Memorandum 38 Chauncy Street Suite 200 Boston, MA 02111 T 857-453-5450 F 857-453-5451 www.transystems.com To: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Subject: Fall River / Davol Street Corridor Study: Response to December 2013 FHWA Meeting Date: February 10, 2014 In December 2013, MassDOT and FHWA met to discuss the Route 79 / Davol Street Corridor Study currently being conducted in Fall River, Massachusetts. At this meeting, three proposed transportation alternatives were presented to FHWA for discussion and review. These alternatives are included in the attached Appendix. Generally described, Alternative 1 would reconstruct Route 79 as an elevated roadway in a new alignment that bridges over three new east-west connections. Alternative 2 converts Route 79 to an urban boulevard with Southbound Davol Street converted to a two-way access road to the west, along with new east-west connections. Alternative 3 converts Route 79 to an urban boulevard with two one-way frontage roads to the east and west, and also creates new east-west connections. FHWA made several comments regarding the developed alternatives. The FHWA comments are summarized below: 1. Provide a cost estimate for just providing the additional east-west connections under the existing Route 79 by constructing new underpasses and no realignment of the mainline. 2. For Alternative 2, evaluate the following: a. Remove or shorten the western side access road. Provide access to existing and new parcels via the east-west access roads. b. Reduce the cross section of Route 79 from 3 lanes in each direction to 2 lanes in each direction. 3. In each alternative, provide order of magnitude costs for the reclamation and repayment of right-of-way originally purchased by the FHWA 4. In each alternative, review the number of shared use path crossings on the western side of Route 79 5. Evaluate the impacts of climate change on the alternatives In response to these comments, additional analysis was conducted by the study team. The following sections in this memorandum summarize MassDOT’s responses to FHWA’s comment, and also include the analysis and results when applicable. FHWA Meeting Response Memorandum March 2014 1. Cost Estimate to Construct New East-West Connections under Existing Route 79 Although envisioned as a potential lower-cost approach to study Alternative 1, constructing the new east-west connections under Route 79 within the existing alignment has been estimated to cost $80 million. The estimated cost is $20 million lower than study Alternative 1 but still significantly more expensive than study Alternatives 2 & 3. The primary reason that the approach suggested by FHWA does not provide the cost savings expected is that the existing profile of Route 79 is elevated only a few feet higher than Northbound and Southbound Davol Streets along much of the corridor. Route 79 would need to be raised by several feet to provide adequate clearance for the new east-west connections. The revised approach for study Alternative 1proposed by FHWA would also have flood zone implications, construction staging issues, and reduce Brightman Street access. These identified issues are documented below. Impacts to Abutters This option would maintain the existing Route 79 alignment as a limited-access roadway, which is elevated on an earthen berm and is carried on bridges over the U-turn near Cedar Street and President Avenue. Between these two locations and north of President Avenue, the profile of Route 79 lowers to only a few feet higher in elevation than the profiles of Northbound and Southbound Davol Streets. The Route 79 mainline profile would have to be raised approximately 10 feet to provide the three new eastwest connections beneath Route 79 at Turner Street, South Coast Rail, and Brownell Street. The alternative approach, depressing the profiles of the east-west roadway connections by roughly 10 to 15 feet to achieve adequate clearance under Route 79, would require construction of retaining walls along the east-west roadways beyond both Northbound and Southbound Davol Streets. The elevation difference between the existing ground and roadway would significantly steepen driveways or would potentially reduce access to abutting properties along the east-west roadways and along Northbound and Southbound Davol Streets as well as potentially impacting