I-15/ CAJALCO ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS Final Report

Transcription

1 2013 Jesse Morton (Project Manager) Said Yahya (Project Manager) Ziad Abourazra Danee Berumen Marion Cartas Brandon Chan Joie Edles Luis Fernandez Ruben Hovanesian Gerard Nepomuceno Andrew Osaki Advisor: Dr. Xudong Jia I-15/ CAJALCO ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS Final Report

2 This page intentionally left blank

3 Report Overview The project site is located at the Cajalco road and I-15 interchange in Corona, CA. The interchange improvement study was split into three distinct segments; Fall quarter, Winter Quarter, and Spring Quarter. Each quarter had unique goals and objectives related to the project development. In the beginning of Fall quarter, John Bumps and Du Lu of Caltrans introduced the team to the project site. During the first week, the team began identifying issues with the current situation. These issues then became the basis for the needs and purpose of the project. The objective of Fall quarter was to consider as many alternatives as possible and decide which three would be the most viable options. Winter quarter consisted of drafting Geometric Approval Drawings (GAD) to exceed Caltrans standards according to the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM). In addition, cost estimates, environmental review, advanced planning studies, traffic analysis, and construction staging analysis were done to determine the projects feasibility. The results are presented here within the report. Spring Quarter was the wrap up and delivery of the final product. Based on the purpose and need, alternatives, traffic analysis, and cost analysis, a presentation and Project Study Report (PSR) were done in addition to this report to communicate the justification for interchange improvements. 3 P a g e

4 This page intentionally left blank

5 Table of Contents Report Overview... 3 Table of Figures... 7 Introduction... 9 Existing Conditions Deficiencies Purpose and Needs Design Constraints Alternatives Advanced Planning Studies Cost Estimates Cost Benefit Analysis Preferred Alternative Construction Staging Environmental Review P a g e

6 This page intentionally left blank

7 Table of Figures Figure 1. General Site Location... 9 Figure 2. Site Location Figure 3. Project Boundaries and Vicinity Figure 4. Cajalco Road Looking East Figure 5. Ultimate I-15 Layout Half Section Figure 6. Ultimate Cajalco Road Layout Half Section Figure 7. Bedford Wash South of the Cajalco Road Overcrossing Figure 8. Watershed Draining into Bedford Wash Figure 9. Bedford Wash Cross Sections Figure 10. Watershed Division Figure 11. Geologic Soil Overlay Map Figure 12. No Build Layout and 2035 LOS Figure 13. Alternative 1 Layout and 2035 LOS Figure 14. Alternative 2 Layout and 2035 LOS Figure 15. Alternative 3 Layout and 2035 LOS Figure 16. Single Point Urban Interchange Traffic Flow Diagram Figure 17. Alternative 1 Overcrossing Plan View Figure 18. Alternative 1 Overcrossing Profile View Figure 19. Alternative 1 Overcrossing Cross Section View Figure 20. Alternative 2 Overcrossing Plan View Figure 21. Alternative 2 Overcrossing Profile View Figure 22. Alternative 2 Overcrossing Cross Section View Figure 23. Alternative 3 Overcrossing Plan View Figure 24. Alternative 3 Overcrossing Profile View Figure 25. Alternative 3 Overcrossing Cross Section View Figure 26. Bedford Wash Ramp Bridge Layout View Figure 27. Bedford Wash Ramp Bridge Profile View Figure 28. Bedford Wash Ramp Bridge Cross Section View Figure 29. Annual User Costs P a g e

8 Figure 30. Annual User Benefit Figure 31. Total Benefits Figure 32. 3d Rendering of Alternative 1 Southbound Intersection Figure 33. Stage 1a - Construct NB Off Ramp Figure 34. Stage 1b - Construct Southbound Loop on Ramp Figure 35. Stage 2a - Close Existing NB Intersection Figure 36. Stage 2b - Construct NB High Speed on Ramp Figure 37. Stage 3 - Construct North Half of Overcrossing Figure 38. Stage 4a - Shift Traffic to New Bridge Figure 39. Stage 4b - Construct Southern Portion of Overcrossing Figure 40. Stage 4c - Move Traffic to New Grade Figure 41. Stage 4d - Open Cajalco Overcrossing to Ultimate Layout Figure 42. Stage 5a - Construct Temporary SB Loop on Ramp Figure 43. Stage 5b - Construct SB off Ramp Figure 44. Stage 5c - Open Proposed SB off and Construct SB Loop on Ramp Figure 45. Interchange Completion P a g e

9 Introduction The project site is in Riverside County near the borders of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Orange County as shown in Figure 1. The major highways in California are shown in black while the County Lines are shown in gray. Figure 1. General Site Location 9 P a g e

10 The project is located in the southwest corner of the city of Corona about 5 miles south of the Route 91 and I-15 interchange shown in Figure 2. Figure 2. Site Location 10 P a g e

11 The scope of the project includes the interchange at Cajalco including the ramps and up to but not including adjacent intersections on Cajalco. The project boundaries and vicinity are shown in Figure 3. Figure 3. Project Boundaries and Vicinity The City of Corona and Caltrans initiated a project to update the Cajalco Road Interchange on Interstate 15 to sufficiently meet the future traffic demands. Improvements may be necessary to the current interchange in order to ease current and future congestion. Improving the ramps and signal coordination will also mitigate the current lack of capacity for vehicles on the off ramps during peak hours. The improved interchange will also meet the requirements of the City of Corona s General Plans including increased pedestrian and cyclist access as well as providing increased capacity for the planned business and residential growth in the vicinity. Presented herein are three build alternatives and a no-build alternative that meet Caltrans highway design standards. The extent of the alternatives shown range from minimum build to complete reconstruction. The anticipated completion date of the project is The Cajalco Interchange is owned by Caltrans. The approaches to the bridge and the connecting auxiliary lanes are owned and operated by the City of Corona. With a design life of 20 years, the proposed project considers 2015 traffic volume projections as the base year and will accommodate 2035 traffic volumes. The project also takes into consideration the proposed I-15 Corridor Improvement Project. 11 P a g e

12 This is a Category 3 Project per Caltrans s Project Development Procedures Manual, as it will be along a previously constructed access controlled route, with no new route adoptions, and new right of way may or may not be required. 12 P a g e

13 Existing Conditions The study area is located in the City of Corona, in Riverside County, California. Roadways that feed traffic into the study area include Cajalco Road, Interstate 15, Bedford Canyon Road, and Grand Oaks Driveway. The El Cerrito interchange is north of the location and the Weirick interchange is south of the location. Interstate 15 is a major north-south freeway facility that provides regional connections between San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego counties. It also provides major interstate connections between Southern California and Las Vegas, Nevada. Within the study area, Interstate 15 is a three lane divided freeway. Cajalco Road is an east-west local arterial. Cajalco Road overpass is currently a three-lane roadway. West of Bedford Canyon Road, it is a secondary four-lane road. West of the overpass, Cajalco Road transitions from three-lanes to four-lanes. Corona s general planes are for Cajalco to become a major six-lane arterial. Bedford Canyon Road is a north-south arterial. It is currently a four-lane roadway. Grand Oaks Driveway is also a north-south arterial. It is currently a six-lane entry and exit to the marketplace. To the east of the interchange is a large marketplace, The Crossings at Corona, which is approximately 100 acres and includes retail and entertainment venues. To the west is a shopping plaza of approximately 12 acres. The residential area to the west is predominantly single-family homes. There are future plans to widen the I-15 and to add HOT Toll lanes. The agencies supporting this project are Caltrans, City of Corona, and Riverside County Transportation Commission. Figure 4 shows the existing interchange looking east along Cajalco toward the overcrossing. The street lacks of a bike lane or sidewalk. 13 P a g e Figure 4. Cajalco Road Looking East

