I-15/ cajalco Road interchange improvements

Transcription

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
This page intentionally left blank
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|Page
Table of Contents
Report Overview ............................................................................................................. 3
Table of Figures .............................................................................................................. 7
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 9
Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................ 13
Deficiencies ................................................................................................................... 15
Purpose and Needs....................................................................................................... 17
Design Constraints ........................................................................................................ 17
Alternatives ................................................................................................................... 27
Advanced Planning Studies .......................................................................................... 39
Cost Estimates .............................................................................................................. 47
Cost Benefit Analysis .................................................................................................... 73
Preferred Alternative ..................................................................................................... 77
Construction Staging ..................................................................................................... 79
Environmental Review................................................................................................... 92
5|Page
Table of Figures
Figure 1. General Site Location ....................................................................................... 9
Figure 2. Site Location .................................................................................................. 10
Figure 3. Project Boundaries and Vicinity...................................................................... 11
Figure 4. Cajalco Road Looking East ............................................................................ 13
Figure 5. Ultimate I-15 Layout Half Section ................................................................... 17
Figure 6. Ultimate Cajalco Road Layout Half Section ................................................... 18
Figure 7. Bedford Wash South of the Cajalco Road Overcrossing ................................ 21
Figure 8. Watershed Draining into Bedford Wash ......................................................... 22
Figure 9. Bedford Wash Cross Sections ....................................................................... 22
Figure 10. Watershed Division ...................................................................................... 23
Figure 11. Geologic Soil Overlay Map ........................................................................... 24
Figure 12. No Build Layout and 2035 LOS .................................................................... 29
Figure 13. Alternative 1 Layout and 2035 LOS ............................................................. 31
Figure 16. Single Point Urban Interchange Traffic Flow Diagram ................................. 36
Figure 17. Alternative 1 Overcrossing Plan View .......................................................... 39
Figure 18. Alternative 1 Overcrossing Profile View ....................................................... 40
Figure 19. Alternative 1 Overcrossing Cross Section View ........................................... 40
Figure 26. Bedford Wash Ramp Bridge Layout View .................................................... 45
Figure 27. Bedford Wash Ramp Bridge Profile View ..................................................... 45
Figure 28. Bedford Wash Ramp Bridge Cross Section View ......................................... 46
Figure 29. Annual User Costs ....................................................................................... 74
7|Page
Figure 30. Annual User Benefit ..................................................................................... 75
Figure 31. Total Benefits ............................................................................................... 76
Figure 32. 3d Rendering of Alternative 1 Southbound Intersection ............................... 77
Figure 33. Stage 1a - Construct NB Off Ramp .............................................................. 79
Figure 34. Stage 1b - Construct Southbound Loop on Ramp........................................ 80
Figure 35. Stage 2a - Close Existing NB Intersection.................................................... 81
Figure 36. Stage 2b - Construct NB High Speed on Ramp ........................................... 82
Figure 37. Stage 3 - Construct North Half of Overcrossing ........................................... 83
Figure 38. Stage 4a - Shift Traffic to New Bridge .......................................................... 84
Figure 39. Stage 4b - Construct Southern Portion of Overcrossing .............................. 85
Figure 40. Stage 4c - Move Traffic to New Grade ......................................................... 86
Figure 41. Stage 4d - Open Cajalco Overcrossing to Ultimate Layout .......................... 87
Figure 42. Stage 5a - Construct Temporary SB Loop on Ramp .................................... 88
Figure 43. Stage 5b - Construct SB off Ramp ............................................................... 89
Figure 44. Stage 5c - Open Proposed SB off and Construct SB Loop on Ramp ........... 90
Figure 45. Interchange Completion ............................................................................... 91
8|Page
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|Page
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
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 2015.
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
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
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.
Figure 4. Cajalco Road Looking East
13 | P a g e
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 2015. 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 2035.
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
2005
2015
%
2035
Increase
On I-15
Weirick Rd to Cajalco Rd
Cajalco Rd to El Cerrito Rd
On Cajalco Rd
West of I-15 (Bedford Canyon
Rd to I-15)
East of I-15 (I-15 to Temescal
Canyon Rd)
%
Increase
151,000 163,200
161,000 176,600
8%
10%
187,600
208,000
15%
18%
12,000
12,900
8%
14,800
15%
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 2035. 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 2035. 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
15 | P a g e
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
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
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 2035. 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
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 0.045 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
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
10-20
C
20-35
D
35-55
E
55-80
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
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
Figure 8. Watershed Draining into Bedford Wash
Figure 9. Bedford
Wash Cross Sections
22 | P a g e
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).