the building structures adjacent to the roadways. Flood Zone Implications Due to proximity to the Taunton River, lowering or depressing of the east-west roadways would require the installation of pump stations at each underpass both to comply with general stormwater treatment practices and because they would be below the 100-year flood elevation. While pump stations are feasible, they would carry additional long-term maintenance costs. Additional detailed information on the flood zones limits relative to the developed alternatives is provided in the appendices. Construction Staging Maintaining traffic flow during reconstruction of Route 79 on its current alignment would require staging that would only allow the roadway to be built one direction at a time. For example, northbound and southbound Route 79 traffic would need to be shifted (along with capacity reductions/restrictions) so that all traffic would be alternatively located on the northbound or southbound lanes, in order to reconstruct the opposing direction. Additionally, because a profile raise is necessary for the addition of east-west crossings, sheet piles or temporary retaining walls would be required in the median to support embankment for the proposed roadway travel lanes and bridges, which would further complicate the construction staging plan. Page 2 FHWA Meeting Response Memorandum March 2014 Brightman Street Access Impacts Keeping Route 79 on its existing alignment would preclude connecting Brightman Street to Southbound Davol Street and southbound Route 79. However, access to northbound Route 79 could be provided similar to the connections developed for Alternative 1. Cost Estimate The limits of construction for this option would be less than Alternative 1, beginning north of the U-turn near Cedar Street and ending south of the Brightman Street U-Turn, reducing the overall pavement amount and the number of bridges requiring construction. Maintaining the existing alignment would also significantly decrease the amount of earthwork required as much of the fill would not need to be moved or removed. As this option does not create land for redevelopment, the construction of retaining walls is less extensive than in the original Alternative 1. For these reasons, the estimated cost for this option ($80 Million) is lower than the estimated cost for Alternative 1 ($100 Million). A breakdown of this construction cost estimate is provided in the Appendix. Conclusion While the approach proposed by FHWA is estimated to cost approximately $20 Million less than study Alternative 1, it is still significantly more expensive than study Alternatives 2 and 3 (approximately $55 Million each). This modification to Alternative 1 would also not create any new land for economic development which, along with mobility and connectivity, is a key goal of the study. Given the lack of significant cost savings and the fact that this option does not serve one of the primary study goals, it is recommended that this modification not be considered for further analysis. 2. Alternative 2 Modifications – Western Access Road and Route 79 Cross Section Background An alternative similar to one proposed by FHWA was presented to the Working Group during the Alternatives Development phase of this study. Referred to as Alternative 2C, this alternative would reconstruct Route 79 as an urban boulevard and eliminate all parallel access roads. Access to existing parcels and newly created parcels would be provided via both the east-west cross streets and internal circulation roads within the parcels. A schematic of Alternative 2C is included in the Appendix. Several of the Working Group members stated that a frontage road needed to be shown with all Alternatives to ensure that access would be maintained for existing and future abutters along the western side of Route 79, particularly between President Avenue and Brownell Street, as Brownell Street provides direct access to the waterfront. Additionally, the Working Group strongly encouraged the study team to maintain as much street parking as possible along Southbound Davol Street for seasonal waterfront events and for businesses. Lastly, maintaining Southbound Davol Street for some local or circulatory traffic was also intended to improve operations for the Route 79 mainline. Based on this input from the Working Group, the