14 This page intentionally left blank

15 Deficiencies The deficiencies of the interchange include high congestion, high traffic delay, and lack of bicycle and pedestrian accessibility. The Highway Design Manual (HDM) states that the geometric design of new facilities and reconstruction projects should typically be based on the estimated traffic volumes for 20 years after completion of construction. The project under consideration is currently estimated to be constructed and opened for use in the year 2015 making 2035 the 20-year design horizon. The Existing, Base, and Design year traffic volume forecasts, provided by Caltrans, as part of the traffic forecast and traffic operations analysis. Existing traffic volumes are based on 2005 data, and Base year volumes are for Table 1 shows the existing level of service for intersections in the project s vicinity. Table 2 shows the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for the I-15 mainline and Cajalco road as well as the projected increase from 2015 to P a g e Table 1. Existing Level of Service Intersection AM LOS PM LOS Bedford Canyon Rd & Cajalco Rd B B I-15 SB Ramp & Cajalco Rd C F I-15 NB Ramp & Cajalco Rd B F Grand Oaks Driveway & Cajalco Rd B D Temescal Canyon Rd & Cajalco Rd D E Table 2. Average Daily Traffic with Projections Location % Increase 2035 % Increase On I-15 Weirick Rd to Cajalco Rd 151, ,200 8% 187,600 15% Cajalco Rd to El Cerrito Rd 161, ,600 10% 208,000 18% On Cajalco Rd West of I-15 (Bedford Canyon Rd to I-15) 12,000 12,900 8% 14,800 15% East of I-15 (I-15 to Temescal Canyon Rd) 15,100 24,800 64% 44,100 78% The northbound and southbound I-15 on and off ramps, Grand Oaks Driveway, and Temescal Canyon Road all exhibit less than desirable levels of service. Traffic volumes are projected to increase on the I-15 by approximately 26% over the span of 30 years. Traffic volumes on Cajalco Road, west of the I-15, will increase by about 23% from 2005 to The traffic volumes on Cajalco Road, east of the I-15, will grow dramatically by 64% between 2005 and 2015 and by 78% between 2015 and The traffic volumes in this corridor will triple over a span of 30 years due to the growing shopping area and residential neighborhoods. The capacity of the current interchange

16 will not be able to meet the increased demands sufficiently. The new interchange must be compatible with the ultimate I-15 design of four mixed-flow lanes and two High Occupancy Toll lanes (HOT). The current bridge span is not sufficiently long enough to meet the new span requirements. The current bridge also creates a bottleneck for vehicles traveling east/west on Cajalco due to the reduced number of lanes across the bridge as compared to the larger number of available lanes on either of the approaches. The current I-15 southbound-off-ramp is not capable of handling the required capacity, causing a significant backup of traffic during the peak hour, with the vehicle queue extending into the I-15 southbound travel lanes. The insufficient ramp capacity also causes a bottleneck on the I-15 during AM and PM peak hours. Due to the inability of the existing ramps to accommodate the required capacity at this interchange, it will not be able to handle the future increase in traffic volumes. The current signal timing, and thus the flow of traffic, along Cajalco is not optimized. The current interchange does not meet the City of Corona s Bicycle Master Plan to have a Class II Bikeway on Cajalco across the I-15 because the Edge of Traveled Way does not provide adequate room for the required five feet for the bike lanes per City of Corona Standard. 16 P a g e

17 Purpose and Needs The Cajalco Road interchange connects commuters to the I-15 freeway from residential neighborhoods to the west. It provides a route for trucks traveling to an aggregate mine and a route to Moreno Valley to the east. Significant housing developments to the west and a large shopping and entertainment plaza development to the east and west have increased demand on this facility in recent years, beyond expectations of the original design. The result has been an increase in traffic congestion, increase in traffic delay, and an increased usage by pedestrians and bicycles. The projects purpose is to reduce congestion, decrease delay, provide for pedestrian and bicycle mobility, and improve safety on Cajalco Road and through the I-15 interchange. Design Constraints Before alternatives could move from conception to design, there were design constraints that needed to be addressed. Working with Caltrans and the City of Corona, the ultimate layouts the freeway and overcrossing were set. Cost effectiveness of expanding the existing bridge or building a new bridge, and precast vs. cast-in-place construction were considered. The wash passing under the I-15 had to be considered for clearance for 100 year storm flows based on Caltrans standards. Ultimate I-15 Cross Section The I-15 will ultimately contain four mixed-flow and two HOT lanes in each direction. The interchange design must be compatible with this future plan. This is due to the I-15 Corridor Improvement Project that Caltrans is undertaking that will address the long term plans for the corridor. The ultimate layout dimensions are shown in Figure 5. Figure 5. Ultimate I-15 Layout Half Section 17 P a g e

18 Ultimate Cajalco Cross Section Based on the City of Corona s general plan, Cajalco Road will be a six lane major arterial with a design speed of 45 mph and a Class II bikeway. The bridge will be designed using the appropriate dimensions. Because the bridge is owned by Caltrans, the design standards of the HDM must be followed. The ultimate layout dimensions of Cajalco Road are shown in Figure 6 Figure 6. Ultimate Cajalco Road Layout Half Section Bridge Alignment The existing bridge was built in the late 1980 s, hence the life of the bridge has not yet been exhausted and could last until the design year of The option to keep the existing bridge and expand it was considered. Two conditions must be met for this to happen: 1. The I-15 ultimate design must fit between the bridge abutments. 2. The vertical clearance must be met after the expansion. After analyzing the current design, it was discovered that the bridge should be removed because after the expansion the required vertical clearance of 16.9 would not be met. This occurs because the super elevation of the curved bridge will cause the north side to be much lower than the south side. The low side does not meet Caltrans vertical clearance requirements. Precast vs. Cast-in-place Bridge There could be benefits to using different styles of bridge construction for the overcrossing. The two main categories in question are precast vs. cast-in-place with price considerations. The reasons for going with high end price range or low price range in the pre-cast or cast in place categories will be determined in the following sections. The comparative bridge cost produced by Caltrans in 2012 will be used as a reference. 18 P a g e