Sub
Basin
EX 1
EX 2
Sub-Basin
EX 1
EX 2
Table 5. CN Infiltration Values
Soils Group and CN Values
Soil Types
% Soil
Condition CN value
A,C,D
A,D
5%,11%,84% Fair
9%,91%
Fair
46,77,83
83,46
Table 6. Time of Concentration Calculation
Time of Concentration
L(ft.)
S
CN
21401
0.133
80.5
21365
0.133
80
Figure 10. Watershed Division
23 | P a g e
Composite
CN
80.5
80
Tc
99.41
100.85
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 100yr 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.
Sub-basin
EX 1
EX 2
Runoff
Coeff.
0.35
0.35
Table 7. Total Flow Calculation
Total Runoff
Tc (min)
Intensity
Area
(in/hr.)
(acres)
99.41
1.3
1986
100.85
1.3
1680
Q (cfs)
911
771
Table 3. Runoff Calculation. This table demonstrates the parameters that were factored into the runoff
calculation.
24 | P a g e
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 0.030 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
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 200613).
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
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
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
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 Scurved 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
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 2035. 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
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
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 I15 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
33 | P a g e
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
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
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 16.
35 | P a g e
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
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 2.
37 | P a g e
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
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
Alternative 2
41 | P a g e
overcrossing.
42 | P a g e
Alternative 3
43 | P a g e
overcrossing.
44 | P a g e
Bedford Wash Ramp Bridge
Figure 26. Bedford Wash Ramp Bridge Layout View
Figure 27. Bedford Wash Ramp Bridge Profile View
overcrossing.
45 | P a g e
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
Cost Estimates
47 | P a g e
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
$
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
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Reviewed by District Program Manager
(Signature)
Approved by Project Manager
Date
(Signature)
Phone No.
49 | P a g e
Page No.
of
District-County-Route
PM
EA
_______________
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Section 1 Earthwork
Quantity
Roadway Excavation
Imported Borrow
Clearing & Grubbing
Develop Water Supply
Top Soil Reapplication
Stepped Slopes and
Slope Rounding
(Contour Grading)
Unit
33640 Cu Yd
117776 Cu Yd
16.08 Acre
1 LS
2000 Cu Yd
Unit Price
Item Cost
Section Cost
$
15.00 $
504,606.60
$
20.00 $
2,355,526.00
$
30,000.00 $
482,400.00
$
80,000.00 $
80,000.00
$
55.00 $
110,000.00
31000 SQ YD
$
20.00 $
620,000.00
$ 4,152,532.60
Section 2 Pavement Structural
Quantity
PCC Pavement (___Depth)
Asphalt Concrete
Lean Concrete Base
Cement-Treated Base
Aggregate Base
Treated Permeable Base
Aggregate Sub base
Pavement Reinforcing Fabric
Edge Drains
Unit
17260 Cu Yd
0 ____
69041 SQ Yd
0 Cu Yd
0 Cu Yd
46027 Cu Yd
0 Cu Yd
69041 Cu Yd
69041 SQ Yd
500 LF
Unit Price
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Item Cost
175.00
2.00
100.00
90.00
45.00
140.00
25.00
2.00
25.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Section Cost
3,020,554.10
138,082.47
2,071,237.10
1,726,030.92
138,082.47
12,500.00
$
Section 3 Drainage
50 | P a g e
(N/A)
7,106,487.07
PM
EA
_______________
Section 4: Specialty Items
Quantity
Retaining Walls
Noise Barriers
Barriers and Guardrails
Equipment/Animal
Water Pollution Control
Hazardous Waste
Investigation and/or
Mitigation Work
Environmental
Resident Engineer
Office Space
Unit
1073 Cu Yd
0 SQ FT
3176 LF
0
1 LS
Unit Price
$
$
$
$
Item Cost
Section Cost
500.00 $
536,500.00
15.00 $
25.00 $
79,397.50
$
5,000.00 $
5,000.00
LS
1
1 LS
$
10,000.00 $
10,000.00
$
10,000.00 $
10,000.00
LS
$
9,000.00 $
9,000.00
1
$
649,897.50
Section 5: Traffic Items
Quantity
Lighting
Traffic Delineation
Traffic Signals
Overhead Sign
Roadside Signs
Traffic Control Systems
Transportation
Management Plan
Temporary Detection
System Staging
Unit
1 LS
0 LF
2 Per Intersection
0 SF
15 EA
1 LS
1 LS
1 LS
Unit Price
$
200,000.00
$
0.75
$
150,000.00
$
15.00
$
200.00
$
110,000.00
$
3,000.00
$
30,000.00
Item Cost
Section Cost
$
200,000.00
$
$
300,000.00
$
$
3,000.00
$
110,000.00
$
3,000.00
$
30,000.00
$
51 | P a g e
646,000.00
PM
EA
Section 6 Planting and Irrigation
(N/A)
Section 7: Roadside Management and Safety Section
Quantity
Vegetation Control
Treatments
Gore Area Pavement
Pavement beyond the
gore area
Miscellaneous Paving
Erosion Control
Slope Protection
Side
Slopes/Embankment
Maintenance Vehicle
Pull outs
Off-freeway Access
(gates, stairways, etc.)
