noise barrier scope summary report

Transcription

Caltrans
etric
07-LA-210, KP R40.7/R69.8 (PM R25.3/R43.4)
07-186, EA 23290K
SND – HB311 Program
July 2007
This Noise Barrier Scope Summary Report has been prepared under the direction of the
following registered civil engineer. The registered civil engineer attests to the technical
information contained herein and the engineering data upon which recommendations,
conclusions, and decisions are based.
07/26/07
Kekoa Anderson, P.E.
REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TETRA TECH, INC.
DATE
07-LA-210, KP R40.7/R69.8 (PM R25.3/R43.4)
07-186, EA 23290K
July 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
2.
Page
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 1
A.
Proposal and Limits................................................................................................................. 1
B.
Deficiencies and Justification.................................................................................................. 2
C.
Project Category ...................................................................................................................... 2
BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................... 2
A.
Funding Source ....................................................................................................................... 2
B.
Public Involvement.................................................................................................................. 2
C.
Project Priority ........................................................................................................................ 3
3.
DESIGN INFORMATION ............................................................................................................... 3
4.
PROPOSAL ...................................................................................................................................... 5
5.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................................................ 14
6.
PROJECT REVIEWS ..................................................................................................................... 17
7.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS ...................................................................................................... 17
8.
PROJECT PERSONNEL................................................................................................................ 17
9.
ATTACHMENTS ........................................................................................................................... 18
Z:\BK Squad #2\EA #\23290K Pas & Glendora NBSSR\Final NBSSR\NBSSR - July 2007 - Final.doc
-i-
07-LA-210, KP R40.7/R69.8 (PM R25.3/R43.4)
07-186, EA 23290K
July 2007
NOISE BARRIER SCOPE SUMMARY REPORT
1. INTRODUCTION
A. Proposal and Limits
This Noise Barrier Scope Summary Report (NBSSR) proposes to construct approximately
5,573 m of noise barriers along Interstate 210 (I-210 – Foothill Freeway). The project area
consists of:
Pasadena:
Approximately 2.0 km long segment in the eastbound and westbound directions from Fair
Oaks Ave., KP R40.7 (PM R25.3) to Wilson Avenue, KP R42.7 (PM R26.6).
•
Arcadia:
Approximately 2.2 km long segment in the westbound direction from Baldwin Avenue,
KP R49.6 (PM R30.8) to west of Santa Anita Avenue, KP R51.8 (PM R32.2).
•
Glendora:
Approximately 0.4 km long segment in the eastbound direction from the Grand Avenue
off-ramp, KP R67.1 (PM R41.7) to Big Dalton Wash, KP R67.5 (PM R41.9).
•
Approximately 1.2 km long segment in the eastbound direction from west of Bonnie Cove
Avenue, KP R68.1 (PM R42.3) to east of Bonnie Cove Avenue, KP R69.3 (PM R43.1).
•
Approximately 0.6 km long segment in the eastbound direction from west of Lyman Avenue,
KP R69.2 (PM R43.0) to east of Sunflower Avenue, KP R69.8 (PM R43.4).
•
All segments are within the County of Los Angeles (See Vicinity Map in Attachment A).
The purpose of the soundwalls identified in this project is to attenuate the freeway and ramp noise
level. A review of the scope of work for this project determined that it qualifies for Categorical
Exemption (CE) designation in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
The estimated construction cost of the project as of July 2007 is $30,600,000. Using an escalation
factor of 5% per year, the total construction cost of the project in the proposed program year
(2009/2010) becomes $33,830,000 which includes $33,740,000 for construction and $90,000 for
right of way to be funded by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(MTA) through Proposition “C” 25% funds in the 2009/2010 fiscal year. This study does not
satisfy all the federal criteria to qualify for federal funding.
Based on the Environmental Document and Technical Noise Study (prepared by Acentech, Inc,
dated December 2005), this NBSSR serves as the Project Report for formal project approval.
-1-
07-LA-210, KP R40.7/R69.8 (PM R25.3/R43.4)
07-186, EA 23290K
July 2007
B. Deficiencies and Justification
Noise measurements taken in July and August 2002 resulted in Leq (Leq is the Equivalent Noise
Level used by Caltrans to address the worst-hour noise level) of 71.7, 72.6 and 72.5 decibels
(dBA) in the cities of Pasadena, Arcadia and Glendora, respectively, along the proposed project
limits. Noise levels at several of the measured locations exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria
(NAC) for residential area (Activity Category B) of 67 dBA (Section 2, Chapter 30 of the Project
Development Procedures Manual (PDPM)). The proposed noise abatement mitigation measure is
projected to lower some noise levels within the study limits to below the 67 dBA Leq threshold.
This achieves the minimum attenuation criteria of 5 dBA.
C. Project Category
The project has minimal economic, social, and environmental significance and is Categorically
Exempt under CEQA. Based on the category description in Section 5 of Chapter 8 of the Project
Development Procedures Manual (PDPM), this project has been assigned Category 5.
2. BACKGROUND
A. Funding Source: (What Agency?)
(1) Is project in STIP (Yes/No)?
If Yes, Current $
N/A
MTA
No
FY
N/A
(2) Is project being advanced by local agency with costs to be paid back by State (Yes/No)?
No
With the enactment of Senate Bill 45, MTA has assumed the responsibility to deliver the
soundwalls identified in the Post 89 Soundwall Program. In April 2000, the MTA Board of
Directors adopted a funding plan for the Program. The Phase I Priority II projects are funded
through Proposition “C” 25% funds reserved for soundwalls in the Regional Transit
Alternative Analysis (RTAA).
B. Public Involvement
(1) Community support and/or opposition:
At the city council meeting in Pasadena held on October 14, 2002, there was strong support
for the project.
(2) Actual or proposed community contact about proposed noise barrier and aesthetics:
A Public Outreach Program was implemented to increase public awareness of the proposed
soundwall project. On April 30, 2003 a community meeting was held in the City of Pasadena
to discuss the project. A total of six written and five verbal public comments were submitted.
In general, public comments included concerns about priority locations of soundwalls. A
soundwall community meeting was held for the City of Glendora on May 15, 2003. A total of
seventeen written and eleven verbal public comments were submitted. In general, public
-2-
07-LA-210, KP R40.7/R69.8 (PM R25.3/R43.4)
07-186, EA 23290K
July 2007
comments included concerns about high noise levels generated by the freeway.
The local City/County Fire Marshall should be consulted with to coordinate locations
pertaining to fire hose openings and provisions for emergency personnel gates during the
PS&E stage of the project.
(3) Commitments to Local Agencies:
MTA is fully funding this project.
(4) Are there any unresolved issues?
There are no unresolved issues at this time.
C. Project Priority
On Statewide Priority List (Yes/No)?
If yes, indicate Rank #
and Priority Index Number (PIN)
No
N/A
N/A
3. DESIGN INFORMATION
A. Existing Facility
(1) Discussion:
I-210 is an east-west freeway that generally runs parallel to the San Gabriel Mountains. I-210
is classified as an urban principal arterial with four mixed-flow lanes and one (1) HOV lane
in each direction. The side slopes are typically 1(V):2(H) or flatter toward the right-of-way,
and are mostly covered with dense brush, shrubs and trees. In general, the most significant
slopes are located along at bridge abutments. Other slopes within the project are located along
the sides of the roadway and ramps. Adjacent properties are generally fully developed and
land uses consist of industrial and commercial developments, with areas of residential
development.
The width of the HOV lane is less than standard within the existing footprint of the corridor.
The cross section has a 0.61 m inside shoulder, 3.36 m HOV lane, 0.61 m buffer, and four (4)
mixed flow lanes varying from 3.35 m to 3.66 m. The shoulder width varies from 0.61 m to
2.4 m on the access roads and ramps and 3.05 m on the mainline.
(2) Right-of-Way and Fencing:
Soundwalls in the City of Pasadena may require footing easements from the City for
permanent footings. Between Los Robles Avenue and Wilson Avenue in Pasadena, and near
Baldwin Avenue in Arcadia, the proposed soundwall locations are adjacent to the State
right-of-way and have existing masonry block or concrete walls. Temporary construction
easements (TCE’s) will be required to remove the existing masonry or concrete walls, chain
link fences, and construct the proposed soundwalls. Side property walls that are being
-3-
07-LA-210, KP R40.7/R69.8 (PM R25.3/R43.4)
07-186, EA 23290K
July 2007
connected to the proposed soundwalls will be reconstructed.
(3) Traffic Data
Pasadena: Fair Oaks Ave (KP R39.6) to Wilson Ave (KP R42.3)
a. Current Year:
ADT
b. Design Year:
ADT
2004
307,000 Trucks
5
%
2026
353,500 DHV
28,000
Arcadia: Baldwin Ave (KP R49.6) to Santa Anita Ave (KP R51.3)
c. Current Year:
ADT
d. Design Year:
ADT
2004
254,000 Trucks
6
%
2026
282,500 DHV
22,000
Glendora: Grand Ave (KP R66.9) to Sunflower Ave (KP R69.5)
e. Current Year:
ADT
f.
Design Year:
ADT
2004
229,000 Trucks
7
%
2026
240,000 DHV
18,000
(4) Field Review
Date:
November 21, 2002
Anthony Ng, Tetra Tech, Inc.
Theresa Ahlgren, Tetra Tech, Inc.
Janet Huang, Tetra Tech, Inc.
District Program Advisor Field Review (Yes/No)?
-4-
No
07-LA-210, KP R40.7/R69.8 (PM R25.3/R43.4)
07-186, EA 23290K
July 2007
(5) Noise Study
Noise Study Completed (Yes/No)? Yes
Date:
December 2005
Noise Report Prepared (Yes/No)?
Yes
Date:
December 2005
If one or both are NO:
Date Noise Study Ordered:
N/A
Date Noise Study Scheduled to be Completed:
N/A
Date Noise Report to be Completed:
N/A
If both are YES:
Datum of Noise Barrier Height Basis (ETW/R/W Line)?
ETW or R/W
4. PROPOSAL
A. Description:
The project proposes to construct 5,573 m1 of noise barriers at various locations along I-210
freeway. The proposed height of the soundwall varies from 2.4 m to 4.9 m as shown in
Section 4D of this report. Noise barriers are proposed on the following bridges:
Structure*
Big Dalton Wash
Sunflower Avenue
Bridge
No.
53-2060
53-2061
Exist.
Shoulder
Width
2.44 m
3.05 m
Proposed
Shoulder
Width
3.05 m
3.05 m
Bridge
Widening**
0.61 m
0.00 m
* See Advanced Planning Studies (APS) in Attachment F.
** Widening is proposed for conservative cost estimating purposes. Widening may be
changed during PS&E pending approval of alternative wall materials under