19 Cast-in-place (CIP) Consideration The CIP method is considered for Alternative 1, 2, and 3 because staged construction is possible and falsework depths do not negatively affect vertical alignments and clearances. The maximum span for the overcrossing for these alternatives is 144. This puts the bridge in the common span range for CIP/PS Box girder style bridge with a 0.04 structure depth to span ratio. The cost range for this is $100 to $225 per square foot. The factors for the lower end price range include a semi-urban location, low structure height, large project, and dry conditions. The factors that for a higher end price range include long spans, skewed bridge, pile footing, and 2 stage construction. Based on these factors the price range is estimated to be $160-$190 per square foot. Precast Consideration The precast method is considered for certain alternative alignments because it may be used to reduce phasing during construction and possibly cause a more favorable vertical alignment than CIP method. Based on the maximum span of 144 feet the precast used could be a Bulb T girder or PC/PS box. The cost range for this is $110 to $200 and $120 to $250 per square foot respectively. The factors for the lower end price range include a semi-urban location, low structure height, large project, dry conditions, and single stage construction. The factors that for a higher end price range include long spans, skewed bridge, and pile footings. Based on these factors the price range is estimated to be $160 to $200 per square foot. Based on the depth to span ration of for the precast options the vertical alignment will be lowered approximately 1.1 feet, not significantly lowering costs for fill, when compared to the cost increase in using precast. If the precast method were chosen, the existing bridge would need to be demolished before the new bridge could be transported and set into position. This would cause more traffic disruption compared to cast in place, but for a shorter period of time. Cast in place staging could be done by leaving the old bridge in use while the new bridge is being constructed. When half of the new bridge is done being constructed, then traffic will move to that half of the bridge while the old bridge is demolished and the next half of the new bridge is completed. Construction staging of the preferred alternative will be discussed more in depth in the construction staging section. In conclusion, because each alternative could use staged construction, the long lead time for the bridge would not affect construction time, and slightly lower cost, a CIP method will be used for each alternatives. 19 P a g e

20 Level of Service Constraint Level of Service (LOS) was analyzed using Synchro 7 software. According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) the intersection LOS must be a C grade or better. In Synchro, the LOS for the intersection is based on the control delay, which is calculated by taking the total intersection delay and converting it a level (A-F) using Table 3. The LOS is also based on ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization) which gives insight into how an intersection is functioning and how much extra capacity is available to handle traffic fluctuations and incidents. Letters A to H are assigned to the intersection based on the ICU in Table 4. The ICU 2003 includes additional levels past F to further differentiate congested operation. The LOS analysis is based on turning movement counts observed at the peak hour. Traffic counts are the total number of vehicles moving in a specific phase. Every through and turn phase is considered and collected. The peak hour is found during the peak hour, which can be thought of as the rush hour times, in both the AM (7:00 am to 9:00 am) and the PM (4:00 pm to 6:00 pm). The data collection is taken in 15-minute intervals and the data used is the maximum number of vehicles within four consecutive 15-minute counts. Table 3. Signalized Intersection Level of Service (2000 HCM) LOS Control Delay Per Vehicle (s) A Less than 10 B C D E F Greater than 80 Table 4. Level of Service Criteria for ICU Analysis LOS ICU A 0-55% B >55% - 64% C >64% - 73% D >73% - 82% E >82% - 91% F >91% - 100% G >100% - 109% H >109% 20 P a g e

21 Bedford Wash Constraint Purpose The purpose of the hydrological analysis is to determine the elevation constraint for the design of a small bridge over the Bedford Wash south of the Cajalco Rd. overpass (Figure 7). The bridge is a part of the I-15 freeway and the northbound exit ramp at Cajalco Rd. It crosses over the Bedford Wash which allows runoff from the mountainous region west of the project site to pass under (Figure 8). There were three alternative project designs. All three had the same west shoulder cross section and two of the designs had identical cross sections on both shoulders so we only designed for three cross sections: 1. The west shoulder for all three 2. The east shoulder for the Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) design 3. The east shoulder for the remaining two designs. Refer to Figure 9 for a diagram of the three cross sections. After calculating the runoff for a 100-yr event, a 2 ft. freeboard (per Caltrans HDM) and an additional clearance for falsework will be added for a final minimum total clearance. Figure 7. Bedford Wash South of the Cajalco Road Overcrossing 21 P a g e

22 Figure 8. Watershed Draining into Bedford Wash Figure 9. Bedford Wash Cross Sections 22 P a g e

23 Procedure The basin area was initially split up into two groups to simplify the soils estimation process. Figure 10 shows that the basin was split into a south and north section labeled EX 1 and EX 2, respectively. The basin was then overlaid over a soils map to determine the amount and type of each soil present in our region (Figure 11). A quick calculation based on the table values below revealed our composite CN values for both of these regions (Table 5). After the CN values were calculated, the time of concentration values were derived using average slope values and the longest path a water droplet can take to reach our outlet (Table 6). Table 5. CN Infiltration Values Soils Group and CN Values Sub Basin Soil Types % Soil Condition CN value Composite CN EX 1 A,C,D 5%,11%,84% Fair 46,77, EX 2 A,D 9%,91% Fair 83,46 80 Table 6. Time of Concentration Calculation Time of Concentration Sub-Basin L(ft.) S CN Tc EX EX P a g e Figure 10. Watershed Division

24 Figure 11. Geologic Soil Overlay Map After the time of concentration was calculated, rainfall data from the National Weather Service database for our region was extracted and standardized to one hour. Both of our Tc values fall closest to the two hour interval which means that our anticipated 100- yr precipitation is about 2.6 inches. Standardizing that value to a one hour interval yields a precipitation value of 1.3 inches/hour. The runoff coefficient was estimated to be about 0.35 since the drainage area is fairly permeable with a slope of about 4.2%. Table 7 below demonstrates the calculation for the total runoff. Table 7. Total Flow Calculation Total Runoff Sub-basin Runoff Tc (min) Intensity Area Q (cfs) Coeff. (in/hr.) (acres) EX EX Table 3. Runoff Calculation. This table demonstrates the parameters that were factored into the runoff calculation. 24 P a g e

25 Hydraulic Engineering The total calculated runoff was 1682 cfs. Using an excel spreadsheet programmed with Manning s equation, we will be able to calculate the anticipated water height for our bridge. The chosen Manning s coefficient will be since we are working with an earth channel free of obstructions. Our estimated slope is 4.2%. The tables below show the calculations for our water levels. The goal seek function in excel was utilized to achieve the correct value for height based on our incoming water flow. SPUI East. The calculated depth for this cross section is 4.9 ft. SPUI West. The calculated depth for this cross section is 2.6 ft. Design 2&3 East. The calculated depth for this cross section is 4.80 ft. An additional two feet should be added as a freeboard in accordance with the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Additional clearance to account for false work should also be taken into consideration. 25 P a g e

26 This page intentionally left blank

27 Alternatives Based on the screening-level analysis three alternatives and a no build alternative were developed. The three alternatives and no build option are: Alternative 0: No Build Alternative 1: Partial Cloverleaf Hybrid Alternative 2: Partial Cloverleaf with Shorter Bridge Alternative 3: Single Point Urban Interchange The proposed Cajalco Road overcrossing structure for all of the alternatives would span across the ultimate freeway cross section. The proposed improvements at the Cajalco Road interchange are included in the SCAG 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (RTP ID ). The City s Master Plan classifies Cajalco Road as a local arterial at the proposed interchange location, with three lanes. The proposed improvements of the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange project are consistent with all of the above-mentioned documents and would accommodate the ultimate facility described above. 27 P a g e