Roadside Facilities
(Vista Points, Transit,
Relocating roadside
facilities/features
Unit
Unit Price
Item Cost
Section Cost
1000 Sq Yd
$
75.00 $
75,000.00
1195 Sq Yd
$
75.00 $
89,631.25
0 Sq Yd
$
50.00 $
0 Sq Yd
0.3 Acre
2000 Cu Yd
$
$
$
50.00 $
1,500.00 $
150.00 $
$
12,000.00 $
450.00
300,000.00
-
3 EA
$
36,000.00
0 n/a
$
-
$
-
0 n/a
$
-
$
-
0 n/a
$
-
$
$
TOTAL SECTIONS: 1 thru 7
52 | P a g e
501,081.25
$13,055,998.42 _
PM
EA
Section 8: Minor Items
$13,055,998.42
x (5 to 10%) = $1,305,599.84
(Subtotal Sections 1 thru 7)
TOTAL MINOR ITEMS
$1,305,599.84
Section 9: Roadway Mobilization
$14,361,598.26
x (10%) =
$1,436,159.83
TOTAL ROADWAY MOBILIZATION
$1,436,159.83
Section 10 Roadway Additions
Supplemental Work
$14,361,598.26
x (5 to 10%) = $1,436,159.83
Contingencies
$14,361,598.26
x (20%) =
$2,872,319.65
TOTAL ROADWAY ADDITIONS
$4,308,479.48
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS
$20,106,237.56
Estimate Prepared By ______________________ Phone# __________ Date _________
(Print Name)
Estimate Checked By ______________________ Phone# __________ Date _________
(Print Name)
** Use appropriate percentage per Chapter 20.
53 | P a g e
PM
EA
II. STRUCTURES ITEMS
Bridge Name
Structure Type
Width (out to out) - (ft)
Span Lengths - (ft)
Total Area - (ft2)
Footing Type (pile/spread)
Cost Per ft2
Total Cost for Structure
Structure
-1
Cajalco
Overcrossing
CIP Box Girder
Structure
-2
Wash Bridge
CIP Box Girder
152
28
287.91
116.3
32,003.00
Pile
2,800.00
Pile
300
$
9,600,900.00
300
$
840,000.00
SUBTOTAL STRUCTURES ITEMS $10,440,900.00
(Sum of Total Cost for Structures)
COMMENTS:
(Print Name)
54 | P a g e
PM
EA
III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS ESCALATED VALUE
A. Acquisition, including excess lands, damages to remainder(s) and Goodwill
$1,236,056.01
B. Utility Relocation (State share)
$1,250,000.00
C. Relocation Assistance
N/A
D. Clearance/Demolition
$471,000.00
E. Title and Escrow Fees
N/A
(Escalated Value)
$2,957,056.01
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:
(Print Name)
NOTE: If appropriate, attach additional pages and backup.
55 | P a g e
Alternative 2 –Hybrid Interchange with Shorter Bridge
PM
EA
Limits
Alternate
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS
$
21,200,000
$
8,900,000
$
30,100,000
$
3,500,000
DESIGN (15%)
$
5,000,000
$
5,000,000
CONTINGENCIES (25%)
$
10,800,000
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
$
54,600,000
(Signature)
Date
(Signature)
Phone No.
57 | P a g e
Page No.