consideration by Caltrans and an approved design exception.
Soundwalls constructed with lateral clearances of 4.57 m or less of the travel way will be placed
on a safety shaped concrete barrier.
1
On March 8, 2007, the participants of the Quality Review Meeting decided to continue to use metric units for this
phase of the project. However, subsequent phases of the project will use English units, which is consistent with
current policy.
-5-
07-LA-210, KP R40.7/R69.8 (PM R25.3/R43.4)
07-186, EA 23290K
July 2007
B. Was (or will) Value Analysis (VA) Study (be) done (Yes/No)?
No
If YES: Date of Study: N/A
If NO:
A Value Analysis (VA) for this project is not mandated since this project has no federal funds.
C. Acceptable noise barrier materials for proposed project:
Masonry Block (Yes/No)
Yes
Concrete Panel (Yes/No)
Yes
Plaster Composite (Yes/No)
No
Wood (Yes/No)
No
Metal, Ribbed Steel (Yes/No)
Yes
Composite Beam (Yes/No)
No
Other(s)*
Lightweight panel wall or equivalent
* Must be approved by Division of Structures
D. Noise Study Recommendation(s):
The following table which summarizes information pertaining to each sound wall is an excerpt
from the Technical Noise Study. Note that sound walls #35 and #50 were eliminated from further
consideration for this project due to the feasibility criterion; see Attachment “M” for justification.
SW
No.
37
39
41
Limits*
WB Rte 210 STA 35+45 to
STA 38+10. Along Maple St –
Raymond Ave to Marengo Ave.
STA 40+91. WB off-ramp at
Marengo Ave.
west of Euclid Ave. to Los
Robles Ave.
Direction
(NB,SB,EB,WB)
And Location
Comments
(R/W line, Shld
or
elsewhere)
WB at R/W line Within existing
R/W
Length
(m)
Height
(m)
265
2.54
248
3.96
WB at Lt ES
3.05 m from
ETW
189
3.96
WB at R/W line
Within existing
R/W
-6-
07-LA-210, KP R40.7/R69.8 (PM R25.3/R43.4)
07-186, EA 23290K
July 2007
SW
No.
43
44
47
48
52
163
167
179
182
184
186
188
Limits*
Los Robles Ave to El Molino
Ave.
EB Rte 210 STA 42+60 to
STA 46+45. Along Corson St –
Los Robles Ave to El Molino
Ave.
El Molino Ave to east of Maple
Way.
east of El Molino Ave to west
of Hudson Ave.
Lake Ave to Wilson Ave.
STA 167+22. WB on-ramp at
Baldwin Ave.
STA 178+82. East of WB
Baldwin Ave. off-ramp to WB
Santa Anita Ave on-ramp.
STA 179+50. West of Santa
Anita WB on-ramp.
STA 182+96. EB off-ramp at
Grand Ave.
STA 183+97. West of Grand
Ave.
STA 186+87. East of Grand
Ave.
STA 189+81. EB on-ramp at
Grand Ave.
Direction
(NB,SB,EB,WB)
And Location
Comments
(R/W line, Shld
or
elsewhere)
WB at R/W line Within existing
R/W
Length
(m)
Height
(m)
383
3.96
385
3.96
EB at R/W line
Within existing
R/W
122
3.96
WB at R/W line
Within existing
R/W
114
4.37
EB at R/W line
Within existing
R/W
284
3.76
EB at R/W line
Within existing
R/W
481
4.06 to
4.27
WB at R/W line
Within existing
R/W
1,177
3.96
WB at Rt ES
3.05 m from
existing ETW
122
3.15
WB at Rt ES
3.05 m from
ETW
146
3.15
EB at Rt ES
3.05 m from
ETW
157
3.35
EB at Rt ES
3.05 m from
ETW
107
4.37
EB at Rt ES
4.88 m from
ETW
316
4.37
EB at Rt ES
3.05 m from
ETW
-7-
07-LA-210, KP R40.7/R69.8 (PM R25.3/R43.4)
07-186, EA 23290K
July 2007
SW
No.
Limits*
Length
(m)
Height
(m)
196
Direction
(NB,SB,EB,WB)
And Location
Comments
(R/W line, Shld
or
elsewhere)
EB at Rt ES
3.05 m from
ETW
300
3.76
STA 199+10. East of Glendora
Ave. to west of Bonnie Cove
Ave.
206 EB Rte 210 STA 205+58 to
203
3.96
EB at Rt ES
3.05 m from
STA 207+61. EB off-ramp at
ETW
Sunflower Ave.
527
3.96
EB at Rt ES
3.05 m from
208 EB Rte 210 STA 207+10 to
ETW
STA 212+37. From east of
Sunflower Ave to west of
Sunflower Ave.
47
3.15
EB at Rt ES
3.05 m from
212 EB Rte 210 STA 211+95 to STA
ETW
212+42.
EB
on-ramp
at
Sunflower Ave.
* Must tie to existing facility (KP, station). Station limits indicated in the above table are based on
the mainline stationing. The length indicated is the actual length of the proposed soundwall to be
constructed.
E. Noise Barrier Foundation:
(1) Are there any locations where soil or other conditions would require nonstandard foundations
(Yes/No)? No
According to the Preliminary Foundation Report, Revision dated November 3, 2005 the soil
conditions will not require any special foundations.
If YES, has a special design been requested from Division of Structures (Yes/No)?
N/A
(2) Describe locations in which nonstandard foundations are required, including: Wall Number,
Limits, and Foundation Type:
N/A
Are these Division of Structures Recommendation(s)? (Yes/No)?
If NO, explain:
F. Design Details required for project (Yes/No)
N/A
Yes
Pavement/shoulder rehabilitation or reconstruction:
Wherever the existing shoulder width is 2.44 m or less, the shoulder will be widened with a new
structural section added between the existing edge of shoulder and the proposed soundwall to
provide 3.05 m from the edge of travel way to meet the required horizontal clearance. For
locations where there are no shoulders, a new structural section will be added between the
existing edge of travel way and the proposed soundwall. There are no Type “E” curbs within the
-8-
07-LA-210, KP R40.7/R69.8 (PM R25.3/R43.4)
07-186, EA 23290K
July 2007
project limits.
The proposed structural section is composed of asphalt concrete (AC), Lean Concrete Base
(LCB) and aggregate base (AB) and was designed based on a Traffic Index (TI) of eight (8), with
an R-value of 15.
The proposed structural section is composed of the following:
120 mm Asphalt Concrete (AC), Type B
120 mm Lean Concrete Base (LCB)
195 mm Aggregate Base (AB), Class 3
Total: 435 mm
Drainage:
Existing drainage system that is impacted/affected by the proposed soundwall will be modified to
accommodate the new condition.
Communication:
Communication conduits with pull ropes will be installed in concrete barrier wall and terminated
in communication pull box and splice vault at the ends of Big Dalton Wash Bridge.
Signs:
Several overhead and roadway signs will be relocated and/ or adjusted to be compatible with the
soundwall design during the PS&E stage.
Lighting:
Electroliers will be relocated to the top of the soundwall barriers and maintained at required
heights wherever lateral clearances are not met.
Utility Relocation:
There are no utilities that will be impacted by the proposed soundwalls.
Structure Work:
Widening for noise barriers includes the following bridges: Big Dalton Wash and Sunflower
Avenue. Widening of these structures will be re-evaluated during design pending approval of
alternative wall materials under consideration by Caltrans and an approved design exception.
The following are the soundwalls proposed on top of existing retaining walls:
Soundwall
No.
39
41
Height
(m)
3.96
3.96
-9-
Retaining
Wall No.
131
137
07-LA-210, KP R40.7/R69.8 (PM R25.3/R43.4)
07-186, EA 23290K
July 2007
Soundwall
No.
43
44
47
48
52
Height
(m)
3.96
3.96
3.96
4.37
3.76
Retaining
Wall No.
145
152
157
156
172
The existing shoulders for Soundwalls No. 167, 179, 182, 184, 186, 188, 206, and 212 are 2.44 m
or less. The shoulders will be widened to provide for a 3.05 m shoulder.
During PS&E, the bridge design should include new irrigation sprinkler control conduits and
water line crossovers in the widening portion of the bridges.
Highway Planting:
Highway planting will be protected where feasible. Replacement planting will be provided to
restore the highway planting that is disturbed to its original condition. Additional highway
planting is not included with this report.
Existing mature trees that are removed will be replaced at the ratio and size determined by the
District Landscape Architect in accordance with Chapter 29 of the Project Development
Procedures Manual (PDPM) and Office of Environmental Planning.
Since landscaping costs exceed $200,000, and if it is intended to keep this landscaping item as a
part of this project, an exception must be obtained from Office of State Landscape Architect
OSLA during PS&E stage. Otherwise, landscaping should be separated into another project.
No landscaping/planting will be provided within 6 m of the edge of traveled way. The narrow
areas between the soundwall and shoulder, and the gore areas narrower than 10 m should be
paved. Pave the slope if the width from the dike to the retaining wall is less than 6 m (such as
Soundwall No. 48). Aesthetic treatment for the pavement should be included.
Landscaping will be protected wherever feasible and modifications to the existing irrigation
system will be performed as required. Existing irrigation systems must be kept operable during
construction in order to maintain the existing landscape.
For locations where the freeway is elevated, a 3.6 m wide access pad behind the proposed wall
will be required for the construction of the Cast-In-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) piles. Existing irrigation
systems will need to be modified. In addition, $200,000 has been considered for maintaining
existing plants, extending crossovers (about 15 locations) and relocating other irrigation
components during soundwall construction.
Ramp Metering:
Relocation of ramp meters maybe required for the following: WB on-ramps at Santa Anita Ave.
(SW No. 167), EB on-ramp at Grand Ave. (SW No. 188) and EB on-ramp at Sunflower Ave.
(SW No. 212) (see Attachment C).
- 10 -
07-LA-210, KP R40.7/R69.8 (PM R25.3/R43.4)
07-186, EA 23290K
July 2007
All collectors impacted by soundwalls shall be relocated to safe areas and should be visible to
motorists before reaching the limit line. Down time of ramp metering should be minimized to
control the on-ramp traffic.
Other (Describe):
Graffiti Control: Options are available for graffiti removal, but depend on the type of wall
material. For concrete or masonry block walls, anti-graffiti coating should be applied to
prevent paint penetration into the concrete surface to allow for easy removal. Another
preventive measure is to landscape near the walls with vines, shrubs or trees. This will also
deter vandals from destroying the walls.
Existing Block Walls or Fences: Most of the residents that are adjacent to the state
right-of-way have wood fences, chain link fences, or block walls. Since the proposed
soundwall is located at the same location, it is anticipated that the existing fences or walls
would be removed. A temporary construction easement will be required. During the PS&E
stage, the specifications should include chain link fences to be salvaged and hauled to the
state yard, and the concrete walls and wood fences shall be disposed of per the special
provisions. Impacted side property walls that are being connected to the proposed soundwall
will be reinstated per the special provisions.
Existing soundwalls are located on the westbound side of SR-210 between Baldwin Avenue
and Santa Anita Avenue. The existing wall is approximately 1.8 m high. A wall height of
3.96 m is recommended as shown in Section 4D. At this time, there are no approved
standards to retrofit the existing soundwall to the required height. In order to identify
sufficient funding for the project, the estimate includes removing and replacing the existing
wall with new masonry block wall.
G. Are there any nonstandard design features?
Mandatory (Yes/No)?
No
(See Note Below)
If Yes, date of Fact Sheet Approval:
Advisory (Yes/No)?
No
(See Note Below)
If Yes, date of Fact Sheet Approval:
Note: Within the project limits, there are existing nonstandard design features. The following is a
summary of the nonstandard design features located within the project limits:
(1) HDM 301.1 – Traveled Way Width: 3.35 m lane widths exist along the mainline.