roadway configuration and alignment of Alternative 2 was conceptually laid out to accommodate adequate capacity for the 2035 Future No-Build volumes, as well as the expected additional traffic from 1.2 million square feet of mixed-use development on land that was opened for non-transportation uses. This layout generally provides three lanes in each direction on the Route 79 mainline with exclusive turning lanes at the intersections to accommodate vehicle turns and queuing. Page 3 FHWA Meeting Response Memorandum March 2014 The resulting operational analysis of Alternative 2 provided Levels of Service of C or D on all approaches and also minimized intersection blockages during peak hours. While Alternative 2 would provide acceptable levels of operations and mobility for local and regional vehicular traffic, it would require a large roadway cross section and has very long crosswalks for pedestrians and bicyclists. As noted previously, a graphic and operational analysis of Alternative 2 is included in the appendix of this memorandum. It is the width of the cross section along both the mainline and at the intersections that was of concern to FHWA. The following section provides responses and a summary of the additional analysis that was conducted to address FHWA’s suggestion that MassDOT examine a variation of Alternative 2 that reduces the amount of pavement cross-section on Route 79, and that also removes or shortens the western-side access road (Southbound Davol Street). The study team developed “Alternative 2 – Modified” based on FHWA’s comments (a graphic of Alternative 2 – Modified is included in the Appendix). This alternative was based on study Alternative 2 with the following changes noted below: • The Route 79 mainline was reduced from three lanes to two lanes in each direction. • The western access road would be two-way road from President Avenue to the ramps from Route 79 and Route 6, and between Baylies Street and Hathaway Street. These sections of roadway would provide a continuation of Route 6 and would maintain full access to Commonwealth Landing, Bicentennial Park, the Point Gloria Condominiums, and properties off Hathaway Street. • Through movement along the western access road was terminated south of President Avenue, with isolated segments of the former access road being maintained to provide access to existing parcels and businesses. Operational Analysis The traffic volumes developed and modeled for Alternative 2 were redistributed based on the changes in the roadway network. In Alternative 2 – Modified during the morning peak hour, all intersections would function with an overall LOS of C or better, but several traffic movements would have LOS of E or F with long queues. For example, at the intersection of Route 79 and Cory Street the southbound through movement queue would extend back to the Route 6 on-ramp merge. In the afternoon peak hour, Route 79 intersections would operate at LOS D or better overall, with a number of individual approaches failing and/or experiencing long queues. The southbound direction along Route 79 would experience queues extended from Turner Street to President Avenue and from Cory Street to the Route 6 on-ramp merge. Vehicles traveling eastbound on South Coast Rail/Taylor Street and President Avenue at Route 79 would form a queue that extends beyond the access road intersections. The Alternative 2 – Modified Level of Service Analysis is included in the Appendix. Benefits to Pedestrians and Bicyclists With a reduced cross section, pedestrian and bicyclist travel time across Route 79 is reduced by roughly 7 seconds. The time savings from the reduced pedestrian crossing distance would be reallocated to the through traffic movement. With the shorter crossing times being offset by longer wait times, the overall pedestrian delay with the narrower Route 79 corridor will be similar to Alternative 2. The smaller intersections along Route 79 would improve visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists, and the reduced overall pavement width of Route 79 would aesthetically provide a more pedestrian friendly environment within the corridor. Page 4 FHWA Meeting Response Memorandum March 2014 Conclusion While Alternative 2 would provide adequate regional and local vehicular mobility in terms of LOS, it would also result in a wide pavement cross-section. Alternative 2 – Modified would provide shorter crossing distances, but would also experience a reduction in LOS for certain movements in the corridor. However, the additional analysis for Alternative 2 – Modified did not entail the use of a travel demand model, and therefore, did not assume any vehicle diversions based on a reduced capacity. Therefore, MassDOT feels that Alternative 2 – Modified warrants further consideration and analysis for inclusion in the Alternatives Analysis task of the study. 