrlrfde Me rouslnrr+ion pjRarJ6U lxlurrn PR2 proposed R inrpand Bunlrn Blid
Total Road Length=82OU 0
Length of Bridles=0 ft.
Length of Ernbanlfmcni=2150 ft.
Length of road at grade=6U5U ft.
Page I of I
M*cDc2 o2 Cnyar Pasco en.[as 2W?'.Trk 4 Subarea Fan UpdaIVINSWEE AI4GoCaso Esimiecom Edw%xe nru Printed 1/19120(192.03 PM
1
Preliminary Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Cost
Alternative B3`
Item Item Area(SF) Quantity Unit Unit Total
No. Descri Lion Price Price
1 Pavement Removal' 3,250 SY S 10,(H) $ 32,500.00
2 P.arthwDrk K,4(X) C l S 25.U) S 210,000.00
3 Crushed Surfacing Top Course(for Roadwat) 9,764 TO S 20.00 5 195,277.78
4 AThalr 3,6116 TON S 10UA $ 360,648.15
5 Drainage TrunUnc 31115(1 LF 5 60.00 S 183,000.00
6 Drainage Lateral 188 1.17 S 411.0) 5 7,500.()0
? Cutch Basin Type 1 4 Each S 1,IHi0.0(1 5 3,750.00
8 Catch Bvin'fypc 2 Each $ 3,0110.00 5
9 Drainage Control 91 jfiD SF 5 T.50 S 137,250.00
10 Cement Conc.Traffic Curb and Guttts I,5ou LF S 14-10 S 21,000.0(1
11 Cement conc.UeN"k i,IHIU tit, $ 50.00 S 5o,UU0.0o
12 ]llun ination System Complete L•ST S i(HI,iHJ0.Ul1 S I(H),000.)0
13 Bridge kructurc %F $ 250.00 S
Subtotal S 1300,926
*A rruns erne!1VT ramp rr adw4r(omed)anrmrer nvoiwl mjKbr not he neoesial)
Mi ccllnncous Items kt S 390,)?K
?,7obilization(Sec.No,1.09.7) S 169,120
SUBTOTAL S 1,960,324
Contingency for Level Of Dc ign 5 '186,032
TOTAL S 2,046,356
TOTAL 5 2,050,(KK1
�Tl ere guar&lira k not i&hetk extent1w,g!lK 1.18211 R wrsi i rr 4rme to Road NXI
Total Road Length=3050 ft.
Length of I3ri dge=U f1.
Length of Cmbankmetlt=0 ft.
Length of road at grade=3)511 ft.
page Iof1
M'AelGi�102 Uty d POLKOOn{'.kt1007�7.k 4 6LOe Plen W"tME WINE Eg1NG,CO C,s '.Heot::a—I.AR B3 Prinlet 11(9!20092x04 PM
Preliminary Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Cost
Alternative 84
Item Item Area(SF) Quantity Unit Unit Total
No. Description I Price Price
i Pavcment Removal' 463 tit' 5 100) $ 4,629.63
2 earthwork 6,5(x) (Y 5 25.0(1 S 162,5011.00
3 Crushed tiurfacing Top Course(for)1md%N-Ay) 7,194 TON S 20.(Hl S 143,888.87
4 IA phalt 2,657 TON $ 1C100 S 265,740.74
5 drainage TrunkUne 7(I,IKKI LF 1 5 61,00 5 4,200,UIH1.00
G Drainage lateral LP S 40,00 5
7 Catch Haan Type 1 14
Each $ t,x(I.(10 $ 14,IHII1.(IU
8 Carch Basin Type 2 Each $ 3,000.00 $
9 Drainage Control 711,fIfH1 SP 5 E50 5 10S,INJII.01
10 Cement Cone.Traffic(:urb and GutteT LF S 14.t1[1 $
11 Cement Conc.SideNvalk 8Y S 5(1.00 5
t2 Illumination System Complete EST 5 95,00,M $ 95.0M.00
13 Badge titrocrure til S 25(-.UO 1 5
Subtorl S 4,990,759
�:l rrrmrr rrhXumral Joe 2.50/rr!oj't6r r.vrrling�trrp
Aliscel]anec us hems 3(I'= S 1,497,228
hlobihntion(Sec,No,1-09.7) 10'. $ 648,799
"UBTO'TAl. S 7,136,78(,
Contiaeeocy for Level of Design S 113,(,79
TOTAL 5 7,850,464
TOTAL $ 7,B(A),(W
"Total Road length=2800 fl,
Length of Bridge=I)ft.
Length of Embankment=0 ft.
Length of mad ar gTadc=2R(K)ft.
Page 1 cl 1
M 0(04242 02 Cm c4 Pas=Omeri 90VV"t 4 Svbarw Py„eWWWEtr31NEE9[Nei-"Eo—lw�C-W E,i-aimAk eA Prigled 1119/2(x79 2:04 PM