(2) HDM 320.2 – Shoulder Width: Less than the standard widths along the mainline and ramps.
(3) HDM 309.1 – Safety Shaped Barriers at Retaining, Pier or Abutment Walls: Some existing
retaining walls were constructed without safety shaped barriers.
(4) HDM 309.1 – Clear Recovery Zone: Minimum horizontal clearances to fixed objects such as
bridge rails and safety-shaped barriers on freeways and ramps are less than 3.0 m.
(5) HDM 501.3 – Interchange Spacing: Less than 1.5 km in urban areas.
(6) HDM 504.3 – Ramp Lane Width: 3.35 m lane widths.
- 11 -
07-LA-210, KP R40.7/R69.8 (PM R25.3/R43.4)
07-186, EA 23290K
July 2007
(7) HDM 1102.2 – Horizontal Clearance to Noise Barrier: Minimum lateral clearance to noise
barriers is less 3.0 m.
These nonstandard features described above are existing features and not created by the proposed
project. A Fact Sheet will not be required since it is beyond the scope of the project.
H. Cost Estimate
I.
Construction
$30,600,000
Right of Way
$90,000
Total
$30,690,000
Engineering $
$9,180,000
Analysis of Proposal
(1) Cost Effectiveness
Residents immediately adjacent to state highways have expressed concerns about roadway
noise. Construction of noise barriers along the highway within state right-of-way will
mitigate the noise impacts. Studies have indicated that the construction of noise barriers along
the highway can reduce noise levels by at least five (5) decibels (dBA). The noise barriers can
reduce noise levels in backyards while modifications to residences only reduce noise inside
the residence. In addition, the noise barriers not only benefit the first line of receivers, but
other residents that are not immediately adjacent to the highway gain some added benefit.
The cost per benefited residence for each of the three (3) Study Areas can be found in the
Technical Noise Study.
(2) Noise Reduction
5 dBA reduction, minimum? Discuss:
Yes, per the Technical Noise Study.
67 dBA noise level met? Discuss:
Line of sight to Truck Exhaust Stack Intercepted? Discuss:
J.
Funding and Staffing
(1) Any Cooperative Features (Yes/No)?
Yes
A funding agreement between the MTA and Caltrans was executed on July 1, 2007 that
addresses Package #10. Caltrans is to prepare a Supplemental Project Report, if needed and
PS&E including right of way support. A separate agreement will need to be executed for
Package #12 and for the construction phases of this project.
- 12 -
07-LA-210, KP R40.7/R69.8 (PM R25.3/R43.4)
07-186, EA 23290K
July 2007
(2) Project Support (Caltrans):
Due to MTA funding constraints, this project may be split into two packages as outlined in
the tables below; until this occurs, the project will proceed in accordance with the schedule
for “Package #10.”
Package #10:
Fair Oaks Ave/Wilson Ave/IC 210/134(PM 25.3/26.6); WB & EB
Baldwin Ave/Arcadia Wash (PM 30.8/32.2); WB7 EB
Package #12:
EB Off-ramp Grand Ave/Big Dalton Wash (PM 41.3/41.9);EB
West of Bonnie Cove Ave/East of Bonnie Cove Ave (PM42.3/43.1) EB
West of Lyman Ave/East of Sunflower Ave (PM 43.1/43.4) EB
Support Costs for Package #10 and #12
Proposed
Program
FY
Design
District
PY’S
R/W
Constr
Engineering Service Center PY’S
Structures
METS and Others
Design
Constr
Design
Constr
Office
Engr
07/08
12.0
0.5
0
4.0
08/09
10.0
0.62
0
7.0
09/10
1.5
0
9.0
1.0
10/11
1.5
0
11.0
1.0
11/12
1.0
0
8.12
0.5
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT PY’S AND OTHER SUPPORT COSTS:
FY
Total
PY’S
Other
Costs
($)
16.5
17.62
11.5
13.5
9.62
68.74
K. Programming and Scheduling
(1) Proposed Project Schedule
Milestone
PS&E
Right of Way Certification
Ready to List
Begin Construction
Project Completion
Date
4/22/09
7/01/09
7/31/09
12/24/09
5/05/11
(2) Proposed Budgetary Description:
In the cities of Pasadena, Arcadia, and Glendora, construct approximately 5,573 m of
soundwall with an estimated construction cost of $30,600,000.
- 13 -
07-LA-210, KP R40.7/R69.8 (PM R25.3/R43.4)
07-186, EA 23290K
July 2007
5. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A. System Planning
Transportation Concept Report (TCR) for project limits:
The Transportation Concept Report for Interstate 210 indicates an ultimate corridor of
five (5) mixed-flow lanes and two (2) HOV lanes in each direction from Route 134/710 to
Route 164 and four (4) mixed-flow lanes and two (2) HOV lanes in each direction from
Route 164 to Route 57 within the project limits.
The proposed project is categorical exempt and therefore is not identified in the region’s
adopted 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
The project is consistent with the Congestion Management Program (CMP) for Los Angeles
County. The CMP was prepared and was adopted by the MTA in July 22, 2004. By
reference, the 2002 CMP and call for projects are incorporated into the 2004 program. This
project is consistent with the MTA’s call for projects.
Status of the proposed projects within this project's limits:
EA
12993
22450
22810
23140
2324E
25060
25740
25800
4L140
4L740
4L980
Post Mile
33.3R/46.8R
35.5/35.9
29.5/30.7
40.6/42.1
24.0/45.1
31.8/34.2
25.1R/52.2R
00.6R/25.1R
29.2R/36.6R
37.2R/37.9R
20.8R/32.2
Description
Closed circuit television system
Construction of Soundwall (WB only)
Construction of Soundwalls
Construction of Soundwall
Remove and replace diseased trees
Construction Soundwall with Masonry Block
Modify ramp metering system
Install metering system
Install cable railing
Install MBGR along dirt ditch
Rehabilitate bridge deck and seals
RTL
6/01/06
7/31/08
10/31/07
3/07/07
4/05/06
7/31/08
9/25/06
12/29/06
2/08/07
5/17/07
3/01/07
Air Quality Conformity
The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAAs) of 1990 requires that transportation plans,
programs, and projects which are funded by or approved under Table 23 U.S.C. or Federal
Transit Act conform with state or federal air quality plan. In order to be found to conform, a
project must come from approved transportation plans or programs, such as the RTP and the
Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP). Project types listed in Table 2 (40 CFR
93.126) and 3 (40 CFR 93.127) are considered exempt and project inclusion in the RTP and
RTIP is not required.
B. Hazardous Wastes (Yes/No)?
Yes
Has an Initial Site Assessment been completed (Yes/No)?
Date: February 2002
- 14 -
Yes
07-LA-210, KP R40.7/R69.8 (PM R25.3/R43.4)
07-186, EA 23290K
July 2007
An Initial Site Assessment (ISA) was conducted for the proposed soundwall project located along
I-210 Freeway to identify potential contaminant sources. The findings of the assessment did not
identify any potential contaminant sources other than Aerially Deposited Lead (ADL).
The ADL study indicated that lead contamination is present within unpaved portions of the
proposed soundwall construction sites. The soil samples tested for California Code of Regulations
Title 22 (CCR 22) metals did not have concentrations that exceeded the regulatory TTLC values
for hazardous waste. Based on the linear regression analysis performed, waste soil with TTLC
concentrations greater than 95 mg/kg will have the statistical potential to exceed the STLC
concentration of 5 mg/L, and should be assumed to be hazardous waste for Soundwall numbers
196, 206, 208 and 212 and should be disposed of at a Class I landfill or special Class II landfill.
None of the samples tested for TCLP exceed the federal regulatory limits. For estimating
purposes, a cost for hazardous waste mitigation has been incorporated.
C. Traffic Control
Transportation Management Plan (Yes/No)?
Yes
Work areas will be accessed from local frontage roads or from the freeway mainline.
Any prolonged temporary ramp closures (Yes/No)?
No
There are no anticipated temporary ramp closures required for constructing the retaining walls for
the soundwalls in this project. However, temporary nighttime ramp closures will be necessary for
the placement of K-rails during construction.
Lane/Ramp Closure Plan (e.g., hours of allowed work):
Temporary freeway lanes or ramp closures will be allowed according to the hours provided in the
Maintaining Traffic Specifications.
All temporary/permanent changes to the State Highway Systems impacting the transportation of
the “Extralegal Loads” shall be communicated by the Resident Engineer to the Transportation
Permits, South Region. These changes are those impacting available vertical and horizontal
clearances (width of the traveled way) necessary for the transportation of permit loads.
D. In Wetlands/Floodplain (Yes/No)?
No
The project does not encroach into any base floodplains.
E. Any permits required?
Agency
Fish & Game
ACOE
RWQCB
Coastal Commission
Yes/No
No
No
No
No
- 15 -
Date
Contacted
Results
07-LA-210, KP R40.7/R69.8 (PM R25.3/R43.4)
07-186, EA 23290K
July 2007
Agency
Yes/No
BCDC (District 4)
LACFCD
NPDES*
County of Los Angeles**
Caltrans Encroachment Permit
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
*
Date
Contacted
Results
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit applies. Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required during construction to avoid direct and
indirect impacts to Air and Water Quality.
** If any mature oak trees are to be pruned, removed, or cut in any way (including roots), an oak
tree permit would be required.
F. Any Railroad(s) or Utility involvement?
Railroad(s) (Yes/No)? No
Identify and Discuss:
Utilities (Yes/No)?
No
N/A
G. Storm Water Issues
Storm Water Quality Controls associated with this project need to comply with District 7 District
Directive DD-31, dated December 21, 2005. A Storm Water Data Report is prepared under
separate cover. Also, related funds are considered in Project Report Cost Estimate (see
Attachment D).
- 16 -
07-LA-210, KP R40.7/R69.8 (PM R25.3/R43.4)
07-186, EA 23290K
July 2007
6. PROJECT REVIEWS
District Program Advisor (Yes/No)?
Yes
Date:
2-16-2007
Headquarters Program Advisor (Yes/No)?
Yes
Date:
2-16-2007
PD Coordinator, HQ Division of Design (Yes/No)?
Yes
Date:
2-15-2006
Geometric Reviewer (Yes/No)?
Yes
Date:
2-15-2006
FHWA Transportation Engineer (Yes/No)?
No
Date:
N/A
Type of Federal Involvement
Exempt
(PDPM Chapter 2, Section 7, Figure 2)
7. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
The project is categorically exempt under Class 1 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and the appropriate
environmental document is a Categorical Exemption/Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (CE/PCE). See
Attachment “G”.
8. PROJECT PERSONNEL
Agency
Name
MTA
Benkin Jong
Office/Branch
Title
Phone No.
Project Manager
(213) 922-3053
Adel N. Girgis
Program & Project
Management
Project Manager
(213) 897-0435
Elaheh Yadegar
Office of Project &
Special Studies
Office Chief
(213) 897-9635
Rafael Molina
Office of Project &
Special Studies
Senior Transportation
Engineer
(213) 897-7945
Barkef Karapetian
Office of Project &
Special Studies
Project Engineer
(213) 897-5876
Jinous Saleh
Division of
Environmental Planning
Senior Environmental
Planner
(213) 897-0683
Andrew P. Nierenberg
Right-of-Way
Project Delivery
Manager
(213) 897-1901
Ayubur Rahman
Hazardous Waste Branch
Engineer
(213) 897-0670
Jin S. Lee
Noise & Vibration Branch
Engineer
(213) 897-3312
Kekoa Anderson
Project Director
(949) 727-7099
Hee-Young Oh
Project Manager
(949) 727-7099
CALTRANS
TETRA TECH
- 17 -
07-LA-210, KP R40.7/R69.8 (PM R25.3/R43.4)
07-186, EA 23290K
July 2007
9. ATTACHMENTS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
Vicinity Map
Typical Cross Sections
Soundwall Layouts
Project Report Cost Estimate