28 This page intentionally left blank

29 Alternative 0 Alternative 0 or the No Build Option consists of keeping the current interchange configuration. We will use the No Build Option as a basis for comparing the other alternatives by comparing the 2035 LOS of this option to the LOS resulting from constructing one of the other alternatives. Figure 12 shows the layout of the current interchange with the projected 2035 pm peak level of service for each intersection. F F Figure 12. No Build Layout and 2035 LOS Pros and Cons Pros include no construction cost. Since this alternative consists of keeping the configuration as it is, no construction will take place. Cons include high congestion, lack of pedestrian and bicycle accessibility, not meeting the public s needs, and limited truck accessibility. 29 P a g e

30 The LOS resulting from the current interchange configuration is at a level F at both the Northbound and Southbound intersections. The 2035 LOS for these intersections cannot be better than an F if the current configuration remains. The LOS will continue to deteriorate as population in the area grows and more cars use these roadways producing more congestion. The current interchange configuration does not include any sidewalks along the bridge making it dangerous for pedestrians to walk from the residential developments to the shopping centers and vice versa. The current interchange configuration does not include any dedicated bicycle lanes along Cajalco Road or the bridge making it dangerous for bicyclists to use these roadways. The current interchange configuration is not meeting the public s needs for an interchange that meets the increased traffic demands as evidenced by the LOS level at the intersections. Furthermore, the pedestrians and bicyclists do not have a safe manner of sharing the roadway with other vehicles. Thus, their needs are not met. The current interchange configuration limits truck accessibility because the lanes are not wide enough to allow large trucks to make turns without the danger of overturning or being limited in their mobility. 30 P a g e

31 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 is the Partial Clover Leaf Hybrid. This alternative was designed to reduce congestion, decrease traffic delay, provide pedestrian and bicycle accessibility, and most importantly improve safety. Figure 13 shows the layout in blue of the proposed design with the level of service in 2035 pm peak shown for each intersection. The existing interchange is shown in gray. C C Figure 13. Alternative 1 Layout and 2035 LOS The Southbound off ramp was changed for double left turn movement to prevent any backup onto the I-15. In addition the alignment on Cajalco Road was straightened to remove the curve on the bridge. This is more comfortable to drivers compared to an S- curved roadway. We also added an additional northbound loop on ramp and changed the Northbound on ramp to accommodate for the high turning movement on the Northbound on Ramp. In addition, loop ramps were widened to accommodate for truck turning movement. Lanes were added on all ramps to be operational for future traffic. In addition right and left turn pockets were added on Cajalco road to allow for turning 31 P a g e

32 movements without any backup on through traffic for Cajalco Road. Overall, these improvements alleviate congestion and reduce traffic delay. The right of way for this alternative mainly takes up the south east quadrant of our project boundary. For all other proposed alignment it mainly part of the project boundary or overlaps with existing alignment. Additional right of way is need on the Northeast and Northwest portion, but not as significant in comparison to the south east quadrant. Retaining walls will be need for this alternative. A retaining wall will be need on the Southbound off, Northbound on ramp and on the abutments for the bridge. This will allow roadways to go as close as possible to walls and right of way of the shopping center of the North east and North West quadrant. In terms of pedestrian and bicycle access, the sidewalk is located on the south side of Cajalco Road, and the bicycle lanes are located on both sides of Cajalco Road. The reason the sidewalk is only located on the south is avoid and vehicle to pedestrian conflicts with the high-speed Northbound on ramp. For traffic analysis, the 20 year design life was used to determine the year for traffic simulation. The level of service for the PM peak hour during the year 2035 improved from an F to a C for the Northbound and Southbound intersection. This improvement is based on the No-Build option for the PM peak hour during the year This meets Caltrans standards of C or better. Traffic simulation was then used to see the traffic conditions. As a result there was no back up on the Southbound off ramp to the I-15. Also there was almost no congestion on Cajalco Road. Alternative 1 can be constructed with the use of temporary on ramps, diverting traffic, and flagging. There is more overlap from existing to proposed surface, allowing for somewhat difficult construction phasing, but is still feasible. 32 P a g e

33 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 is also a partial clover leaf hybrid. Similar to that of Alternative 1, this alternative was designed to reduce congestion, provide pedestrian and bicycle accessibility, and decrease traffic delay. Figure 14 shows the layout in blue of the proposed design with the level of service in 2035 pm peak shown for each intersection. The existing interchange is shown in gray. C C 33 P a g e Figure 14. Alternative 2 Layout and 2035 LOS The main difference between this alternative and Alternative 1 is the alignment of Cajalco road. For this alternative, our goal was to make the bridge as short as possible. In order to do so, we needed to make the alignment as near to perpendicular with the I- 15 as we could. The final alignment did allow us to have a shorter bridge span which reduced the cost and we re also able to fit the south bound ramps without cutting into the marketplace slope on the west side. This eliminates the need for a retaining wall for the southbound ramp. There is a need for retaining walls at the abutments of the bridge. Although the alignment does have its benefits, it does create a reverse curve on the west side of the bridge. A reverse curved road does not meet driver expectations as

34 well as a straight road would. It also takes up more right of way on the south side of the existing roadway. The similarities with Alternative 1 are the ramp alignments and lane configurations. Cajalco road has been widened to 6 lanes, 3 lanes in each direction, to remove the bottleneck. The inner lane for the southbound loop ramp was widened to accommodate for trucks. The Southbound off ramp increased to 2 left turn lanes to reduce the traffic backing up into the I-15. We also added a northbound loop on ramp to accommodate for the high turning movements. The Northbound on ramp changed into a slip on ramp with an auxiliary lane entering into the freeway. The Northbound will need a retaining wall for the shopping center slope. To provide pedestrian accessibility we added a sidewalk on the south side of Cajalco Road. There is no sidewalk on the north side to reduce the possibility of pedestrian and vehicle conflicts. Bicycle lanes were added to both sides of Cajalco road to improve bicycle accessibility. The constructability of Alternative 2 is similar to that of Alternative 1 accept the alignment of the bridge is further south. Therefore, the construction phasing will be simpler and feasible. 34 P a g e

35 Alternative 3 The Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) was investigated as an alternative because of the high left turn movements. The single intersection can allow for much higher left turn movements, which will alleviate the congestion on the intersection. Figure 15 shows the layout in blue of the proposed design with the level of service in 2035 pm peak shown for each intersection. The existing interchange is shown in gray. B Figure 15. Alternative 3 Layout and 2035 LOS The Single point urban interchange uses a single intersection located at the center of a bridge. There are four left hand turns located here. The high amount of left turns is helpful in alleviating traffic because more cars can get through the signal. There are 2 left hand turn to the on ramps. The north bound and south bound on ramps. These would be located on north east of the intersection and south west of the intersection. The other two would be left hand turns from the off ramps. These would be off ramps from the north bound and south bound directions. These ramps are located north west of the intersection and south east of the intersection. A diagram of the turning movements is shown in Figure P a g e

