HomeMy WebLinkAbout3203; TAM- CSBD TO JEFF- REDESIGN; IMPROVEMENT STUDY; 1990-01-01CMWt7iI -Leo t
RECEIVED
JAN 25 1990
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL PRO
STUDY FOR THE IMPROVEMENT
OF TAMARACK AVENUE
FROM CARLSBAD BOULEVARD TO JEFFERSON STREET
IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
JANUARY 1990
PREPARED BY:
LEEDSHILL-HERKENHOFF, INC.
10225 BARNES CANYON ROAD
SUITE A210
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Tamarack Avenue between Carlsbad Boulevard and Interstate 5 is an important
east/west transpbrtation element of the City of Carlsbad's circulation system. It
provides motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians access to the properties along the
Street, and to and from the beach area. Between Carlsbad Boulevard and Jefferson
Avenue the street is paved only for two lanes of traffic. No safe area is available for
pedestrians, bicycles or left turn movements into the private driveways.
This study examines three alternatives that provide a range of options to balance the
effect of improvement to the properties and still provide for traffic, parking, bicycles
and pedestrians.
Alternative 1 will require virtually no acquisition of property and provide for 2 lanes of
traffic, a two-way left turn and bicycle lanes. It is estimated to cost $851,845. No
parking along the Street will be allowed with this alternative.
Alternative 2 is the most costly, at an estimated. $2,876,200. It has the same traffic
lanes as Alternative 1 but will allow parking on both sides of the street. It will be the
most disruptive to the neighborhood because of the need to acquire right-of-way.
11
Alternative 3 is a combination of Alternative I and' 2. It utilizes right-of-way that has
been previously acquired along the south side of the street. Estimated cost is
$982,595. About 20 on-street parking spaces will be provided.
The consultant recommends Alternative 3. This will provide some parking on the
Street as well as bicycle lanes and adequate lanes for vehicular traffic.
Meetings will be held with the property owners to discuss the various alternatives. The
City Council eventually will be requested to adopt one of the alternatives.
II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . .
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . .
INTRODUCTION . . . •
PURPOSE OF STUDY . . . •
METHOD OF APPROACH . . . .
DISCUSSION OF PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENTS .
PRESERVATION OF TREES WEST OF JEFFERSON STREET
DISCUSSION OF FINAL THREE ALIGNMENTS .
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . .
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT A: RIGHT-OF-WAY ESTIMATES .
FIVE PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES
EXHIBIT B: CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE .
FINAL THREE ALTERNATIVES
EXHIBIT C: SUMMARY OF ALL COSTS .
FINAL THREE ALTERNATIVES
EXHIBIT D: PLANS FOR FINAL THREE ALTERNATIVES
(SEPARATE DOCUMENT)
III
PAGE
ALIGNMENT STUDY FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF TAMARACK AVENUE
FROM CARLSBAD BOULEVARD TO JEFFERSON STREET
FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
INTRODUCTION
Tamarack Avenue is one of the major routes between Carlsbad Boulevard and Interstate
5. It is shown on the adopted circulation element of the General Plan as a collector Street.
About 9,200 vehicles per day now use the street. It is expected this will increase to as
much as 13,000 in the future. Tamarack Avenue not only carries heavy vehicular traffic,
but also pedestrians and bicyclists bound to and from the beach. Improvements have
been made to that portion of Tamarack Avenue between Jefferson Street and 1-5. The
remainder is only two lanes with no shoulders for either pedestrians or bicycles. At
present, the bicyclists are mixed with the traffic, and in many situations they are forced off
the street when two cars meet. The addition of adequate bike lanes would .provide a much
greater degree of safety than now exists.
Most of Tamarack Avenue is paved approximately 24 feet wide with no curb, gutter or
sidewalk. The right-of-way width is 60 feet except in those areas where the City has
obtained additional dedications or holds Irrevocable Offers to Dedicate from properties
that have been developed in the last few years. These areas are generally located on the
south side of the street.
1
Property owners have built structures immediately adjacent to the right-of-way in some
locations. In some places along the Street, there is less than 75 feet between the fronts
of houses on the opposite sides of the street. The drainage of the entire street is poorly
defined, and no drainage easements or improvements exist.