Right-of-Way Data Sheet
Advanced Planning Studies (APS)
Categorical Exemption/Categorical Exclusion Form
Work Plan
Mitigation and Compliance Cost Estimate
Storm Water Data Report
Transportation Management Plan
NPDES Information Submittal
Justification Memorandum (Supplement to Technical Noise Study)
Funding Agreement
- 18 -
NBSSR
VICINITY MAP
ATTACHMENT A
TETRA TECH
NBSSR
VICINITY MAP
Pasadena – Westbound Route 210 (KP R40.7/KP 42.7)
From east of Fair Oaks Avenue to Wilson Avenue
Arcadia – Westbound Route 210 (KP R49.6/KP R51.8)
From Baldwin Avenue to west of Santa Anita Avenue
Glendora – Eastbound Route 210 (KP R67.1/KP R69.8
From west of Grand Avenue to east of Sunflower Avenue
ATTACHMENT A
TETRA TECH
NBSSR
TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS
ATTACHMENT B
TETRA TECH
NBSSR
SOUNDWALL LAYOUTS
ATTACHMENT C
TETRA TECH
NBSSR
PROJECT REPORT COST ESTIMATE
ATTACHMENT D
TETRA TECH
District-County-Route
KP(PM)
EA
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Section 1 Earthwork
Roadway Excavation
Clearing & Grubbing
Develop Water Supply
Quantity
520
1
1
Unit
m3
LS
LS
Unit Price
$25
$70,000
$110,000
07-LA-210
40.7/69.8 (25.3/43.4)
23290K
Item Cost
$13,000
$70,000
$110,000
Subtotal Earthwork
Section 2 Pavement Structural Section*
Asphalt Concrete
1,760 tonne
Lean Concrete Base
90 m3
Aggregate Base - Class 3
150 m3
$110
$200
$150
Quantity
1
Unit
LS
Unit Price
$50,000
$193,000
$193,600
$18,000
$22,500
Subtotal Pavement Structural Section
Section 3 Drainage
Drainage Items
Section Cost
Item Cost
$50,000
Subtotal Drainage
$234,100
Section Cost
$50,000
Page No. 2 of 7
V:\2817\0004\Report\FINAL SUBMITTAL 2007\Revised NBSSR\FINAL PR ESTIMATE(Pasadena).xls\Roadway
KP(PM)
EA
Section 4 Specialty Items
Quantity
Aesthetics
1
SW (Barrier) (Masonry Blk)
1,780
Concrete Barrier (Type 736SV)
700
Crash Cushion (REACT 350)
1
610 mm CIDH Pile
142
Highway Planting
1
Graffiti Control
1
Maintain Existing Plant &
1
Irrigation Facility
Erosion Control
1
Slope Protection
1
Water Pollution Control
1
Resident Engineer Office Space
1
SWPPP
1
Unit
LS
m2
m
EA
EA
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
Unit Price
$180,000
$185
$350
$35,000
$3,000
$125,000
$55,000
$70,000
Item Cost
$180,000
$329,300
$245,000
$35,000
$426,000
$125,000
$55,000
$70,000
$70,000
$70,000
$165,000
$50,000
$5,000
$70,000
$70,000
$165,000
$50,000
$5,000
07-LA-210
40.7/69.8 (25.3/43.4)
23290K
Subtotal Specialty Items
Section 5 Traffic Items
Lighting/Sign Illumination
Overhead Sign Structures
Traffic Control Systems
Transportation Management
Plan
Temp Lighting
Temp Crash Cushion Module
Temporary K-Rails
Quantity
2
1
1
1
Unit
EA
EA
LS
LS
Unit Price
$20,000
$150,000
$5,000
$35,300
Item Cost
$40,000
$150,000
$5,000
$35,300
2
88
2,620
EA
EA
m
$5,000
$350
$40
$10,000
$30,800
$104,800
Subtotal Traffic Items
TOTAL SECTIONS 1 thru 5
Section Cost
$1,825,300
Section Cost
$375,900
$2,678,300
Page No. 3 of 7
KP(PM)
EA
Section 6 Minor Items
07-LA-210
40.7/69.8 (25.3/43.4)
23290K
Item Cost
2,678,300 x (10%) =
Section Cost
$267,830
TOTAL MINOR ITEMS
$267,830
Section 7 Roadway Mobilization
2,946,130 x (10%) =
(Subtotal Sections 1 thru 6)
$294,613
TOTAL ROADWAY MOBILIZATION
$294,613
Section 8 Roadway Additions
Supplemental Work
2,946,130 x (10%) =
$294,613
Contingencies
2,946,130 x (15%) =
$441,920
TOTAL ROADWAY ADDITIONS
$736,533
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS
$3,977,276
ROUNDED TOTAL
$4,000,000
Estimate Prepared By
Adam Richey
(Print Name)
(626) 470-2397
(Phone)
6/7/2007
(Date)
Estimate Checked By
Hee-Young Oh
(Print Name)
(949) 727-7099
(Phone)
6/7/2007
(Date)
Page No. 4 of 7
07-LA-210
KP(PM) 40.7/69.8 (25.3/43.4)
EA
23290K
II. STRUCTURES ITEMS
Bridge Name
Structure No.
Width (out to out) - (m)
Span Lengths - (m)
Total Area - (m2)
Footing Type (pile/spread)
Cost Per m2
(incl. 10% mobilization
and 20% contingency)
Total Cost for Structure
Bridge Name
Structure Type
Span Lengths - (m)
Total Area - (m2)
Cost Per m2
Structure
(1)
RW 131
Structure
(2)
RW 137
Structure
(3)
RW 145
$480,000
$810,000
$2,110,000
Structure
(4)
RW 152
Structure
(5)
RW 156
Structure
(6)
RW 157
$490,000
$670,000
$710,000
SUBTOTAL STRUCTURES ITEMS
$5,270,000
Page No. 5 of 7
V:\2817\0004\Report\FINAL SUBMITTAL 2007\Revised NBSSR\FINAL PR ESTIMATE(Pasadena).xls\Structure
07-LA-210
KP(PM) 40.7/69.8 (25.3/43.4)
EA
23290K
Bridge Name
Structure Type
Span Lengths - (m)
Total Area - (m2)
Cost Per m2
Structure
(7)
RW 172
Structure
(8)
Structure
(9)
Structure
(11)
Structure
(12)
$1,590,000
Structure
(10)
Bridge Name
Structure Type
Span Lengths - (m)
Total Area - (m2)
Cost Per m2
$1,590,000
Railroad Related Costs:
SUBTOTAL RAILROAD ITEMS
TOTAL STRUCTURES ITEMS
(Sum of Structures Items plus Railroad Items)
$6,860,000
ROUNDED TOTAL
$6,900,000
COMMENTS:
Adam Richey
(Print Name)
(626) 470-2397
(Phone)
6/28/2007
(Date)
Page No. 6 of 7
V:\2817\0004\Report\FINAL SUBMITTAL 2007\Revised NBSSR\FINAL PR ESTIMATE(Pasadena).xls\Structure
07-LA-210
KP(PM) 40.7/69.8 (25.3/43.4)
EA
23290K
III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
ESCALATED VALUE
A. Acquisition, including excess lands,
damages to remainder(s) and Goodwill
B. Utility Relocation
C. Relocation Assistance
D. Clearance/Demolition
E. Title and Escrow Fees
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
(Escalated Value)
$0
ROUNDED TOTAL
$0
Anticipated Date of Right of Way Certification
(Date to which Values are Escalated)
July 1, 2009
F. Construction Contract Work
Brief Description of Work:
Right of Way Branch Cost Estimate for Work
$0
COMMENTS:
LNickerson
(Print Name)
(949) 727-7099
(Phone)
6/7/2007
(Date)
Page No. 7 of 7
V:\2817\0004\Report\FINAL SUBMITTAL 2007\Revised NBSSR\FINAL PR ESTIMATE(Pasadena).xls\Right Of Way
KP(PM)
EA
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Section 1 Earthwork
Roadway Excavation
Clearing & Grubbing
Remove Soundwall
Remove Concrete Barrier
Quantity
1,240
1
1
6,150
950
Unit
m3
LS
LS
m2
m
Unit Price
$25
$65,000
$100,000
$20
$45
Item Cost
$31,000
$65,000
$100,000
$123,000
$42,750
Subtotal Earthwork
Asphalt Concrete
3,140 tonne
Lean Concrete Base
160 m3
260 m3
$110
$200
$150
Quantity
1
Unit
LS
Unit Price
$150,000
Section Cost
$361,750
$345,400
$32,000
$39,000
Section 3 Drainage
Drainage Items
07-LA-210
40.7/69.8 (25.3/43.4)
23290K
Item Cost
$150,000
Subtotal Drainage
$416,400
Section Cost
$150,000
Page No. 2 of 7
V:\2817\0004\Report\FINAL SUBMITTAL 2007\Revised NBSSR\FINAL PR ESTIMATE(Arcadia).xls\Roadway
KP(PM)
EA
Quantity
Aesthetics
1
5,850
Guard Railing
21
1,300
610 mm CIDH Pile
499
Highway Planting
1
Graffiti Control
1
1
Irrigation Facility
Erosion Control
1
Slope Protection
1
1
1
SWPPP
1
Unit
LS
m2
m
m
EA
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
Unit Price
$160,000
$185
$100
$350
$3,000
$115,000
$50,000
$65,000
Item Cost
$160,000
$1,082,250
$2,100
$455,000
$1,497,000
$115,000
$50,000
$65,000
$65,000
$65,000
$145,000
$50,000
$5,000
$65,000
$65,000
$145,000
$50,000
$5,000
Plan
Temp Lighting
Ramp Metering System
Temporary K-Rails
Call Box
Quantity
4
1
1
Unit
EA
LS
LS
Unit Price
$20,000
$5,000
$35,300
Item Cost
$80,000
$5,000
$35,300
4
1
77
1,300
1
EA
EA
EA
m
EA
$5,000
$60,000
$350
$40
$2,500
$20,000
$60,000
$26,950
$52,000
$2,500
07-LA-210
40.7/69.8 (25.3/43.4)
23290K
Section Cost
$3,756,350
Section Cost
$281,750
$4,966,250
Page No. 3 of 7
KP(PM)
EA
Item Cost
4,966,250 x (10%) =
07-LA-210
40.7/69.8 (25.3/43.4)
23290K
Section Cost
$496,625
TOTAL MINOR ITEMS
$496,625
5,462,875 x (10%) =
$546,288
$546,288
Supplemental Work
5,462,875 x (10%) =
$546,288
Contingencies
5,462,875 x (15%) =
$819,431
$1,365,719
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS
$7,374,881
ROUNDED TOTAL
$7,400,000
Adam Richey
(Print Name)
(626) 470-2397
(Phone)
6/7/2007
(Date)
Estimate Checked By
Hee-Young Oh
(Print Name)
(949) 727-7099
(Phone)
6/7/2007
(Date)
Page No. 4 of 7
07-LA-210
KP(PM) 40.7/69.8 (25.3/43.4)
EA
23290K
Structure
(1)
Structure
(2)
Structure
(3)
Structure
(4)
Structure
(5)
Structure
(6)
Bridge Name
Structure No.
Span Lengths - (m)
Total Area - (m2)
Cost Per m2
Bridge Name
Structure Type
Span Lengths - (m)
Total Area - (m2)
Cost Per m2
$0
Page No. 5 of 7
V:\2817\0004\Report\FINAL SUBMITTAL 2007\Revised NBSSR\FINAL PR ESTIMATE(Arcadia).xls\Structure
07-LA-210
KP(PM) 40.7/69.8 (25.3/43.4)
EA
23290K
Structure
(7)
Structure
(8)
Structure
(9)
Structure
(10)
Structure
(11)
Structure
(12)
Bridge Name
Structure Type
Span Lengths - (m)
Total Area - (m2)
Cost Per m2
Bridge Name
Structure Type
Span Lengths - (m)
Total Area - (m2)
Cost Per m2
$0
$0
ROUNDED TOTAL
$0
COMMENTS:
Adam Richey
(Print Name)
(626) 470-2397
(Phone)
6/28/2007
(Date)
Page No. 6 of 7
V:\2817\0004\Report\FINAL SUBMITTAL 2007\Revised NBSSR\FINAL PR ESTIMATE(Arcadia).xls\Structure
07-LA-210
KP(PM) 40.7/69.8 (25.3/43.4)
EA
23290K
ESCALATED VALUE
$70,000
$0
$0
$9,600
$8,600
(Escalated Value)
$88,200
ROUNDED TOTAL
$90,000
July 1, 2009
$0
COMMENTS:
LNickerson
(Print Name)
(949) 727-7099
(Phone)
6/7/2007
(Date)
Page No. 7 of 7
V:\2817\0004\Report\FINAL SUBMITTAL 2007\Revised NBSSR\FINAL PR ESTIMATE(Arcadia).xls\Right Of Way
KP(PM)
EA
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Section 1 Earthwork
Roadway Excavation
Clearing & Grubbing
ADL Handling
Quantity
1,250
1
1
1
Unit
m3
LS
LS
LS
Unit Price
$25
$65,000
$100,000
$245,000
07-LA-210
40.7/69.8 (25.3/43.4)
23290K
Item Cost
$31,250
$65,000
$100,000
$245,000
Subtotal Earthwork
Asphalt Concrete
2,700 tonne
Lean Concrete Base
180 m3
290 m3
$110
$200
$150
Quantity
1
Unit
LS
Unit Price
$150,000
$441,250
$297,000
$36,000
$43,500
Section 3 Drainage
Drainage Items
Section Cost
Item Cost
$150,000
Subtotal Drainage
$376,500
Section Cost
$150,000
Page No. 2 of 7
V:\2817\0004\Report\FINAL SUBMITTAL 2007\Revised NBSSR\FINAL PR ESTIMATE(Glendora).xls\Roadway
KP(PM)
EA
Quantity
Aesthetics
1
5,015
Guard Railing
135
1,695
Crash Cushion (REACT 350)
2
610 mm CIDH Pile
452
Highway Planting
1
Graffiti Control
1
1
Irrigation Facility
Erosion Control
1
Slope Protection
1
1
1
SWPPP
1
GSRDs
4
Unit
LS
m2
m
m
EA
EA
LS
LS
LS
Unit Price
$160,000
$185
$100
$350
$35,000
$3,000
$115,000
$50,000
$65,000
Item Cost
$160,000
$927,775
$13,500
$593,250
$70,000
$1,356,000
$115,000
$50,000
$65,000
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
EA
$65,000
$65,000
$150,000
$50,000
$5,000
$240,000
$65,000
$65,000
$150,000
$50,000
$5,000
$960,000
07-LA-210
40.7/69.8 (25.3/43.4)
23290K
Overhead Sign Structures
Plan
Temp Lighting
Ramp Metering System
Temporary K-Rails
Traffic Signal Interface
Call Box
Communication Pull Box
Quantity
6
1
1
1
Unit
EA
EA
LS
LS
6
2
88
1,805
2
3
2
EA
EA
EA
m
EA
EA
EA
Unit Price
$20,000
$150,000
$5,000
$35,300
Item Cost
$120,000
$150,000
$5,000
$35,300
Section Cost
$4,645,525
Section Cost
$5,000
$30,000
$60,000
$120,000
$350
$30,800
$40
$72,200
$20,000
$40,000
$2,500
$7,500
$1,500
$3,000
$613,800
$6,227,075
Page No. 3 of 7
KP(PM)
EA
07-LA-210
40.7/69.8 (25.3/43.4)
23290K
Item Cost
6,227,075 x (10%) =
Section Cost
$622,708
TOTAL MINOR ITEMS
$622,708
6,849,783 x (10%) =
$684,978
$684,978
Supplemental Work
6,849,783 x (10%) =
$684,978
Contingencies
6,849,783 x (15%) =
$1,027,467
$1,712,446
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS
$9,247,206
ROUNDED TOTAL
$9,300,000
Adam Richey
(Print Name)
(626) 470-2397
(Phone)
6/7/2007
(Date)
Estimate Checked By
Hee-Young Oh
(Print Name)
(949) 727-7099
(Phone)
6/7/2007
(Date)
Page No. 4 of 7
07-LA-210
KP(PM) 40.7/69.8 (25.3/43.4)
EA
23290K
Bridge Name
Structure No.
Span Lengths - (m)
Total Area - (m2)
Cost Per m2
Structure
(1)