3. Right-of-Way Reclamation/Repayment The City of Fall River has expressed a desire to redesign the Route 79 and Davol Street corridor in a way that consolidates the existing transportation infrastructure with the intent of creating new developable parcels in the study corridor. The study has therefore made promotion of economic development, both regionally and within the focus area, a major focus. Each study alternative created several open parcels of land which are summarized in the follow table based on total acreage: Table 1: Parcels Created for Redevelopment by Alternative Developable Parcels Route 79 Alternative Created (Total Acreage) Alternative 1 10.1 Alternative 2 10.6 Alternative 2 – Modified 14.6 Alternative 3 15.1 Many of the new parcels created are located wholly or partially within the right-of-way currently owned by MassDOT (also known as the State Highway Layout (SHLO)). The land within the SHLO that Route 79 currently occupies was funded by the federal government and federal guidelines require that the value of this land be reimbursed to the federal government if the land is re-purposed or sold for public or private non-transportation purposes. As part of the additional analysis requested by FHWA, MassDOT’s SHLO plans were researched and digitally overlaid onto the alternatives to determine the amount of developable land that would be within the SHLO. Graphics for each alternative are included in the Appendix, and the following table summarizes the total land area that would be within the SHLO. Table 2: Total Parcel Areas within SHLO Developable Parcels Acreage of Parcels within Route 79 Alternative Created (Total Acreage) SHLO Alternative 1 10.1 9.5 Alternative 2 10.6 9.9 Alternative 2 – Modified 14.6 12.2 Alternative 3 15.1 14.1 Page 5 FHWA Meeting Response Memorandum March 2014 Conclusion In consultation with MassDOT’s Right-of-Way (ROW) bureau, the process for determining the value of land for reimbursing the federal government would be conducted as part of the project development process. This would allow the surveying and design engineering to progress to a point where exact land area amounts could be determined. This would then be followed by a local real estate analysis to determine fair market value for the parcels that would be sold or transferred by MassDOT. However, Table M-2 provides order of magnitude estimates of the land area that would need to be reimbursed to the federal government. Additionally, the study’s final report and recommendations will include a section on the ROW reclamation/reimbursement requirement, which will outline the federal guidance and identify the parties responsible for implementation and repayment. 4. Shared Use Path Crossings A shared use path would be located adjacent to the western access road in each of the study alternatives to improve both commuter bike access and recreational bicycle access to the waterfront. FHWA stated that the multiple driveways and access points along the path introduce multiple conflict points with vehicles and raise concerns for the bicyclists and pedestrians using this path. Response The distance between crossings along this path would vary from approximately 150’ to 650’. The closest crossings are located between Baylies Street and Taylor Street (150’) and between Taylor Street and Hathaway Street (210’). All other segments of shared use path are at least 300’ long. These distances, combined with the limited number of crossings, will allow bicyclists to travel along the shared use path without frequent stopping. All distances between crossings provide minimum stopping sight distance for bicyclists. All shared use path crossings along Southbound Davol Street will be designed as adjacent path crossings with clear sight lines providing visibility between all users of the shared use path and roadway. The