PURPOSE OF STUDY
The purpose of this study is to analyze alternative alignments for improvement of
Tamarack Avenue between Carlsbad Boulevard and Jefferson Street. The study identifies
construction costs, right-of-way needs, width configurations and effect on properties
along the Street. The alternatives address the ways bicycle lanes and parking could be
achieved along the street with .-a minimum disruption to the abutting properties.
[!iJi.iI.i1a1i7i
In order to obtain current and accurate data for the study, the area was first mapped
using aerial photography in September of 1989. Next, a composite right-of-way map
was developed using ground survey information, subdivision maps, and assessor's parcel
maps. Ground photography was taken along Tamarack Avenue to visually define problem
areas, and to aid in the cost assessment portion of the work.
Meetings were held with members of the Engineering Department of the City to gain
input about the requirements of the finished roadway, considerations regarding acquisition
2
of right-of-way, traffic, lane configuration, and design speed. The information was
analyzed along, with the contents of a previous Geometric Design Study that was
approved by the City in 1977. Preliminary design constraints such as intersections,
drainage, railroad crossings and large trees along the route were identified.
From these design constraints, five draft alternative alignments for Tamarack Avenue were
developed. These were presented to the engineering staff and discussed in detail. After
additional study and discussion, the number of alternatives were reduced to three.
Detailed alignment plans for each of the final three alternatives were prepared. Horizontal
and vertical profiles were chosen for each alternative, along with draft cross-sections.
From these plans, estimates of right-of-way and construction costs were determined.
After review of the cost and engineering data, each alternative is discussed and a
recommendation made.
DISCUSSION OF PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS
The first step in the selection of .the original five alternative alignments was the selection
of a design speed for the road. Design speed, in this case, was dependent upon vertical
alignment because Tamarack Avenue has very little horizontal curvature.
The vertical alignment of Tamarack Avenue is most critical at the intersection with Garfield
Avenue. An analysis of this intersection, along with study of new topographic maps,
3
indicated that the stopping sight distance would control the design speed. Therefore, the
maximum design speed is dependent upon the longest vertical curve that could pass
through the Garfield intersection without excessive cut.
Several trial vertical alignments were considered using a computer to generate cross-
sections at critical points such as adjoining driveways. The results of this analysis
indicated the best situation that could be achieved at the Garfield intersection was a
change in grade of about 13 percent, and a maximum vertical curve length of 150 feet.
These conditions result in a design speed of 25 miles per hour, (reference Caltrans Design
Manual, P200-4) with a very small cut through the Garfield Avenue intersection.
Accordingly, the design speed was established at 25 miles per hour for all five original
alternatives.
A lane configuration was then determined that would best match the design speed.
Because the design speed was low, and inadequate passing sight distance could not be
improved, passing lanes were not considered. The final configuration was developed from
the previous traffic study and recommendations given in the Caltrans Highway Design
Manual. This configuration was developed as two 12 foot driving lanes, a 10 foot center
turn lane to allow adjoiners safe access to their driveways, and a five foot bike lane in
each direction. The total width curb-to-curb would be 44 feet.
n
A second configuration was also established by the addition of two parking lanes to the
44 foot section, which resulted in a 64 foot curb-to-curb width. It was established that
4
the 44 foot pavement would require a 60 foot right-of-way, and the 64 foot pavement
would require an 80 foot right-of-way. It was then decided that two alternative alignments
would use a 44 foot pavement, two would use 'a 64 foot pavement, and the other would
be a composite which would vary the pavement width where space was available.
The five preliminary design alternatives were first developed using a criterion of minimum
disruption to adjoining houses. Alignments were studied using a pavement width of 44
feet and 64 feet burb-to-curb, and the following five were initially selected for study: -
A 44 foot curb-to-curb street within the existing 60 foot right-of-way. Very little
acquisition of property is needed. This would occur only at intersections in order
to install full width sidewalks round the corners.
A 64 foot curb-to-curb Street within an 80 foot right-of-way. The additional widening
would be located to the south of the existing 60 foot right-of-way to take advantage
of the land already acquired by the City from developers. This alignment would
require the purchase of six houses and acquisition of land from 23 parcels.
A 64 foot curb-to-curb street within an 80 foot right-of-way widened both to the
north and south of the existing right-of-way and realigned as much as possible
while maintaining a 25 miles per hour design speed. This would result in the need
to purchase of one house and acquire land from 30 parcels, the alternative would
affect the most number of properties.