of
PM
EA
_______________
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Section 1 Earthwork
Quantity
Roadway Excavation
Imported Borrow
Clearing & Grubbing
Stepped Slopes and
Slope Rounding
(Contour Grading)
Unit
59160 Cu Yd
126744 Cu Yd
16.08 Acre
1 LS
2000 Cu Yd
Unit Price
Item Cost
Section Cost
$
15.00 $
887,395.80
$
20.00 $
2,534,888.60
$
30,000.00 $
482,400.00
$
80,000.00 $
80,000.00
$
55.00 $
110,000.00
31000 SQ YD
$
20.00 $
620,000.00
$ 4,714,684.40
Quantity
Asphalt Concrete
Lean Concrete Base
Cement-Treated Base
Aggregate Base
Aggregate Sub base
Edge Drains
Unit
17725 Cu Yd
0 ____
70898 SQ Yd
0 Cu Yd
0 Cu Yd
47266 Cu Yd
0 Cu Yd
70898 Cu Yd
70898 SQ Yd
500 LF
Unit Price
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Item Cost
175.00
2.00
100.00
90.00
45.00
140.00
25.00
2.00
25.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Section Cost
3,101,803.06
141,796.71
2,126,950.67
1,772,458.89
141,796.71
12,500.00
$
Section 3 Drainage
58 | P a g e
(N/A)
7,297,306.04
PM
EA
_______________
Quantity
Retaining Walls
Noise Barriers
Equipment/Animal
Hazardous Waste
Mitigation Work
Environmental
Resident Engineer
Office Space
Unit
678 Cu Yd
0 SQ FT
3103 LF
0
1 LS
Unit Price
$
$
$
$
Item Cost
Section Cost
500.00 $
339,098.15
15.00 $
25.00 $
77,571.00
$
5,000.00 $
5,000.00
LS
1
1 LS
$
10,000.00 $
10,000.00
$
10,000.00 $
10,000.00
LS
$
9,000.00 $
9,000.00
1
$
450,669.15
Quantity
Lighting
Traffic Delineation
Traffic Signals
Overhead Sign
Roadside Signs
Transportation
Management Plan
Temporary Detection
System Staging
Unit
1 LS
0 LF
2 Per Signal
0 SF
15 EA
1 LS
1 LS
1 LS
Unit Price
$
200,000.00
$
0.75
$
150,000.00
$
15.00
$
200.00
$
110,000.00
$
3,000.00
$
30,000.00
Item Cost
Section Cost
$
200,000.00
$
$
300,000.00
$
$
3,000.00
$
110,000.00
$
3,000.00
$
30,000.00
$
59 | P a g e
646,000.00
PM
EA
(N/A)
Quantity
Vegetation Control
Treatments
Gore Area Pavement
Pavement beyond the
gore area
Erosion Control
Slope Protection
Side
Slopes/Embankment
Maintenance Vehicle
Pull outs
Off-freeway Access
Roadside Facilities
Relocating roadside
facilities/features
Unit
Unit Price
Item Cost
Section Cost
1000 Sq Yd
$
75.00 $
75,000.00
3210 Sq Yd
$
75.00 $
240,761.96
0 Sq Yd
$
50.00 $
0 Sq Yd
1 Acre
2000 Cu Yd
$
$
$
50.00 $
1,500.00 $
150.00 $
$
12,000.00 $
1,500.00
300,000.00
-
3 EA
$
36,000.00
0 n/a
$
-
$
-
0 n/a
$
-
$
-
0 n/a
$
-
$
$
60 | P a g e
653,261.96
$13,761,921.55_
PM
EA
$13,761,921.55
x (5 to 10%) = $1,376,192.15
TOTAL MINOR ITEMS
$1,376,192.15
$15,138,113.70
x (10%) =
$1,513,811.37
$1,513,811.37
Supplemental Work
$15,138,113.70
x (5 to 10%) = $1,513,811.37
Contingencies
$15,138,113.70
x (20%) =
$3,027,622.74
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS
$4,541,434.11
$21,193,359.18
(Print Name)
(Print Name)
61 | P a g e
PM
EA
Bridge Name
Structure Type
Span Lengths - (ft)
Total Area - (ft2)
Cost Per ft2
Structure
Structure
-1
-2
Cajalco Overcrossing
Wash Bridge
CIP Box Girder
CIP Box Girder
118.7
28
230
116.3
26,795.00
2,800.00
Pile
Pile
300
300
$
8,038,500.00 $
840,000.00
SUBTOTAL STRUCTURES ITEMS
$8,878,500.00
COMMENTS:
(Print Name)
Page No.
62 | P a g e
of
PM
EA
III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
$1,794,981.63
$1,250,000.00
N/A
$471,000.00
N/A
(Escalated Value)
$__________
$3,515,981.63
$__________
Right of Way Items.
COMMENTS:
(Print Name)
63 | P a g e
Alternative 3 –Single Point Urban Interchange
PM
EA
Limits
Alternate
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS
$
36,100,000
$
17,100,000
$
53,200,000
$
2,400,000
DESIGN (15%)
$
8,300,000
$
8,300,000
CONTINGENCIES (25%)
$
18,100,000
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
$
90,300,000
(Signature)
Phone No.