36 Figure 16. Single Point Urban Interchange Traffic Flow Diagram The SPUI uses free flowing right rand turn lanes that are connect to each ramp. These are located outside of the single intersection. The design we used uses two free flowing right turns and two signalized right turns. The free flowing right turns are located northwest of the intersection and south west of the intersection. These free flowing lanes connect to the north bound and south bound on ramps. The signalized right turns are located north west of the intersection and south east of the intersection. These are connected to the north bound and south bound off ramps. They were designed to be signalized because of the amount of space between the adjacent intersections was not enough for the off ramps to fit free flowing lanes. The bridge is a butterfly bridge which is used to accommodate the added ramps the cross over the interstate 15. There are retaining walls north of the bridge and south of the bridge. They are used because the ramps are still close to the main line to complete the fill that the ramps would need. There are retaining walls used on the north bound on ramp right turn and the southbound off ramp right turn. The north bound right needs the retaining wall to keep the fill from going into the shopping center. The south 36 P a g e

37 bound off ramp right turn needs the retaining wall to because it gets close to the shopping center located to the west of the ramp. There is bicycle access located on both the north and south side of Cajalco road. Pedestrian access is located on the north side only. The right of way is less than the other alternatives. There is small amount of right away needed to construct. There is right of way needed to be attained in all four quadrants of the intersection. The construction phasing for this alternative is very complex. It will require more complex routing and more stages. Temporary retaining walls and ramps will need to be constructed. Overall the construction feasibility of this alternative is lower than alternative 1 and P a g e

38 This page intentionally left blank

39 Advanced Planning Studies An Advanced Planning Study was done to acquire the cost and scope of the structural aspects of this project. The structures that were focused on were the overcrossing bridge for each alternative and the wash bridge for the northbound off ramp. Alternative 1 Figure 17 shows the plan view of the APS drawing for the Alternative 1 overcrossing. Figure 17. Alternative 1 Overcrossing Plan View 39 P a g e

40 Figure 18 shows the profile view of the APS drawing for the Alternative 1 overcrossing. \ Figure 18. Alternative 1 Overcrossing Profile View Figure 19 shows the cross section view of the APS drawing for the Alternative 1 overcrossing. Figure 19. Alternative 1 Overcrossing Cross Section View 40 P a g e

41 Alternative 2 Figure 20 shows the plan view of the APS drawing for the Alternative 2 overcrossing. Figure 20. Alternative 2 Overcrossing Plan View Figure 21 shows the profile view of the APS drawing for the Alternative 2 overcrossing. Figure 21. Alternative 2 Overcrossing Profile View 41 P a g e

42 Figure 22 shows the cross section view of the APS drawing for the Alternative 2 overcrossing. Figure 22. Alternative 2 Overcrossing Cross Section View 42 P a g e

43 Alternative 3 Figure 23 shows the plan view of the APS drawing for the Alternative 3 overcrossing. Figure 23. Alternative 3 Overcrossing Plan View Figure 24 shows the profile view of the APS drawing for the Alternative 3 overcrossing. Figure 24. Alternative 3 Overcrossing Profile View 43 P a g e

44 Figure 25 shows the cross section view of the APS drawing for the Alternative 3 overcrossing. Figure 25. Alternative 3 Overcrossing Cross Section View 44 P a g e

45 Bedford Wash Ramp Bridge Figure 26 shows the plan view of the APS drawing for the Alternative 3 overcrossing. Figure 26. Bedford Wash Ramp Bridge Layout View Figure 27 shows the profile view of the APS drawing for the Alternative 3 overcrossing. 45 P a g e Figure 27. Bedford Wash Ramp Bridge Profile View Figure 28 shows the cross section view of the APS drawing for the Alternative 3 overcrossing.

46 Figure 28. Bedford Wash Ramp Bridge Cross Section View The structural quantities calculated from the APS are reflected in the cost estimates. The full APS drawings are included in the appendix. 46 P a g e

47 47 P a g e Cost Estimates

48 This page intentionally left blank

49 Alternative 1 Hybrid Interchange District-County-Route 8-Riverside-Interstate 15 PM EA Program Code PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Limits Cajalco Road Interchange including overcrossing and ramps up to but not including adjacent intersections along Cajalco. Proposed Improvement (Scope) Interchange Improvement. Alternate SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $ 20,100,000 TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $ 10,400,000 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 30,500,000 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS $ 3,000,000 DESIGN (15%) $ 20,100,000 CONSTRUCTION AND ADMIN (15%) $ 10,400,000 CONTINGENCIES (25%) $ 30,500,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $ 54,400,000 Reviewed by District Program Manager (Signature) Approved by Project Manager (Signature) Date Phone No. Page No. of 49 P a g e

50 District-County-Route PM EA I. ROADWAY ITEMS Section 1 Earthwork Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Section Cost Roadway Excavation Cu Yd $ $ 504, Imported Borrow Cu Yd $ $ 2,355, Clearing & Grubbing Acre $ 30, $ 482, Develop Water Supply 1 LS $ 80, $ 80, Top Soil Reapplication 2000 Cu Yd $ $ 110, Stepped Slopes and Slope Rounding (Contour Grading) SQ YD $ $ 620, $ 4,152, Section 2 Pavement Structural Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Section Cost PCC Pavement ( Depth) Cu Yd $ $ 3,020, PCC Pavement ( Depth) 0 $ - $ - Asphalt Concrete SQ Yd $ 2.00 $ 138, Lean Concrete Base 0 Cu Yd $ $ - Cement-Treated Base 0 Cu Yd $ $ - Aggregate Base Cu Yd $ $ 2,071, Treated Permeable Base 0 Cu Yd $ $ - Aggregate Sub base Cu Yd $ $ 1,726, Pavement Reinforcing Fabric SQ Yd $ 2.00 $ 138, Edge Drains 500 LF $ $ 12, $ 7,106, Section 3 Drainage (N/A) 50 P a g e

51 District-County-Route PM EA Section 4: Specialty Items Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Section Cost Retaining Walls 1073 Cu Yd $ $ 536, Noise Barriers 0 SQ FT $ $ - Barriers and Guardrails 3176 LF $ $ 79, Equipment/Animal 0 $ - Water Pollution Control 1 LS $ 5, $ 5, Hazardous Waste Investigation and/or LS $ 10, $ 10, Mitigation Work 1 Environmental 1 LS $ 10, $ 10, Resident Engineer Office Space 1 LS $ 9, $ 9, $ 649, Section 5: Traffic Items Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Section Cost Lighting 1 LS $ 200, $ 200, Traffic Delineation 0 LF $ 0.75 $ - Traffic Signals 2 Per Intersection $ 150, $ 300, Overhead Sign 0 SF $ $ - Roadside Signs 15 EA $ $ 3, Traffic Control Systems 1 LS $ 110, $ 110, Transportation 1 LS Management Plan $ 3, $ 3, Temporary Detection 1 LS System Staging $ 30, $ 30, $ 646, P a g e