5
A 64 foot. curb-to-curb street within an 80 foot right-of-way widened both north and
south through the Garfield intersection. This would result in a more/less
curvalinear horizontal alignment, but require the purchase of two houses, and
acquisition of land from 33 parcels.
A composite alignment, in which the basic curb-to-curb width would be 44 feet.
This would increase to provide additional parking lanes in areas where additional
right-of-way was available or inexpensive to acquire.
Draft preliminary alignments for the five original alternatives were prepared and presented
to the City staff for review. Two of these alignments, Alternative 3 and 4, were rejected
because of the difficulty and expense involved with the acquisition of so many parcels of
land, and the incomplete use of the additional right-of-way that was presently owned to
the south of Tamarack Avenue. Alternatives 3 and 4 would have the most detrimental
impact on the adjacent properties. In many cases, the new road would be within four to
five feet of the existing homes. Exhibit A details the right-of-way costs for the final three
alternatives.
A summary of the three final alignments are:
o Alternative 1, a 44 foot curb-to-curb in the existing 60 foot right-of-way;
0 Alternative 2, a 64. foot curb-to-curb in an 80 foot right-of-way in which all new I.
right-of-way is acquired to the south of the existing right-of-way; and
6
o Alternative 3,'a composite of Alternative 1 and 2 that utilize the land already
available for widening of the south side of the street. The drawings which
accompany this report are titled in the same manner.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS - PRESERVATION OF TREES IN THE TAMARACK AVENUE
AND JEFFERSON STREET INTERSECTION AREA
Field investigation of the Jefferson Street intersection revealed three large eucalyptus
trees within the right-of-way that might have to be removed for any widening of Tamarack
Avenue. Because of the aesthetic considerations and a desire to preserve these trees,
alternatives at Jefferson Street were investigated. A title search indicated an Irrevocable
Offer to Dedicate existed on the north side of the street adjacent to the trees. With this
amount of right-of-way, there would be sufficient land for construction of a median to
protect the trees, as well as providing an additional west bound driving lane area near the
intersection.
A preliminary design was prepared and then reviewed by City Staff. It was agreed the
trees should be saved, and a design which would preserve the trees in a median was
chosen. The median will also provide an opportunity to create additional landscape and
an entrance to the area along Tamarack Avenue. This will improve the appearance of the
area.
7
DISCUSSION OF FINAL THREE ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS
All of the final three alternatives share the same vertical grades. This will minimize impact
upon adjoining property and limit cuts and fills on the center line to one foot or less.
Cross sections at selected areas have been provided with this report.
Alternative 1:
This will provide a 44 foot Street in an existing 60 foot right-of-way. The Street will be
striped with a single 12 foot lane in each direction, a 10 foot two way left turn lane and
5 feet bicycle lanes on each side. No on-street parking is planned.
This is the least expensive alternative. If this alternative is chosen, the street and the
associated sidewalks will take up 55 feet of the existing 60 foot right-of-way, and parking
will have to be eliminated along the entire street with the exception of the north side near
the intersection with Jefferson Street.
Alternative 2
This will provide a 64 foot street in an 80 foot right-of-way. It is the most expensive
alternative. The existing 60 foot right-of-way would be widened to the south an additional
20 feet. This would necessitate, among other acquisitions, the purchase of six houses
on the south side of the street near the Garfield Avenue intersection. Land from 23
parcels must also be acquired. On-street parking would be provided throughout the
length of Tamarack Avenue except where safety considerations prohibited it.
Alternative 3
This is a combination of Alternative 1 and 2. Construction of a 44 foot street would also
be required in the same manner as Alternative 1, but with the addition of an on-street
parking lane to the south in those areas for which the necessary right-of-way is already
owned by the City or can be easily obtained. In the future, additional parking lane could
be added as additional right-of-way was acquired through the development process.
Total cost for this alternative is $900,690. Some land is needed and estimated to cost
$84,995. About 20 on-street parking spaces will be provided with this alternative.
Exhibit B details the construction cost while Exhibit C summarizes the total cost for each
of the three final alternatives.