distances between crossings will also provide clarity at the intersections, allowing all users to easily recognize other vehicles or bicyclists as intersecting traffic. However, in order to reduce the number of shared use path crossings, the number of access points of existing parcels along the western side of Southbound Davol Street would need to be reduced or the shared use path would need to be relocated further west onto private property along the Taunton River. While a relocation of the path would be attractive to recreational users, a less direct route along the corridor would lengthen commuter bicycle access travel time and would shift bicyclists traveling to or from corridor developments to using the sidewalks or roadway for access. Shared use path crossings would be designed to the latest engineering standards and would include the appropriate signage and pavement markings necessary for safe negotiation of bicycles and pedestrians. Any crossings between the shared use path and driveways or sidestreets would be designed to provide adequate sight distance for all users. MassDOT does not feel that the number of crossings is a concern for the developed alternatives, and any design issues would be adequately addressed as part of the project development process. Page 6 FHWA Meeting Response Memorandum March 2014 5. Climate Change Background Designing transportation infrastructure to account for the future effects and impacts of climate change and resulting rise in ‘still-water’ sea level, as well as the frequency and severity of coastal storm events has become increasingly important in Massachusetts given its amount of coastline, historic maritime activities, and extensive waterfront development. In 2008, the Global Warming Solutions Act was passed that created a framework for achieving significant reductions in Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from all sectors of the economy. Primary to the success of this new law requires that the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA), in consultation with other state agencies and the public, set economy-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction goals. However, in recognition that Massachusetts will still need to mitigate the effects of climate change on its infrastructure, EOEEA also established the Climate Change Adaptation Advisory Committee to study and make recommendations on strategies for adapting to climate change. The Climate Change Adaption Report, released in September 2011, included a recommendation that revised transportation infrastructure design standards should be developed and that they are consistent with the guidelines of entities such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Federal Highway Administration, American Public Transit Association, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration, and the Federal Aviation Administration. While MassDOT at this time does not have a policy that addresses designing its infrastructure for adaption to climate change, as part of the GWSA we are continuing to work with EOEEA and other state and federal agencies with the intent of developing a standard approach and revised design standards. Analysis As stated above, MassDOT does not have any standard approach for addressing climate change. However, given the proximity of Route 79 to the Taunton River which opens up into Narragansett Bay MassDOT has identified the major climate change threats as being flooding due to a rise in sea level and the wave action that may result. MassDOT has not quantified the potential sea level rise so as a substitute, the 100-year flood plains were overlaid on the study’s alternatives. The 100-year flood plains data represents historical data and the resulting areas at risk for general flooding. This data does not account for any future rise in sea-level, but does provide an indication of where the current or proposed transportation infrastructure may be at risk during flood events. Portions of the existing roadways are within the 100-year flood plain. In all alternatives, Northbound and Southbound Davol Streets are within the flood plain. In the No-Build Alternative and in Alternative 1, Route 79 is elevated above the flood plain elevations. In Alternatives 2 and 3, where Route 79 is lowered to the elevations of Northbound and Southbound Davol