Big Dalton Wash
53-2060
Structure
(2)
Sunflower Ave
53-2061
$1,600,000
$510,000
Structure
(4)
Structure
(5)
Structure
(3)
Structure
(6)
Bridge Name
Structure Type
Span Lengths - (m)
Total Area - (m2)
Cost Per m2
$2,110,000
Page No. 5 of 7
V:\2817\0004\Report\FINAL SUBMITTAL 2007\Revised NBSSR\FINAL PR ESTIMATE(Glendora).xls\Structure
07-LA-210
KP(PM) 40.7/69.8 (25.3/43.4)
EA
23290K
Structure
(7)
Structure
(8)
Structure
(9)
Structure
(10)
Structure
(11)
Structure
(12)
Bridge Name
Structure Type
Span Lengths - (m)
Total Area - (m2)
Cost Per m2
Bridge Name
Structure Type
Span Lengths - (m)
Total Area - (m2)
Cost Per m2
$0
$2,110,000
ROUNDED TOTAL
$2,200,000
COMMENTS:
Adam Richey
(Print Name)
(626) 470-2397
(Phone)
6/28/2007
(Date)
Page No. 6 of 7
V:\2817\0004\Report\FINAL SUBMITTAL 2007\Revised NBSSR\FINAL PR ESTIMATE(Glendora).xls\Structure
07-LA-210
KP(PM) 40.7/69.8 (25.3/43.4)
EA
23290K
ESCALATED VALUE
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
(Escalated Value)
$0
ROUNDED TOTAL
$0
July 1, 2009
$0
COMMENTS:
LNickerson
(Print Name)
(949) 727-7099
(Phone)
6/7/2007
(Date)
Page No. 7 of 7
V:\2817\0004\Report\FINAL SUBMITTAL 2007\Revised NBSSR\FINAL PR ESTIMATE(Glendora).xls\Right Of Way
NBSSR
RIGHT-OF-WAY DATA SHEET
ATTACHMENT E
TETRA TECH
STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
EXHIBIT
4-EX-1 (REV 3/2004)
Page 1 of 6
RIGHT OF WAY DATA SHEET
(Form #)
To: Right of Way Local Program
Attention:
Subject:
Right of Way Data
04/19/2007
Date
07
LA Rte
Dist
Co
P/M (K/P)
210
23290K
EA
Project Description Sound Wall NBSSR
Alternate No.
This Alternate meets the criteria for a Design/Build project:
1.
N/A
Yes X
No
Right of Way Cost Estimate: To be entered into PMCS COST RW1-5 Screens.
Current Value
Future Use
A.
25.3/43.4
(40.7/69.8)
Total Acquisition Cost
Acquisition, including Excess Lands,
Damages, and Goodwill.
Escalation
Rate
Escalated
Value
( 2 yrs.)
63,360
$
5%
70,000
Project Permit Fees.
B.
Utility Relocation (State Share)
$
C.
Relocation Assistance
$
D.
Clearance/Demolition
$
8,650
5%
9,600
E.
Title and Escrow
$
7,800
5%
8,600
F.
Total Estimated Cost
$
G.
Construction Contract Work
$
2.
Current Date of Right of Way Certification
3.
Parcel Data: To be entered into PMCS EVNT RW Screen.
Type
X
13
A
B
C
D
E
XXXX
F
XXXX
Total
Dual/Appr
79,810
1,907,595
88,200
July 1, 2009
Utilities
U4-1
-2
-3
-4
U5-7
-8
-9
RR Involvements
None
C&M Agrmt
Svc Contract
Design
Const.
Lic/RE/Clauses
Misc. R/W Work
RAP Displ
Clear/Demo
Const Permits
Condemnation
Excess
N/A
3B
Areas: R/W
1,408m
No. Excess Parcels
Entered PMCS Screens
___/ ___/ ___
by
Entered AGRE Screen (Railroad data only)
2
N/A
N/A
___/ ___/ ___
by
x
0
2
TBD
EXHIBIT
4-EX-1 (REV 3/2004)
Page 2 of 6
RIGHT OF WAY DATA SHEET (Cont.)
(Form #)
4.
Are there any major items of construction contract work?
Yes X
No
(If “Yes,” explain.)
The work is not major but the existing perimeter wall will be reconstructed to join soundwall
after construction is complete. A number of trees will need to be replaced.
5.
Provide a general description of the right of way and excess lands required (zoning, use, major improvements,
critical or sensitive parcels, etc.). No right of way required.
Temporary Construction Easements, approximately 3m wide, will be required along several parcels
for the construction of Soundwall 163. Parcels contain single family homes. The improvements along
the area impacted appear to be limited to perimeter walls.
Yes
Not Significant X
6.
Is there an effect on assessed valuation?
No
7.
Are utility facilities or rights of way affected?
No X
(If “Yes,” attach Utility Information Sheet, Exhibit 4-EX-5.)
Yes
The following checked items may seriously impact lead time for utility relocation:
Longitudinal policy conflict(s)
Environmental concerns impacting acquisition of potential easements
Power lines operating in excess of 50 KV and substations
(See attached Exhibit 4-EX-5 for explanation.)
8.
Are Railroad facilities or rights of way affected?
No X
(If “Yes,” attach Railroad Information Sheet, Exhibit 4-EX-6.)
Yes
EXHIBIT
4-EX-1 (REV 3/2004)
Page 3 of 6
(Form #)
9.
Were any previously unidentified sites with hazardous waste and/or material found?
None Evident X
(If “Yes,” attach memorandum per R/W Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.01.10.00.)
Yes
ADL was noted in the environmental review.
10.
Are RAP displacements required?
Yes
No X
(If “Yes,” provide the following information.)
No. of single family
No. of business/nonprofit
No. of multi-family
No. of farms
Based on Draft/Final Relocation Impact Statement/Study dated ____________________, it is anticipated that
sufficient replacement housing (will/will not) be available without Last Resort Housing.
11.
Are there Material Borrow and/or Disposal Sites required?
Yes X
No
Lead contaminated soil was found in some locations where the soundwall is proposed.
These contaminated soils will be disposed of to an off-site facility.
12.
Are there potential relinquishments and/or abandonments?
Yes
No X
13.
Are there any existing and/or potential airspace sites?
Yes
No X
EXHIBIT
4-EX-1 (REV 3/2004)
Page 4 of 6
(Form #)
14.
Indicate the anticipated Right of Way schedule and lead time requirements. (Discuss if district proposes less than
PMCS lead time and/or if significant pressures for project advancement are anticipated.)
Based on the R/W requirements on Page 1 of this Data Sheet, R/W will require a lead time of __________
months
24
from the date regular appraisals can begin to project certification.
In any event, RW Maps will require __________
months from Final Maps to project certification.
6
15.
Is it anticipated that Caltrans staff will perform all Right of Way work?
Yes X
No
(If “No,” discuss.)
Evaluation Prepared By:
Right of Way:
Name
Railroad:
Name
Utilities:
Name
K. Anderson
N/A
K. Anderson
Date
4/19/2007
Date
N/A
Date
4/19/2007
Recommended for Approval:
I have personally reviewed this Right of Way Data Sheet and all supporting information. I certify that the probable
Highest and Best Use, estimated values, escalation rates, and assumptions are reasonable and proper subject to the
limiting conditions set forth, and I find this Data Sheet complete and current.
District Division Chief/Regional Manager
Right of Way
Date
EXHIBIT
4-EX-2
PAGE 1 OF 2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT
COUNTY
ROUTE
P.M./K.P.
ESTIMATE WORKSHEET
07
LA
210
30.83-31.08/49.61-50.01
(Form #)
ALTERNATIVE
EA
N/A
23290K
PREPARED BY
DATE
PAGE 1 OF 1
LNickerson
June 20, 2007
TYPE
PARCEL
1
2
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
P.M./K.P.
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
30.83/49.61
30.84/49.63
30.86/49.65
30.87/49.67
30.93/49.78
30.96/49.81
30.96/49.81
30.98/49.85
31.01/49.89
31.01/49.90
31.03/49.93
31.06/49.99
31.08/50.01
TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
ESTIMATED
COST
4
$3,060
$3,150
$2,970
$16,920
$5,040
$225
$5,580
$5,445
$225
$4,995
$7,335
$3,375
$5,040
$63,360
$63,360
RAP
COST
CLEAR/DEMO
COST
5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NO RAP
DISPL.
NO CLEAR/
DEMO***
6
7
8
$600
$600
$600
$2,400
$600
$125
$600
$600
$125
$600
$600
$600
$600
$8,650
$8,650
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
8
NO CONST
PERMITS
CCW
COST
ESCROW
COST**
NAME OTHER INFO.
R/W AREA*
9
10
11
12
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
$92,620
$95,615
$87,300
$511,315
$152,150
$6,240
$170,440
$162,125
$6,240
$149,650
$220,320
$99,770
$153,810
$1,907,595
$1,907,595
$600
$600
$600
$600
$600
$600
$600
$600
$600
$600
$600
$600
$600
$7,800
$7,800
68
70
66
376
112
5
124
121
5
111
163
75
112
1408
1408
EXC. AREA
13
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
FROM ALL PAGES
PROJECT PERMIT FEES
PERMITTER
14
TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
ESTIMATED
COST
TYPE OF
PERMIT
DATE TO
EXPEND
15
16
17
Parcel
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
APN
5770-025-029
5770-025-030
5770-025-031
5770-025-002
5770-025-003
5770-025-010
5770-025-011
5770-025-025
Parcel
Number
9
10
11
12
13
APN
5770-025-026
5770-025-028
5770-025-021
5770-025-005
5770-026-037
Estimated Costs
TCE
Structures
Tree
Fence
$45/m2
$5000ea
$150ea
3m @ $120/m
CCW includes structures,
tress, and wall costs
FROM ALL PAGES
*Land needed for temporary construction easement (TCE) for construction of sound wall 163, width=3m
**Title reports for TCE
***Structure or wall
Y:\2817\0004\Report\FINAL SUBMITTAL 2007\Revised NBSSR\Right of Way Est
NBSSR
ADVANCED PLANNING STUDIES
(APS)
ATTACHMENT F
TETRA TECH
Consultant Prepared Advance Planning Study (APS) Checklist
Sheet 1 of 2
Date:
Consultant Firm (for structures):
Phone No:
02/08/06
Tetra Tech, Inc.
(626) 351-4664
Designed by:
Phone No:
Daniel Novak
(626) 470-2353
EA:
County:
Rte:
KP(PM)
23290K
Los Angeles
210
-/-
Project Description:
Construction of a Sound wall on the south side
Bridge No(s):
Bridge Name(s):
53 2060
Big Dalton Wash
Total number of bridges in project: 1
Purpose of this APS:
APS Alternative Letter or Number (if more than one):
Initial APS Cost & Feasibility
X
Revised scope
Update cost
Part A Items to collect and considerations prior to beginning the APS
All items listed in Part A are to be made available and submitted if requested by the Liaison Engineer.
(Mark N/A if not applicable)
N/A
X
Preliminary profile grade of proposed structure.
Typical section of the proposed structure. (Including barrier type, sidewalks, cross slope %, etc.)
N/A
Grades or spot elevations of roadway below the structure.
N/A
Typical section of roadway below the structure. (Including shoulders, gutters, embankment slope.)
N/A
Site map: including horizontal alignment of new structure and the roadway below, topo, contours, etc.
X
N/A
X
N/A
Stage construction or detour plan for traffic on the structure.
(number of lanes to remain open, Temp Railing, etc.)
Stage construction or detour plan for the roadway below the structure.
(falsework openings for each stage and any restrictions.)
"As Built" plans for existing structures.
Future widening plans of upper and lower roadway (verify with Route Concept Report).
X
Site aerial photograph (at the proposed structure).
X
Environmental and/or permit requirements (areas of potential impact, construction windows, etc.)
Overhead and underground utility plans
Any other information that you feel is necessary to complete the study. (Other concerns that may
affect the APS: local agency requirements such as aesthetics, improvements in vicinity of structure,
airspace usage, other obstructions, etc.)
\\Isgpasfs02\wpproj\2817\0004\Report\Feb 2006\Big Dalton Final APS Chklst.doc
OSFP
7/30/01
Sheet 2 of 2
Part B Considerations during the APS design and cost estimate preparation
1. Has this project been discussed with:
the SFPB Liaison Engineer?
the Caltrans District Project Manager?
the roadway consultant?
Yes X No
Yes X No
Yes X No
2. Have the Caltrans Structures Maintenance records been reviewed?
If the records recommend any work for the structure, is it included in the APS?
Yes
Yes
X No
X No
3. Are there special aesthetic considerations?
Yes
No X
4. (Widenings and Modifications)
Has this project been reviewed for seismic retrofit requirements?
Are seismic retrofit requirements included in the APS?
Yes
Yes
X No
No X
5.
Any special Railroad requirements?
Shoofly required?
Cost of shoofly included as a separate item in the project cost estimate?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No X
No X
No X
6.
Any special foundation requirements, including scour critical work, special excavation