S
RECOMMENDATIONS
Each alternative alignment provides a solution to the problems on Tamarack Avenue. All
of the alignments have the same traffic carrying capacity, the same facilities for bicyclists,
and very nearly the same provisions for pedestrians. The alignments recommended vary
in two areas: the amount Of on-street parking that will be provided; and the cost of right-
of-way to be obtained. It can be stated that the difference in cost between the alternatives
is the cost of the on-street parking. Alternative 3 will utilize right-of-way previously
acquired along the street. About 20 on-street parking spaces mid-length of the project
will be constructed at a minimum of additional cost over Alternative 1.
9
EXHIBIT A
RIGHT-OF-WAY COSTS-FINAL 3 ALIGNMENTS
ALTERNATIVE 1
ALTERNATIVE 1
TAMARACK AVENUE-CARLSBAD BLVD. TO JEFFERSON
ESTIMATE OF IMPROVEMENT COSTS
A 44 FOOT CURB TO CURB STREET IN A 60 FOOT R.O.W.
FILE TAM44-60.WK 1
DECEMBER 27,1989
THE TOTAL ESTIMATED LOST OF THIS ALTERNATIVE IS ----- $12,460.80
A.P.N S.F. TAKE $/S.F. LAND COST IMP.COST DAMAGES MOVING
204-253-4 54 $33.00 $1,782.00 $200.00
204-270-43 54 $33.00 $1,782.00
204-280-43 10 $33.00 $330.00
204-280-15 56 $17.50 $980.00
206-42-23 54 $17.50 $945.00 $200.00
206-42-5 54 $17.50 $945.00 $200.00
206-12-1 54 $33.00 $1,782.00 $200.00
206-11-15 54 $33.00 $1,782.00 $200.00
TOTAL
APPRAISAL & AQUISITION COSTS-10%
TOTAL ROW COSTS
PCL. TOTAL
$1,982.00
$1,782.00
$330.00
$980.00
$1,145.00
$1, 145.00
$1,982.00
$1,982.00
$11328.00
$1,132.80
$12,460.80
10
EXHIBIT A
RIGHT-OF-WAY COSTS-FINAL 3 ALIGNMENTS
ALTERNATIVE 2
ALTERNATIVE 2
TAMARACK AVENUE-CARLSBAD BLVD. TO JEFFERSON
ESTIMATE OF IMPROVEMENT COSTS
A 64 FOOT CURB TO CURB STREET IN AN 80 FOOT R.O.W.
FILE TAM64-80.WKI
DECEMBER 27,1989
THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF THIS ALTERNATIVE IS ------ $1,842,806.90
A.P.N S.F. TAKE S/S.F. LAND COST IMP.COST DAMAGES
204-253-4 54 $33.00 $1,782.00 $200.00
204-270-43 54 $33.00 $1,782.00
AT&SF R.R. 2000 $20.00 $40,000.00
204-280-43 10 $33.00 $330.00
204-280-15 56 $17.50 $980.00
206-42-27 1580 $17.50 $27,650.00 $3,500.00
206-42-25 1020 $17.50 $17,850.00
206-42-24 1100 $17.50 $19,250.00 $38,800.00
206-42-23 2250 $17.50 $39,375.00 $1,500.00 $37,250.00
206-42-5 1550 $17.50 $27,125.00 $500.00 $31,000.00
206-42-4 1550 $17.50 $27,125.00 $200.00 $39,250.00
206-42-3 1060 $17.50 $18,550.00 $10,000.00
206-42-2 1040 $17.50 $18,200.00
206-42-1 2020 $17.50 $35,350.00 $200.00
206-20-8 2040 $14.00 $28,560.00 $65,000.00 $26,000.00
206-20-5 1040 $33.00 $34,320.00
206-20-3 1480 $17.50 $25,900.00 $3,500.00 $35,350.00
206-20-1 1320 $33.00 $43,560.00
206-12-1 6000 $33.00 $198,000.00 $65,000.00
206-11-15 6000 $33.00 $198,000.00 $80,040.00
206-11-16 900 $33.00 $29,700.00 $3,500.00 $37,500.00
206-11-17 900 $33.00 $29,700.00 $3,500.00 $37,500.00
206-11-18 6000 $33.00 $198,000.00 $65,000.00
206-11-19 900 $33.00 $29,700.00 $200.00
TOTAL
APPRAISAL & AQU IS ITION COSOSTS-10%
TOTAL ROW COSTS
11
$1,982.00
$1,782.00