Streets, Route 79 between Cedar Street and Turner Street would be located within the 100-year flood plain. Please see the appendix for graphics of Alternatives 1, 2, 2Modified, and 3 overlaid with the 100-year flood plain data. Additionally, as part of the National Flood Insurance Program, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed flood insurance rate maps (FIRM), which can be used as a primary source of assessing the impacts of wave action from coastal storm events on transportation infrastructure. These FIRM maps more explicitly delineate special hazard areas and risk premium zones. FIRM maps Page 7 FHWA Meeting Response Memorandum March 2014 from 2009, which is the latest available data, are included in the Appendix. These maps show that in the southern end of the study area, portions of Route 79 and Davol Street northbound and southbound between Cedar Street and Baylies Street are within a coastal flood zone with velocity hazard. The elevations of the velocity hazard zones are below Route 79 when it is an elevated roadway. This means that during a storm event, there is a risk that wave action will flood the area and potentially inundate the transportation infrastructure. Conclusion Based on this analysis, Route 79 would not be prone to flooding in either the No-Build Alternative or in Alternative 1. Route 79 would be prone to flooding in Alternatives 2 & 3 where the roadway is brought down at-grade. While this conceptual planning study has identified portions of the study area and proposed alternatives that may be impacted by flood events, the impacts of climate change and any necessary adaptation to the alternatives would be further evaluated during the design and permitting processes. More specifically, the survey elevations for these roadways and any associated mitigation for any proposed alternatives would need to be evaluated. The alternatives would also need to be compared to the No-Build Condition, which currently provides a physical wave action barrier as Route 79 is elevated on earthen berm. Additionally, the Flood Insurance Act of 2012 requires that FEMA develop new FIRM maps. This process is currently underway and FIRM maps for Bristol County are projected to be released in July of 2014. These updated maps should be used as part of the environmental permitting and design processes. Page 8 FHWA Meeting Response Memorandum February 2014 Appendix Alternative 1 – Elevated Route 79................................................................................................................................. 1 Alternative 2 – At Grade Route 79............................................................................................................................... 2 Alternative 3 – At Grade Route 79 with Frontage Roads ....................................................................................... 3 Cost Estimate ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Alternative 2C .................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Alternative 2 – Modified – At Grade Route 79.......................................................................................................... 6 Alternative 2 – Level of Service Analysis .............................................................................................................. 7 – 8 Alternative 2 – Modified – Level of Service Analysis ....................................................................................... 9 – 10 Alternative 1 – Parcel Areas within SHLO ................................................................................................................ 11 Alternative 2 – Parcel Areas within SHLO ................................................................................................................ 12 Alternative 2 – Modified – Parcel Areas within SHLO ........................................................................................... 13 Alternative 3 – Parcel Areas within SHLO ................................................................................................................ 14 Flood Insurance Rate Maps ..................................................................................................................................15 – 18 Alternative 1 with 100-year Flood Plain..................................................................................................................... 