65 | P a g e
Date
(Signature)
Page No.
of
PM
EA
_______________
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Section 1 Earthwork
Quantity
Roadway Excavation
Imported Borrow
Clearing & Grubbing
Stepped Slopes and
Slope Rounding
(Contour Grading)
Unit
86000 Cu Yd
339000 Cu Yd
16.08 Acre
1 LS
2000 Cu Yd
Unit Price
Item Cost
Section Cost
$
15.00 $
1,290,000.00
$
20.00 $
6,780,000.00
$
30,000.00 $
482,400.00
$
80,000.00 $
80,000.00
$
55.00 $
110,000.00
31000 SQ YD
$
20.00 $
620,000.00
$ 9,362,400.00
Quantity
Asphalt Concrete
Lean Concrete Base
Cement-Treated Base
Aggregate Base
Aggregate Sub base
Edge Drains
Unit
26963 Cu Yd
0 ____
80889 SQ Yd
0 Cu Yd
0 Cu Yd
53926 Cu Yd
0 Cu Yd
80889 Cu Yd
80889 SQ Yd
500 LF
Unit Price
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Item Cost
175.00
2.00
100.00
90.00
45.00
140.00
25.00
2.00
25.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Section Cost
4,718,518.52
161,777.78
2,426,666.67
2,022,222.22
161,777.78
12,500.00
$
Section 3 Drainage
66 | P a g e
(N/A)
9,503,462.96
PM
EA
_______________
Quantity
Retaining Walls
Noise Barriers
Equipment/Animal
Hazardous Waste
Mitigation Work
Environmental
Resident Engineer
Office Space
Unit
6519 Cu Yd
0 SQ FT
4210 LF
0
1 LS
Unit Price
$
$
$
$
Item Cost
Section Cost
500.00 $
3,259,259.26
15.00 $
25.00 $
105,250.00
$
5,000.00 $
5,000.00
LS
1
1 LS
$
10,000.00 $
10,000.00
$
10,000.00 $
10,000.00
LS
$
9,000.00 $
9,000.00
1
$ 3,398,509.26
Quantity
Lighting
Traffic Delineation
Traffic Signals
Overhead Sign
Roadside Signs
Transportation
Management Plan
Temporary Detection
System Staging
Unit
1 LS
0 LF
2 Per Signal
0 SF
15 EA
1 LS
1 LS
1 LS
Unit Price
$
200,000.00
$
0.75
$
150,000.00
$
15.00
$
200.00
$
110,000.00
$
3,000.00
$
30,000.00
Item Cost
Section Cost
$
200,000.00
$
$
300,000.00
$
$
3,000.00
$
110,000.00
$
3,000.00
$
30,000.00
$
67 | P a g e
646,000.00
PM
EA
(N/A)
Quantity
Vegetation Control
Treatments
Gore Area Pavement
Pavement beyond the
gore area
Erosion Control
Slope Protection
Side
Slopes/Embankment
Maintenance Vehicle
Pull outs
Off-freeway Access
Roadside Facilities
Relocating roadside
facilities/features
Unit
Unit Price
Item Cost
Section Cost
1000 Sq Yd
$
75.00 $
75,000.00
1264 Sq Yd
$
75.00 $
94,791.67
0 Sq Yd
$
50.00 $
0 Sq Yd
0.3 Acre
2000 Cu Yd
$
$
$
50.00 $
1,500.00 $
150.00 $
$
12,000.00 $
450.00
300,000.00
-
3 EA
$
36,000.00
0 n/a
$
-
$
-
0 n/a
$
-
$
-
0 n/a
$
-
$
$
68 | P a g e
506,241.67
$23,416,613.89
PM
EA
$23,416,613.89
x (5 to 10%) = $2,341,661.39
TOTAL MINOR ITEMS
$2,341,661.39
$25,758,275.28
x (10%) =
$2,575,827.53
$2,575,827.53
Supplemental Work
$25,758,275.28
x (5 to 10%) = $2,575,827.53
Contingencies
$25,758,275.28
x (20%) =
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS
$5,151,655.06
$7,727,482.58
$36,061,585.39
(Print Name)
(Print Name)
69 | P a g e
PM
EA
Bridge Name
Structure Type
Span Lengths - (ft)
Total Area - (ft2)
Cost per ft2
Structure
Structure
Structure
-1
-2
-3
Cajalco Overcrossing
Wash Bridge
Wash Bridge
CIP Box Girder
CIP Box Girder
CIP Box Girder
(Butterfly)
180 (narrowest point)
28
28
239
116.3
116.3
45,265.00
2,800.00
2,800.00
Pile
Pile
Pile
340
300
300
$
15,390,100.00 $
840,000.00 $
840,000.00
SUBTOTAL STRUCTURES ITEMS
Railroad Related Costs
(N/A):
$17,070,100.00
_________
_________
_________
$_________
_________
_________
_________
$_________
_________
_________
_________
$_________
SUBTOTAL RAILROAD ITEMS
$_________
TOTAL STRUCTURES ITEMS
$9,557,000
(Sum of Structures Items plus Railroad Items)
COMMENTS:
(Print Name)
Page No.
