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