19 Alternative 2 with 100-year Flood Plain..................................................................................................................... 20 Alternative 2 – Modified with 100-year Flood Plain ................................................................................................ 21 Alternative 3 with 100-year Flood Plain..................................................................................................................... 22 Route 79 / Davol Street Corridor Study Alternatives Analysis - Cost Estimate January 2014 ITEM Earthwork Excavation Ordinary Borrow Bridge Removal Drainage Pavement Roadway Pavement Granite Curb Sidewalks Shared Use Paths Erosion Control ALTERNATIVE 1 Elevated Route 79 QUANTITY TOTAL ALTERNATIVE 1 - FHWA Elevated Route 79 QUANTITY TOTAL ALTERNATIVE 2 At-Grade Route 79 QUANTITY TOTAL ALTERNATIVE 2 - MODIFIED At-Grade Route 79 QUANTITY TOTAL ALTERNATIVE 3 At-Grade Route 79 with Frontage Roads QUANTITY TOTAL UNIT PRICE UNIT $25.00 $25.00 $350,000.00 1 CY CY EA LS 191,700 38,900 5 $3,500,000 $ $ $ $ 4,792,500 972,500 1,750,000 3,500,000 24,000 38,900 4 $3,500,000 $ $ $ $ 600,000 972,500 1,400,000 3,500,000 191,700 0 5 $4,250,000 $ $ $ $ 4,792,500 1,750,000 4,250,000 191,700 0 5 $4,250,000 $ $ $ $ 4,792,500 1,750,000 4,250,000 191,700 0 5 $4,250,000 $ $ $ $ 4,792,500 1,750,000 4,250,000 $75.00 $40.00 $65.00 $40.00 SY FT SY SY 110,300 26,500 3,600 13,500 $ $ $ $ 8,272,500 1,060,000 234,000 540,000 89,300 26,500 3,600 13,500 $ $ $ $ 6,697,500 1,060,000 234,000 540,000 116,100 37,750 4,600 13,400 $ $ $ $ 8,707,500 1,510,000 299,000 536,000 93,800 34,000 3,300 13,500 $ $ $ $ 7,035,000 1,360,000 214,500 540,000 103,000 43,500 3,900 13,700 $ $ $ $ 7,725,000 1,740,000 253,500 548,000 10 % 658,000 of Drainage & Landscaping $ 655,000 Landscaping $15.00 Lighting 1 Traffic Signals Major Intersections $250,000.00 Minor Intersections $175,000.00 Maintenance of Traffic Traffic Management & Protection $5,000,000.00 Police Detail $75,000.00 Signing 1 Pavement Marking $1.50 Structural Bridges $2,500,000.00 Retaining Walls - High $2,700.00 Retaining Walls - Low $1,250.00 Field Office $3,000.00 Utilities 2 Incidentals 2 Mobilization 3 of Drainage & Landscaping $ 530,000 of Drainage & Landscaping $ 530,000 of Drainage & Landscaping $ 634,000 of Drainage & Landscaping $ SY LS 119,600 $1,150,000 $ $ 1,794,000 1,150,000 119,600 $1,150,000 $ $ 1,794,000 1,150,000 138,900 $1,300,000 $ $ 2,083,500 1,300,000 154,900 $1,300,000 $ $ 2,323,500 1,300,000 EA EA 1 6 $ $ 250,000 1,050,000 1 6 $ $ 250,000 1,050,000 4 0 $ $ 1,000,000 - 2 2 $ $ 500,000 350,000 LS MO LS FT 1 48 $550,000 90,000 $ $ $ $ 5,000,000 3,600,000 550,000 135,000 1 48 $550,000 80,000 $ $ $ $ 6,000,000 3,600,000 550,000 120,000 1 36 $850,000 95,000 $ $ $ $ 5,000,000 2,700,000 850,000 142,500 1 36 $850,000 75,000 $ $ $ $ EA FT FT MO % % % 10 5,000 1,000 48 of Construction of Construction of Construction $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 25,000,000 13,500,000 1,250,000 144,000 1,502,000 1,502,000 2,253,000 8 2,000 3,500 48 of Construction of Construction of Construction $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 20,000,000 5,400,000 4,375,000 144,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,800,000 0 2,000 800 36 of Construction of Construction of Construction $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,400,000 1,000,000 108,000 842,000 842,000 1,262,000 0 2,000 800 36 of Construction of Construction of Construction Subtotal Alternative 1 $ 80,331,500 Subtotal Alternative 1 $ FHWA 64,167,000 Subtotal Alternative 2 $ 45,009,000 Contingency (20%) $ 16,070,000 Contingency (20%) $ 12,840,000 Contingency (20%) $ 9,010,000 Contingency (20%) Total - Alternative 1 $ 96,410,000 Total - Alternative 1 $ FHWA 77,010,000 Total - Alternative 2 $ 100,000,000 Say Alternative 1 - FHWA $ 80,000,000 Say Alternative 2 $ Say Alternative 1 $ 153,300 $1,500,000 $ $ 2,299,500 1,500,000 4 2 $ $ 1,000,000 350,000 5,000,000 2,700,000 850,000 112,500 1 36 $850,000 90,000 $ $ $ $ 5,000,000 2,700,000 850,000 135,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,400,000 1,000,000 108,000 805,000 805,000 1,208,000 0 2,000 0 36 of Construction of Construction of Construction $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,400,000 