70 | P a g e
of
PM
EA
III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
$733,080.81
$1,250,000.00
N/A
$471,000.00
N/A
(Escalated Value)
$2,454,080.81
$__________
Right of Way Items.
COMMENTS:
(Print Name)
71 | P a g e
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
2015. 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 2015.
Roadway
Bridge
Right of Way
Design
Construction &
Administration
Contingencies
Total**
Table 8. Cost Summary
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
$20.1
$10.4
$3.0
$5.0
$5.0
$21.2
$8.9
$3.5
$5.0
$5.0
$36.1
$17.1
$2.4
$8.3
$8.3
$10.8
$65.3
$10.9
$65.5
$18.1
$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
Table 9. Daily and Annual Fuel Cost for Each Alternative
No build
$
Year
Index
Daily Cost
Annual Cost
2015
0 $ 11,003.25 $ 2,871,848.25
2016
1 $ 11,686.77 $ 3,050,247.46
2017
2 $ 12,437.58 $ 3,246,208.29
2018
3 $ 13,263.10 $ 3,461,668.00
2019
4 $ 14,171.69 $ 3,698,811.20
2020
5 $ 15,172.81 $ 3,960,104.42
2021
6 $ 16,277.15 $ 4,248,335.74
2022
7 $ 17,496.78 $ 4,566,660.73
2023
8 $ 18,845.42 $ 4,918,655.26
2024
9 $ 20,338.61 $ 5,308,376.82
2025
10 $ 21,994.00 $ 5,740,435.28
2026
11 $ 23,831.71 $ 6,220,075.08
2027
12 $ 25,874.60 $ 6,753,270.58
2028
13 $ 28,148.80 $ 7,346,836.85
2029
14 $ 30,684.13 $ 8,008,558.68
2030
15 $ 33,514.72 $ 8,747,340.87
2031
16 $ 36,679.63 $ 9,573,383.58
2032
17 $ 40,223.71 $ 10,498,387.33
2033
18 $ 44,198.44 $ 11,535,792.74
2034
19 $ 48,663.07 $ 12,701,061.50
2035
20 $ 53,685.85 $ 14,012,006.00
Alternative
No build
NPV
$
107,467,891
Hybrid
$
54,444,315
Daily Cost
Annual Cost
$ 3,204.50 $ 836,374.50
$ 3,403.56 $ 888,330.08
$ 3,622.22 $ 945,400.18
$ 3,862.64 $ 1,008,148.96
$ 4,127.25 $ 1,077,212.69
$ 4,418.81 $ 1,153,309.67
$ 4,740.43 $ 1,237,251.89
$ 5,095.63 $ 1,329,958.36
$ 5,488.39 $ 1,432,470.48
$ 5,923.26 $ 1,545,969.92
$ 6,405.36 $ 1,671,799.23
$ 6,940.56 $ 1,811,485.75
$ 7,535.51 $ 1,966,769.41
$ 8,197.84 $ 2,139,634.99
$ 8,936.21 $ 2,332,349.65
$ 9,760.56 $ 2,547,506.77
$ 10,682.29 $ 2,788,076.95
$ 11,714.44 $ 3,057,467.77
$ 12,872.01 $ 3,359,593.56
$ 14,172.25 $ 3,698,957.27
$ 15,635.04 $ 4,080,746.44
Hybrid
$
31,298,103
Short bridge
$
54,580,241
Daily Cost Annual Cost
$ 3,451.00 $ 900,711.00
$ 3,665.38 $ 956,663.17
$ 3,900.86 $ 1,018,123.27
$ 4,159.77 $ 1,085,698.88
$ 4,444.73 $ 1,160,075.20
$ 4,758.72 $ 1,242,025.80
$ 5,105.08 $ 1,332,425
$ 5,487.60 $ 1,432,262.85
$ 5,910.58 $ 1,542,660.52
$ 6,378.89 $ 1,664,890.68
$ 6,898.08 $ 1,800,399.17
$ 7,474.45 $ 1,950,830.81
$ 8,115.17 $ 2,118,059.37
$ 8,828.44 $ 2,304,222.29
$ 9,623.61 $ 2,511,761.16
$ 10,511.37 $ 2,743,468.82
$ 11,504.00 $ 3,002,544.41
$ 12,615.55 $ 3,292,657.59
$ 13,862.16 $ 3,618,023.83
$ 15,262.42 $ 3,983,492.44
$ 16,837.74 $ 4,394,650.01
Short bridge
$
33,705,650
SPUI
$
Daily Cost
$ 1,049.75
$ 1,114.96
$ 1,186.59
$ 1,265.35
$ 1,352.03
$ 1,447.54
$ 1,552.90
$ 1,669.26
$ 1,797.92
$ 1,940.38
$ 2,098.31
$ 2,273.63
$ 2,468.53
$ 2,685.50
$ 2,927.38
$ 3,197.43
$ 3,499.37
$ 3,837.49
$ 4,216.69
$ 4,642.63
$ 5,121.82
$
Figure 29 shows graphically the escalation of user cost each year for fuel.