$40,000.00
$330.00
$980.00
$31,150.00
$17,850.00
$58,050.00
$78,125.00
$58,625.00
$66,575.00
$28,550.00
$18,200.00
$35,550.00
$119,560.00
$34,320.00
$64,750.00
$43,560.00
$263,000.00
$278,040.00
$70,700.00
$70,700.00
$263,000.00
$29,900.00
$1,675,279.00
$167,527.90
$1,842,806.90
MOVING PCL. TOTAL
EXHIBIT A
RIGHT-OF-WAY COSTS-FINAL 3 ALIGNMENTS
ALTERNATIVE 3
ALTERNATIVE 3
TAMARACK AVENUE-CARLSBAD BLVD • TO JEFFERSON
ESTIMATE OF IMPROVEMENT COSTS
A 44 FOOT CURB TO CURB STREET WITH LOCAL WIDENING
FILE TAM44VAR.WK1
DECEMBER 27,1989
THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF THIS ALTERNATIVE IS ----- $85,357.80
A.P.N S.F. TAKE S/S.F. LAND COST IMP.COST DAMAGES MOVING
204-253-4 54 $33.00 $1,782.00 $200.00
204-270-43 54 $33.00 $1,782.00
AT&SF R.R. 10 $20.00 $200.00
204-280-43 10 $33.00 $330.00
204-280-15 56 $17.50 $980.00
206-42-23 45 $17.50 $787.50 $500.00
206-42-5 54 $17.50 $945.00 $200.00
206-20-8 867 $17.50 $15,172.50 $10,000.00
206-20-5 1040 $33.00 $34,320.00
206-20-3 195 $33.00 $6,435.00
206-12-1 54 $33.00 $1,782.00 $200.00
206-11-15 54 $33.00 $1,782.00 $200.00
TOTAL
APPRAISAL & AQUISITION COSTS-10%
TOTAL ROW COSTS
PCL. TOTAL
$1,982.00
$1,782.00
$200.00
$330.00
$980.00
$1,287.50
$1,145.00
$25,172.50
$34,320.00
$6,435.00
$1,982.00
$1,982.00
$77,598.00
$7,759.80
$85,357.80
12
EXHIBIT B
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
TAMARACK AVE. ALIGNMENT STUDY, ALTERNATIVE I
PREPARED BY: GXA
DATE: 01/19/90
FILENAME: TAMEST01.(1
TOTAL ESTIMATE: $729,878
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY TOTAL
Storm Drains 18" RCP Lin. Ft. $70.00 180 $12,600
24" RCP un. Ft. $80.00 560 $44,800
36" RCP L i n. Ft. $120.00 500 $60,000
Curb and Gutter 611, Type C Lin. Ft. $12.00 4860 $58,320
(G-2)
Curb Inlet Type A or B Ea. $3,000.00 8 $24,000
(D-I, D-2)
Cleanout Type A Ea. $3,310.00 2 $6,620
Headwa 115 Gravity type Ea. $2,100.00 2 $4,200
(Type A)
Rip Rap Energy DissIpator Cu. Yd. $140.00 20 $2,800
Paving, A.C. 4" Surface Sq. Ft. $3.50 46502 $162,757
(includes grading,
subgrade preparation
and 12" aggregate base)
Street Light L.P.Sodltnn Ea. $3,000.00 28 $84,000
R&R Crossing R&R surfacing L.S. $50,000.00 1 $50,000
R&R crossing gates L.S. $80,000.00 1 $80,000
Signing & Striping L.S. $10,000.06 1 $10,000
Landscaping S.F. $2.00 6714 $13,428
Signal Modification L.S. $50,000.00 I $50,000
TOTAL ITEMIZED COST $663,525
10% CONTIGENCY
-------------------------------
$66,353
13 TOTAL ESTIMATE $729,878
EXHIBIT B
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
TAMARACK AVE. ALIGNMENT STUDY, ALTERNATIVE 2
PREPARED BY: GXA
DATE: 01/19/90
FILENAME: TAMEST02.(1
TOTAL ESTIMATE: $898,545
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY TOTAL
Storm Drains 18" RCP Lin. Ft. $70.00 180 $12,600
24" RCP Lin. Ft. $80.00 560 $44,800
36" RCP Lin. Ft. $120.00 500 $60,000
Curb and Gutter 611, Type 6 Lin. Ft. $12.00 5460 $65,520
(6-2)
Curb Inlet Type A or B Ea. $3,000.00 8 $24,000
(D-i, D-2)
Cleanout Type A Ea. $3,310.00 2 $6,620