108,000 822,000 822,000 1,232,000 Subtotal Alternative 2 $ MODIFIED 43,062,000 Subtotal Alternative 3 $ 43,932,500 $ 8,620,000 Contingency (20%) $ 8,790,000 54,020,000 Total - Alternative 2 $ MODIFIED 51,690,000 Total - Alternative 3 $ 52,730,000 55,000,000 Say Alternative 2 $ MODIFIED 55,000,000 Say Alternative 3 $ 55,000,000 ALTERNATIVE 2 Route 79: 6-Lane Boulevard AM Peak Hour Intersection Movement Route 79 & Turner Street NB L NB TR SB L SB TR EB LTR WB LTR Intersection v/c Delay LOS 50th Queue 95th Queue 0.22 0.76 0.66 0.94 0.07 0.82 0.83 25.7 24.5 35.9 35.5 19.4 40.4 31.6 C C D D B D C 32 174 108 261 11 147 68 228 198 362 33 298 NB L NB T NB R SB L SB TR EB LTR WB LTR Intersection 0.54 0.40 0.01 0.60 0.77 0.08 0.01 0.48 40.2 9.7 7.8 43.9 13.6 15.7 15.0 12.9 D A A D B B B B 7 56 0 10 138 8 1 29 113 8 34 257 30 6 Route 79 & Preseident Avenue NB L NB T NB R SB L SB TR EB LTR WB L WB T WB R Intersection 0.63 0.38 0.05 0.96 0.77 0.15 0.36 0.18 0.26 0.62 51.0 23.2 18.2 53.5 18.8 30.4 22.6 21.2 22.5 25.9 D C B D B C C C C C 15 125 0 119 164 7 50 24 0 41 167 30 209 327 22 80 55 62 0.62 0.53 0.33 0.87 0.34 0.09 0.68 52.0 9.9 37.8 16.6 19.4 16.1 14.6 D A D B B B B 8 85 2 175 28 8 31 162 13 373 78 34 Route 79 & South Coast Rail Route 79 & Cory Street NB L NB TR SB L SB TR EB LTR WB LTR Intersection ALTERNATIVE 2 Route 79: 6-Lane Boulevard PM Peak Hour Intersection Movement Route 79 & Turner Street NB L NB TR SB L SB TR EB LTR WB LTR Intersection v/c Delay LOS 50th Queue 95th Queue 0.31 0.83 0.38 0.93 0.30 0.20 0.65 29.5 22.2 30.7 28.4 29.3 28.1 25.9 C C C C C C C 47 282 58 354 44 16 92 349 109 476 91 68 NB L NB T NB R SB L SB TR EB LTR WB LTR Intersection 0.49 0.61 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.22 0.02 0.70 33.7 8.8 0.0 0.0 35.9 14.2 12.3 23.8 C A A A D B B C 5 113 0 0 178 13 1 22 147 0 0 430 60 11 Route 79 & Preseident Avenue NB L NB T NB R SB L SB TR EB LTR WB L WB T WB R Intersection 0.45 0.92 0.23 1.02 0.73 0.73 0.48 0.15 0.23 0.81 43.2 34.8 20.1 76.8 19.1 47.9 31.9 28.4 29.7 34.2 D C C E B D C C C C 15 278 18 154 204 63 72 22 0 40 384 74 259 370 132 110 53 68 0.30 0.95 0.73 0.81 0.77 0.14 0.85 36.7 29.2 34.9 13.5 39.1 20.7 22.5 D C C B D C C 4 320 82 192 94 16 17 410 162 442 202 46 Route 79 & South Coast Rail Route 79 & Cory Street NB L NB TR SB L SB TR EB LTR WB LTR Intersection ALTERNATIVE 2 - MODIFIED Route 79: 4-Lane Boulevard AM Peak Hour Intersection Movement Route 79 & Turner Street NB L NB TR SB L SB TR EB LTR WB LTR Intersection v/c Delay LOS 50th Queue 95th Queue 0.26 0.83 0.80 1.00 0.10 1.04 0.97 34.0 26.8 58.5 36.0 27.6 93.4 40.0 C C E D C F D 41 305 133 414 17 222 83 404 199 625 45 400 NB L NB T NB R SB L SB TR EB LTR WB LTR Intersection 0.81 0.43 0.01 0.47 0.82 0.22 0.02 0.70 87.6 7.6 5.6 37.5 14.6 33.6 30.6 13.8 F A A D B C C B 14 102 0 19 322 29 2 17 167 0 26 406 64 10 Route 79 & Preseident Avenue NB L NB T NB R SB L SB TR EB LTR WB L WB T WB R Intersection 0.64 0.68 0.06 0.84 0.84 0.10 0.54 0.14 0.26 0.75 63.3 28.5 41.3 51.8 15.3 41.5 37.0 32.1 34.2 28.7 E C D D B D D C C C 28 242 3 176 158 4 88 22 0 64 307 14 214 293 21 130 53 83 0.90 0.57 0.47 0.92 0.36 0.14 0.80 133.3 19.2 65.6 19.8 36.6 32.2 21.3 F B E B D C C 15 297 4 375 39 17 24 401 18 792 97 52 Route 79 & South Coast Rail Route 79 & Cory Street NB L NB TR SB L SB TR EB LTR WB LTR Intersection ALTERNATIVE 2 - MODIFIED Route 79: 4-Lane Boulevard PM Peak Hour Intersection Movement Route 79 & Turner Street NB L NB TR SB L SB TR EB LTR WB LTR Intersection v/c Delay LOS 50th Queue 95th Queue 0.67 0.54 0.50 0.89 0.43 0.15 0.80 63.1 3.0 74.8 17.2 44.0 37.3 13.8 E A E B D D B 19 48 4 541 49 20 23 79 19 690 58 111 NB L NB T NB R SB L SB TR EB LTR WB LTR Intersection 0.82 0.68 0.00 0.07 0.96 0.91 0.04 0.93 81.1 3.4 4.7 56.9 19.3 77.2 34.0 17.2 F A A E B E C B 32 56 0 0 638 141 3 35 86 0 1 882 290 18 Route 79 & Preseident Avenue NB L NB T NB R SB L SB TR EB LTR WB L WB T WB R Intersection 0.90 1.00 0.34 1.02 0.83 1.18 0.64 0.08 0.30 0.95 124.8 56.7 37.0 65.0 24.2 163.7 44.8 36.2 40.1 51.4 F E D E C F D D D D 23 481 100 212 446 107 108 13 13 36 671 156 278 517 201 155 35 102 0.67 0.54 0.50 0.89 0.43 0.15 0.80 63.0 3.0 74.8 17.2 44.0 37.3 13.8 E A E B D D B 19 48 4 541 49 20 23 79 19 690 111 58 Route 79 & South Coast Rail Route 79 & Cory Street NB L NB TR SB L SB TR EB LTR WB LTR Intersection