52 District-County-Route PM EA Section 6 Planting and Irrigation (N/A) Section 7: Roadside Management and Safety Section Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Section Cost Vegetation Control Treatments 1000 Sq Yd $ $ 75, Gore Area Pavement 1195 Sq Yd $ $ 89, Pavement beyond the gore area 0 Sq Yd $ $ - Miscellaneous Paving 0 Sq Yd $ $ - Erosion Control 0.3 Acre $ 1, $ Slope Protection 2000 Cu Yd $ $ 300, Side Slopes/Embankment $ - Maintenance Vehicle Pull outs 3 EA $ 12, $ 36, Off-freeway Access (gates, stairways, etc.) 0 n/a $ - $ - Roadside Facilities (Vista Points, Transit, 0 n/a $ - $ - Relocating roadside facilities/features 0 n/a $ - $ - $ 501, TOTAL SECTIONS: 1 thru 7 $13,055, _ 52 P a g e

53 District-County-Route PM EA Section 8: Minor Items $13,055, x (5 to 10%) = $1,305, (Subtotal Sections 1 thru 7) TOTAL MINOR ITEMS $1,305, Section 9: Roadway Mobilization $14,361, x (10%) = $1,436, (Subtotal Sections 1 thru 8) TOTAL ROADWAY MOBILIZATION $1,436, Section 10 Roadway Additions Supplemental Work $14,361, x (5 to 10%) = $1,436, (Subtotal Sections 1 thru 8) Contingencies $14,361, x (20%) = $2,872, (Subtotal Sections 1 thru 8) TOTAL ROADWAY ADDITIONS $4,308, TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $20,106, (Subtotal Sections 1 thru 10) Estimate Prepared By Phone# Date (Print Name) Estimate Checked By Phone# Date (Print Name) ** Use appropriate percentage per Chapter P a g e

54 District-County-Route PM EA II. STRUCTURES ITEMS Structure Structure -1-2 Cajalco Bridge Name Overcrossing Wash Bridge Structure Type CIP Box Girder CIP Box Girder Width (out to out) - (ft) Span Lengths - (ft) Total Area - (ft2) 32, , Footing Type (pile/spread) Pile Pile Cost Per ft $ $ Total Cost for Structure 9,600, , SUBTOTAL STRUCTURES ITEMS $10,440, (Sum of Total Cost for Structures) COMMENTS: Estimate Prepared By Phone# Date (Print Name) 54 P a g e

55 III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS ESCALATED VALUE District-County-Route PM EA A. Acquisition, including excess lands, damages to remainder(s) and Goodwill $1,236, B. Utility Relocation (State share) $1,250, C. Relocation Assistance N/A D. Clearance/Demolition $471, E. Title and Escrow Fees N/A TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS $2,957, (Escalated Value) F. Construction Contract Work Brief Description of Work: Right of Way Branch Cost Estimate for Work * $ * This dollar amount is to be included in the Roadway and/or Structures Items of Work, as appropriate. Do not include in Right of Way Items. COMMENTS: Estimate Prepared By Phone# Date (Print Name) NOTE: If appropriate, attach additional pages and backup. 55 P a g e

56 This page intentionally left blank

57 Alternative 2 Hybrid Interchange with Shorter Bridge District-County-Route 8-Riverside-Interstate 15 PM EA Program Code PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Limits Cajalco Road Interchange including overcrossing and ramps up to but not including adjacent intersections along Cajalco. Proposed Improvement (Scope) Interchange Improvement. Alternate SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $ 21,200,000 TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $ 8,900,000 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 30,100,000 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS $ 3,500,000 DESIGN (15%) $ 5,000,000 CONSTRUCTION AND ADMIN (15%) $ 5,000,000 CONTINGENCIES (25%) $ 10,800,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $ 54,600,000 Reviewed by District Program Manager (Signature) Approved by Project Manager (Signature) Date Phone No. Page No. of 57 P a g e

58 District-County-Route PM EA I. ROADWAY ITEMS Section 1 Earthwork Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Section Cost Roadway Excavation Cu Yd $ $ 887, Imported Borrow Cu Yd $ $ 2,534, Clearing & Grubbing Acre $ 30, $ 482, Develop Water Supply 1 LS $ 80, $ 80, Top Soil Reapplication 2000 Cu Yd $ $ 110, Stepped Slopes and Slope Rounding (Contour Grading) SQ YD $ $ 620, $ 4,714, Section 2 Pavement Structural Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Section Cost PCC Pavement ( Depth) Cu Yd $ $ 3,101, PCC Pavement ( Depth) 0 $ - $ - Asphalt Concrete SQ Yd $ 2.00 $ 141, Lean Concrete Base 0 Cu Yd $ $ - Cement-Treated Base 0 Cu Yd $ $ - Aggregate Base Cu Yd $ $ 2,126, Treated Permeable Base 0 Cu Yd $ $ - Aggregate Sub base Cu Yd $ $ 1,772, Pavement Reinforcing Fabric SQ Yd $ 2.00 $ 141, Edge Drains 500 LF $ $ 12, $ 7,297, Section 3 Drainage (N/A) 58 P a g e

59 District-County-Route PM EA Section 4: Specialty Items Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Section Cost Retaining Walls 678 Cu Yd $ $ 339, Noise Barriers 0 SQ FT $ $ - Barriers and Guardrails 3103 LF $ $ 77, Equipment/Animal 0 $ - Water Pollution Control 1 LS $ 5, $ 5, Hazardous Waste Investigation and/or LS $ 10, $ 10, Mitigation Work 1 Environmental 1 LS $ 10, $ 10, Resident Engineer Office Space 1 LS $ 9, $ 9, $ 450, Section 5: Traffic Items Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Section Cost Lighting 1 LS $ 200, $ 200, Traffic Delineation 0 LF $ 0.75 $ - Traffic Signals 2 Per Signal $ 150, $ 300, Overhead Sign 0 SF $ $ - Roadside Signs 15 EA $ $ 3, Traffic Control Systems 1 LS $ 110, $ 110, Transportation 1 LS Management Plan $ 3, $ 3, Temporary Detection 1 LS System Staging $ 30, $ 30, $ 646, P a g e

60 District-County-Route PM EA Section 6 Planting and Irrigation (N/A) Section 7: Roadside Management and Safety Section Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Section Cost Vegetation Control Treatments 1000 Sq Yd $ $ 75, Gore Area Pavement 3210 Sq Yd $ $ 240, Pavement beyond the gore area 0 Sq Yd $ $ - Miscellaneous Paving 0 Sq Yd $ $ - Erosion Control 1 Acre $ 1, $ 1, Slope Protection 2000 Cu Yd $ $ 300, Side Slopes/Embankment $ - Maintenance Vehicle Pull outs 3 EA $ 12, $ 36, Off-freeway Access (gates, stairways, etc.) 0 n/a $ - $ - Roadside Facilities (Vista Points, Transit, 0 n/a $ - $ - Relocating roadside facilities/features 0 n/a $ - $ - $ 653, TOTAL SECTIONS: 1 thru 7 $13,761,921.55_ 60 P a g e