Headwalls Gravity type Ea. $2,100.00 2 $4,200
(Type A)
Rip Rap Energy Dissipator Cu. Yd. $140.00 20 $2,800
Paving, A.C. 4" Surface Sq. Ft. $3.50 88330 $309,155
(includes grading,
subgrade preparation
and 12" aggregate base)
Street Light L.P.SodiLr% Ea. $3,000.00 28 $84,000
R&R Crossing R&R surfacing L.S. $50,000.00 1 $50,000
R&R crossing gates L.S. $80,000.00 I $80,000
Signing & Striping L.S. $10,000.00 1 $10,000
Landscaping S.F. $2.00 6582 $13,164
Signal Modification L.S. $50,000.00 1 $50,000
TOTAL ITEMIZED COST $816,859
10% CONTIGENCY $81,686
TOTAL ESTIMATE $898,545 14
Md
EXHIBIT B
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
TAMARACK AVE. ALIGNMENT STUDY, ALTERNATIVE 3
PREPARED BY: GXA
DATE: 01/19/90
FILENAME: TN4EST03.10K1
TOTAL ESTIMATE: $780,211
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY TOTAL-
Storm Drains 18" RCP Lin. Ft. $70.00 180 $12,600
24" RCP Lin. Ft. $80.00 560 $44,800
36" RCP Lin. Ft. $120.00 500 $60,000
Curb and Gutter 611, Type G Lin. Ft. $12.00 5070 $60,840
(G-2)
Curb Inlet Type A or B Ea. $3,000.00 8 $24,000
(D-i, D-2)
Cleanout Type A Ea. $3,310.00 2 $6,620
Headwalls Gravity type Ea. $2,100.00 2 $4,200
(Type A)
Rip Rap Energy DIssIpator Cu. Yd. $140.00 20 $2,800
Paving,.A.C. 4" Surface Sq. Ft. $3.50 58931 $206,259
(includes grading,
subgrade preparation
and 12" aggregate base)
Street Light L.P. Sod hnn Ea. $3,000.00 28 $84,000
R&R Crossing R&R 'surfacing L.S. $50,000.00 1 $50,000
R&R crossing gates L.S. $80,000.00 1 $80,000
Signing & Striping L.S. $10,000.00 I $10,000
Landscaping S.F. $2.00 6582 $13,164
Signal Modification L.S. $50,000.00 1 $50,000
TOTAL ITEMIZED COST $709,283
10% CONTIGENCY $70,928
15 TC'AL ESTIMATE $780,211
EXHIBIT C
SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR
THREE ALTERNATIVES
To arrive at an accurate comparison of costs for each alternative all the costs associated
with each choice must be included. It not only includes construction, with a contingency
amount, but also right-of-way, design engineering, inspection and administration. Many
of these are commonly estimated to be a percentage of the construction cost.
For this study, the following has been used:
Construction Contingency 10%
Design Engineering (and Surveying) 10%
Inspection, Testing, Administration 5%
The total cost of right-of-way includes relocation and 10% increase for appraisal and
acquisition.
Alternative 1:
Construction (includes 10% contingency)
Engineer, Inspection, Administration (15%)
Right-of-Way (includes 10% appraisal and acquisition)
Total Cost of Project
$729,900
$109,485
$ 12460
$851,845
16
Alternative 2:
Construction (includes 10% contingency)
Engineer, Inspection, Administration (15%)
Right-Of-Way (includes 10% appraisal and acquisition)
- Total Cost of Project
$898,600
$134,790
$1.842.810
$2,876,200
Alternative 3:
Construction (includes 100/6 contingency)
Engineer, Inspection, Administration (15%)
Right-of-Way (includes 10% appraisal and acquisition)
Total Cost of Project
$780,200
$117,030
$ 85.365
$982,595