such as Type A, Type D, and/or hazardous or contaminated material?
Yes
No X
7.
8.
9.
Any special construction requirements, including limited site accessibility or seasonal work?
Yes
X
No
Other items to be included in the cost such as slope paving, approach slabs, and/or
adjacent retaining walls?
X
No
Yes X
No
Yes
No X
Remove existing bridge?
Total Deck Area: 65 m^2
10. Any other unusual or special requirements?
Yes
11. Provide and attach a consultant prepared Design Memo to summarize and document any
important assumptions, discussions, decisions, unusual items, local agency requirements
such as aesthetics, improvements in vicinity of the structure, airspace usage,
other obstructions, or any items noted above.
Summary attached?
Yes
Designer:
(Printed Name)
Designer’s Signature:
Daniel Novak
\\Isgpasfs02\wpproj\2817\0004\Report\Feb 2006\Big Dalton Final APS Chklst.doc
X No
Date:
02/08/06
OSFP
7/30/01
TETRA TECH, INC.
SOUNDWALL ADVANCE PLANNING ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ESTIMATING GROUP
IN
OUT
RCVD BY:
BRIDGE:
TYPE:
LENGTH:
Big Dalton Wash
Soundwall on Barrier (SW 188)
41.5
X
DESIGN SECTION
0.8
WIDTH:
BRIDGE NO.: 53-2060
DISTRICT:
= AREA
Tetra Tech, Inc.
CO:
M2
QUANTITIES BY:
PROJECT INCLUDES
AND $
STRUCTURES
ROADWORK
NUMBER OF ALTERNATIVES =
32
QTNY CHCKD BY:
CHG UNIT AND EA:
RTE:
PM:
EA:
JPM
ADR
DATE:
ESTIMATE No.:
DATE:
PRICE BY:
COST INDEX:
100%
ADR
2006
1
CONTRACT ITEMS
UNIT
QUANTITY
M
M2
M2
M2
M
M2
M2
M
EA
65
65
195
60
32
45
5
16
UN IT COST
AMOUNT
A1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Temporary Railing
Bridge Removal
Wall and Barrier Removal
Soundwall (Barrier) (Masonry Block)
Concrete Barrier Type 736 (Mod)
Bridge Deck Area
Retaining Wall
Joint Seal Repair/Replacement
Seismic Retrofit of Columns
SUB TOTAL
MOBILIZATION (10%)
CONTINGENCIES (25%)
$100
$450
$400
$200
$350
$10,000
$800
$300
$40,000
GRAND TOTAL
FOR BUDGET PURPOSES SAY
$
$29,250
$26,000
$39,000
$21,000
$320,000
$36,000
$1,500
$640,000
$1,112,750
$111,275
$306,006
$1,530,031
$1,600,000
BRIDGE UNIT COST
A2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
CONTRACT ITEMS
New Bridge Unit Cost
Structural Concrete, Bridge
Furnish PC/PS Girder (80' to 90')
Erect PC/PS Girder
Drive 1200 mm Cast in Steel Shell Conc. Pile
Furnish 1200 mm Cast in Steel Shell Conc. Pile
Earthwork (assumed)
UNIT
QUANTITY
M3
EA
EA
EA
M
LS
45
3
3
2
32
1
UN IT COST
$2,000
$20,000
$6,000
$30,000
$1,500
$35,000
AMOUNT
$90,000
$60,000
$18,000
$60,000
$48,000
$35,000
SUB TOTAL
MOBILIZATION (0%)
CONTINGENCIES (0%)
$311,000
CALC BRIDGE UNIT COST
SAY BRIDGE UNIT COST NO MOBILIZATION AND CONTINGENCY
SAY BRIDGE UNIT COST INCLUDING MOBILIZATION AND CONTINGENCY
$320,000
$10,000
$10,000
$13,750
APS PLAN VALUES (INCLUDING 10% MOB. & 25% CONT.)
CONTRACT ITEMS
AMOUNT
SAY
A3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Bridge & Wall & Barrier Removal A1(2+3)
Retaining Walls A1(7)
Soundwall/Concrete Barrier A1(4+5)
Joint Seal Repair/Replacement Al(8)
Seismic Retrofit of Columns A1(9)
Bridge Cost A2(15)
Total Cost
$76,000
$50,000
$83,000
$3,000
$880,000
$440,000
$1,532,000
$80,000
$50,000
$90,000
$10,000
$880,000
$440,000
$1,600,000
\\Isgpasfs02\wpproj\2817\0004\Report\FINAL SUBMITTAL 2007\Revised NBSSR\Bridge Final APS Est Priority 2\Big Dalton Wash
Printed 7/27/2007
Sheet 1 of 2
Date:
Consultant Firm (for structures):
Phone No:
02/08/06
Tetra Tech, Inc.
(626) 351-4664
Designed by:
Phone No:
Daniel Novak
(626) 470-2353
EA:
County:
Rte:
KP(PM)
23290K
Los Angeles
210
-/-
Project Description:
Construction of a Sound wall on the south side (eastbound direction).
Bridge No(s):
Bridge Name(s):
53 2061
Sunflower Avenue UC
Total number of bridges in project: 1
Purpose of this APS:
APS Alternative Letter or Number (if more than one):
Initial APS Cost & Feasibility
X
Revised scope
Update cost
Part A Items to collect and considerations prior to beginning the APS
All items listed in Part A are to be made available and submitted if requested by the Liaison Engineer.
(Mark N/A if not applicable)
N/A
X
Preliminary profile grade of proposed structure.
Typical section of the proposed structure. (Including barrier type, sidewalks, cross slope %, etc.)
N/A
Grades or spot elevations of roadway below the structure.
N/A
Typical section of roadway below the structure. (Including shoulders, gutters, embankment slope.)
N/A
Site map: including horizontal alignment of new structure and the roadway below, topo, contours, etc.
X
N/A
X
N/A
X
N/A
Stage construction or detour plan for traffic on the structure.
(number of lanes to remain open, Temp Railing, etc.)
Stage construction or detour plan for the roadway below the structure.
(falsework openings for each stage and any restrictions.)
"As Built" plans for existing structures.
Future widening plans of upper and lower roadway (verify with Route Concept Report).
Site aerial photograph (at the proposed structure).
Environmental and/or permit requirements (areas of potential impact, construction windows, etc.)
Overhead and underground utility plans
Any other information that you feel is necessary to complete the study. (Other concerns that may
affect the APS: local agency requirements such as aesthetics, improvements in vicinity of structure,
airspace usage, other obstructions, etc.)
\\Isgpasfs02\wpproj\2817\0004\Report\Feb 2006\Sunflower Avenue.doc
OSFP
7/30/01
Sheet 2 of 2
Part B Considerations during the APS design and cost estimate preparation
1. Has this project been discussed with:
the SFPB Liaison Engineer?
the Caltrans District Project Manager?
the roadway consultant?
Yes X No
Yes X No
Yes X No
2. Have the Caltrans Structures Maintenance records been reviewed?
If the records recommend any work for the structure, is it included in the APS?
Yes X No
Yes X No
3. Are there special aesthetic considerations?
Yes
4. (Widenings and Modifications)
Has this project been reviewed for seismic retrofit requirements?
Are seismic retrofit requirements included in the APS?
Yes X No
Yes
No X
No X
5.
Any special Railroad requirements?
Shoofly required?
Cost of shoofly included as a separate item in the project cost estimate?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No X
No X
No X
6.
Any special foundation requirements, including scour critical work, special excavation
such as Type A, Type D, and/or hazardous or contaminated material?
Yes
No X
7.
Any special construction requirements, including limited site accessibility or seasonal work?
Yes X No
8.
Other items to be included in the cost such as slope paving, approach slabs, and/or
adjacent retaining walls?
9.
Remove existing bridge?
Total Deck Area: 65 m^2
10. Any other unusual or special requirements?
X
No
Yes X
No
Yes
No X
Yes
11. Provide and attach a consultant prepared Design Memo to summarize and document any
important assumptions, discussions, decisions, unusual items, local agency requirements
such as aesthetics, improvements in vicinity of the structure, airspace usage,
other obstructions, or any items noted above.
Summary attached?
Yes
Designer:
(Printed Name)
Designer’s Signature:
Daniel Novak
\\Isgpasfs02\wpproj\2817\0004\Report\Feb 2006\Sunflower Avenue.doc
X No
Date:
02/08/06
OSFP
7/30/01
TETRA TECH, INC.
ALTERNATIVE
ESTIMATING GROUP
IN
OUT
RCVD BY:
BRIDGE:
TYPE:
LENGTH:
Sunflower Avenue Undercrossing
47.7
X
DESIGN SECTION
WIDTH:
0.15
BRIDGE NO.: 53-2061
DISTRICT:
= AREA
Tetra Tech, Inc.
CO:
M2
QUANTITIES BY:
PROJECT INCLUDES
AND $
STRUCTURES
ROADWORK
8
QTNY CHCKD BY:
CHG UNIT AND EA:
RTE:
PM:
EA:
JPM
ADR
DATE:
ESTIMATE No.:
DATE:
PRICE BY:
COST INDEX:
100%
ADR
2006
1
CONTRACT ITEMS
UNIT
QUANTITY
M
M2
M2
M2
M
M
M2
M2
110
85
180
60
60
8
25
UN IT COST
AMOUNT
A1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Temporary Railing
Bridge Removal
Wall Removal
Joint Seal Replacement
Concrete Barrier Type 736 (Mod)
Bridge Deck Area
Retaining Wall
$100
$450
$400
$200
$300
$350
$24,000
$800
$
$49,500
$34,000
$36,000
$18,000
$21,000
$192,000
$20,000
SUB TOTAL
MOBILIZATION (10%)
CONTINGENCIES (25%)
$370,500
$37,050
$101,888
GRAND TOTAL
$509,438
$510,000
BRIDGE UNIT COST
A2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
CONTRACT ITEMS
UN IT COST
AMOUNT
UNIT
QUANTITY
M3
65
$2,000
$130,000
400 mm Dia CIDH Pile**
Earthwork (assumed)
EA
LS
8
1
$4,000
$20,000
$32,000
$20,000
**For APS, CIDH piles not shown on plan
SUB TOTAL
MOBILIZATION (0%)
CONTINGENCIES (0%)
$182,000
SAY BRIDGE UNIT COST
SAY BRIDGE UNIT COST INCLUDING MOBILIZATION AND CONTINGENCY
$190,000
$23,750
$24,000
$33,000
CONTRACT ITEMS
AMOUNT
SAY
A3
1
2
3
4
5
6
Bridge & Wall Removal A1(2+3)
Retaining Walls A1(8)
Soundwall/Concrete Barrier A1(4+6)
Joint Seal Replacement A1(5)
Bridge Cost A2(15)
Total Cost
$115,000
$28,000
$79,000
$25,000
$262,000
$509,000
$115,000
$28,000
$79,000
$25,000
$262,000
$510,000
\\Isgpasfs02\wpproj\2817\0004\Report\FINAL SUBMITTAL 2007\Revised NBSSR\Bridge Final APS Est Priority 2\Sunflower Ave
Printed 7/27/2007
TETRA TECH, INC.
ALTERNATIVE
ESTIMATING GROUP
IN
OUT
RCVD BY:
BRIDGE:
TYPE:
LENGTH:
Retaining Wall #131
164.0
DESIGN SECTION
X
BRIDGE NO.:
DISTRICT:
0.0
WIDTH:
= AREA
Tetra Tech, Inc.
CO:
M2
QUANTITIES BY:
PROJECT INCLUDES
AND $
STRUCTURES
ROADWORK
0
QTNY CHCKD BY:
CHG UNIT AND EA:
RTE:
PM:
EA:
JPM
HYO
DATE:
DATE:
100%
RC
2006
ESTIMATE No.:
2/8/2006
PRICE BY:
COST INDEX:
1
CONTRACT ITEMS
UNIT
QUANTITY
M
M2
M2
M
M3
EA
LS
50
505
165
250
0
1
UN IT COST
AMOUNT
A1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
A2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
Temporary Railing
Concrete Removal
Concrete Barrier
Retaining Wall Concrete
610 mm Dia CIDH Pile
Earthwork (assumed)
$40
$400
$185
$350
$550
$3,000
$40,000
$
$20,000
$93,425
$57,750
$137,500
$
$40,000
SUB TOTAL
MOBILIZATION (10%)
CONTINGENCIES (25%)
$348,675
$34,868
$95,886
GRAND TOTAL
$479,428
$480,000
CONTRACT ITEMS
Erect PC/PS Girder
Earthwork (assumed)
UNIT
QUANTITY
M3
EA
EA
EA
LS
0
0
0
0
0
UN IT COST
AMOUNT
$
$
$
$
$
SUB TOTAL
MOBILIZATION (0%)
CONTINGENCIES (0%)
$
$
$
CONTRACT ITEMS
AMOUNT
A3
1
2
3
4
5
Concrete Removal A1(2)
Soundwall/Concrete Barrier (3+4)
Retaining Wall A1(5+6+7)
Bridge Cost
Total Cost
$30,000
$210,000
$240,000
$
$480,000
\\Isgpasfs02\wpproj\2817\0004\Report\FINAL SUBMITTAL 2007\Revised NBSSR\Bridge Final APS Est Priority 2\RW #131
Printed 7/27/2007
TETRA TECH, INC.
ALTERNATIVE
ESTIMATING GROUP
IN
OUT
RCVD BY:
BRIDGE:
TYPE:
LENGTH:
Retaining Wall #137
142.0
DESIGN SECTION
X
BRIDGE NO.:
DISTRICT:
0.0
WIDTH:
= AREA
Tetra Tech, Inc.
CO:
M2
QUANTITIES BY:
PROJECT INCLUDES
AND $
STRUCTURES
ROADWORK
0
QTNY CHCKD BY:
CHG UNIT AND EA:
RTE:
PM:
EA:
JPM
HYO
DATE:
DATE:
100%
RC
2006
ESTIMATE No.:
2/8/2006
PRICE BY:
COST INDEX:
1
CONTRACT ITEMS
UNIT
QUANTITY
M
M2
M2
M
M3
EA
LS
110
425
140
425
47
1
UN IT COST
AMOUNT
A1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
A2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
Temporary Railing
Concrete Removal
Concrete Barrier
Earthwork (assumed)
$40
$400
$185
$350
$550
$3,000
$40,000
$
$44,000
$78,625
$49,000
$233,750
$141,000
$40,000
SUB TOTAL
MOBILIZATION (10%)
CONTINGENCIES (25%)
$586,375
$58,638
$161,253
GRAND TOTAL
$806,266
$810,000
CONTRACT ITEMS
Erect PC/PS Girder
Earthwork (assumed)
UNIT
QUANTITY
M3
EA
EA
EA
LS
0
0
0
0
0
UN IT COST
AMOUNT
$
$
$
$
$
SUB TOTAL
MOBILIZATION (0%)
CONTINGENCIES (0%)
$
$
$
CONTRACT ITEMS
AMOUNT
A3
1
2
3
4
5
Bridge Cost
Total Cost
$61,000
$175,000
$570,000
$
$810,000
Printed 7/27/2007
TETRA TECH, INC.
ALTERNATIVE
ESTIMATING GROUP
IN
OUT
RCVD BY:
BRIDGE:
TYPE:
LENGTH:
Retaining Wall #145
385.0
DESIGN SECTION
X
BRIDGE NO.:
DISTRICT:
0.0
WIDTH:
= AREA
Tetra Tech, Inc.
CO:
M2
QUANTITIES BY:
PROJECT INCLUDES
AND $
STRUCTURES
ROADWORK
0
QTNY CHCKD BY:
CHG UNIT AND EA:
RTE:
PM:
EA:
BDS
HYO
DATE:
DATE:
100%
RC
2006
ESTIMATE No.:
4/28/2006 PRICE BY:
COST INDEX:
1
CONTRACT ITEMS
UNIT
QUANTITY
M
M2
M2
M
M3
EA
LS
295
1,168
383
1,170
127
1
UN IT COST
AMOUNT
A1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
A2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
Temporary Railing
Concrete Removal
Concrete Barrier
Earthwork (assumed)
$40
$400
$185
$350
$550
$3,000
$40,000
$
$118,000
$216,080
$134,050
$643,500
$381,000
$40,000
SUB TOTAL
MOBILIZATION (10%)
CONTINGENCIES (25%)
$1,532,630
$153,263
$421,473
GRAND TOTAL
$2,107,366
$2,110,000
CONTRACT ITEMS
Erect PC/PS Girder
Earthwork (assumed)
UNIT
QUANTITY
M3
EA
EA
EA
LS
0
0
0
0
0
UN IT COST
AMOUNT
$
$
$
$
$
SUB TOTAL
MOBILIZATION (0%)
CONTINGENCIES (0%)
$
$
$
CONTRACT ITEMS
AMOUNT
A3
1
2
3
4
5
Bridge Cost
Total Cost
$170,000
$480,000
$1,460,000
$
$2,110,000
Printed 7/27/2007
TETRA TECH, INC.
ALTERNATIVE
ESTIMATING GROUP
IN
OUT
RCVD BY:
BRIDGE:
TYPE:
LENGTH:
Retaining Wall #152
83.0
X
DESIGN SECTION
BRIDGE NO.:
DISTRICT:
0.0
WIDTH:
= AREA
Tetra Tech, Inc.
CO:
M2
QUANTITIES BY:
PROJECT INCLUDES
AND $
STRUCTURES
ROADWORK
0
QNTY CHCKD BY:
CHG UNIT AND EA:
RTE:
PM:
EA:
BDS
HYO
DATE:
DATE:
100%
RC
2006
ESTIMATE No.:
2/8/2006
PRICE BY:
COST INDEX:
1
CONTRACT ITEMS
UNIT
QUANTITY
M
M2
M2
M
M3
EA
LS
65
255
82
250
28
1
UN IT COST
AMOUNT
A1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
A2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
Temporary Railing
Concrete Removal
Concrete Barrier
Earthwork (assumed)
$40
$400
$185
$350
$550
$3,000
$30,000
$
$26,000
$47,175
$28,700
$137,500
$84,000
$30,000
SUB TOTAL
MOBILIZATION (10%)
CONTINGENCIES (25%)
$353,375
$35,338
$97,178
GRAND TOTAL
$485,891
$490,000
CONTRACT ITEMS
Erect PC/PS Girder
Earthwork (assumed)
UNIT
QUANTITY
M3
EA
EA
EA
LS
0
0
0
0
0
UN IT COST
AMOUNT
$
$
$
$
$
SUB TOTAL
MOBILIZATION (0%)
CONTINGENCIES (0%)
$
$
$
CONTRACT ITEMS
AMOUNT
A3
1
2
3
4
5
Bridge Cost
Total Cost
$40,000
$100,000
$350,000
$
$490,000
Printed 7/27/2007
TETRA TECH, INC.
ALTERNATIVE
ESTIMATING GROUP
IN
OUT
RCVD BY:
BRIDGE:
TYPE:
LENGTH:
Retaining Wall #156
1.1
X
DESIGN SECTION
BRIDGE NO.:
DISTRICT:
0.0
WIDTH:
= AREA
Tetra Tech, Inc.
CO:
M2
QUANTITIES BY:
PROJECT INCLUDES
AND $
STRUCTURES
ROADWORK
0
QTNY CHCKD BY:
CHG UNIT AND EA:
RTE:
PM:
EA:
BDS
HYO
DATE:
DATE:
100%
RC
2006
ESTIMATE No.:
2/8/2006
PRICE BY:
COST INDEX:
1
CONTRACT ITEMS
UNIT
QUANTITY
M
M2
M2
M
M3
EA
LS
87
400
115
350
38
1
UN IT COST
AMOUNT
A1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
A2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
Temporary Railing
Concrete Removal
Concrete Barrier
Earthwork (assumed)
$40
$400
$185
$350
$550
$3,000
$30,000
$
$34,800
$74,000
$40,250
$192,500
$114,000
$30,000
SUB TOTAL
MOBILIZATION (10%)
CONTINGENCIES (25%)
$485,550
$48,555
$133,526
GRAND TOTAL
$667,631
$670,000
CONTRACT ITEMS
Erect PC/PS Girder
Earthwork (assumed)
UNIT
QUANTITY
M3
EA
EA
EA
LS
0
0
0
0
0
UN IT COST
AMOUNT
$
$
$
$
$
SUB TOTAL
MOBILIZATION (0%)
CONTINGENCIES (0%)
$
$
$
CONTRACT ITEMS
AMOUNT
A3
1
2
3
4
5
Bridge Cost
Total Cost
$50,000
$160,000
$460,000
$
$670,000
Printed 7/27/2007
TETRA TECH, INC.
ALTERNATIVE
ESTIMATING GROUP
IN
OUT
RCVD BY:
BRIDGE:
TYPE:
LENGTH:
Retaining Wall #157
0.0
X
DESIGN SECTION
BRIDGE NO.:
DISTRICT:
0.0
WIDTH:
= AREA
Tetra Tech, Inc.
CO:
M2
QUANTITIES BY:
PROJECT INCLUDES
AND $
STRUCTURES
ROADWORK
0
QTNY CHCKD BY:
CHG UNIT AND EA:
RTE:
PM:
EA:
BDS
HYO
DATE:
DATE:
100%
RC
2006
ESTIMATE No.:
2/8/2006
PRICE BY:
COST INDEX:
1
CONTRACT ITEMS
UNIT
QUANTITY
M
M2
M2
M
M3
EA
LS
95
375
122
375
42
1
UN IT COST
AMOUNT
A1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
A2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
Temporary Railing
Concrete Removal
Concrete Barrier
Earthwork (assumed)
$40
$400
$185
$350
$550
$3,000
$30,000
$
$38,000
$69,375
$42,700
$206,250
$126,000
$30,000
SUB TOTAL
MOBILIZATION (10%)
CONTINGENCIES (25%)
$512,325
$51,233
$140,889
GRAND TOTAL
$704,447
$710,000
CONTRACT ITEMS
Erect PC/PS Girder
Earthwork (assumed)
UNIT
QUANTITY
M3
EA
EA
EA
LS
0
0
0
0
0
UN IT COST
AMOUNT
$
$
$
$
$
SUB TOTAL
MOBILIZATION (0%)
CONTINGENCIES (0%)
$
$
$
CONTRACT ITEMS
AMOUNT
A3
1
2
3
4
5
Bridge Cost
Total Cost
$50,000
$160,000
$500,000
$
$710,000
Printed 7/27/2007
TETRA TECH, INC.
ALTERNATIVE
ESTIMATING GROUP
IN
OUT
RCVD BY:
BRIDGE:
TYPE:
LENGTH:
Retaining Wall #172
284.0
DESIGN SECTION
X
BRIDGE NO.:
DISTRICT:
0.0
WIDTH:
= AREA
Tetra Tech, Inc.
CO:
M2
QUANTITIES BY:
PROJECT INCLUDES
AND $
STRUCTURES
ROADWORK
0
QTNY CHCKD BY:
CHG UNIT AND EA:
RTE:
PM:
EA:
BDS
HYO
DATE:
DATE:
100%
RC
2006
ESTIMATE No.:
2/8/2006
PRICE BY:
COST INDEX:
1
CONTRACT ITEMS
UNIT
QUANTITY
M
M2
M2
M
M3
EA
LS
215
812
285
870
95
1
UN IT COST
AMOUNT
A1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
A2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
Temporary Railing
Concrete Removal
Concrete Barrier
Earthwork (assumed)
$40
$400
$185
$350
$550
$3,000
$50,000
$
$86,000
$150,220
$99,750
$478,500
$285,000
$50,000
SUB TOTAL
MOBILIZATION (10%)
CONTINGENCIES (25%)
$1,149,470
$114,947
$316,104
GRAND TOTAL
$1,580,521
$1,590,000
CONTRACT ITEMS
Erect PC/PS Girder
Earthwork (assumed)
UNIT
QUANTITY
M3
EA
EA
EA
LS
0
0
0
0
0
UN IT COST
AMOUNT
$
$
$
$
$
SUB TOTAL
MOBILIZATION (0%)
CONTINGENCIES (0%)
$
$
$
CONTRACT ITEMS
AMOUNT
A3
1
2
3
4
5
Bridge Cost
Total Cost
$120,000
$350,000
$1,120,000
$
$1,590,000
Printed 7/27/2007
NBSSR
CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION/CATEGORICAL
EXCLUSION FORM
ATTACHMENT G
TETRA TECH
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION/PROGRAMMATIC CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
DETERMINATION FORM
CONTINUATION SHEET
Locations of the soundwalls:
- The first soundwall (Soundwall No. 37) would be located on the westbound side of the Interstate 210, along
Maple St. to Marengo Ave.
- The second soundwall (Soundwall No. 39) would be located on the westbound side of the Interstate 210,
westbound off-ramp at Marengo Ave.
- The third soundwall (Soundwall No. 41) would be located on the westbound side of the Interstate 210, along
Maple St. west of Euclid Ave to Los Robles Ave.
- The fourth soundwall (Soundwall No. 43) would be located on the westbound side of Interstate 210, along the
Maple St. frontage road from Los Robles Ave to n El Molino Ave.
- The fifth soundwall (Soundwall No. 44) would be located on the eastbound side of the Interstate 210, along
Corson St. From Los Robles Ave. to N. El Molino Ave.
- The sixth soundwall (Soundwall No. 47) would be located on the westbound side of the Interstate 210, along
the Maple Street frontage road from N. El Molino Ave to Maple Way.
- The seventh soundwall (Soundwall No. 48) would be located on the eastbound side of the Interstate 210,
along Corson Street East of the El Molino Ave to west of Hudson Ave.
- The eighth soundwall (Soundwall No. 52) would be located on the eastbound side of the Interstate 210, along
Corson Street from the Lake Ave. to Wilson Ave.
- The ninth soundwall (Soundwall No. 163) would be located on the westbound side of the Interstate 210,
westbound on-ramp at Baldwin Ave.
- The tenth soundwall (Soundwall No. 167) would be located on the westbound of the Interstate 210, east of
the westbound Baldwin Ave. off-ramp to westbound Santa Anita Ave. on-ramp.
- The eleventh soundwall (Soundwall No. 179) would be located on the westbound side of the Interstate 210,
west of Santa Anita westbound on-ramp.
- The twelfth soundwall (Soundwall 182) would be located on the eastbound side of the Interstate 210,
eastbound off-ramp at Grand Ave.
- The thirteenth soundwall (Soundwall 184) would be located on the eastbound side of the Interstate 210, west
of Grand Ave.
- The fourteenth soundwall (Soundwall No. 186) would be located on the eastbound side of the Interstate 210,
east of Grand Ave.
- The fifteenth soundwall (Soundwall No. 188) would be located on the eastbound side of the Interstate 210,
eastbound on-ramp at Grand Ave.
- The sixteenth soundwall (Soundwall No. 196) would be located on the eastbound side of the Interstate 210,
east of Glendora Ave. to west of Bonnie Cove Ave.
- The seventeenth soundwall (Soundwall No. 206) would be located on the eastbound side of the Interstate 210,
eastbound off-ramp at Sunflower Ave.
- The eighteenth soundwall (Soundwall No. 208) would be located on the eastbound side of the Interstate 210,
from east of Sunflower Ave. to west of Sunflower Ave.
- The nineteenth soundwall (Soundwall No. 212) would be located on the eastbound side of the Interstate 210,
eastbound on-ramp at Sunflower Ave.
Heights of the soundwalls vary from 2.6 meters to 5.0 meters
V:\2817\0004\Report\FINAL SUBMITTAL 2007\Revised NBSSR\CE soundwall list.doc
NBSSR
WORK PLAN
ATTACHMENT H
TETRA TECH
NBSSR
MITIGATION AND COMPLIANCE
COST ESTIMATE
ATTACHMENT I
TETRA TECH
Mitigation and Compliance Cost Estimate
Foothill Freeway (Interstate 210)
LACMTA Retrofit Soundwall Project
Dist-Co-Rte-KP:
07-LA-210-KP 40.7/69.8
EA:
23290K
Project Description: This project proposes to construct 6,233 meters of noise barriers (Soundwall No’s. 35, 37, 39, 41, 43,
44, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 163, 167, 179, 182, 184, 186, 188, 196, 206, 208, and 212) along the Foothill Freeway
(Interstate 210) in the Cities of Pasadena, Arcadia, and Glendora, all within the County of Los Angeles. The noise barriers
will provide approximately 5-12 dBA noise reduction at the closest sensitive receptors and therefore reduce noise levels
from a peak hour Leq ranging between 66-78 dBA to 66 dBA. This project meets LACMTA criteria for noise barrier
construction.
Person Completing form/Dist. Branch:
Hee-Young Oh - Tetra Tech, Inc.
(949) 727-7099
Project Manager:
Adel N. Girgis
Phone Number: (213) 897-0435
Date:
July 23, 2007
Mitigation
Compliance
Environmental
Statutory
Permit &
Project Feature1
Obligation2
Requirement3
Agreement4
Fish & Game 1601 Agreement
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Coastal Development Permit
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
State Lands Agreement
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NPDES Permit
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
COE 404 Permit – Nationwide
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
COE 404 Permit – Individual
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
COE Section 10 Permit
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
COE Section 9 Permit
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Other:
Noise Attenuation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Special Landscaping*
Highway planting
=$355
Archaeological
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Biological
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Historical
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Scenic Resources
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wetland/Riparian
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Other:
TOTAL (Enter zeros if no cost)
$355
0
0
0
•
•
•
Costs are to be reported in $1,000’s.
Costs are to include all costs to complete the commitment including: capital outlay and staff support; cost of right of way
or easements; long term monitoring and reporting, and; any follow-up maintenance.
After approval by the Project Manager a copy of the completed form is to be included in the PR and a copy sent to
Headquarters Environmental Program.