61 Section 8: Minor Items District-County-Route PM EA $13,761, x (5 to 10%) = $1,376, (Subtotal Sections 1 thru 7) TOTAL MINOR ITEMS $1,376, Section 9: Roadway Mobilization $15,138, x (10%) = $1,513, (Subtotal Sections 1 thru 8) TOTAL ROADWAY MOBILIZATION $1,513, Section 10 Roadway Additions Contingencies Supplemental Work $15,138, x (5 to 10%) = $1,513, (Subtotal Sections 1 thru 8) $15,138, x (20%) = $3,027, (Subtotal Sections 1 thru 8) TOTAL ROADWAY ADDITIONS $4,541, TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $21,193, (Subtotal Sections 1 thru 10) Estimate Prepared By Phone# Date (Print Name) Estimate Checked By Phone# Date (Print Name) 61 P a g e

62 District-County-Route PM EA II. STRUCTURES ITEMS Structure Structure -1-2 Bridge Name Cajalco Overcrossing Wash Bridge Structure Type CIP Box Girder CIP Box Girder Width (out to out) - (ft) Span Lengths - (ft) Total Area - (ft2) 26, , Footing Type (pile/spread) Pile Pile Cost Per ft Total Cost for Structure $ 8,038, $ 840, SUBTOTAL STRUCTURES ITEMS $8,878, (Sum of Total Cost for Structures) COMMENTS: Estimate Prepared By Phone# Date (Print Name) NOTE: If appropriate, attach additional pages and backup. Page No. of 62 P a g e

63 District-County-Route PM EA III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS A. Acquisition, including excess lands, damages to remainder(s) and Goodwill $1,794, B. Utility Relocation (State share) $1,250, C. Relocation Assistance N/A D. Clearance/Demolition $471, E. Title and Escrow Fees N/A TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS (Escalated Value) $ TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS $3,515, F. Construction Contract Work Brief Description of Work: Right of Way Branch Cost Estimate for Work * $ * This dollar amount is to be included in the Roadway and/or Structures Items of Work, as appropriate. Do not include in Right of Way Items. COMMENTS: Estimate Prepared By Phone# Date (Print Name) NOTE: If appropriate, attach additional pages and backup. 63 P a g e

64 This page intentionally left blank

65 Alternative 3 Single Point Urban Interchange District-County-Route 8-Riverside-Interstate 15 PM EA Program Code PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Limits Cajalco Road Interchange including overcrossing and ramps up to but not including adjacent intersections along Cajalco. Proposed Improvement (Scope) Interchange Improvement. Alternate SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $ 36,100,000 TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $ 17,100,000 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 53,200,000 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS $ 2,400,000 DESIGN (15%) $ 8,300,000 CONSTRUCTION AND ADMIN (15%) $ 8,300,000 CONTINGENCIES (25%) $ 18,100,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $ 90,300,000 Reviewed by District Program Manager (Signature) Approved by Project Manager (Signature) Phone No. Page No. of Date 65 P a g e

66 District-County-Route PM EA I. ROADWAY ITEMS Section 1 Earthwork Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Section Cost Roadway Excavation Cu Yd $ $ 1,290, Imported Borrow Cu Yd $ $ 6,780, Clearing & Grubbing Acre $ 30, $ 482, Develop Water Supply 1 LS $ 80, $ 80, Top Soil Reapplication 2000 Cu Yd $ $ 110, Stepped Slopes and Slope Rounding (Contour Grading) SQ YD $ $ 620, $ 9,362, Section 2 Pavement Structural Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Section Cost PCC Pavement ( Depth) Cu Yd $ $ 4,718, PCC Pavement ( Depth) 0 $ - $ - Asphalt Concrete SQ Yd $ 2.00 $ 161, Lean Concrete Base 0 Cu Yd $ $ - Cement-Treated Base 0 Cu Yd $ $ - Aggregate Base Cu Yd $ $ 2,426, Treated Permeable Base 0 Cu Yd $ $ - Aggregate Sub base Cu Yd $ $ 2,022, Pavement Reinforcing Fabric SQ Yd $ 2.00 $ 161, Edge Drains 500 LF $ $ 12, $ 9,503, Section 3 Drainage (N/A) 66 P a g e

67 District-County-Route PM EA Section 4: Specialty Items Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Section Cost Retaining Walls 6519 Cu Yd $ $ 3,259, Noise Barriers 0 SQ FT $ $ - Barriers and Guardrails 4210 LF $ $ 105, Equipment/Animal 0 $ - Water Pollution Control 1 LS $ 5, $ 5, Hazardous Waste Investigation and/or LS $ 10, $ 10, Mitigation Work 1 Environmental 1 LS $ 10, $ 10, Resident Engineer Office Space 1 LS $ 9, $ 9, $ 3,398, Section 5: Traffic Items Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Section Cost Lighting 1 LS $ 200, $ 200, Traffic Delineation 0 LF $ 0.75 $ - Traffic Signals 2 Per Signal $ 150, $ 300, Overhead Sign 0 SF $ $ - Roadside Signs 15 EA $ $ 3, Traffic Control Systems 1 LS $ 110, $ 110, Transportation 1 LS Management Plan $ 3, $ 3, Temporary Detection 1 LS System Staging $ 30, $ 30, $ 646, P a g e

68 District-County-Route PM EA Section 6 Planting and Irrigation (N/A) Section 7: Roadside Management and Safety Section Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Section Cost Vegetation Control Treatments 1000 Sq Yd $ $ 75, Gore Area Pavement 1264 Sq Yd $ $ 94, Pavement beyond the gore area 0 Sq Yd $ $ - Miscellaneous Paving 0 Sq Yd $ $ - Erosion Control 0.3 Acre $ 1, $ Slope Protection 2000 Cu Yd $ $ 300, Side Slopes/Embankment $ - Maintenance Vehicle Pull outs 3 EA $ 12, $ 36, Off-freeway Access (gates, stairways, etc.) 0 n/a $ - $ - Roadside Facilities (Vista Points, Transit, 0 n/a $ - $ - Relocating roadside facilities/features 0 n/a $ - $ - $ 506, TOTAL SECTIONS: 1 thru 7 $23,416, P a g e

69 District-County-Route PM EA Section 8: Minor Items $23,416, x (5 to 10%) = $2,341, (Subtotal Sections 1 thru 7) TOTAL MINOR ITEMS $2,341, Section 9: Roadway Mobilization $25,758, x (10%) = $2,575, (Subtotal Sections 1 thru 8) TOTAL ROADWAY MOBILIZATION $2,575, Section 10 Roadway Additions Contingencies Supplemental Work $25,758, x (5 to 10%) = $2,575, (Subtotal Sections 1 thru 8) $25,758, x (20%) = $5,151, (Subtotal Sections 1 thru 8) TOTAL ROADWAY ADDITIONS $7,727, TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $36,061, (Subtotal Sections 1 thru 10) Estimate Prepared By Phone# Date (Print Name) Estimate Checked By Phone# Date (Print Name) 69 P a g e