Figure 29. Annual User Costs
74 | P a g e
90,326,870
Annual Cost
$ 273,984.75
$ 291,004.68
$ 309,700.06
$ 330,255.70
$ 352,880.02
$ 377,808.34
$ 405,306.65
$ 435,676.01
$ 469,257.57
$ 506,438.42
$ 547,658.37
$ 593,417.75
$ 644,286.53
$ 700,914.91
$ 764,045.58
$ 834,528.08
$ 913,335.55
$ 1,001,584.27
$ 1,100,556.51
$ 1,211,727.38
$ 1,336,796.25
SPUI
190,757
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 31.
75 | P a g e
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 1.17. 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*
Cost*
Benefit/Cost
*In 2015 dollars
76 | P a g e
$76.2
$65.3
1.17
$73.8
$65.5
1.13
$107.3
$108.3
0.99
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
Construction Staging
The construction staging of the preferred alternative was developed in detail and is
shown in the following figures.
Stage 1a consists of constructing the NB off ramp while leaving all other existing ramps
open to traffic. The green shading in Figure 33 represents the construction area.
Figure 33. Stage 1a - Construct NB Off Ramp
79 | P a g e
Stage 1b consists of constructing the southbound loop on ramp as shown in Figure 34
in green. This can be done when the proposed NB off ramp is complete. The nonconflicting portions of the loop ramp can be constructed at the same time as the NB
loop, so that part could be considered part of stage one and reduce mobilization costs.
Figure 34. Stage 1b - Construct Southbound Loop on Ramp
80 | P a g e
Stage 2a consists of closing the existing intersection and NB on ramp shown in Figure
35. This will make way for construction of the high speed NB on ramp shown in stage
2b shown in Figure 36
Figure 35. Stage 2a - Close Existing NB Intersection
81 | P a g e
Since the NB loop ramp is open traffic is still not restricted from its original condition in
any direction.
Figure 36. Stage 2b - Construct NB High Speed on Ramp
82 | P a g e
While traffic still uses the old bridge the road will be constructed there are no conflicts
as shown in . The grades are slightly different so small temporary retaining walls will be
used.
Figure 37. Stage 3 - Construct North Half of Overcrossing
83 | P a g e
Stage four will shift traffic from the old bridge and put it on the newly constructed north
half. A temporary hill shown in orange in Figure 38 will provide a grade to match
existing and proposed grades.
Figure 38. Stage 4a - Shift Traffic to New Bridge
84 | P a g e
As stage four continues the south half of the proposed overcrossing will be constructed
as shown in green in Figure 39 and the old bridge demolished.
Figure 39. Stage 4b - Construct Southern Portion of Overcrossing
85 | P a g e
Traffic will then be shifted to the new grade west of Cajalco, then bring the grade of the
yellow portion up to the proposed elevation and the Bridge Construction is complete.
This can be seen below in Figure 40.
Figure 40. Stage 4c - Move Traffic to New Grade
86 | P a g e
Now traffic can use both sides of the bridge and the SB ramps still need to be
constructed as shown in Figure 41.
Figure 41. Stage 4d - Open Cajalco Overcrossing to Ultimate Layout
87 | P a g e
Stage 5a is the construction of a temporary loop on ramp to keep accessibility while the
new loop ramp is being constructed. This is represented by the yellow shading in Figure
42.
Figure 42. Stage 5a - Construct Temporary SB Loop on Ramp
88 | P a g e
The SB off ramp will be constructed next in non-conflicting zones while traffic still uses
the existing. This can be seen in stage 5b as show in Figure 43 below.
Figure 43. Stage 5b - Construct SB off Ramp
89 | P a g e
Once the SB off ramp is open, the existing no longer conflicts and the new SB loop on
ramp can be constructed as shown in green in Figure 44
Figure 44. Stage 5c - Open Proposed SB off and Construct SB Loop on Ramp
90 | P a g e
When the loop on ramp is complete, the temporary SB loop on ramp will be demolished
and the interchange will be complete as shown in Figure 45.