1
Mitigation Caltrans would normally do if not required by a permit or environmental agreement.
Mitigation Caltrans would not normally do but is required by conditions of a permit or environmental agreement.
3
Mitigation Caltrans would not normally do and is not required by a permit or environmental but is required by a law.
4
Non-mitigation Caltrans would not normally do but is required by conditions of a permit or agreement.
2
*Included in Project Cost Estimate as part of Section 4, Specialty Item, Landscape/Irrigation
V:\2817\0004\Report\FINAL SUBMITTAL 2007\Revised NBSSR\Caltrans mitigation-compliance.doc
NBSSR
STORM WATER DATA REPORT
ATTACHMENT J
TETRA TECH
NBSSR
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT
PLAN
ATTACHMENT K
TETRA TECH
TRANSPORTATION
MAN.<4..GEJ\1ENTPLAN DATA SHEET
(Preliminary TMP Elements and Costs)
LA-21 0-R39.6-R69.5
(24.6-43.2)
Co/Rte/KP
Project Limit
In Pasadena/Glendora
Project Description
EA
23290K
Alternative No.
Between N Anoyo Blvd and East of Sunflower Ave. WB & EB.
Construction of soundwall
1) Public Information
$15,000
~
a. Brochures and Mailers
~
b. Press E.elease
D
c. Paid Advertising
D
d. Public Information Center/Kiosk
~
e. Public Meeting/Speakers
D
f. Telephone Hotline
~
g. Internet
D
h. Others
Bureau
$1,000
2) Motorists Infornlation Strategies
D
Db.
a. Changeable Message Signs (Fixed)
Changeable Message Signs (Portable)
D
c. Ground Mounted Signs
D
d. Highway Advisory Radio
De.
D
Caltrans Highway Information Network (CHIN)
f. Others
3) Incident Management
~
a. Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement
Program (COZEEP)
D
b. Freeway Service Patrol
~
c. Traffic Management Team
D
d. Helicopter Surveillance
D
e. Traffic Surveillance Stations
(Loop Detector and CCTV)
D
f. Others
$90,000
4) Construction Strategies
J:\2817\0004\RepOli\Mar
~
a. Lane Closure Chart
D
b. Reversible Lanes
D
c. Total Facility Closure
D
d. Contra Flow
D
e. Truck Traffic Restrictions
D
f. Reduced Speed Zone
2006\tmp.doc
TETRA TECH, INC.
D
g. Connector and Ramp Closures
D
h. Incentive and Disincentive
D
i. Moveable Barrier
D
j. Others
5) Demand Management
D
a. HOV ~anes/Ramps
D
b. Park and Ride Lots
Dc.
(New
OJ:
Conveli)
Rideshare Incentives
D
d. Variable Work Hours
D
e. Teleco~mute
D
f. Ramp Metering (Temporary Installation)
D
g. Ramp Metering (Modify Existing)
D
h. Others
6) Alternative Route Strategies
D
a. Add Capacity to Freeway Connector
Db.
D
D
D
D
Street Improvement
(widening, traffic signal... etc)
c. Traffic Control Officers
d. Parking Restrictions
e. Others
7) Other Strategies
a. Application of New Technology
D e. Others
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF TMP ELEMENTS =
.J
:\2817\0004\Report\Mar
2006\tmp.doc
2
$106,000
TETRA TECH, INC.
D) Project Notes:
1.
The project consists of constructing approximately 6,233 meters of noise barriers at various
locations along Interstate-2l0 from the Cities of Pasadena, Arcadia, and Glendora. The project also
includes the reconstruction of retaining walls and bridge widening to accOlllinodate the noise
barrier. Shoulder widening will be required at some locations along the ramps and mainline.
2.
Construction of the 'noise barriers are expected to be undertaken in stages. Off-Ramps are expected
to be reduced from 2 lanes to 1 lane for approximately 8 weeks to modify existing retaining walls
and construct the proposed noise barriers. Freeway shoulders will be closed for up to 12 months.
3.
Public Affairs CaD;lpaign cost estimate of $16,000 was provided
Affairs/Media Relations.
4.
COZEEP cost estimate of $90,000 was provided by Caltrans Construction
Office.
5,
The work shall be done in accordance with the Lane Closure Charts provided in the Maintaining
Traffic Specifications.
6.
Construction work area will encroach into local streets to modify existing retaining walls and
construct the proposed noise barriers. It is proposed to re-stripe and temporarily restrict parking
along the local streets for approximately 8 weeks. Necessary permits shall be obtained from the
local agency for restriping and restricting the parking along the local frontage roads for soundw~ll
related construction.
7.
Cost estimates for various TMP elements will be re-eva1uated at the PS&E stage when more
detailed information about the project become available.
by Caltrans Office of Public
Traffic Management
PREP ARED BY
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED
BY
4/:1J/bJ'Ob
/
/
APPROVED BY
J:\2817\0004\Report\Mar
2006\tmp.doc
3
TETRA TECH, INC.
NBSSR
NPDES
INFORMATION SUBMITTAL
ATTACHMENT L
TETRA TECH
NBSSR
JUSTIFICATION MEMORANDUM
(SUPPLEMENT TO TECHNICAL NOISE STUDY)
ATTACHMENT M
TETRA TECH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Rafael Molina – Office of Project and Special Studies – Caltrans District 7
Jin Lee – Noise and Vibration Studies – Caltrans District 7
COPY:
Benkin Jong – Metro, Project File: P02817-0004-00 (226)
FROM:
Ms. Hee-Young Oh
PROJECT:
Unfeasible Soundwalls
SUBJECT:
SR-210 N.B.S.S.R. – Contract No. PS-4340-1238 – EA 23290K
DATE:
Monday, March 19, 2007
BACKGROUND
The Post 89 Soundwall Program was developed to construct noise barriers to retrofit the existing
freeways through residential communities. Numerous soundwalls were identified along Interstate 210 in
the Cities of Pasadena, Arcadia, and Glendora.
A majority of the proposed soundwalls are located at the State right-of-way (R/W) line along the frontage
roads. In Pasadena, because of project site restrictions, soundwall (SW) #35 and SW #50 are proposed to
be constructed on the left shoulder along the off-ramps. These soundwalls (SW #35 and SW #50) do not
meet the standard horizontal clearance of 3.0 meters from the edge of traveled way, as required by the
Highway Design Manual, Section 309.1(3)(b) and 1102.2(1). The main purpose of these two particular
soundwalls is to act as extensions of the adjacent proposed soundwalls (SW #37 and SW #48). In order
for SW #35 and SW #50 to meet the required horizontal clearances, the off-ramps will require widening,
which in turn requires the existing retaining walls to be reconstructed. Alternatives considered are:
A Widen and Reconstruct Retaining Walls
B Realign Off-Ramps
C Relocate Proposed Soundwalls
D Obtain Exceptions to Non-Standard Features
E Construct Feasible Soundwall Segments
ANALYSIS
Based on the Technical Noise Study prepared by Acentech, dated December 2005, the soundwall must be
acoustically feasible and reasonable to justify its construction. A cost effectiveness criterion of $50,000
per benefited dwelling unit, using MTA’s cost guidelines, was utilized to assess the reasonableness of the
soundwall in relation to the number of dwelling units that would benefit from the project.
The safety issues associated with the location of the soundwalls coupled with the construction costs are
the basis of evaluating the proposed soundwalls to determine the feasibility of Alternative A – Widen and
Reconstruct Retaining Walls and Alternative E – Construct Feasible Soundwall Segments in more detail
to meet the standard horizontal clearance requirement.
Alternative A – Widen and Reconstruct Retaining Wall
Providing the standard horizontal clearance will require reconstructing the entire length of the existing
structures because the proposed soundwalls will be constructed on top of the existing retaining walls. A
summary of the cost effectiveness for the widening and reconstruction of the retaining walls are
summarized below:
MEMORANDUM
March 19, 2007
Page 2
Table 1 – Alternative A (Widen and Reconstruct Retaining Walls)
Additional
Benefited
Cost/Benefit
Soundwall Estimated
Cost to Provide Dwelling Units
($/du)
#
Cost1
Standard
(du)
1
35/37
$432,600
$2,500,000
14
$210,000
48/50
$413,700
$2,000,000
19
$127,000
Per the Technical Noise Study, $430 per square meter of soundwall.
As noted on Table 1 above, widening and reconstructing the existing retaining walls clearly exceeds the
cost effectiveness criterion of $50,000 for each benefited dwelling unit causing the noise barriers to be
eliminated from further study. Since nearby residences would not benefit from the noise attenuation at
these locations, a second alternative was evaluated to determine the feasibility of eliminating SW #35
and SW #50 while keeping SW #37 and SW #48, respectively, to provide some noise attenuation to the
community.
Alternative E – Construct Feasible Soundwall Segments
For SW #35 and SW #50, Table 7 and 4 of Technical Noise Study indicates 14 and 19 dwelling units
would benefit from the construction of the soundwalls, respectively. By eliminating these soundwalls, we
assume that some of the dwellings units near these walls may not receive a reduction in the noise level by
5 dBA, namely three (3) units for SW #35 and four (4) units for SW #50. It is anticipated the removal of
SW #35 and SW #50 would have minimal impact on achieving some noise attenuation for the
surrounding residents. Thus, by reducing the number of benefited dwelling units, the cost effectiveness
for eliminating the non-standard soundwalls are summarized below:
Soundwall
#
1
Table 2 – Alternative E
Benefited
Estimated
Dwelling Units
Cost1
(du)
Cost/Benefit
($/du)
37
$273,500
11
$25,000
48
$210,800
15
$14,100
Per the Technical Noise Study, $430 per square meter of
soundwall.
As noted in Table 2 above, reducing the number of benefited dwelling units causes SW #37 and SW #48
to meet the reasonable and feasible criteria.
CONCLUSION
Several of the alternatives were considered but eliminated from further study for various reasons:
•
Alternative B – Realign Off-Ramps
Pasadena is a fully developed community with Route 210 in a depressed grade with 1:2
(vertical:horizontal) slopes. These off-ramps are parallel to the local frontage roads with limited
right-of-way. Realigning the off-ramps requires business and residential relocations that are beyond
the scope of this project.
Y:\2817\0004\Memos\Unfeasible Walls031907.doc
MEMORANDUM
March 19, 2007
Page 3
•
Alternative C – Relocate Proposed Soundwalls
Since the scope of the project is the attenuate the noise level for the existing dwelling units, it is not
feasible to relocate the soundwalls.
•
Alternative D – Obtain Exceptions to Non-Standard Features
Because the non-standard feature is related to lateral clearances on the left shoulder, safety issues
were raised by HQ’s design reviewer. After several discussions, a design exception would not be
granted and requires the shoulders to be widened to meet the standard lateral clearances.
Because the costs associated with the construction exceed the reasonableness criterion, the construction
of SW #35 and SW #50 is considered unfeasible for the scope of this project. We recommend moving the
project forward with Alternative E – Construct Feasible Soundwall Segments and eliminate SW #35 and
SW #50 from further consideration.
Y:\2817\0004\Memos\Unfeasible Walls031907.doc
Location Map – City of Pasadena
Fair Oaks Avenue
Marengo Avenue
Figure 1 – SW #35 and SW #37
State Route 210 Noise Barrier Scope Summary Report
Lake Avenue
El Molino Avenue
Figure 2 – SW #48 and SW #50
NBSSR
FUNDING AGREEMENT
ATTACHMENT N
TETRA TECH

noise barrier scope summary report

Transcription

Similar documents

Salginatobel Bridge

info! - American Senior Communities

File

Downtown map (map side)

Pantallas Acusticas Pared Verde (EN)

bikernieku trase - double sided concrete barrier, lv

Centurion Mk 5 Bridgelayer

Copper State Rubber

Web Safety

Sydney Harbour Bridge Waterproofing and Restoration