70 District-County-Route PM EA II. STRUCTURES ITEMS Structure Structure Structure Bridge Name Cajalco Overcrossing Wash Bridge Wash Bridge Structure Type CIP Box Girder (Butterfly) CIP Box Girder CIP Box Girder Width (out to out) - (ft) 180 (narrowest point) Span Lengths - (ft) Total Area - (ft2) 45, , , Footing Type (pile/spread) Pile Pile Pile Cost per ft Total Cost for Structure $ 15,390, $ 840, $ 840, SUBTOTAL STRUCTURES ITEMS $17,070, (Sum of Total Cost for Structures) Railroad Related Costs (N/A): $ $ $ SUBTOTAL RAILROAD ITEMS $ TOTAL STRUCTURES ITEMS $9,557,000 (Sum of Structures Items plus Railroad Items) COMMENTS: Estimate Prepared By Phone# Date (Print Name) NOTE: If appropriate, attach additional pages and backup. Page No. of 70 P a g e

71 District-County-Route PM EA III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS A. Acquisition, including excess lands, damages to remainder(s) and Goodwill $733, B. Utility Relocation (State share) $1,250, C. Relocation Assistance N/A D. Clearance/Demolition $471, E. Title and Escrow Fees N/A TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS $2,454, (Escalated Value) F. Construction Contract Work Brief Description of Work: Right of Way Branch Cost Estimate for Work * $ * This dollar amount is to be included in the Roadway and/or Structures Items of Work, as appropriate. Do not include in Right of Way Items. COMMENTS: Estimate Prepared By Phone# Date (Print Name) NOTE: If appropriate, attach additional pages and backup. 71 P a g e

72 This page intentionally left blank

73 Cost Benefit Analysis To determine the cost effectiveness of each alternative, a cost benefit analysis was done. The purpose of a cost benefit analysis is to quantify the benefits each alternative would provide in terms of dollars, and compare these to the cost to build the alternative. The basis of comparison must be the same year. For the purpose of this project the benefit was the gas savings compared to the no build alternative. The design life from 2015 to 2025 was the period quantified and turned into net present value (NPV) for year The costs were escalated from 2013 to the year 2015 using inflation rates. Table 8 is a summary of the capital costs of each alternative escalated to the year Table 8. Cost Summary Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Roadway $20.1 $21.2 $36.1 Bridge $10.4 $8.9 $17.1 Right of Way $3.0 $3.5 $2.4 Design $5.0 $5.0 $8.3 Construction & $5.0 $5.0 $8.3 Administration Contingencies $10.8 $10.9 $18.1 Total** $65.3 $65.5 $108.3 Benefits were calculated using Synchro Measures of effectiveness. The output was for one peak hour for the worst case scenario. The day s fuel consumption was inferred from the data and used to quantify the user cost. The user cost for each alternative was then compared to the no build. The savings accrued compared to the no build is the benefit. Table 9 shows the raw data output. 73 P a g e

74 Table 9. Daily and Annual Fuel Cost for Each Alternative No build Hybrid Short bridge SPUI $ - $ 54,444,315 $ 54,580,241 $ 90,326,870 Year Index Daily Cost Annual Cost Daily Cost Annual Cost Daily Cost Annual Cost Daily Cost Annual Cost $ 11, $ 2,871, $ 3, $ 836, $ 3, $ 900, $ 1, $ 273, $ 11, $ 3,050, $ 3, $ 888, $ 3, $ 956, $ 1, $ 291, $ 12, $ 3,246, $ 3, $ 945, $ 3, $ 1,018, $ 1, $ 309, $ 13, $ 3,461, $ 3, $ 1,008, $ 4, $ 1,085, $ 1, $ 330, $ 14, $ 3,698, $ 4, $ 1,077, $ 4, $ 1,160, $ 1, $ 352, $ 15, $ 3,960, $ 4, $ 1,153, $ 4, $ 1,242, $ 1, $ 377, $ 16, $ 4,248, $ 4, $ 1,237, $ 5, $ 1,332,425 $ 1, $ 405, $ 17, $ 4,566, $ 5, $ 1,329, $ 5, $ 1,432, $ 1, $ 435, $ 18, $ 4,918, $ 5, $ 1,432, $ 5, $ 1,542, $ 1, $ 469, $ 20, $ 5,308, $ 5, $ 1,545, $ 6, $ 1,664, $ 1, $ 506, $ 21, $ 5,740, $ 6, $ 1,671, $ 6, $ 1,800, $ 2, $ 547, $ 23, $ 6,220, $ 6, $ 1,811, $ 7, $ 1,950, $ 2, $ 593, $ 25, $ 6,753, $ 7, $ 1,966, $ 8, $ 2,118, $ 2, $ 644, $ 28, $ 7,346, $ 8, $ 2,139, $ 8, $ 2,304, $ 2, $ 700, $ 30, $ 8,008, $ 8, $ 2,332, $ 9, $ 2,511, $ 2, $ 764, $ 33, $ 8,747, $ 9, $ 2,547, $ 10, $ 2,743, $ 3, $ 834, $ 36, $ 9,573, $ 10, $ 2,788, $ 11, $ 3,002, $ 3, $ 913, $ 40, $ 10,498, $ 11, $ 3,057, $ 12, $ 3,292, $ 3, $ 1,001, $ 44, $ 11,535, $ 12, $ 3,359, $ 13, $ 3,618, $ 4, $ 1,100, $ 48, $ 12,701, $ 14, $ 3,698, $ 15, $ 3,983, $ 4, $ 1,211, $ 53, $ 14,012, $ 15, $ 4,080, $ 16, $ 4,394, $ 5, $ 1,336, Alternative No build Hybrid Short bridge SPUI NPV $ 107,467,891 $ 31,298,103 $ 33,705,650 $ 190,757 Figure 29 shows graphically the escalation of user cost each year for fuel. Figure 29. Annual User Costs 74 P a g e

75 To determine the actual benefit form user cost, the no build cost is subtracted from the alternative cost and the graph below in Figure 30 is produced. Figure 30. Annual User Benefit Based on the analysis Alternative 3 (SPUI) has the highest benefit through the design life. Alternative 1 and 2 are very close with Alternative 1 having a slightly higher benefit than Alternative 2. The full benefits of each alternative that can be compared to the initial costs are shown in Figure P a g e

76 Figure 31. Total Benefits Table 10 is the benefit cost ratio analysis results. Although Alternative 3 had the highest benefit at $107 million it also has the highest construction cost. When these costs and benefits are weighed against each other, alternative one has the highest benefit cost ration at This means the benefits outweigh the cost and the alternative is most cost effective. Table 10. Benefit Cost Analysis Results Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Total Benefit* $76.2 $73.8 $107.3 Cost* $65.3 $65.5 $108.3 Benefit/Cost *In 2015 dollars 76 P a g e

77 Preferred Alternative Alternative 1, 2 and 3 each address the needs and purpose of improving the Cajalco Road interchange. Due to the cost effectiveness and the following attributes Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative. The reasons are as follows: Reduces Congestion Reduces Traffic Delay Provides Pedestrian and Bicycle Accessibility Adaptable to Future Changes Reduces Environmental Impacts Improves Safety Cost Effective Figure 32 shows a 3d rendition of what the southbound intersection will look like after Alternative 1 is constructed. Figure 32. 3d Rendering of Alternative 1 Southbound Intersection 77 P a g e