Figure 45. Interchange Completion
91 | P a g e
Environmental Review
Regulatory Framework
The scope of the environmental portion covers three major areas that include air, water
and noise pollution. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be compiled addressing
the three areas, in accordance to NEPA and CEQA. The regulatory frameworks for
these three areas are outlined below.
Air Quality Management
The two regulatory statutes that make up California transportation air quality
requirements include the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and the California Clean Air Act
(CCAA) both governed by the EPA and CalEPA, respectively. Both set primary and
secondary standard for six pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone,
sulfur dioxide, and particulates (PM10 and PM2.5).
Our project goal is to increase traffic capacity over the Cajalco Rd. over pass at the I-15
as well as facilitate overall traffic flow through that area. The impact is likely to cause a
positive effect on regional air quality since capacity improvement and alignment
changes often improve vehicle emission controls. Since this project is designed for
2035, future traffic growth will, to a certain degree, counteract these reductions. The
short term construction process and equipment could be an issue if it is not accounted
for in local air quality plans and statutes.
Water Sediment Control
The project site lies in the Santa Ana watershed (Region 8). About 350 yards southeast
of the project site is a natural wash that runs in the southwest direction. It is critical that
storm water runoff passing through the project site does not flow out with sediments
exceeding a certain turbidity level.
Appropriate sediment control measures must be set in place in accordance with
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). This includes passing a set
turbidity standard during site inspections. The target turbidity level should stay below
500 NTU at all times. This can be achieved using hydraulic mulch, bonded fiber matrix,
hydroseeding on the slope faces to control sediment discharge in conjunction with silt
fences and fiber rolls at the base to filter the outgoing runoff. Amount and types of
sediment control materials are based on a final design.
Noise Pollution
The area surrounding the project site all contain businesses both on the east and west
ends. The nearest residential area is approximately 1000 feet west of the site. Section
14-8.02 of Caltrans Standard Specifications (Noise Control) outlines certain
requirements if construction results in adverse noise impacts. This includes not
92 | P a g e
exceeding 86 dBA at 50 feet from jobsite between 9 P.M. and 6 A.M. and operating all
machinery with internal combustion engines with a manufacturer recommended muffler.
Project plans and specifications must outline abatement measures that would eliminate
or minimize negative construction noise impacts on the surrounding community.
Caltrans will ultimately consider the overall social, economic and environmental benefits
and cost for the construction noise abatement.
Project Specific Mitigation and Minimization
Air Quality
According to the SCAQMD, the project area is not a critical carbon monoxide (CO)
pollution area and meets federal and state air quality standards. The project should not
exceed 1-hour and 8-hour CO standards. The project was also determined to not
contribute to any PM2.5 and PM10 particulates and complies with federal and state
particulate matter standards.
The construction phase for this project could have an impact on local air quality. The
project should conform to SCAQMD Rules and Regulations and Caltrans Standard
Construction Specifications to help lessen dust emissions and construction related
equipment emissions. The following is a list of project related measures that should be
implemented to alleviate detrimental air quality impacts:
 Ensure the contractor selects low emission and high efficiency construction
equipment during construction
 Ensure the contractor tunes and maintains all emission-producing equipment
according to manufacturer’s specifications
 Ensure the contractor utilizes electric or diesel powered equipment instead of
gasoline powered equipment wherever practical
 Ensure the contractor times all construction activities to not interfere with peakhour traffic
 Ensure the contractor promotes and encourages ridesharing among all
employees and sub-contractors by providing incentives to abiders
Water Quality
Project specific mitigation measures are heavily dependent on a final design. Refer to
Regulatory Framework, Section B for general project mitigation procedures.
Noise Quality
Project specific abatement measures are pending. Refer to Regulatory Framework,
Section C for general Best Management Practice (BMP).
93 | P a g e
References
Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM), 2012
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 2010
District 8 Geometric Approval Drawing (GAD) Guidelines, 2012
FHWA Interstate System Access Information Guide, AUG. 2010
95 | P a g e
Appendix
Attachment 1. APS
Attachment 2. GAD’s
97 | P a g e

I-15/ cajalco Road interchange improvements

Transcription

Similar documents

info! - American Senior Communities

m8 harthill bridge lanarkshire, uk

Salginatobel Bridge

Suspension Wire 2

Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge Charleston, SC

covered bridge tour

The Bridge Builder

The Mermaid Bridge / ATELIER MARIJKE DE GOEY

Who is eligible? - Westmoreland County Community College